From the Rules Committee Meeting

[Rulesman]

This is the beginning of the end.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7559458/cte-concussion-crisis-economic-look-end-football

THAT is an eye-opener.

The line that really got my attention was the reference to 40% of 1983 Fortune 500 companies no longer exist. 

[Osric Pureheart]

So why are we banning onside kicks, exactly?

[NVFOA_Ump]

THAT is an eye-opener.

The line that really got my attention was the reference to 40% of 1983 Fortune 500 companies no longer exist. 

I believe that the facts show that statement is incorrect, or at best very misleading.  Many, if not most of those "40% of 1983 Fortune 500 companies no longer exist", are in reality just part of the inane merger and  spin-off world.  In reality most of them are still in business under some other name or in some other form - they still exist.  A significant number of them are customers of the company that I've worked for since long before 1983, and are still our customers - just with a different name, logo, or parent company.

And I have no problem with the attention paid to the concussion problem, and the major impact it can have over a lifetime.  In my opinion, any rules changes made that help minimize and/or remove the concussion risk only make sense and have to be implemented.

[zebra99]

 "Before a change of team possession any Team A player who is beyond the neutral zone may not block below the waist toward his own goal line, at any angle with a line parallel to the goal line."

So why am I having problems with the wording of this one?  What is the precise meaning of "...at any angle with a line parallel to the goal line" which appears to be in addition to "...toward his own goal line"?

Is it the same as saying "at any angle towards the LOS extended"?

[TxSkyBolt]

Draw a line parallel to the GL.  Now draw any other line through it other than a straight line towards the opponents GL.  Those all form angles to the paralleled line right?  Those are now illegal. In simpler terms, only blocks straight ahead towards your opponents GL will be legal beyond the LOS.

Best regards,

Brad

[zebra99]

Draw a line parallel to the GL.  Now draw any other line through it other than a straight line towards the opponents GL.  Those all form angles to the paralleled line right?  Those are now illegal. In simpler terms, only blocks straight ahead towards your opponents GL will be legal beyond the LOS.

straight ahead to the opponents GL?  Do you mean towards to that GL extended indefinitely?

Back to basic geometry - imagine a compass with the blocker right in the middle with north being exactly at the top of the compass - which direction degrees wise west or east can he block?

[NVFOA_Ump]

..... only blocks straight ahead towards your opponents GL will be legal beyond the LOS.

Best regards,

Brad

Aren't we interchanging goal lines here?  Doesn't the section in question references B's goal line (opponents goal line), not A's goal line?  Wouldn't the language be a lot clearer if we stayed with the conventional team A or B terminology?

[TxSkyBolt]

Anything off of zero degrees would be illegal beyond the LOS. 

[zebra99]

Anything off of zero degrees would be illegal beyond the LOS.

wow!  That's what I'm afraid of - essentially, if true, you can't block low unless you're face to face with your opponent both looking straight ahead and both lined up exactly north-south to each other.  Is that right?

In reality there will be hardly any pure legal blocks by A beyond the line, once more a burden on officials - why not just entirely eliminate low blocks by A beyond the line?

[ref6983]

This is an attempt to eliminate the peelback block. Basically, an offensive player beyond the line can't block low if the direction of the block is back toward Team A's goal line. I believe this verbiage is just inferring that it doesn't matter at what angle contact is made, as long as the direction of the blocker's body is toward Team A's goal line, then it is a foul.

If the direction of the blocker is parallel to or toward Team B's goal line, then restrictions are based on the rest of the BBW rule.

I think.

[zebra99]

This is an attempt to eliminate the peelback block. Basically, an offensive player beyond the line can't block low if the direction of the block is back toward Team A's goal line. I believe this verbiage is just inferring that it doesn't matter at what angle contact is made, as long as the direction of the blocker's body is toward Team A's goal line, then it is a foul.

If the direction of the blocker is parallel to or toward Team B's goal line, then restrictions are based on the rest of the BBW rule.

I think.

That's what I originally thought but TxSkybolt has a much more restriction interpretation.

[Atlanta Blue]

why not just entirely eliminate low blocks by A beyond the line?

That's the answer I wish they would have proscribed.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Anything off of zero degrees would be illegal beyond the LOS.

If the block is in the direction of B's goal line yes.  Again, I believe that the wording is different if the block is in the direction of A's goal line.  There's clearly two different sections in the proposed wording changes, one for each direction.

[Etref]

Anything off of zero degrees would be illegal beyond the LOS. 

If he blocks straight ahead he would be 90 degrees from the line parallel to the GL.........

[Arbitrator]

That's the answer I wish they would have proscribed.

 

If the Rules Committee and the plurality of Coaches have an ounce of intelligence, they'll vote to ban BBW both behind and beyond the LOS tackle box.

The funny thing about all of these rule change suggestions is that they all seemed to come under the mantra of providing player safety. The possible abolition of BBW is being scorned in some coaching circles as being little more than attempting to "woosify" the game. But what they fail to add to that is "at whose expense?" I'm sure that if you were to interview those unfortunate folks that got taken out by one of those blocks and had their playing careers subsequently ended over it, that they would tell you a far different story than the handful of coaches that want to keep the rule intact. Wouldn't it be far better just to err in the eye of safety than it would be to keep a somewhat violent blocking technique employed in the game just to satisfy those bloodthirsty "oohs and aahs" that emanate from the bleachers upon seeing one of those hits?  And added to that that it would ultimately make the job of officiating football, particularly in regard to that aspect of the game, just a little bit easier. 

[TxSkyBolt]

That comment was a reply to Z99 who said: "Back to basic geometry - imagine a compass with the blocker right in the middle with north being exactly at the top of the compass - which direction degrees wise west or east can he block? "

Best regards,

Brad

[Welpe]

It seems that slowly but surely we are getting towards an NFHS type restriction on blocking below the waist. I wish they'd quit monkeying with it so much but perhaps we will finally get there in a few years.

Hopefully this will be easier to officiate than it was last year.

[Magician]

It seems that slowly but surely we are getting towards an NFHS type restriction on blocking below the waist. I wish they'd quit monkeying with it so much but perhaps we will finally get there in a few years.

Hopefully this will be easier to officiate than it was last year.

This is what Rogers wants.  He has to work with the coaches on the rules committee though and they are resistent.  It appears he makes a little progress each year.

[Joe Stack]

Even though it is a non-rules change year as part of the two-year cycle process

This is just the dumbest thing anyone has done. This make the intentional foul rule in basketball -- intentional doesn't have anything to do with intent -- look like it makes sense. Why the hell do you put in rules for 2 years then amend them every year anyway?