RSS Feed
NOW ON SALE!
Click here to buy PDF version
.Click here to buy printed copy.
LATEST KUBIAK UPDATE
9/4: Numerous updates related to final cut day.
9/5: Even more updates related to cuts.
STILL AVAILABLE
Click here to buy PDF version
.Click here to buy printed copy.
31 Mar 2009
Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Our old friend Ryan Wilson at Fanhouse notes that even legends don't like what's being referred to as the "Brady Rule":
"...specifically prohibits a defender on the ground who hasn't been blocked or fouled directly into the quarterback from lunging or diving at the quarterback's lower legs."
Jack Youngblood suggests that he could play today if that rule remains on the books.
38 comments, Last at 02 Apr 2009, 8:54am by CoachDave
Most Recent FO Features
» VN: Updated 2010 Win Projections
As the college football season gets underway, Bill Connelly unveils the updated F/+ and win projections. Plus: a belated SDA podcast discussing Boise State vs. Virginia Tech.
Most Recent Extra Points
Comments
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
I don't know if I agree with the old farts. A hit below the knees has a high chance to seriously injure a player, particularly a player who is not bracing for the hit like a running back. Defenders know this.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Well I am not a big fan of this rule either, as far as I am concerned it kind of removes some of the point fo the game. Why not just eventually move to 2-hand touch?
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
I'll personally be absolutely tickled if a rule that seems destined to become known as a harbinger of the "wussification" of football became known as the "Brady Rule".
It's like how Roy Williams suddenly became known as a "dirty player" because of the horse collar rule.
"Then again, I'm a Bobby Carpenter believer." -- Barnwell
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Roy Williams kept breaking players legs or ruining their knee ligaments with his apalling tackling techniques. All because he wasn't good enough / fast enough to take a proper pursuit angle. I hated the way he used to bring guys down like that. Just because no one else was doing the same thing on a consistent basis and there wasn't a rule against it doesn't mean it wasn't dirty.
When Sapp smashed a Green Bay lineman's knee with a hit against his knee from the back end of a play it was dirty, totally unneccessary and likely to seriously injure a player. No different from Williams' horse collars. Just because there isn't a rule against something doesn't mean it isn't dirty.
There are some sports where certain behaviours on the playing field aren't directly litigated against in the rules but the use of these tactics is brought before the governing bodies as being against the 'Spirit of the Game'. America is a very litigious society so these ideas rarely hold purchase, for my mind this is a shame.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
"Bad tackling that leads to injuries" is not exactly the same as "dirty player".
"Then again, I'm a Bobby Carpenter believer." -- Barnwell
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
The outcry about this being the 'Brady rule' and him being treated differently is completely absurd. This rule was modified a couple of years ago as a result of Carson Palmer's injury, so that "defenders must make a conscious effort to avoid low hits on the quarterback". Based on this, Pollard should have been flagged anyway. I've even read articles asking why there was no change made after Palmer's injury, only Brady's. This is just anti-Pats nonsense!
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Mike Pereira, the NFL's VP of officiating, would seem to disagree with you as far as Palmer's injury. From the summary of his interview with Dan Patrick:
"Pereira explained that if a player is on the ground and takes a 'second act' goes after the quarterback, then it's a penalty. When Kimo von Oelhoffen hit Carson Palmer's leg it was not a 'second act.'"
Anybody know of any other quarterbacks that have been injured on plays that would now fall under this rule?
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
I don't think Pereira has EVER gone on record and said a call is wrong, despite the hundreds of times hes been on TV. His show is a joke.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Sure he has Rich. He admitted that the Polamalu interception overturned in the 2005 AFC divisional game was wrong, and that the Polamalu touchdown overturned in this year's regular season Chargers game was wrong.
Just more evidence of the pro-Steelers conspiracy in the league office: sometimes they screw us in the game just so they can apologize to us later. This conspiracy is a dastardly, many-tendriled thing I tell you.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Didn't Jared Allen do the same thing to Matt Shaub in a game after the Brady injury?
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Not really.
What Allen did was much worse. Having disengaged the block on him due to Schaub having broken the pocket upfield of the position Allen had gotten himself into he had a clean shot at the QB entirely unimpeded. He could have swiped at the ball, the QB's arm or just hit him in the body. Instead he threw himself into the ground so he could roll into Schaub's knees. It was the dirtiest play I saw last season (I didn't of course see every play last season, but I would be shocked of it wasn't up there with the worst of them). No one was blocking him, he just went for the QB's knees.
