This has to be a joke/New Rules - Defenseless Players

Bucksfans1and2 · Post #1 » by **Bucksfans1and2** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:26 am

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6223700

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

• A quarterback in the act of throwing;

• A receiver trying to catch a pass;

• A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;

• A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;

• A kicker or punter during the kick;

• A quarterback at any time after change of possession;

• A receiver who receives a blind-side block;

• A player already on the ground.

Balls2TheWalls · Post #2 » by **Balls2TheWalls** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 5:27 am

Let's just make it 2 hand touch.

Mags FTW · Post #3 » by **Mags FTW** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:36 am

El Duderino · Post #4 » by **El Duderino** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:31 am

Bucksfans1and2 wrote:http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6223700

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

• A quarterback in the act of throwing;

So are they going to ban all sacks unless the defender holds the QB in a bear hug and makes sure not to squeeze to tightly so as to be sure the QB doesn't have the ball pressed to hard against his tummy?

JayMKE · Post #5 » by **JayMKE** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:48 am

Why is the most successful sports league in the world so bent on destroying itself?

Post #6 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:05 pm

I really don't understand what that first one means. So if a defensive player gets to the QB while he's starting his motion, they're supposed to let him complete the throw? What the hell?

Bucksfans1and2 · Post #7 » by **Bucksfans1and2** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:25 pm

I'm also a little bit confused about what it means that you can't hit a reciever when he he's trying to catch the ball.

Are the DBs supposed to let the recievers catch the ball.

jakecronus8 · Post #8 » by **jakecronus8** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:56 pm

This absolutely can NOT pass. I say go to flag football if this were to pass. On a serious note, I might have to stick to college and/or get into arena football with this crap. Waiting for the Las Vegas Vaginas expansion team now.

Ayt · Post #9 » by **Ayt** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 2:52 pm

Flag football, please. KTHXBYE.

chuckleslove · Post #10 » by **chuckleslove** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:12 pm

I understand they want to protect players from serious injuries but obviously this is going too far, if this passes and it is exactly how it sounds it will be such a joke.

LUKE23 · Post #11 » by **LUKE23** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:14 pm

Absolute trash. This had better not pass.

DigitalFool · Post #12 » by **DigitalFool** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:36 pm

Who is requesting such rules?

jakecronus8 · Post #13 » by **jakecronus8** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:56 pm

It's just a matter of time until a sack is awarded if a defensive player succesfully gets into the pocket and the play is ruled dead. Pussies

midranger · Post #14 » by **midranger** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:57 pm

If a QB is ever in trouble in the pocket, he should just throw the ball.... anywhere. INT? No problem, 15 yards and suspension. Grounding? No way he was hit, 15 yards and suspension.

Just ludacrisp rules.

IrishRainbow · Post #15 » by **IrishRainbow** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:47 pm

I know it's kinda sorta frowned upon to post identical posts in multiple threads but whatever, condemn me if need be. If I didn't copy/paste I'd just be rehashing the same thing retyped. I prefer efficiency. So this is what I posted in the GF.

Is this the NFLPA? Are they proposing this? (I think it said in the OP but my mind escapes me now) Is this how the owners get what they want? 16 games of real football >>>>> 18 games of flag football. This has to be shot down. The QBs already have too much protection. I haven't a clue as to what that WR in the process of catching a ball means...that wouldn't even pass in a neighborhood game of 500. Ridiculous proposal(s) that should not see the light of day. Shame on those for doing so, shame on those that may consider it, disgust with those that would pass it. I hope to God that these are simply as outlandish as they are to try and make a point and form as some sort of negotiating starting point. I simply can not :nonono:

enough.

Not that it's Uber enlightening...but it's it.

OBF-MKE · Post #16 » by **OBF-MKE** » Thu Mar 17, 2011 11:51 pm

This is just talking about hits to the head, right?

Turk Nowitzki · Post #17 » by **Turk Nowitzki** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:58 am

OBF-MKE wrote:This is just talking about hits to the head, right?

That's what I'm assuming. I'm not sure why everyone is freaking out.

Post #18 » by **humanrefutation** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:07 am

Turk Nowitzki wrote:
OBF-MKE wrote:This is just talking about hits to the head, right?

That's what I'm assuming. I'm not sure why everyone is freaking out.

Bucksfans1and2 · Post #19 » by **Bucksfans1and2** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:09 am

"Everyone will be very clearly on notice now that a suspension is very viable for us and we will exercise it ... when it comes to illegal hits to the head and neck area and to defenseless players."

Based on how that reads I think it means all the time.

Kerb Hohl · Post #20 » by **Kerb Hohl** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 2:32 am

They're just expanding the defenseless rules to further expand being able to suspend for hits to the head.