Roughing the Passer - Rule Change Idea

[Nabbs4u]

57 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

So, here's my question on this line of logic, though. Do these penalties actually deter those injuries? Because I don't feel like there's been much change in how defenders are actually hitting QBs based on the Rodgers rule. The helmet rule, the going low rule, those changed things because they're avoidable ways to tackle a QB, but the new rule this year really doesn't give them much to do. They're trying to figure out how to follow it and most of them don't seem to know how to or be able to. So I don't feel like this enforcement will prevent any injuries, at best it's just going to punish the player who injured somebody after the fact, which doesn't really do anyone any good.

Players will adapt just like with the other rule changes. They will figure out intentionally driving your entire body weight on to a QB "through the ground", isn't allowed. 

That will lead to players hitting QB like they do Tackling Dummies in TC. They hit and twist or spin to the ground to complete the tackke/drill. Not much different if executed properly to a QB. 

Players we're just taught since Pop Warner to kill and destroy the QB when you actually get the chance to. Which lets be honest ,don't come often. It's why you would see numerous Defensive RTP even before this new rule occur all the time.

Can't tell you how many times I've seen Cox get a dumb a$$ RTP because he just wants to knock the QB on his ....! To comfortable, hasn't been touched, etc. Players like Barr last year would pancake there body's on a QB if allowed 99 times out if 100. That's what the NFL is trying to get away from.

QB make the NFL ?. That's all they care about.

[animaltested]

Eh, if the NFL wants to go this route, they should just mandate blowing the play dead once the defender has wrapped up the QB. This would prevent the defender from having to figure out how to take down the QB without putting weight on them. Instead, arms around, play dead. 

Or like college and the targeting rule, have the play reviewed to decide the severity of the penalty. 

[childofpudding]

The current rule is bad, but OP's suggestion isn't a good idea either. My idea is:   get rid of the rule  

[3rivers]

6 hours ago, cddolphin said:

Remember the good ole days of the 90s, when facemask penalties could either be called as intentional (15 yards, personal foul) or unintentional (5 yards)?

Why not bring that back for roughing the passer?

You drive your head into his chin, or lower with the crown, dive at his knee, or WWE slam him, then it's a 'flagrant' 15 yards.

If you're trying to swat the ball and your fingers graze his helmet, if you don't "adequately" re-distribute your body weight within a fraction of a second as your 300lbs body moving 18mph is in mid-air, if you graze the QB a quarter second after the ball is released and he tumbles to the turf like a delicate flower.. those would be 5 yard, no automatic-first down penalties.

 

Thoughts? Good idea? Terrible idea? Bad idea but better than what we have now?

Your idea makes sense because there are levels of severity .  Right now this rule is in it's infancy and will get modified over time. 

To protect the chin and jaw region, the QB's helmet should have a facemask that protects this, instead the league leaves this open for injury and penalty. Refs have control and bothers defenders and fans, but QB's don't have to change anything. Just like how they don't allow hitting near the knees for the QB, why not make them wear knee braces? Then they allow other players to get chopped at the knees.  

The league tries to solve one problem for the QB's but creates other problems for the rest of the players.  The QB's will get near 15% of the teams cap and also play many years more. What else can they give them by subtracting from the rest?

@childofpuddingYour idea is what everyone wants but will it happen? 

[Jlowe22]

Toughness and ability to take hits should be an essential part of the game.  I don't want to see top QBs go down for the season, but the game loses something important when you can't even tackle the QB anymore.  Late hits, head shots, knee diving, etc, I understand completely, but landing on a guy after you tackle them?  

 

[Kmart128]

That would just add to much confusion as to which one would be called. It's hard to determine intent. Especially on live plays.

They just need to get rid of the new rules. They fix one issue so they created another. Just let the guys play Football for crying out loud. 

Just in Bills game this week Tre White tackled a guy on 3rd and short and stopped him. But ref through a flag for personal foul hit to a defensless reciever. If he didn't hut him when he did it would have been a first down. It's bull crap... Apparently defenders are supposed to just let the offense get first downs now before you can tackle them.

[childofpudding]

1 hour ago, 3rivers said:

 

@childofpuddingYour idea is what everyone wants but will it happen? 

Probably not, but the likelihood of reversing the rule arent likely that much lower than a 5/15 modification.

Most likely there will be a change in enforcement to the changed rule so that there wont be as many ridiculous calls. But imo it wont change my mind on the foolishness of the rule. A tackler landing with all his weight on the person being tackled shouldnt be a penalty. And forcing officials to make a judgment call at full speed about how much weight the tackler used, and whether that percentage was too much, is unfair to officials.

[Kip Smithers]

Injuries are injuries. A torn ACL is no different from a separated shoulder/broken collarbone in that the QB is still injured. So trying to eliminate part of  the game because of a very very small percentage have gotten injured doing so makes no sense. Is there any study that has shown there is a link between the act and the injury.

Also, is this full body weight rule only limited to the pocket?