Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 53

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,179
    Blog Entries
    2

    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.





  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,358

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

    Did they pass that rule or have they decided to table that for now?
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    over by the dental floss bush
    Posts
    15,495
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    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
    World Domination 3 Points at a Time!




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Stevensville, MD
    Posts
    1,480

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

    It's going to be a walking clusterfuck.
    Never get in a fight with a pig; you both get muddy, and the pig likes it...





  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Arbutus
    Posts
    1,558

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

    Quote Originally Posted by esmd View Post
    It's going to be a walking clusterfuck.
    Techincally, a running clusterfuck.




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pasadena
    Posts
    9,171
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    So the rule passed... http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...t-rule-passes/

    Good thing we cut Pollard then huh? lol




  7. #7

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle View Post
    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.




  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,179
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    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.




  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    over by the dental floss bush
    Posts
    15,495
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    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
    World Domination 3 Points at a Time!




  10. #10

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

    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.




  11. #11

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle View Post
    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
    Disagree. The penalty, per what the league was telling NFLN, is only in open space. Ridley wasn't in open space in this instance.




  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    over by the dental floss bush
    Posts
    15,495
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LukeDaniel View Post
    Disagree. The penalty, per what the league was telling NFLN, is only in open space. Ridley wasn't in open space in this instance.
    it's anything 'outside the tackle zone' and he was several yards downfield already. not sure where you heard open space or what it means
    World Domination 3 Points at a Time!




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland