New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com (http://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (http://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   change in the rules to efect safety position (http://blackandgold.com/saints/8418-change-rules-efect-safety-position.html)

baronm 04-05-2005 01:29 PM

change in the rules to efect safety position
 
Quote:

unanimously approve stricter rules for safetyBy John Clayton, ESPN.com


KAPALUA, Hawaii -- NFL owners made their stand Wednesday. The theme was safety first, replay change later.

Every recommended safety issue -- with the exception of the so-called "horse-collar" tackles -- passed Wednesday at the owners meeting in Hawaii.

The Competition Committee will rewrite the proposal on the horse-collar tackle, with which Cowboys safety Roy Williams injured four players last season, and submit the re-written proposal for approval at the league's May meeting.

Perhaps the biggest surprise was the failure to approve "down-by-contact" plays on instant replay. The measure failed by four votes. Though 20 teams supported the idea to review those change of possession plays stopped by "inadvertent whistles," there were 12 negative votes.

The ability to review down-by-contact plays might have fixed roughly 20 calls when a fumble wasn't ruled a fumble by a quick whistle. The only change in replay for the 2005 season will be the elimination of the sideline buzzer system, which had been an option for coaches. Starting this season, throwing the red flag will be the only option for coaches who want to review a play.

Rich McKay, co-chairman of the Competition Committee, at first supported the inclusion of the down-by-contact replay in the committee's 8-0 recommendation, but changed his vote Wednesday.

"I changed my vote for one reason," McKay said. "When you looked at this rule as we wrote it, it allowed down by contact, but when you watched the tapes of the play, all the issues that I thought applied to that whistle weren't there. It was very easy to see on tape the fumble."

McKay predicted the committee would look at the change again and it might then have a better chance of passing. Committee member Bill Polian, general manager of the Colts, was actually surprised by how many votes were in favor of the replay change. Typically, it's hard to change replay because there are blocks of votes against the whole concept.

The Cardinals, Bills, Bears and Bengals are always against replay and usually can get some support to block changes. Joining the quartet on the down-by-contact veto were the Browns, Dolphins, Patriots, Saints, Raiders, Chargers, 49ers and Bucs.

"You've not heard the last of this," McKay said of down-by-contact replay. "There was the hope last year when we passed replay [for five years] that we would never have to discuss a replay vote. The traditional non-replay people were against it. I wish [we] would have had more time and I wish we could have watched more tape. So replay will be in place exactly as it was last year except for the elimination of the buzzer."

When it came to safety, though, the NFL was aggressive. Based on last year's statistics, McKay predicted the safety changes could prevent as many as 25 injuries. The changes included:


A "peel back" block in which a blocker gets behind a defender and then delivers a low block from behind will result in a 15-yard penalty. The rule passed 32-0. The better technique is to get the shoulder in front of an opponent's body to give the defender a chance to anticipate the low block. At least a half-dozen players suffered injuries from such blocks.

The definition of unnecessary roughness was broadened to include unnecessary running, diving into, cutting or throwing the body against or on a player who is out of the play. This also passed 32-0. Two plays of note would have been affected by this rule change. First, the 2002 hit by Warren Sapp on Packers offensive lineman Chad Clifton on an interception return would have been considered a 15-yard penalty. Clifton was out of the play, but Sapp delivered a shot that ended his season. The low block by Broncos tackle George Foster on Bengals defensive tackle Tony Williams also would have been affected by this rule change. Foster broke Williams' leg without him having the chance to see the hit.


Punters or kickers will be given the same treatment as quarterbacks in the sense if they are standing still out of the play, they can't take an unnecessary hit. That means no helmet-to-helmet hits such as the one that broke the jaw of Giants punter Jeff Feagles last season. Any such unnecessary hits on a punter or kicker not moving toward the ball will result in a 15-yard penalty.

Meanwhile, language is the only thing holding up a rule to prevent "horse-collar" tackles such as those used by safety Roy Williams of the Cowboys. Williams' tackling tactic involves grabbing the back of a player's shoulder pad, immediately yanking his hand down and then falling on the back of the players' legs. The injured players from Williams hits last year were Tyrone Calico of the Titans, Musa Smith and Jamal Lewis of the Ravens and Terrell Owens of the Eagles.

"There is no question that this rule will be passed in May," McKay said. "We decided today after discussing it that it had plenty of votes to pass. We had some coaches that had concerns about the language. We would like to suggest that we adjust the language."

From the competitive standpoint, there were plenty of minor adjustments. Overall, there were 19 proposals. Thirteen passed.

Many of the new rules were minor:

The offseason waiver period will be shorted from 10 to three days.


The area known as the pocket on offense will only be considered between the tackles. Before, there were two pockets -- from the tackles inside and occasionally out to the tight ends. That now changes to just inside the tackle area.


To prevent repeats of punts, if a player from the kicking team goes out of bounds and then touches the ball inside the opponent's 5, the receiving team has a chance to take the ball at the 20-yard line instead of re-kicking with a five-yard penalty. On the seven offensive fouls on punts, the receiving team can accept a 5-yard penalty instead of getting a re-kick. That is expected to help prevent injuries.


There were two changes involving the clock. First, the play clock won't be reset when play is stopped. For example, if the play is stopped 10 seconds into the 40-second clock for a measurement or some other reason, the play clock had been reset. Now, the time will stay as it was once the play resumes. Also, prior to the two-minute warning, additional timeouts caused by an injured player or for whatever reason won't be granted.

Several team proposals were rejected.

The Chiefs failed twice to change back the illegal contact rules. The Chiefs didn't like a first down automatically being granted for 5-yard penalties for illegal contact. They wanted just the yardage to suffice. That was rejected, 21-11.

The Chiefs also lost on their attempt to make the pass interference rule the same as in college ball, in which 15-yard penalties were granted instead of moving the ball to the spot of the foul. The Chiefs lost that one, 24-8.

The Patriots lost 28-4 on a proposal to prevent rule changes or interpretations by the league or the Competition Committee unless there is a formal vote by the owners. A lot of that was caused by Bill Belichick's protest of a rule adjustment by the league last season involving the stoppage of back-to-back timeouts to ice the kicker.

There was an effort to make the "ice-the-kicker" rule formal, but it was tabled until a later meeting.

John Clayton is a senior writer for ESPN.com.

two questions:
1. how will this effect our offense?
2. how will this effect our defense?

JKool 04-05-2005 01:44 PM

change in the rules to efect safety position
 
Until the formal language of the \"horse-collar\" tackle is set down, it is unclear how this will effect any team (other than Roy Williams, I suppose, since it is designed to prevent what he does).

I imagine, the penalty will be given when the shoulder pads are yanked and then the ball carrier is still struck with the tackler\'s body. Certainly, they will not rule out grabbing the shoulder pads as a permissible tackle - this is a farily standard tackle, and it is already difficult to tackle from behind without incuring some sort of danger to the ball carrier.

Either way, this rule doesn\'t effect only the Safety position. It effects any player who may have to tackle a ball carrier from behind. It certainly won\'t effect our team any more than any other (except the one with Roy Williams, who will have to modify his tackling technique, I suppose).

These rule changes are pretty minor, and won\'t really effect our offense or defense IMO.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:14 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com