OT - NFL officiating

[gopkrs]

Here’s a question— should pancake blocks by offensive linemen of defenders be a penalty against the offense?

no

 

[gopkrs]

The problem is that the rule assumes that all such tackles are intentional and not incidental.

I'm not sure this is true. I believe it is just a penalty if you land with your full weight on the QB. There need not be some mystical attempt at intentions. And to equate landing full weight on a QB with pancaking another lineman is ridiculous. imho

 

[Mondio]

I don't think the hit on Brees was malicious. It seemed to me he was off to his left side when he came down. I don't think this hit is in the same category as Barr's. he took an extra step or 2 and his momentum was going to take him off the QB and he "corrected" it so he could drive the shoulder.

 

[Dantés]

I'm not sure this is true. I believe it is just a penalty if you land with your full weight on the QB. There need not be some mystical attempt at intentions. And to equate landing full weight on a QB with pancaking another lineman is ridiculous. imho

Let me clarify what I mean.

Multiple people in this thread defending the rule have said something to the effect of "the rule is good because defenders don't *need* to land on a QB that way."

But that argument suggests that in cases where this takes place, it's always a choice. Presumably, the thinking is that the defender is sacking the QB and can, in that moment, choose to land on him or not.

And while that is probably true sometimes, it is often not true. Landing on a player you're tackling is often incidental. It's an unintentional outcome of tackling someone.

So my point is that it's bad for the game to make an incidental outcome of a defender doing his job into a 15 yard penalty.

It would be much simpler to say that as long as the QB has the ball, you can tackle him the way you can tackle any other ball carrier. Injuries happen in football, and every player on the field take that risk. If 40+ year old QB's can't handle it any more, they should retire.

 

[Dantés]

no

Well then what's the standard here?

Because I could very easily take every single argument you've made in favor of this rule regarding landing on top of the QB's and say that "there's no need for offensive linemen to land on top of defenders as they carry out a block."

So why the difference in opinion? Do we only care about quarterbacks and not other positions on the field? Has a defender never been injured while being pancaked by an offensive lineman?

Once again, I think this demonstrates that the rule arbitrarily creates special protection (among several other rules that do the same) for this one position on the field, placing an undue burden on defenders whose job it is to stop QB's. It makes no sense.

 

[Dantés]

Here's another question-- should we make it a penalty if defenders lunge to tackle a RB/WR/TE and happen to hit them around the knee area?

Because I am sure that a lot of knee injuries historically have resulted from tackles that make contact around the knee.

Do defenders really *need* to strike in that area? Can't we just ask them to adjust and hit somewhere else?

 

[gopkrs]

Because I could very easily take every single argument you've made in favor of this rule regarding landing on top of the QB's and say that "there's no need for offensive linemen to land on top of defenders as they carry out a block."

My answer is that a QB is different. Both in size and in vulnerability. Different rules apply.

 

[gopkrs]

But that argument suggests that in cases where this takes place, it's always a choice. Presumably, the thinking is that the defender is sacking the QB and can, in that moment, choose to land on him or not.

That is why it is just a penalty. Choice does not matter. But when you take away the penalty; there are a lot of landings on the QB which says to me that in most cases (like what Guapo said), there is a choice.

 

[Dantés]

My answer is that a QB is different. Both in size and in vulnerability. Different rules apply.

So is someone tackles a 225 lb quarterback while he's distracted and looking downfield for a receiver and lands on him, that's a flag, but if someone tackles a 205 lb receiver while he's distracted and trying to catch a pass and lands on him, that's not a flag?

That standard is not coherent.

 

[gopkrs]

Here's another question-- should we make it a penalty if defenders lunge to tackle a RB/WR/TE and happen to hit them around the knee area?

Because I am sure that a lot of knee injuries historically have resulted from tackles that make contact around the knee.

Do defenders really *need* to strike in that area? Can't we just ask them to adjust and hit somewhere else?

