Should receivers have more protection?

[tims4wins]

TB12:

"Quarterbacks get their legs protected. Defensive linemen get their legs protected. Linebackers get their legs protected. I don't see why a defenseless receiver shouldn't get his legs protected as well."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14274687/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-wants-rule-change-protect-receivers

It is an interesting idea. Obviously the hits to the head are really bad. But hits to the legs / knees blow out tons of ACLs. Not sure how they could create a rule that makes it anything but flag football.

 

[Kliq]

Not sure if this would solve the problem, but I think I could start would be to protect players from getting hit below the knee while jumping in the air. The whole argument "DBs have to tackle Gronk low because he outweighs them" is bullshit in the latest situation because Gronk wasn't chugging down the field against the DB, he was leaping in the air and Stewart was nowhere close to the ball. If a player is going up for a catch, they shouldn't have to worry about getting nailed below the knee and flipping head over heels and landing on their neck. It isn't playing the ball and you can play fine defense without going below the knee.

 

[H78]

I think clear shots to the legs should be illegal, such as when a defender launches themselves into the knees of the receiver to take him down. Obviously, I'm biased, because I see this happening to Gronk each and every week and think about him protecting his knees.

I don't get the people who say, "Well if you can't hit him in the knees, or in the head, where can you hit him?" Between the thighs and shoulders lays a LOT of real estate on the human body.

I mean, obviously tripping a guy up should still be legal, just not clear intentional BLOWS at or below the knees.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

My biggest problem is targeting the knee joint. The are flying in at an angle that is going to do serious damage if the hit is timed right. Receiver can't even brace to adjust his running. It's catch ball and boom.

On the going low argument. I don't even have a problem where the tackler goes low on a receiver and takes out the feet. You see that all the time. Diving essentially at the ground and the receiver or runner goes down because he can't hurdle or make an adjustment that quick. I just think shoulder pad to the middle of the thigh is enough room to target contact.

The TJ Ward's of the world have you believe they go low for two reasons. They can't target the head anymore, and the guy is so big we can't bring him down if we go high. But that sort of runs counter to the we have to go low argument. Truth is they would still go for knockout shots if the head was in play regardless of the size of the receiver.

(Typing simultaneously with the post above, similar thoughts obviously. Didn't see his till after)

 

[Toe Nash]

This doesn't seem complicated. They stopped people from launching to the head and neck area like many players used to and defenses adjusted. If a Gronk is so big and strong that he can't be taken down except by injuring him, well...maybe we should let great players be great.

They could return some of the balance to defenses by allowing more contact either beyond one yard or while the ball is in the air. That wouldn't cause more injuries I don't think and might actually slow the game down a bit.

 

[Stitch01]

I doubt we see changes. If they penalize for hitting too low they are going to get more headshots. Torn ACL's aren't an existential threat to the league, concussions are.

 

[TrotWaddles]

This doesn't seem complicated. They stopped people from launching to the head and neck area like many players used to and defenses adjusted. If a Gronk is so big and strong that he can't be taken down except by injuring him, well...maybe we should let great players be great.

Completely agree with the "great players being great." The answer to "What do you do with a guy like Gronk?" is "Feel like a dumbass for not drafting him while your coaches teach a generation of DBs how to wrap up." They won't do that. They will continue to "Shaqify" the league. One set of rules for Gronk (and Megatron, Dez Bryant, and the other essentially uncoverable receivers) and one set for the mortals.

 

[Shelterdog]

TB12:



http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14274687/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-wants-rule-change-protect-receivers

It is an interesting idea. Obviously the hits to the head are really bad. But hits to the legs / knees blow out tons of ACLs. Not sure how they could create a rule that makes it anything but flag football.

I'm not advocating it but you could outlaw knee hits and still have a very physical game. What is happening to Gronk and other bigger receivers is that players are trying to hit the knees (thus knocking them over/off balance and scaring or injuring them) instead of actually going in and wrapping up around the thighs, hips or waist.

 

[Myt1]

Not sure if this would solve the problem, but I think I could start would be to protect players from getting hit below the knee while jumping in the air. The whole argument "DBs have to tackle Gronk low because he outweighs them" is bullshit in the latest situation because Gronk wasn't chugging down the field against the DB, he was leaping in the air and Stewart was nowhere close to the ball. If a player is going up for a catch, they shouldn't have to worry about getting nailed below the knee and flipping head over heels and landing on their neck. It isn't playing the ball and you can play fine defense without going below the knee.

