Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Hood's injury and the play
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Pittsburgh Steelers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SMashMouthMike


Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 4233
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
A chop block is a foul by the offense in which one offensive player (designated as A1 for
purposes of this rule) blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower while another offensive
player (A2) occupies that same defensive player in one of the circumstances described in subsections (1)
through (10) below.
CHOP BLOCK ON PASS (ENGAGEMENT)
(1) On a forward pass play, A1 chops a defensive player while the defensive player is physically engaged
above the waist by the blocking attempt of A2.
CHOP BLOCK ON PASS (AFTER ENGAGEMENT)
(2) On a forward pass play in which A2 physically engages a defensive player above the waist with a
blocking attempt, A1 chops the defensive player after the contact by A2 has been broken and while
A2 is still confronting the defensive player.
CHOP BLOCK ON PASS (WITH “LURE”)
(3) On a forward pass play, A1 chops a defensive player while A2 confronts the defensive player in a
pass-blocking posture but is not physically engaged with the defensive player (a “lure”).
REVERSE CHOP BLOCK ON PASS
(4) On a forward pass play, A1 blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower, and A2,



simultaneously or immediately after the block by A1, engages the defensive player high.
Note: Each of the above circumstances in subsections (1) through (4), which describes a chop-block foul on a
forward-pass play, also applies on a play in which an offensive player indicates an apparent attempt to
pass block but the play ultimately becomes a run.
(5) On a running play, A1 is lined up in the backfield at the snap and subsequently chops a defensive
player engaged above the waist by A2, and such block occurs on or behind the line of scrimmage in
an area extending laterally to the positions originally occupied by the tight end on either side.
CHOP BLOCK ON RUN (BY A LINEMAN)
(6) On a running play, A1, an offensive lineman, chops a defensive player after the defensive player has
been engaged by A2 (high or low), and the initial alignment of A2 is more than one position away from
A1. This rule applies only when the block occurs at a time when the flow of the play is clearly away

from A1.


Something invented like this can be legal and still not be "good" imo.
_________________

Thanks Lyasr 529
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
at23steelers


Joined: 05 Mar 2011
Posts: 3721
Location: United States
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SMashMouthMike wrote:
It's a bad rule, that is exactly what I mean.

'Good no call' implies that there was no intentional harm, no foul, no unfair advantage gained. Tell that to Ziggy. The special circumstances that were introduced into the rule book by a biased rules committee to make this play legal here, and illegal everywhere else is what I take issue with. Moreover, regardless of what the rulebook says, that play is inherently dangerous. THAT is why it illegal everywhere else. So, it's legal just because of who performed the combo block, not that this kind of block is dangerous because of its nature? Only a lawyer and biased rules committee could invent such a rule. Ill try to dig it up.

I don't have a problem with there not being a flag thrown here. I wouldn't characterize as a "good No call" because it is an agenda driven rule, dangerous, and silly in the context of the player safety drivel the league is throwing at us.


I never stated my opinion on the rule. By the rule book, the ref made the right call. Not sure how anyone could disagree with that. Should the rule be changed? Absolutely, but people who are yelling at the refs for stuff that they follow by the rulebook is uncalled for. Fix the rulebook in those circumstances, not the refs. The refs are paid to follow the rulebook, not make up their own rules where they think it's needed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JustPlainNasty


Joined: 11 Feb 2008
Posts: 7090
Location: Las Vegas
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's disgusting that it is legal. It should be at the top of the leagues concerns and the competition committee if there really was concern for player safety and injuries.

The NFLPA should also be screaming about this.

Something that has been pointed out to them several times and is such an easy fix.

It does effect our team more than most, we should be bringing it up in every forum we have an opportunity. Like tweeting it every day to all the NFL shows, radio shows etc. Just an idea rather than just bitching about it.
_________________
Dcash4 wrote:


...you have a forum resume?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ghengis Graz


Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 1905
Location: Gettysburg
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

at23steelers wrote:
SMashMouthMike wrote:
It's a bad rule, that is exactly what I mean.

'Good no call' implies that there was no intentional harm, no foul, no unfair advantage gained. Tell that to Ziggy. The special circumstances that were introduced into the rule book by a biased rules committee to make this play legal here, and illegal everywhere else is what I take issue with. Moreover, regardless of what the rulebook says, that play is inherently dangerous. THAT is why it illegal everywhere else. So, it's legal just because of who performed the combo block, not that this kind of block is dangerous because of its nature? Only a lawyer and biased rules committee could invent such a rule. Ill try to dig it up.

