NFL Comp Committee realizes they done messed up, reviewing RTP

[Eagles23]

18 hours ago, johndeere1707 said:

Proposed change:

if a defender has a clear shot at a QB without an offensive player blocking him, and the defender gets two hands on the QB, Mark it as a sack. 

This is awful please no

[3rivers]

19 hours ago, johndeere1707 said:

Proposed change:

if a defender has a clear shot at a QB without an offensive player blocking him, and the defender gets two hands on the QB, Mark it as a sack. 

 NFL Comp Committee : ignore this proposed change

I never knew we had people from the committee on this site.

[3rivers]

On 2018-09-26 at 4:03 AM, kramxel said:

At least they're acknowledging they messed up... there might be hope for the NFL, after all....

 

They will always find a way to make things worse, before they get better.  When they did replay in the 80's it was a failure because they never thought it out as well.  They obviously never thought this rule out that well either because nobody cares for it from fans, media and players.  

There are ways it could be done, but lets see how long it takes them to figure this out, if they do at all. 

The intent is good, but the execution isn't. Sorry if I sound like a coach that likes to blame the players

[bucsfan333]

19 hours ago, Packerraymond said:

This hit should be illegal, 6 total steps between the time the ball is released to the time Rodgers hits the ground. The 6th and final step Barr uses to balance his weight back on Rodgers. Totally unnecessary hit.

However it's obvious the refs can't tell the difference between simply naturally falling on a QB which is unavoidable, and something like Barr did which is 100% avoidable in real time. If that's the case I'd rather no rule be in place at all. The hit Rodgers took here is rare enough that it isn't a big deal, but that kind of hit is going to break a collarbone, separate a shoulder or sprain a joint close to 100% of the time, so when it happens to your teams QB you're going to wish they could figure it out too.

I mean. At full speed, that's a bang bang play. It's easy to dissect it after the play's over, looking at it in slow motion. But refs don't get to dwell on it and analyze it after the fact.

And QBs don't get the same protection outside the pocket.

[iknowcool]

19 hours ago, johndeere1707 said:

Proposed change:

if a defender has a clear shot at a QB without an offensive player blocking him, and the defender gets two hands on the QB, Mark it as a sack. 

That would be unfair to the QBs who could just as easily shed that sack though (Wilson, Newton, Big Ben, etc).

[MWil23]

5 minutes ago, iknowcool said:

That would be unfair to the QBs who could just as easily shed that sack though (Wilson, Newton, Big Ben, etc).

Almost as unfair as it would be for the defensive players who sack these guys to have to roll off/not land on them. It's a terrible situation for everyone. It's an absolute joke. You can't blitz the A/B gap or stunt anymore on interior rush.

[bucsfan333]

1 minute ago, MWil23 said:

Almost as unfair as it would be for the defensive players who sack these guys to have to roll off/not land on them. It's a terrible situation for everyone. It's an absolute joke. You can't blitz the A/B gap or stunt anymore on interior rush.

Defenders can start hugging the QB until refs blow the whistle. And maybe whisper compliments while they're embraced.

[MWil23]

4 minutes ago, bucsfan333 said:

Defenders can start hugging the QB until refs blow the whistle. And maybe whisper compliments while they're embraced.

Am I right @ET80?

[iknowcool]

5 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

Almost as unfair as it would be for the defensive players who sack these guys to have to roll off/not land on them. It's a terrible situation for everyone. It's an absolute joke. You can't blitz the A/B gap or stunt anymore on interior rush.

Well yeah, but the issue isn't necessarily the rule.  The issue is how strictly they are enforcing said rule.  Adding in an even worse rule won't help.

They just need to get the refs on the same page and only enforce it in egregious situations.  As it is right now, they just throw the flag every single time.  If they gave offensive holding the same treatment, no team would ever move the ball.

[Packerraymond]

13 minutes ago, bucsfan333 said:

I mean. At full speed, that's a bang bang play. It's easy to dissect it after the play's over, looking at it in slow motion. But refs don't get to dwell on it and analyze it after the fact.

And QBs don't get the same protection outside the pocket.