He later had the gall to complain about the hit Godser Cherilus put on him where he was chasing the QB down from the blindside and Cherilus got up off the floor after making his block to try to dive into his path and contacted Allen below the knee. As far as I am aware there is no rule against this and I don't think many people think Cherilus should just have not attempted a block and it is difficult to think what kind of block he could have attempted. I am not in favour of players getting hit in the knees but all Cherilus did was try to get his upper body in front of Allen, not a lot different from most open field chop blocks. I think Jared Allen might just be a bit of a d*#k.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Ditka obviously has hit the nail on the head. No one wants to see pro football turned into 2-hand-touch, but the owners want their multi-million dollar stars on the field. I can't say I blame them. The pussification of the rulebook is a natural consequence of skyrocketing contracts.
The unfortunate reality is that some players are worth more to the owners than others. Each guy has a price tag attached to him. That's why when Mike Vick breaks his leg in the preseason, there's an outcry to shorten it (the preseason, not his leg), but when Joe Shmoe blows out an ACL in the preseason, people shrug and forget about it 5 minutes later. The olde-tyme players were allowed to take each other's knees out because they got paid peanuts. Society and economics have changed, and the NFL is understandably changing with them.
Money vs. Injury
I'm not the most eloquent speaker so please bear with me as I try to express myself.
I am against the large salaries that the rookies receive. I think that money should be reserved for veterans and proven players. Some people that disagree with me sometimes cite the potential for injury as the reason these players need to be paid right away. Their career could end at any time.
At the same time other people are saying that the rules must be changed to protect the players because they make so much money. They are such a large investment, they must be protected.
Which is it? They need a lot of money because they might get injured or they must be protected from injury because they make a lot of money?
I don't want to see anyone injured but it is a collision sport. I hate it when I see a defensive player pull up because he doesn't want to be penalized for hitting the quarterback.
Re: Money vs. Injury
I think this is an interesting point. A smarter reaction to the current rules might be to just pay starters less and backups more. that way there might actually still be football played 20 years from now instead of soccer mk II.
I still think weight limits would do more to help injury than almost anything.
Re: Money vs. Injury
I would argue that the danger inherent in the sport has almost nothing to do with how much the players make. The players make a lot of money simply because the teams take in a lot of money, and can afford to pay the players that much. (That's somewhat oversimplified of course.) Look at it this way - if the game suddenly got much much safer, do you think salaries would start to go down? Is the threat of injury keeping any capable players from playing? (It may make players with injury histories retire early, but that's not really the same thing.)
In any case, I think the answer is clearly that they must be protected because of the large investment. At least, the NFL and owners think so.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Personally, I think the rule is a good clarification, and avoids a stupid "license to injure" given to defenders who get clobbered by the offensive line.
The old rule prohibited going after a QBs knees and lower legs. But as enforced, that rule was suspended once the defender was blocked to the ground. At that point, the defender could decide to get up part way - and then intentionally lunge for the QB's knees or lower legs. Given that interpretation of the rule, why would any defender aim at anything but the QB's knees in that situation?
This new rule says, sorry, you can't aim for the knees or lower legs. Period. The only excuse is if the hit is out of your control.
It's a much better rule, if you want to protect the QB's knees. Of course, if you are a tough oldster, you don't want to protect the QB's knees, and the old rule should be thrown out, too.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Well said, I'm with you. I think this is good progress.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Given that interpretation of the rule, why would any defender aim at anything but the QB's knees in that situation?
You know, of all the times I've watched something like this happen. I'm 98% sure there was never any conscious effort to take out a QB's knees. Usually this all happens in 2-3 seconds, and the defender is just making any effort he can to get to the QB. Now if a defender gets blocked to the ground, he has to take the time to stand up, then he's allowed to hit the QB. Why not just making blocking a defender to the ground a penalty? And of course, while this is a penalty, chop blocking a defender's knees is perfectly legal.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
True, true, true.
It sickens me every time I see a DT get smacked in the knee by a offensive lineman's helmet. Why the hell is that legal? It risks serious injury every time. On the thread Bill Barnwell put up about Dr Z complaining about the nonsense statistics it didn't mention that he used to go to the competition commitee meetings every year and suggest that blocking below the waist should only be allowed if the defender was 'face up'. I assume what he meant by this is that the blocker shouldn't be allowed to be looking down at the floor as he impacts the defender. What the hell is wrong with that rule. Dr Z played pro football (if not at an NFL level) and appreciated that some blocking methods are far more likely to cause injury than others, clearly a lot of people in the NFL simply don't care. All they care about is offenses being able to run their schemes properly and rack up a lot of points.
Now they have banned hitting a QB below the knee and now making a second effort to hit the QB after he is knocked down. The commensurate measure would be to eliminate blocking a guy who has been knocked down before he has a chance to get up again.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
I'm think that Dr. Z used "face-up" to mean that the blocker and blockee were directly facing each other before the blocker went low. Trying to decide where the blocker may have been looking (into the blockee's face as opposed to at the ground) seems impossible. What Dr. Z wanted to prevent, I think, was hits to the side of the knee, particularly when a defender couldn't see it coming, because the blocker didn't need to be "face-up" - facing directly at the front of the blockee. Right?