You're talking about an issue that almost never happens, though (players landing on their necks). And when a player is going up for a catch, that's the hardest time to know where to hit because the "below the knee" spot is moving at the time. And they're generally less likely to injure the knee on a hit like that because the foot isn't planted.

If you want a rule like this, you can make it a penalty to hit a guy in the air making a catch, period. Rugby penalizes hitting a player in the air. It also penalizes ball carriers trying to hurdle tacklers for similar/additional gamesmanship reasons.

 

[Myt1]

I mean, we just had an insanely shittily officiated game in a season of shittily officiated games, and you guys are basically advocating for more gray area/discretion rules to address very rare occurences. Fuck that.

 

[Ed Hillel]

It's important to note that Brady was just talking about defenseless receivers, and I tend to agree with him. I don't think above the knee and below the head on defenseless receivers would be all that difficult an ask from a defender's standpoint. The rule would have to be narrowed to initial contact, as well, since wrapping around a waist and sliding down should be legal and encouraged. The problem, as Myt1 has pointed out, is in the officiating. The rule book is complex enough and the officials have a difficult enough time seeing things in real time, although I think the headshots issue has basically worked to the point that it doesn't happen often and it's usually called correctly when it does.

Where is there left to tackle? Like 85% of the body mass is still there. While I know it's more difficult to take people down that way, especially big ones, keep in mind we're only talking about defenseless receivers here. They are vulnerable and usually off-balance, so defenders should have the big advantage to start.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Gronk, himself, was not a defenseless receiver when Ward blew his knee out a couple of years ago. It's a very limited situation that Brady was talking about.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Gronk, himself, was not a defenseless receiver when Ward blew his knee out a couple of years ago. It's a very limited situation that Brady was talking about.

How do you define "defenseless"? Gronk had no ability to protect himself from TJ Ward. He caught the ball, took 2 quick steps while evading a defender, and then got torpedoed by Ward. That was a dirty play in my mind.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

Some cornerbacks could definitely use more protection.

 

[dcmissle]

I doubt we see changes. If they penalize for hitting too low they are going to get more headshots. Torn ACL's aren't an existential threat to the league, concussions are.

Or, they will put a 6" band around receivers' waists, demarcating the only place you can hit them. Big 12 football scoring every week, yippee.

And if you are going to argue based on the protection afforded to QBs, linemen and so forth -- why not Running Backs?

 

[Eddie Jurak]

How do you define "defenseless"? Gronk had no ability to protect himself from TJ Ward. He caught the ball, took 2 quick steps while evading a defender, and then got torpedoed by Ward. That was a dirty play in my mind.

Kind of the way the NFL defines it - in the process of reaching for/catching the ball. I don't think they would define it as an ongoing continuous thing.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Or, they will put a 6" band around receivers' waists, demarcating the only place you can hit them. Big 12 football scoring every week, yippee.

And if you are going to argue based on the protection afforded to QBs, linemen and so forth -- why not Running Backs?

Why not running backs indeed? I always found it odd that the head shots to RB were ok.

 

[dcmissle]

It may be this simple. The game was not intended to be played, and cannot safely be played, by people as big and athletic as these individuals are. At least not under the current rules on a field of standard dimensions.

In the lifetimes of more than a few people here, being a professional football player was a part time job. There was no training in the offseason. Training camps lasted forever and included many games because players literally played their way into shape. Players also were slower and smaller, with a few notable exceptions. And in practices, they hit, so they were used to it.

That script has flipped in every respect. Today these guys are like race horses. And they break down like race horses.

And this is how out of touch the owners are -- they want to go to an 18-game season with 53-man rosters.

I have never seen such a spectacularly successful enterprise be so dysfunctional in such fundamental ways. If in a few short years the sport were to collapse magically, leaving franchises worth billions suddenly worth nothing, the owners would richly deserve it.

Edit. There was a great "Playmakers" episode that aptly summed up the current state of the League, from the officiating mess, to the Byzantine rulebook, though player safety and all the rest of it. During half time of one game, one player was told he absolutely, positively could not go back on the field, even though he felt fine. Another player, in agonizing pain, was called a pussy for not being able to go back in because he was judged fine based on a half time x-ray. At the end of the show, it is revealed that they switched up the two players' x-rays. Wonderful allegory for today's NFL.

