You make the call: Pollard v. Ridley, 2013 rules

I'm sure I'm not alone in believing the NFL competition committee will never learn its lesson. They have to stop gerrymandering the rulebook to generate more offensive scoring or, more lately, create that they care about player safety. Pffffftt!!!

I'm referring of course to the proposed rule change that would require the officials to now judge the intent of running back outside the tackle box when he lowers his head and makes contact with a defender.

They believe they can make a distinction between a lowered head with the intent to harm the defender, versus a lowered head by a running back trying to defend himself. [editor's note: if they want to look at rules against running backs, how about the fact that guys like Ray Rice regularly grab the face mask to steer away tacklers and they pretend it is a stiff arm?]

I call BS on the proposed rule, as with nearly 100% of the rules added by the committee in recent years, or similarly, their annual pronouncements about rules "points of emphasis."

I think most of us can agree that then game is much better when officiated like it is in the playoffs and only the obvious fouls are flagged and the judgement crap and time under the hood is avoided.

My stint on the soapbox aside, here's a real life example of a play where the new rule, if passed, might be applied.

It's the Pollard KO of Ridley in the playoffs this year. Look at the video and tell me how you think they'd have to judge this play under the proposed rule.

Can you say what Ridley's intent is? Would this play result in the Ravens getting the fumble AND getting 15 yards marched off in their favor? Would this rule force the Ravens to choose between the 15 yards or decline it and take the fumble? Would they say it is offsetting penalties because Pollard also led with the helmet, and the fumble would have been waived off (I recognize Pollard was not flagged, but I wonder if they would be less likely to forgive his tackle if they now had to focus on the intent on both sides?)

I'm confused, and angry just thinking about the what ifs this year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=0Bgr9Yv_mLs

Did they pass that rule or have they decided to table that for now?

From everything that I have heard discussed on SiriusNFL, that's the textbook example. If the player leads with the crown of his helmet and cannot see what he hits, they want to flag it. So unless I am missing something, this would be a penalty against NE

It's going to be a walking clusterfuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

From everything that I have heard discussed on SiriusNFL, that's the textbook example. If the player leads with the crown of his helmet and cannot see what he hits, they want to flag it. So unless I am missing something, this would be a penalty against NE

---

Could you imagine the reaction in NE if that had happened. They wanted Pollard ejected for that hit.

This is why I'm raising the issue. From everything I heard, this looks to me like a textbook example of what the new rule would penalize. And yet, even as a Ravens fan, I wouldn't want to see that called. And that's before we wade through all the other crap I asked about, like, could a penalty have actually saved NE by reversing the fumble or would they have to go under the hood to make the call, or is it challengable, blah, blah, blech.

it sounds good on the surface; lower your shoulder instead of your head. But in the heat of the battle it's a different matter

The funny thing about that play, Ridley knocked himself out. People who want to put the consequences of that hit on Pollard, aren't being intelectually honest.

This rule change is another example of them trying to change the fundamentals of the game. These guys have been playing their whole lives like that and now the NFL wants them to change the neurological pathways and muscle memory that they have built for 15 years of their lives. Stupid.

Getting ridiculous.

All so the next time there's a lawsuit, their "anti injury initiatives" will look better on paper.

Meanwhile, the game itself degenerates.

NFL has to be careful. You never would have convinced me 15 years ago I'd ever stop giving a shit about baseball, but here we are. Nobody was a bigger baseball fan than me. Nobody. But then they let all the steroid shit go, juiced up the balls, moved in the fences, made throwing strikes illegal, and now it's just a ludicrous video game that drags on pointlessly for up to 4 hours while the teams change pitchers every 2 batters over the last 3 innings of each game. I can't stand it. I don't watch it. I don't buy MLB shit; they don't make squat off me. People change. You change the game, you will lose fans.

NFL... it can happen to you too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NC Raven

Getting ridiculous.

All so the next time there's a lawsuit, their "anti injury initiatives" will look better on paper.

Meanwhile, the game itself degenerates.

NFL has to be careful. You never would have convinced me 15 years ago I'd ever stop giving a shit about baseball, but here we are. Nobody was a bigger baseball fan than me. Nobody. But then they let all the steroid shit go, juiced up the balls, moved in the fences, made throwing strikes illegal, and now it's just a ludicrous video game that drags on pointlessly for up to 4 hours while the teams change pitchers every 2 batters over the last 3 innings of each game. I can't stand it. I don't watch it. I don't buy MLB shit; they don't make squat off me. People change. You change the game, you will lose fans.

NFL... it can happen to you too.

---

And cue ASB in 3..2..1..

Ozzie Newsome is on the Competition Committee. He's part of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GOTA

Ozzie Newsome is on the Competition Committee. He's part of this.

---

I know! WTF? You'd think he would offer more common sense to the process. I'd love to blame Jeff Fisher for all this, that dick.