I don't have a problem with there not being a flag thrown here. I wouldn't characterize as a "good No call" because it is an agenda driven rule, dangerous, and silly in the context of the player safety drivel the league is throwing at us.


I never stated my opinion on the rule. By the rule book, the ref made the right call. Not sure how anyone could disagree with that. Should the rule be changed? Absolutely, but people who are yelling at the refs for stuff that they follow by the rulebook is uncalled for. Fix the rulebook in those circumstances, not the refs. The refs are paid to follow the rulebook, not make up their own rules where they think it's needed.


this
_________________
Stay thirsty my friends.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jcm412


Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 3416
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We have to realize, Goodel does not give a crap about player safety. He makes it seem like he does bc he is preparing to fight the lawsuit tht is coming. He is a lawyer and thinks like a lawyer. It's all about avoiding the concusion law suits. He need evidence that sayd They tryd to do something. Everything else that doesn't have a consequence for he doesn't care.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jebrick


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 7876
Location: Indianapolis
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As has been pointed out by me since last year, this rule effects 2-gap far more than 1 gap. For all the talk about adjusting with the linemen that Tomlin and LeBeau said it kills the Steelers system ( the only NFL team running 2-gap as it's base). Linemen can not hold position and read-and-react if they are moving backwards because they are trying to protect their knees.

The Steelers need to switch to a 1-gap or get the rule changed. The NFL will not change it because it is put in place to kill the 2-gap system.
_________________

"You build with draft choices. You find people with talents adaptable to your plans and then you teach them to do things the way we do them." - Chuck Noll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
treat88


Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 6347
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jebrick wrote:
As has been pointed out by me since last year, this rule effects 2-gap far more than 1 gap. For all the talk about adjusting with the linemen that Tomlin and LeBeau said it kills the Steelers system ( the only NFL team running 2-gap as it's base). Linemen can not hold position and read-and-react if they are moving backwards because they are trying to protect their knees.

The Steelers need to switch to a 1-gap or get the rule changed. The NFL will not change it because it is put in place to kill the 2-gap system.


I agree generally but, what is the impetus for the NFL's motives regarding the bolded portion?

Why do they want to kill the 2 gap system?
_________________



"Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
armsteeld


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 3474
Location: In your head
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

treat88 wrote:
jebrick wrote:
As has been pointed out by me since last year, this rule effects 2-gap far more than 1 gap. For all the talk about adjusting with the linemen that Tomlin and LeBeau said it kills the Steelers system ( the only NFL team running 2-gap as it's base). Linemen can not hold position and read-and-react if they are moving backwards because they are trying to protect their knees.

The Steelers need to switch to a 1-gap or get the rule changed. The NFL will not change it because it is put in place to kill the 2-gap system.


I agree generally but, what is the impetus for the NFL's motives regarding the bolded portion?

Why do they want to kill the 2 gap system?


Because our defense was so lethal against the run and we are a hated team Cool Everyone knows we (steelers and ownership) are completely against Goodell and his henchmen. Therefore they have constantly attacked the way that our defense plays and then they decided to attack our style rather than our players. Is a subtle but extremely effective way of telling us who is in charge.
_________________




"Sheep follow the flock for direction and security but scatter at the sight of the lone wolf". Rocky
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jebrick


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 7876
Location: Indianapolis
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

treat88 wrote:
jebrick wrote:
As has been pointed out by me since last year, this rule effects 2-gap far more than 1 gap. For all the talk about adjusting with the linemen that Tomlin and LeBeau said it kills the Steelers system ( the only NFL team running 2-gap as it's base). Linemen can not hold position and read-and-react if they are moving backwards because they are trying to protect their knees.

The Steelers need to switch to a 1-gap or get the rule changed. The NFL will not change it because it is put in place to kill the 2-gap system.


I agree generally but, what is the impetus for the NFL's motives regarding the bolded portion?

Why do they want to kill the 2 gap system?


i do not think it was anti-Steelers but it is anti-2-gap. 2-gap, when played effectively, kills the running game.