 

[Fishercat]

Would a potential solution be to make it a penalty if a tackle is made on a different receiver if the tackle doesn't involve the use of the arms? I mean, it seems as if the primary cause of a lot of these injuries isn't necessarily the location, but that defenders are using armored body parts (primarily the helmet) to initiate their tackles or are using their body as a torpedo. They could make it more specific couching it in language pairing it with leaving your feet (you must either use your arms to tackle or not leave your feet).

The enforcement of such a rule would be the challenge, but I'm honestly a lot less concerned about the location of the hits and more about how the hits are being done.

 

[d-hose]

Rugby Union only allows tackles that (at least) attempt to wrap up the ball carrier with your arms. "A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player." (Laws of the Game, 10.4.g) Additionally: "A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground." (Laws of the Game, 10.4.e.) Ward's 2013 hit on Gronk would be illegal under these rules, as would Stewart's tackle last week. The flow of rugby is obviously different from the start-stop of American football, but it should be possible to implement rules like this in the NFL. It would almost certainly lead to fewer jarring collisions -- and more scores.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=showallbynumbers

 

[Myt1]

Rugby also incentivizes the ball carrier not to put every bit of his force into getting a few more inches or yards though, too, because there are no first downs and possession is contested (at least theoretically) at every tackle. If you make the changes to one side of the scale but not the other, I think you're increasing the chances of defender injury, especially head injury.

 

[rbeaud]

It's a given that rugby is not about maximizing real estate on every-single-possession. Yet, American football has relaxed rules such that offense has been prioritized over defense (effu Polian!!!). Since "chicks dig the long ball" seems to rule the day, I fail to see how form tackling a la rugby would ruin the sport. Yes, a few more inches/yards are at risk on every play. Contrast that with allowing the best to play at their best with the resultant points scoring bonanza. Oh, and minimizing those silly concussions and injuries.

Making an effort to rap up & tackle protects the offense and defense. Yes, there will be a few more YAC and such. Correct form does not expose either player to potentially life threatening injury. Observe World Class rugby and count the number of true injury substitutions. By and large, the 1st XV can start and finish the match (sub rules have been relaxed in the last decade). I would be ready to argue that no level of rugby exposes players to the amount of injury that is seen in HS football, let alone college or pros. Using your body as a missile never ends well. Adding body armor makes it all worse. Rugby gets by with a simple mouthpiece...it's not because these guys are wimps.

As someone said upthread, is it reasonable for Gronk to be penalize for potentially being a generational talent? Instead of being immortalized, he is on the way to being marginalized with "extra emphasis" or whatever.

A few on this board know what Jonah Lomu meant to rugby. I know of no rules or points of emphasis that were enacted during his tenure. Watch Joost Van Der Westhuizen take him down in the open field during the late moments of the '95 RWC Finals (best tackle I have ever seen in person and possibly evah!!!!). There is no doubt in my mind he makes a game saving tackle on an all world player. Joost is outgunned by a good 60 lbs yet he "somehow" manages to take down Lomu with a proper tackle. Heaven forbid Chancellor tackle a WR weighing 30 lbs less without launching himself. I'm not impressed with guys who lay down the "boom!".

The American game should not restrict Gronk because he had the temerity to be a freak of nature. Honest question, has the NFL really tried to make a singular player less effective before??? LT, AP, Etc...were they targeted by rules or lack of enforcement intended to emasculate their skills?

 

[Devizier]

The American game should not restrict Gronk because he had the temerity to be a freak of nature. Honest question, has the NFL really tried to make a singular player less effective before??? LT, AP, Etc...were they targeted by rules or lack of enforcement intended to emasculate their skills?

Maybe not the NFL, but the NBA with Wilt Chamberlain comes to mind.

 

[KiltedFool]

Hines Ward.

 

[Myt1]

It's a given that rugby is not about maximizing real estate on every-single-possession. Yet, American football has relaxed rules such that offense has been prioritized over defense (effu Polian!!!). Since "chicks dig the long ball" seems to rule the day, I fail to see how form tackling a la rugby would ruin the sport. Yes, a few more inches/yards are at risk on every play. Contrast that with allowing the best to play at their best with the resultant points scoring bonanza. Oh, and minimizing those silly concussions and injuries.

