New "No Blind Blocking" Rule

It is a problematic rule and seems prone to wild subjectivity. However, since so many of the other rule changes in the name of player safety have favored the offense, is this rule some sort of effort to swing the pendulum back the other way? 

 
Ulty said:
However, since so many of the other rule changes in the name of player safety have favored the offense, is this rule some sort of effort to swing the pendulum back the other way? 
Click to expand...


No. The hits they are attempting to eliminate don’t come up that often. That’s, of course, assuming the ones that get a flag are indeed because the fall under the spirit of the rule and not the sketchy wording.

 
Scott Frost says "Take your blind block rule and ...."

WavyVacantGraysquirrel-size_restricted.gif


 
Ulty said:
It is a problematic rule and seems prone to wild subjectivity. However, since so many of the other rule changes in the name of player safety have favored the offense, is this rule some sort of effort to swing the pendulum back the other way? 
Click to expand...


I believe it is simply a continuation of the trend to eliminate all contact from football. No doubt in my mind that I’ll see the day where anything more than flag football is outlawed and gasped at as being barbaric. 

What ever happened to the player’s responsibility to keep their head up and on a swivel? At least we should still have hockey for awhile longer. And look, I realize some of these hits are dangerous but it has always been a dangerous sport. If they really want to eliminate all risks then the result is eliminating the sport. I see it going that direction.

 
JJ Husker said:
I believe it is simply a continuation of the trend to eliminate all contact from football.
Click to expand...
No,

Even though I see problems with the rule as we know it reading this thread, it's a continuation of trying to make the game safer.....which all of us should support.

We can support the intended goal and still believe this is a bad rule.

 
JJ Husker said:
I believe it is simply a continuation of the trend to eliminate all contact from football. No doubt in my mind that I’ll see the day where anything more than flag football is outlawed and gasped at as being barbaric. 

What ever happened to the player’s responsibility to keep their head up and on a swivel? At least we should still have hockey for awhile longer. And look, I realize some of these hits are dangerous but it has always been a dangerous sport. If they really want to eliminate all risks then the result is eliminating the sport. I see it going that direction.
Click to expand...
tenor.gif


 
BigRedBuster said:
No,

Even though I see problems with the rule as we know it reading this thread, it's a continuation of trying to make the game safer.....which all of us should support.

We can support the intended goal and still believe this is a bad rule.
Click to expand...
Actually YES. I stated it is what I believe. You can believe what you want.

And I don't believe there is really any difference between eliminating contact and making the game safer. I'm for the game being safer but I also don't necessarily like what that is going to mean for the game we used to know and love. What it boils down to is we're going to keep getting more of these well intentioned but highly subjective rules until finally they eliminate contact. If you don't think that's where things are headed, fine.

 
I was thinking of that Scott Frost block vs A&M posted above and of course the Kenny Bell, bell ringer vs Wisc.

 
ZRod said:
That's just football. Text book example of why every defensive coach ever says "keep your head on a swivel!"
Click to expand...


It's also a block that could've easily been made without giving the dude a concussion. Don't get me wrong, I'll missing the crushing blindside blocks but it's not worth it.

I'm concerned with how this will be officiated though, I'd rather they inform teams they will be watching for it and just call unnecessary roughness if there's excessive contact, like launching into the guy or giving him a forearm shiver. Seems like it'll be pretty subjective, and you've got to let guys block. It's asking the same restraint we're already asking the Safeties/LBs to have when a receiver goes up for a ball across the middle. But as people have pointed out, on turnovers I could see it being an issue - you think about blocking so little as a defender I'm sure your instinct is to light them up.

 
Husker in WI said:
It's also a block that could've easily been made without giving the dude a concussion. Don't get me wrong, I'll missing the crushing blindside blocks but it's not worth it.

I'm concerned with how this will be officiated though, I'd rather they inform teams they will be watching for it and just call unnecessary roughness if there's excessive contact, like launching into the guy or giving him a forearm shiver. Seems like it'll be pretty subjective, and you've got to let guys block. It's asking the same restraint we're already asking the Safeties/LBs to have when a receiver goes up for a ball across the middle. But as people have pointed out, on turnovers I could see it being an issue - you think about blocking so little as a defender I'm sure your instinct is to light them up.
Click to expand...




Yes. I suppose they could have a rule where the player doesn’t get laid out like that (which I thought was the defenseless player rule). But this is taking it to an idiotic level.

 
Moiraine said:
Yes. I suppose they could have a rule where the player doesn’t get laid out like that (which I thought was the defenseless player rule). But this is taking it to an idiotic level.
Click to expand...


Right, I feel like we have relevant rules already and they could've just told teams they were specifically watching for defenseless/targeting/whatever else on blindside hits. Instead we might see guys get called for a blindside block when they just step in the path of the defender. The rule wording is sketchy, I think the NFL one has something about initiating blindside contact with the shoulder or head. The version in the 247 article doesn't seem to have that wording, and I agree outlawing any block made from outside their field of vision is way too much.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top