You are right that we could fine tune so many rules that the game will actually change for the worse. I don't think that has happened yet. But the officiating needs to be better. I like Wimms idea that it should be a full time job. The players union ought to like that?? Because it will take some money out of their pockets.

 

[Dantés]

That is why it is just a penalty. Choice does not matter. But when you take away the penalty; there are a lot of landings on the QB which says to me that in most cases (like what Guapo said), there is a choice.

That's why it should not be a penalty and quarterbacks should have to accept the same possibilities of playing football that every other ball carrier does.

Maybe roughly speaking, half the time you're penalizing some unnecessary roughness, but the other half the time you're penalizing tackling. Literally just tackling.

This is what I was saying to begin with in this thread. The problem with the NFL and officiating in 2020 is that they think they can legislate any unfortunate outcome out of the game. All that does is make the game worse and harder to officiate.

The Packers lost a win because of this nonsense. The Saints just got a free 15 yards and a 1st down out of it, when the defender didn't even really land on the QB.

 

[gopkrs]

So is someone tackles a 225 lb quarterback while he's distracted and looking downfield for a receiver and lands on him, that's a flag, but if someone tackles a 205 lb receiver while he's distracted and trying to catch a pass and lands on him, that's not a flag?

That standard is not coherent.

Well look, we disagree. I don't think you are really being logical. Apples and oranges.

 

[Dantés]

You are right that we could fine tune so many rules that the game will actually change for the worse. I don't think that has happened yet. But the officiating needs to be better. I like Wimms idea that it should be a full time job. The players union ought to like that?? Because it will take some money out of their pockets.

It has been actively happening incrementally for years on end.

 

[Dantés]

Well look, we disagree. I don't think you are really being logical. Apples and oranges.

We can drop it if you'd like to, but you're also welcome to explain to me how I'm being illogical.

 

[gopkrs]

The situations you have been describing are inherently different. And the QB is a special case. And you still believe D linemen land full on QBs because they have to. And you don't see the QB position as especially vulnerable and important both to the team and the quality of the game. But again, the officiating needs to be better. And their job should be full time.

 

[Dantés]

The situations you have been describing are inherently different. And the QB is a special case. And you still believe D linemen land full on QBs because they have to. And you don't see the QB position as especially vulnerable and important both to the team and the quality of the game. But again, the officiating needs to be better. And their job should be full time.

They are treating the QB as a special case, but I am saying that they shouldn't. Every time a big name QB gets injured in a big spot on national TV through a legal tackle, we get a new rule making that type of tackle illegal. They are making the game worse in its structure to try and prevent injury to a particular class of player. I think that hurts the sport in the long run. It's just reactionary legislation.

I don't believe that DL land on QB's because they have to in every case. As I've said, I'm sure it's avoidable in some instances and not in others.

 

[Mondio]

I'd need a replay i guess, but when I saw it, I didn't get the impression he tried to drive the QB at all and was in fact off to the his left side.

If they make a rule you can have no weight on a Qb, well I think that would be silly and also dangerous. Defenders will have no choice to be grab and then spin to their backside and QB's heads are going to bounce off the turf with that. Though i think it also a penalty.

Want to protect QB's, then have a quick whistle. Very quick. which of course I think negatively affects the game.

 

[Dantés]

I'd need a replay i guess, but when I saw it, I didn't get the impression he tried to drive the QB at all and was in fact off to the his left side.

If they make a rule you can have no weight on a Qb, well I think that would be silly and also dangerous. Defenders will have no choice to be grab and then spin to their backside and QB's heads are going to bounce off the turf with that. Though i think it also a penalty.

Want to protect QB's, then have a quick whistle. Very quick. which of course I think negatively affects the game.

And there's the next step in this problematic trend!

• They create an unnecessary rule that involves a judgment call.
• That unnecessary begins to alter games, and fans see on replay that it was adjudicated incorrectly or at least was in a grey area.
• They decide to use replay review for that rule to "get it right."
• They still get it wrong half the time, or it at least remains in a great area.
• The game is slowed down with more replay stoppages and generally made less fair and watchable.