Making an effort to rap up & tackle protects the offense and defense. Yes, there will be a few more YAC and such. Correct form does not expose either player to potentially life threatening injury. Observe World Class rugby and count the number of true injury substitutions. By and large, the 1st XV can start and finish the match (sub rules have been relaxed in the last decade). I would be ready to argue that no level of rugby exposes players to the amount of injury that is seen in HS football, let alone college or pros. Using your body as a missile never ends well. Adding body armor makes it all worse. Rugby gets by with a simple mouthpiece...it's not because these guys are wimps.

As someone said upthread, is it reasonable for Gronk to be penalize for potentially being a generational talent? Instead of being immortalized, he is on the way to being marginalized with "extra emphasis" or whatever.

A few on this board know what Jonah Lomu meant to rugby. I know of no rules or points of emphasis that were enacted during his tenure. Watch Joost Van Der Westhuizen take him down in the open field during the late moments of the '95 RWC Finals (best tackle I have ever seen in person and possibly evah!!!!). There is no doubt in my mind he makes a game saving tackle on an all world player. Joost is outgunned by a good 60 lbs yet he "somehow" manages to take down Lomu with a proper tackle. Heaven forbid Chancellor tackle a WR weighing 30 lbs less without launching himself. I'm not impressed with guys who lay down the "boom!".

The American game should not restrict Gronk because he had the temerity to be a freak of nature. Honest question, has the NFL really tried to make a singular player less effective before??? LT, AP, Etc...were they targeted by rules or lack of enforcement intended to emasculate their skills?

I've played the sport for almost 20 years. They altered the scrum engagement 3 times in the past 6. I love rugby, but let's not pretend for a second that the laws are anything more than what a bunch of retired drunk flyhalfs came up with over a case of wine last year.

 

[OCST]

Maybe not the NFL, but the NBA with Wilt Chamberlain comes to mind.

MLB lowering the mound in '69 in response to Gibson and McLain?

 

[rbeaud]

I've played the sport for almost 20 years. They altered the scrum engagement 3 times in the past 6. I love rugby, but let's not pretend for a second that the laws are anything more than what a bunch of retired drunk flyhalfs came up with over a case of wine last year.

I haven't played in nearly 15...it probably says a lot that my tackling point is based on the 95 RWC.

What I wanted to convey was that rugby players can effectively stop the ball carrier without the brutality of football. In this offensive environment, would it be so bad if football emphasized form tackling, not tackling in the air, etc at the expense of a few more first downs?

 

[Myt1]

I think that would be a very good idea for defenders. My point above was that, given the nature of the game, offensive players also use their bodies as weapons in a way that isn't as emphasized in rugby because of the importance of maintaining possession.

Citing the '95 RWC as evidence of good tackling of Jonah Lomu probably cuts the opposite way you had intended as well, Van Der Westhuizen notwithstanding!

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I foresee a day where re-engineered safety appliances will be developed for particularly costly injuries in football - if only to save the game's future, from high school through to the pros. I don't know how they'll work (and they can't work like a football helmet, which is also a weapon), They may require some sort of inflatable technology (there are bicycle "helmets", really neck wraps, on the market now that auto-inflate based on inertia). Superior knee protection can't limit movement or substantially impact agility for backs, receivers, tight ends, etc. Maybe there's a workable bio-engineering solution down the road.

If it worked, it would need to be mandatory to ensure competition.

If it worked, someone could make a lot of money (how costly is it to have a Gronkowski lost for the season?).

Get on it you SOSH whippersnappers.

 

[mauf]

A textbook tackle hits the ball carrier somewhere around the upper thigh. To state the obvious, that's a lot closer to the knee than it is to the head. You can't avoid hits to the knee without fundamentally altering the game.

 

[rbeaud]

Citing the '95 RWC as evidence of good tackling of Jonah Lomu probably cuts the opposite way you had intended as well, Van Der Westhuizen notwithstanding!

I will leave this as my last derailment of the gridiron football discussion...are you referring to the way Lomu crushed Catt (as the most extreme example)? If so, that seems to me an indictment of football. Lomu was clearly operating as a man amongst boys...and they played on. I would like to enjoy Gronk and that includes watching defenders fall to the wayside during a run like some sort of Peter Jackson inspired LoTR sequence. Options for stopping him should not include catastrophic destruction of his knee.

 

[Myt1]

Referring to the fact that pretty much no one else tackled the guy all tournament, our sport's vaunted concentration on proper form-tackling notwithstanding.