Jump to content

Aaron Rodgers breaks collarbone - could miss rest of 2017


Apparition

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

oh yeah? where?

Article 13: Roughing the Passer

ROUGHING THE PASSER Article 13 Because the act of passing often puts the quarterback (or any other player attempting a pass) in a position where he is particularly vulnerable to injury, special rules against roughing the passer apply. The Referee has principal responsibility for enforcing these rules. Any physical acts against passers during or just after a pass which, in the Referee’s judgment, are unwarranted by the circumstances of the play will be called as fouls. The Referee will be guided by the following principles:

PASS LEAVING PASSER’S HAND; ONE-STEP RULE (1) Roughing will be called if, in the Referee’s judgment, a pass rusher clearly should have known that the ball had already left the passer’s hand before contact was made; pass rushers are responsible for being aware of the position of the ball in passing situations; the Referee will use the release of the ball from the passer’s hand as his guideline that the passer is now fully protected; once a pass has been released by a passer, a rushing defender may make direct contact with the passer only up through the rusher’s first step after such release (prior to second step hitting the ground); thereafter the rusher must be making an attempt to avoid contact and must not continue to “drive through” or otherwise forcibly contact the passer; incidental or inadvertent contact by a player who is easing up or being blocked into the passer will not be considered significant.

UNNECESSARY ACTS AGAINST PASSER (2) A rushing defender is prohibited from committing such intimidating and punishing acts as “stuffing” a passer into the ground or unnecessarily wrestling or driving him down after the passer has thrown the ball, even if the rusher makes his initial contact with the passer within the one-step limitation provided for in (1) above. When tackling a passer who is in a defenseless posture (e.g., during or just after throwing a pass), a defensive player must not unnecessarily or violently throw him down and land on top of him with all or most of the defender’s weight. Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap up or cradle the passer with the defensive player’s arms.

HITS TO PASSER’S HEAD AND USE OF HELMET AND FACEMASK (3) In covering the passer position, Referees will be particularly alert to fouls in which defenders impermissibly use the helmet and/or facemask to hit the passer, or use hands, arms, or other parts of the body to hit the passer forcibly in the head or neck area (see also the other unnecessary-roughness rules covering these subjects). A defensive player must not use his helmet against a passer who is in a defenseless posture for example, (a) forcibly hitting the passer’s head or neck area with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the passer by encircling or grasping him, or (b) lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the passer’s body. This rule does not OFFICIAL NFL PLAYING RULES 75 prohibit incidental contact by the mask or non-crown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on a passer.

http://www.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/15_Rule12_Player_Conduct.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

there is no such article 13: Roughing the Passer in the NFL rulebook. Nor does this address the question in any way even if it did.

I quoted the piece from the article.

Not that it matters though. No sort of evidence that goes against your belief will change your mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

I quoted the piece from the article.

Not that it matters though. No sort of evidence that goes against your belief will change your mind. 

Appears you found an outdated version. The 2017 rulebook interpretation indicates the hit is illegal. Defender can't land on defenseless QB with all of his weight. Full stop. Which is exactly what happened.

Morever, linking the rulebook is not proof of 'the league' determining anything is legal or not. Many of the rules have subjective wording leaving them open for interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

Appears you found an outdated version. The 2017 rulebook interpretation indicates the hit is illegal. Defender can't land on defenseless QB with all of his weight. Full stop. Which is exactly what happened.

Morever, linking the rulebook is not proof of 'the league' determining anything is legal or not. Many of the rules have subjective wording leaving them open for interpretation.

If I did, then my apologies. I can't make any statements regarding the newest rulebook since I apparently haven't seen it.

You're right. The league hasn't made any move to punish Barr in any way for the hit. In this case, perhaps it is their lack of action that solidifies an answer for us? If the hit was illegal, and the NFL knew this but didn't do anything about it, then we would have a problem here. I don't think this is what's happening though.

However, since the rules are subjective, it will always be 'his word vs. his word vs. my words'. In which case you can argue all day about the act but not change a thing about it. 

 and if the entire premise is subjective i think I'll just leave it at this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said:

If I did, then my apologies. I can't make any statements regarding the newest rulebook since I apparently haven't seen it.

You're right. The league hasn't made any move to punish Barr in any way for the hit. In this case, perhaps it is their lack of action that solidifies an answer for us? If the hit was illegal, and the NFL knew this but didn't do anything about it, then we would have a problem here. I don't think this is what's happening though.

However, since the rules are subjective, it will always be 'his word vs. his word vs. my words'. In which case you can argue all day about the act but not change a thing about it. 

 and if the entire premise is subjective i think I'll just leave it at this.

No. The lack of action isn't meaningful really at all. Many calls are missed every game. Almost none of them are fined. 

It's that simple. I don't think anyone was expecting a fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the hit on Rodgers is legal according to the NFL rule book but was it really just a hit?  Should a player be able to tackle another player who isn't a ball carrier?  Rodgers had already passed the ball when Barr tackled him.  If tackling a player without the ball was illegal then Barr would have just pushed Rodgers down on his backside instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, incognito_man said:

No. The lack of action isn't meaningful really at all. Many calls are missed every game. Almost none of them are fined. 

It's that simple. I don't think anyone was expecting a fine.

That's a skewed way to look at this. Few if any calls in the past 10 years have been looked at as much as this hit as one of the NFL's top QB's was injured. They didn't fine Barr for the hit. That says a lot about whether this was a legal or illegal hit..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pugger said:

I think the hit on Rodgers is legal according to the NFL rule book but was it really just a hit?  Should a player be able to tackle another player who isn't a ball carrier?  Rodgers had already passed the ball when Barr tackled him.  If tackling a player without the ball was illegal then Barr would have just pushed Rodgers down on his backside instead.

Yes they should be able to. This is football..not flag football. The one step rule is fine as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...