Next up will be something like this: a QB gets shoved hard for a sack because the defender can't land on him, falls backwards and hits the back of his head really hard and gets a concussion, they decide to make shoving a penalty because the QB is "uniquely important and special and vulnerable," and we start the process all over again.

 

[Mondio]

oh, i don't want a replay for the game, just for a refresher before I take a strong stance

 

[PikeBadger]

I don't think the hit on Brees was malicious. It seemed to me he was off to his left side when he came down. I don't think this hit is in the same category as Barr's. he took an extra step or 2 and his momentum was going to take him off the QB and he "corrected" it so he could drive the shoulder.

From what I saw it looked like he made a purposeful move of his body to not land on Brees. I think the penalty was a horrible call. I hold Brees responsible for his own injury. He chose not to move or make an attempt to protect himself.

 

[Dantés]

oh, i don't want a replay for the game, just for a refresher before I take a strong stance

No, I know what you meant.

It just reminded me of where these things always end up.

 

[Dantés]

From what I saw it looked like he made a purposeful move of his body to not land on Brees. I think the penalty was a horrible call. I hold Brees responsible for his own injury. He chose not to move or make an attempt to protect himself.

Haven't you heard though-- it's only the defenders who are supposed to adjust.

 

[jon]

The 'full body weight on a QB' issue is about two things: QBs are pretty much defenseless compared to a ball carrier getting tackled or a linebacker getting pancaked, and the QB is critical to the NFL producing entertainment they can sell-- big names making special plays over and over again. OK, they get a couple of different rules and to some degree the ref uses his judgment so this call or that one might be iffy. Also, like the safety who didn't pull up on a defenseless receiver, there's nothing the defensive player can do to avoid it. Tough breaks; the rule is the rule.

Should it be the rule is another matter, and in this a major non-football factor comes in. A year or 12 from from now an NFL defense lawyer will be a court room talking about these rules and all the times it was called as a penalty when it really wasn't as simply more evidence of the NFL's long time, huge, and deeply sincere effort to prevent long term injury to players in the hope a jury doesn't award $500 million to an ex-QB with dementia.

 

[Dantés]

The 'full body weight on a QB' issue is about two things: QBs are pretty much defenseless compared to a ball carrier getting tackled or a linebacker getting pancaked, and the QB is critical to the NFL producing entertainment they can sell-- big names making special plays over and over again. OK, they get a couple of different rules and to some degree the ref uses his judgment so this call or that one might be iffy. Also, like the safety who didn't pull up on a defenseless receiver, there's nothing the defensive player can do to avoid it. Tough breaks; the rule is the rule.

Should it be the rule is another matter, and in this a major non-football factor comes in. A year or 12 from from now an NFL defense lawyer will be a court room talking about these rules and all the times it was called as a penalty when it really wasn't as simply more evidence of the NFL's long time, huge, and deeply sincere effort to prevent long term injury to players in the hope a jury doesn't award $500 million to an ex-QB with dementia.

At what point does it end?

Right now if a defender dives low at a QB , intentionally or not, it's a penalty.

If they hit the QB in the head with their limbs, intentionally or not, it's a penalty.

If they hit the QB in the head with their helmet, intentionally or not, it's a penalty.

If they tackle the QB and land on them (or appear to), intentionally or not, it's a penalty.

I'm not saying that all of that is bogus. I understand protecting player's heads, for instance. And that applies to all ball carriers, not just QB's. But the immensity of regulations around this one position has become egregious.

We can keep saying "tough breaks; the rule is the rule," but the problem is that they keep making new rules to add to the existing rules. So where does it end?

If a QB tears his ACL while being dragged down, are we going to make that a penalty? And then that rule will be "the rule," so tough break if it's called?

 

[Mondio]

It just reminded me of where these things always end up.

don't i know it, don't remind me