Welcome to the NTFL

PatsFanDan

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
70
Points
48
Age
49
The new and improved National "Touch" Football League.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6223700

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

• A quarterback in the act of throwing;

• A receiver trying to catch a pass;

• A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;

• A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;

• A kicker or punter during the kick;

• A quarterback at any time after change of possession;

• A receiver who receives a blind-side block;

• A player already on the ground.
 

patriots pam

2014-15 Game Day Thread Champion
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
3,560
Reaction score
589
Points
113
Age
55
Location
America's weenus
Website
badpixofgoodfood.pamsez.me
OP
P

PatsFanDan

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
2,190
Reaction score
70
Points
48
Age
49
:huh:

Well, guess we don't have to worry about getting a legit pass-rusher now. :coffee:
Posted via Mobile Device

Yes, the two I have a real problem with are that one and the receiver trying to catch a ball. Maybe these just need to be more clearly defined but I don't get it.
 

Coltsfan2theend

Custom Titles, we don't need no custom titles
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
9,675
Reaction score
2,194
Points
113
Why play? A quarterback in the act of throwing; a receiver trying catch a pass? This is getting crazy, I know they to protect their product but this is crazy. Won't even need to attempt to get first downs anymore, just get them via penalties.
 

king of kings

All Hail
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
25,533
Reaction score
2,062
Points
113
Age
40
Location
Ohio
• A quarterback at any time after change of possession;

This is the stupidest one of them all. You Mean if a QB throw a INT You can not block him at all. The NFL is really gone way overboard now . All these rule changes.
 

PatsRUs

Not a Member User
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
4,666
Reaction score
297
Points
83
QB is about to throw.. wait, can't hit him.. must hold back.. okay, he released the ball.... want to hit receiver.. can't.. must let him catch ball first.. must send him a memo that i'm about to hit him so he's not defenseless..
 

BelichickFan

Active member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
765
Reaction score
28
Points
28
Age
53
I don't think it means that the "A quarterback in the act of throwing" or "A receiver trying to catch a pass" are penalties if hit, I think it means there's different rules for how you can hit a player in a given category. How and where you can hit "A quarterback in the act of throwing" would be different than how and where you can hit "A receiver trying to catch a pass" for example.

That's the only reasonable explanation to me.
 

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
26,746
Reaction score
5,242
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
Conspiracy theory time:
A lot of players are saying the owners don't care about player safety citing among other things the 18 game mantra.
These ludicrous sounding rule proposals are all for "safety". If the players complain about those going too far, can they then complain about anything else safety related?
(I am trying to think of any possible way these could be not real...because if they are...puke)
 

patriots pam

2014-15 Game Day Thread Champion
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
3,560
Reaction score
589
Points
113
Age
55
Location
America's weenus
Website
badpixofgoodfood.pamsez.me
I don't think it means that the "A quarterback in the act of throwing" or "A receiver trying to catch a pass" are penalties if hit, I think it means there's different rules for how you can hit a player in a given category. How and where you can hit "A quarterback in the act of throwing" would be different than how and where you can hit "A receiver trying to catch a pass" for example.

That's the only reasonable explanation to me.

Yeah but don't they already have those kind of RULes established? like beyond tuck rule and all its alrEady known you can't touch a qb on the head or below the knees...and can't touch a wr beyond the 5 Yards...so what more emphasis couLd the NFL put on such rules? Well, ok this might not be so bad cause it could mean Pats don't have to worry about getting a pass rush on D and if nobody was seriously allowed to touch TFB no matter what...wow..lethal... :aar:
Posted via Mobile Device
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,803
Reaction score
2,601
Points
113
Age
62
Location
Windsor, CT
I don't think it means that the "A quarterback in the act of throwing" or "A receiver trying to catch a pass" are penalties if hit, I think it means there's different rules for how you can hit a player in a given category. How and where you can hit "A quarterback in the act of throwing" would be different than how and where you can hit "A receiver trying to catch a pass" for example.

That's the only reasonable explanation to me.

This web site has what seem to be the exact same rules, but the post is from August of 2010.

2010 NFL Rule Changes - Hitting Defenseless Players
by JasonB on Aug 10, 2010 11:52 AM EDT in Philadelphia Eagles News

This week we'll be detailing the rule changes for the 2010 NFL season. The first in the series, which dealt with moving the umpire, can be found here.

Today's rule involves the ban on hitting defenseless players. In recent years the NFL has done more and more to prevent these hits first prohibiting hits on defenseless WRs, then certain blocks on defenders and now they're just banning hits on defenseless players altogether. An illegal hit on a defenseless player is when the initial force of contact by a players head, shoulder, or forearm is to the head or neck area.

A "defenseless player" will be defined as a QB in the act of passing, A WR in the act of making a catch, a kick or punt returner in the act of making a catch, a runner who is in the grass or whose forward progress has been stopped, a player on the ground at the end of the play, a QB after a change of possession, and a kicker or punter after the ball is kicked. Violations will result in a 15 yard unnecessary roughness penalty.