We'll agree to disagree, nothing about 5-6 steps says "bang bang" to me. It's the type of hit on QBs they want to avoid, and this one would've been extremely easy for Barr to avoid. The pocket is irrelevant now with these new rules.

It's unfortunate that they can't enforce a hit like this without calling every normal tackle of the QB.

[MWil23]

Just now, iknowcool said:

Well yeah, but the issue isn't necessarily the rule. 

That's exactly what the issue is. Do you really want the refs to have MORE judgment calls? Imagine NOT enforcing it one time and then enforcing it another. That's going to result in even more anger and feeds the narrative that certain players/teams get certain calls and certain ones don't.

Just now, iknowcool said:

The issue is how strictly they are enforcing said rule.  Adding in an even worse rule won't help.

If you have the ball and you're tackled/sacked, it shouldn't be RTP. If you don't have the ball, then you can actually look at it. A sack/tackle on the torso with head to the side and up should NEVER be a penalty, period.

Just now, iknowcool said:

They just need to get the refs on the same page and only enforce it in egregious situations. 

Please tell us what makes it "egregious". That's the definition that I want to see.

Just now, iknowcool said:

As it is right now, they just throw the flag every single time.  If they gave offensive holding the same treatment, no team would ever move the ball.

I actually watched the Tampa/Pitt game, and there were about 3-4 straight absolutely unwatchable drives. Penalties almost every other snap. Between that, holding, and illegal contact, it was comically bad.

[bucsfan333]

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

We'll agree to disagree, nothing about 5-6 steps says "bang bang" to me. It's the type of hit on QBs they want to avoid, and this one would've been extremely easy for Barr to avoid. The pocket is irrelevant now with these new rules.

It's unfortunate that they can't enforce a hit like this without calling every normal tackle of the QB.

At full speed, it is. Guys can run 40 yards in four seconds. You don't think Barr can run five (while already sprinting) and get to Rodgers half a second after the ball is out? 'Cause he did.

And the pocket is like the only thing that has survived all these changes. It's pretty cut and dry.

I get being upset about losing your QB. But trying to make something out of nothing because of an injury is silly. That's a football play. If Rodgers doesn't get hurt, we're not even having this discussion.

[iknowcool]

2 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

That's exactly what the issue is. 

The rule has been around for a long time.  Longer than just this season.  Never an issue before.  
 

I'd consider an egregious act of the rule to be a defender scooping a QB and driving him into the ground, for example.

Regardless, people said the same thing when "hitting a defenseless receiver" became a thing.  There was a stretch where illegal contact was being enforced hard too.  I don't know if either was called as frequently as these RTP calls have been, but it was a problem for a period of time because the NFL made it a point of emphasis.  It is exactly what they are doing here.  Things will normalize itself out once they begin to lax on the calls.

 

[TENINCH]

Nothing wrong with the play when watching it at normal speed.

[Packerraymond]

3 minutes ago, bucsfan333 said:

At full speed, it is. Guys can run 40 yards in four seconds. You don't think Barr can run five (while already sprinting) and get to Rodgers half a second after the ball is out? 'Cause he did.

And the pocket is like the only thing that has survived all these changes. It's pretty cut and dry.

I get being upset about losing your QB. But trying to make something out of nothing because of an injury is silly. That's a football play. If Rodgers doesn't get hurt, we're not even having this discussion.

It's not just my QB, it's money. No one watched Jacoby Brissett, Brett Hundley, CJ Beathard, etc play QB. The Packers went from a team the NFL scheduled max prime time games for to a joke they were stuck there. The NFL can't afford to lose QBs, whether it's preventable like Rodgers injury or not like Jimmy G. It's going to be their goal to have every sensible rule in place to keep them healthy.

That's an easily avoidable hit, Clay just had an extremely similar hit on Trubisky week 1 that nullified a 4th down stop. No one complained. It's clear however refs can't decipher the two with the wording as is, which is unfortunate. 

The solution is unfortunately something the NFL is too prideful to ever do, include their actual players in the process of making the rule. I'm sure wording could exist to funnel out hits like Barr's without calling the awful penalties like the ones the last two weeks by Clay, but they won't because of the arrogance of the league.