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
To be honest I was never sure exactly what Dr Z meant. Eliminating side on hits does make some sense. If you aren't in position to make a proper block why should you be able to compensate by simply throwing your helmet (backed up by 300lbs of hefty fella) at his knees?
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Agreed with tuluse. Most defenders aim at the QB in that situation in order to bring him down, not to injure him. We have other ways to bring people down that are illegal too -- facemasks, horse collars, etc. But at least you should realize that it's not as though this rule is preventing something that has no legitimate or legal purpose in the game. This is a restriction on typically legit tackling that might -- once or twice a week, or perhaps once or twice per year -- result in a serious injury.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
What's with the "Too" in the title? Was there any doubt the old salts would oppose the proposed change:
Tomorrow's headline: "Old Timers Hate Use of Helmets, Too."
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Did you guys know that they outlawed the wedge formation this off-season as well? I'm super-serial.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Yep. Will make the biggest difference, too, and if that's what bothers people about "pussification" most, they ought to be most upset with this rule, but no one seems to care. Another rule that I like. Multiple blockers locking arms (the old flying V) is the only maneuver on a football field that has *directly* killed players, long ago, and hand-holding wedges have been essentially the next worst thing.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
They didn't outlaw the wedge, did they? They said it had to be no more than two guys instead of three. Is two not enough to qualify as a wedge? Is it just a wedgie in that case?
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
I could live with this rule if they loosened up the rule about momentum hits on the QB. I've seen a lot of plays where the QB should have been drilled above the knees when he was not.
I saw Thomas Howard penalized for two "late" hits on Jay Cutler. The rule would have to make both those hits legal. There was nothing wrong going on with those hits.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Are rules designed to "protect the QB" actually doing that? Are there less QB injuries today than there were 10, 15, or 20 years ago? I would guess the answer is "not really", but I don't know.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
I wonder if there were fewer technical rules designed to prevent quarterbacks who are getting hit from being injured, then teams would pay more attention to preventing QB's from being hit in the first place. That means more max protect, shorter drops, more handoffs, etc. Those types of changes to offensive strategy would probably do more to prevent QB injuries than these technical rules, particularly if you assume (as I think is the case) that QB injuries are usually caused by random chance rather than intentional conduct. In contrast, rules that appear to reduce the cost of QB hits will result in more QB hits. That's basic economics. The more QBs get hit, the greater the chance they will be injured. That's basic football.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
It is about players respect for one another. There were far fewer concusions in hockey BEFORE they made helmets manditory. Players play with disregard for the safety of others secure in the defense that they did not mean to it but that is different than meaning not to do it. Is someone getting injured a reasonable expectation of your actions, is it not your fault as long as it was not your intent?
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Can someone explain how this rule doesn't forbid standard ankle tackles on the quarterback? Seems like "diving at the lower legs of a player" and grabbing them with your hands is one of the main ways to tackle people.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Indeed back when I played defensive end many years ago many many of my sacks were ankle grabs.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
I'm not a fan of calling it the Brady rule. Too close to Brady bill. I keep thinking we're protecting Ronald Reagan from hits to the knee.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
I thought they made a rule forbidding a player to marry a supermodel, because it leads to bad performance.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
As I read that ... any attempt to tackle the QB below the knee is a flaggable offense ... even shoestring ankle tap tackles?
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
Fisher tried to explain the difference between "diving" at the QB's lower legs and "swiping" at the QB's lower legs. Only the former was supposed to be a penalty. Didn't make much sense to me. I think it's open ended; officials can call it pretty much whenever they think someone endangered the quarterback's knees. Doesn't provide much info on how not to get penalized if you do it that way, though.
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
I'm still waiting for the Vince Wolfork rule to come out. You know, the rule where you can't purposely stick your elbow out and take out a QBs knees while you're diving to the ground?
Re: Old-Timers Hate Brady Rule, Too
(Does 37 years old make me an old-timer?) :)
I haven't met anyone who doesn't think this rule is crap who has played football...especially defense.
Maybe I was just a dim-witted, slow-footed linebacker...but when I got to hit the QB...I was just thankful for the opportunity and I just tried to hit him...and if I was lucky...maybe try to swipe at the ball to cause a fumble...but that's it...it's not a contemplative sport...see QB, hit QB...try not to get blocked before you hit QB.
If I got "chipped" and went airborne to make the hit...who the hell knows where it would happen.
If I got hand checked on the shoulder pad and spun around...who the hell knows where it would happen.
And to think in either of these two scenarios I would get a penalty trying to do what you are supposed to do when I'm just trying to maintain my balance and not fall on my ass?
That's ridiculous.
It's one thing for Jared Allen to purposefully take out Matt Schaub...it was 100% clear what that (blank) was doing and that SOB should have been suspended for a long time...but this rule goes a lot further than the Allen hit...and that sucks.
Post new comment