If a WR has made a catch, but has not had time to defend himself a defender can not launch himself into the WR with his his helmet, shoulder, or forearm in a way that strikes the WR's head or neck area. "Launching" means leaving the ground to make the hit. If the defender doesn't "launch" himself or the WR had time to defend himself then it is not a penalty. Walt Coleman talks about the new regulations, but after the jump there's one more rule to protect defenseless players.

The last defenseless player that is protected is the snapper on FG or extra point attempts. Because he has his head down, he is vulnerable when snapping the ball. Last season a defender had to line up with his shoulder pads on the outside of the snappers body, but there were instances where the snapper was still hit in a vulnerable position. This year, the defender must line up with his entire body on the outside of the snapper's body. If not, they'll be flagged for a 5 yard illegal formation penalty.

So if the first part still applies, it will be illegal to make certain types of hits to "defenseless players", not any and all hits.

If I compare the two lists, it would seem the modified the kicker or punter category from during the kick to after the kick and added the blind side block category.
 

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
26,746
Reaction score
5,242
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
BB is NOT happy.

Seriously I am tired of the CC and owners treating coaches like cattle and as Marvin Lewis put it...maybe they will send us to the zoo this time(when there's a vote).
Coaches should have a vote on these changes.

http://espn.go.com/blog/BostonNew-England-Patriots/post/_/id/4694125/belichick-pans-kickoff-proposal

Belichick pans kickoff proposal

March, 21, 2011 Mar 21
1:24
PM ET



By Mike Reiss


NEW ORLEANS -- Bill Belichick is not in favor of the NFL Competition Committee's new kickoff proposal.

"It's a pretty complicated proposal," Belichick told a small group of reporters today at the league's annual meeting. "I don't like the idea of eliminating the kickoff [return] from the game. I think it's one of the most exciting plays in football. It looks like the Competition Committee is trying to eliminate that play. I don't know if that's really good for the game."

Belichick was asked about the safety aspect of the proposal, as the Competition Commitee has cited those reasons as a primary factor in moving the kickoff to the 35 yard-line, among other alterations.

"The presentation last night, I don't know that it's because of head injuries," Belichick said. "The ones they showed, there weren't very many of them. I don't know, I think you should talk to the Competition Committee. They are the ones that really proposed the rule. Talk to Rich McKay and whoever else is on the committee and see what they have to say about it. There are a lot of components to it -- four different elements to it. It's kind of a complicated rule."

When Belichick was asked why he thought the Competition Committee was proposing the change, after listening to their presentation Sunday night, he answered, "It's pretty confusing."
 

Box_O_Rocks

One personality, many pieces
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
25,660
Reaction score
1,337
Points
113
Location
Patriots Planet surveillance center
The nonCompetition Committee is the single biggest reason the NFL is turning to suck - even worse than Goodell. Everything is "safety," yet these meddlers ignore all sorts of unsafe action until it impacts their team at some point.
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
41,099
Reaction score
4,444
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
BB is NOT happy.

Seriously I am tired of the CC and owners treating coaches like cattle and as Marvin Lewis put it...maybe they will send us to the zoo this time(when there's a vote).
Coaches should have a vote on these changes.

http://espn.go.com/blog/BostonNew-England-Patriots/post/_/id/4694125/belichick-pans-kickoff-proposal

Belichick pans kickoff proposal

March, 21, 2011 Mar 21
1:24
PM ET



By Mike Reiss


NEW ORLEANS -- Bill Belichick is not in favor of the NFL Competition Committee's new kickoff proposal.

"It's a pretty complicated proposal," Belichick told a small group of reporters today at the league's annual meeting. "I don't like the idea of eliminating the kickoff [return] from the game. I think it's one of the most exciting plays in football. It looks like the Competition Committee is trying to eliminate that play. I don't know if that's really good for the game."

Belichick was asked about the safety aspect of the proposal, as the Competition Commitee has cited those reasons as a primary factor in moving the kickoff to the 35 yard-line, among other alterations.

"The presentation last night, I don't know that it's because of head injuries," Belichick said. "The ones they showed, there weren't very many of them. I don't know, I think you should talk to the Competition Committee. They are the ones that really proposed the rule. Talk to Rich McKay and whoever else is on the committee and see what they have to say about it. There are a lot of components to it -- four different elements to it. It's kind of a complicated rule."

When Belichick was asked why he thought the Competition Committee was proposing the change, after listening to their presentation Sunday night, he answered, "It's pretty confusing."

Saw the interview.

Yeah, he's miserable about it. Don't blame him.


Further confirmed by the fact he's the only coach out of 32 not in attendance at the breakfast meeting. Poked his head in, then just walked off.

Rumor has it he mulled a croisant with Coughlin, Eggs Benedict with Sexy Rexy, a soft-boiled with Caldwell, but in the end chose a Denny's and solitude down the street.:coffee:
 

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
26,746
Reaction score
5,242
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
HAHA DS, I saw that about his blowing off the breakfast.
Curran thinks it's because BB is a nonconformist. I think it's because BB is completely, utterly and totally not interested in anything that relates to booty kissing or fluffy filler stuff.
 
Top