Can you name another reason to reinstate a style of blocking that was done away with for player safety? Do not even tell me that they had no idea that this type of blocking could injury players. The rule is to create a cut back lane for the RB at the cost of a DL's knees.
_________________

"You build with draft choices. You find people with talents adaptable to your plans and then you teach them to do things the way we do them." - Chuck Noll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stillersenat


Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 10586
Location: In over my head.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jebrick wrote:
treat88 wrote:
jebrick wrote:
As has been pointed out by me since last year, this rule effects 2-gap far more than 1 gap. For all the talk about adjusting with the linemen that Tomlin and LeBeau said it kills the Steelers system ( the only NFL team running 2-gap as it's base). Linemen can not hold position and read-and-react if they are moving backwards because they are trying to protect their knees.

The Steelers need to switch to a 1-gap or get the rule changed. The NFL will not change it because it is put in place to kill the 2-gap system.


I agree generally but, what is the impetus for the NFL's motives regarding the bolded portion?

Why do they want to kill the 2 gap system?


i do not think it was anti-Steelers but it is anti-2-gap. 2-gap, when played effectively, kills the running game.

Can you name another reason to reinstate a style of blocking that was done away with for player safety? Do not even tell me that they had no idea that this type of blocking could injury players. The rule is to create a cut back lane for the RB at the cost of a DL's knees.


Good point 'brick. I would bring this up in NFL General, but I would be accused of crying since it is a Steelers (mostly) concerning issue.
_________________


Any escape might help to smooth the unattractive truth but the suburbs have no charms to soothe the restless dreams of youth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jebrick


Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 7876
Location: Indianapolis
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will complain about it until the NFL changes it or the Steelers adapt. Neither is happening right now.
_________________

"You build with draft choices. You find people with talents adaptable to your plans and then you teach them to do things the way we do them." - Chuck Noll
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
treat88


Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 6347
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jebrick wrote:
treat88 wrote:
jebrick wrote:
As has been pointed out by me since last year, this rule effects 2-gap far more than 1 gap. For all the talk about adjusting with the linemen that Tomlin and LeBeau said it kills the Steelers system ( the only NFL team running 2-gap as it's base). Linemen can not hold position and read-and-react if they are moving backwards because they are trying to protect their knees.

The Steelers need to switch to a 1-gap or get the rule changed. The NFL will not change it because it is put in place to kill the 2-gap system.


I agree generally but, what is the impetus for the NFL's motives regarding the bolded portion?

Why do they want to kill the 2 gap system?


i do not think it was anti-Steelers but it is anti-2-gap. 2-gap, when played effectively, kills the running game.

Can you name another reason to reinstate a style of blocking that was done away with for player safety? Do not even tell me that they had no idea that this type of blocking could injury players. The rule is to create a cut back lane for the RB at the cost of a DL's knees.


No. I can't think of any reason to create this rule.

In fact, there was no intent to debate the point. Honest question.

But, the question still stands. Why does the NFL want to create running lanes at the expense of potential player injury? What was the impetus for the rule change? Why does the league want to neuter a system that shuts down the run effectively? What is the NFL's angle on this one?

I truly don't get it.

I cannot think of one valid reason to change a rule to make this type of block legal in an era where player safety in the mantra....was there ever actially a change in cut blocking/chop blocking rules?

Does anyone have a link to when the actual rule change was passed?
_________________



"Reputation is what other people know about you. Honor is what you know about yourself."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kethnaab


Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 9280
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

making it tougher to stop the run means teams have to dedicate more resources to the run game

doing so opens up the passing game, resulting in more points.

more points >>> less points in ole' Roge's NFL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 60955
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with those saying the rule should be changed back to you can't block below the waste at all if a player is engaged with another blocker.

It is very hypocritical of the league to allow this type of block and talk how they promote player safety as others have said.
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
—Days until: NFL Draft 14; Training camp 90; Kickoff 183
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
turtle28


Joined: 21 Nov 2007
Posts: 60955
Location: MD/DC/VA depends on the hr!
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with those saying the rule should be changed back to you can't block below the waste at all if a player is engaged with another blocker.

It is very hypocritical of the league to allow this type of block and talk how they promote player safety as others have said.
_________________
RIP SSFmike23md
Quote:
—Days until: NFL Draft 14; Training camp 90; Kickoff 183
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Pittsburgh Steelers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group