Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
RedRamage

Blindside Block... I do not like this new rule...

Recommended Posts

Okay, first off, please read this story:  https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2019/8/21/20826925/oday-aboushi-blindside-block-rule-clarification-detroit-lions

It's important to understand the new rule and how it's applies and why the NFL is doing it.

I understand a desire to make the game safer and I'm generally in favor of that even if it at times does seem to "wussify" the game.  And honestly I get why the NFL is trying to do here... blocks where the opposing player can't see them coming can be quite shocking.  But, the way this rule is implemented just doesn't make sense.

The block in question here isn't what one would normally worry about as a "blindside" type block.  Yes, the OL man was going towards his own endzone, but he was completely squared up on the defender who was going almost directly towards his own endzone.  This was no more of blind side block than if the two were facing each other across the line of scrimmage.

Now, as the author of the article states, the NFL did foresee situations where OL and DL could get turned around... a fast rushing getting behind the line and the OL needs to turn to block him... but they only allowed for this within 3-yards of the line of scrimmage!  This doesn't make any sense... many of these times where an OL will have to turn around to intercept a defender will be beyond that three yards.  Even a short  three-step drop for a QB will be almost to that limit meaning the OL would have to go outside those three yards if he needed to block a DL man.

It's asking blockers, especially in the scrum of the lines attacking and defending the QB, to have to determine where they are, if they are pointed the wrong way, if they are inside or outside of a certain yardage.  Further, it makes certain blocks that would normally be 100% safe (or as safe as any football collision can be), logical, and straight forward and makes 'em illegal.  It also seems to means that a "blindside block" where the player being blocked doesn't seen the block would be legal if the blocker was point at least somewhat towards the opposing goal.

It seems to me that instead of this:

“It is a foul if a player initiates a block when his path is toward or parallel to his own end line and makes forcible contact to his opponent with his helmet, forearm, or shoulder.”



It should be this:

It is a foul if a player initiates a block when his path of attack is behind an imaginary line drawn through the shoulders of his opponent and makes forcible contact to his opponent with his helmet, forearm, or shoulder.

In short, if you're coming at the opponent from his "blindside" (ie, he can't reasonably be expected to see you coming) you can't lay him out by slamming your shoulder or helmet or forearms into him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I see it as a safety issue too. I don't like it and you are correct, there are times when it doesn't make sense to call it.

Another rule that is for safety reasons is the defenseless receiver penalty. For years, backfield defenders were taught to do whatever they had to do in order to separate a receiver from the ball. The NFL even sold videos of "The NFLs Greatest Hits". Up until the players started filing lawsuits. But come on, it's football. A receiver going across the middle used to know they were going to get hammered. Not anymore, they don't have that same fear. It seems like all the newer rules are slanted in favor of the offenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t find a defender that is under-talented and out of position hammering a receiver entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sagnam said:

I don’t find a defender that is under-talented and out of position hammering a receiver entertaining.

Separate the receiver from the ball. That was always taught until the rules changed. Many receivers developed "alligator arms" going over the middle to catch a ball. The NFL loves offense, every game would be a 48-42 score if they had their way. I like defensive battles. But yeah, nobody wants to see players seriously injured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That playoff game a couple years ago where the Vikings won on that miracle reception I blame on that defenseless receiver rule.  The safety completely whiffed on the WR, not because the safety wasn't in position but because he was scared of getting a penalty called on so he became too cautious and held up hitting him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

That playoff game a couple years ago where the Vikings won on that miracle reception I blame on that defenseless receiver rule.  The safety completely whiffed on the WR, not because the safety wasn't in position but because he was scared of getting a penalty called on so he became too cautious and held up hitting him. 

The game has changed, that's for sure. I guess they need to protect the players from injury because of the lawsuits and the huge money they pay them. We all know they've been trying to protect the big-name quarterbacks, which is necessary. I just wish they would give the defenses some breaks because it seems like most of these rule changes favor the offenses. But I guess these rule changes are necessary because the players are bigger, faster and hit harder than they did years ago. I'm not a fan of the replay of pass interference.  It will slow the game down way too much. Maybe just get rid of the blind referees who miss obvious calls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that many of the rules seem to benefit the offense these days.

As for replay, I think the biggest problem is that it's not being used as it was originally intended.  Replay was supposed to be for those plays where it was pretty clear that the officials blew the call.  I don't think it was ever intended to see if a player's foot was 3.7 millimeters out of bounds or if the ball carrier dropped the ball 1/2 a inch before his knee hit the ground.

To me, replay should be: "Oh yeah, that call was way blown... sorry 'bout that, let's reverse it."  Instead it's become: "Hmm... from this angle it appears that knee ISN'T touching the blade of grass... but from the other angle it does appear that it might be... Can we see if his finger tips are still on the ball after that blade of grass if moved?  Let's see if we can get a fifth angle on it..."

Unfortunately, I don't know if there is a way to fix it.  As cameras get better and we get more angles, fans are gonna complain about nitpicky "maybes" instead of being willing to accept: "Okay, the play on the field stands unless there is a way obvious evidence that it's wrong."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RedRamage said:

I agree that many of the rules seem to benefit the offense these days.

As for replay, I think the biggest problem is that it's not being used as it was originally intended.  Replay was supposed to be for those plays where it was pretty clear that the officials blew the call.  I don't think it was ever intended to see if a player's foot was 3.7 millimeters out of bounds or if the ball carrier dropped the ball 1/2 a inch before his knee hit the ground.

To me, replay should be: "Oh yeah, that call was way blown... sorry 'bout that, let's reverse it."  Instead it's become: "Hmm... from this angle it appears that knee ISN'T touching the blade of grass... but from the other angle it does appear that it might be... Can we see if his finger tips are still on the ball after that blade of grass if moved?  Let's see if we can get a fifth angle on it..."

Unfortunately, I don't know if there is a way to fix it.  As cameras get better and we get more angles, fans are gonna complain about nitpicky "maybes" instead of being willing to accept: "Okay, the play on the field stands unless there is a way obvious evidence that it's wrong."

Maybe penalize teams more for calling for a replay and losing? A 5 or 10 yard penalty? And have the play monitored at a central office. We all see the replay from several angles while the zebras are still setting up their communication devices. Maybe...just give them a cell phone? Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

Maybe penalize teams more for calling for a replay and losing? A 5 or 10 yard penalty? And have the play monitored at a central office. We all see the replay from several angles while the zebras are still setting up their communication devices. Maybe...just give them a cell phone? Lol

I dunno... I hate to penalize for a lost review because sometimes I think it does come down to a judgement call and the refs can be wrong... but I suppose we're already penalizing to some level because of loss of timeout.

And really if it was just the coaches challenges, I don't know that it would be a big deal.  I mean, at max that's 6 challenges a game.  If we did have central monitoring, held it to a strict 2 minutes of review time, and eliminated many of the "automatic" reviews to just those were it's questionable, and maybe limit those to 30 seconds.

I also hate the official review in the final two minutes.  Just let the coaches be able to challenge during that time and don't treat it any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,709
    • Total Posts
      2,929,192
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...