Started By
Message
re: New "Aaron Murray" rule protecting QBs
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:17 am to sarc
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:17 am to sarc
So to clear this up, the QB can still be blocked on an INT or fumble return, he just can't be targeted above the shoulders at any point on the return, regardless of whether he is "defenseless", because the QB in this scenario is considered always defenseless. If he is targeted the player is ejected.
For any and all other plays, you can target/hit above the head unless the player is defenseless, which means:
a. player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b. A receiver whose focus is on catching a pass.
c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball.
d. A kick returner whose focus is on catching or recovering a kick in the air.
e. A player on the ground at the end of a play.
f. A player obviously out of the play.
For any and all other plays, you can target/hit above the head unless the player is defenseless, which means:
a. player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.
b. A receiver whose focus is on catching a pass.
c. A kicker in the act of or just after kicking a ball.
d. A kick returner whose focus is on catching or recovering a kick in the air.
e. A player on the ground at the end of a play.
f. A player obviously out of the play.
2
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:30 am to Monticello
My biggest worry in terms of the new ejection rule for targeting is for when defensive players come in for the sack too high and their helmet barely bumps the QB's helmet. That one seems to always get called because the QB flops and raises hell about it. I guess the refs are allowed to look at replay for "conclusive evidence" that the hit to the helmet was not intentional, but I highly doubt it gets overturned much. Gonna be very inconsistent. It's going to be really pathetic seeing star players suspended for SEC and national title games because of inadvertent bumps to the helmet during a sack.
For example, this North Texas player would be ejected for this awesome play on Mettenberger, even though he does not seem to be going after a helmet to helmet hit. It just sort of happened as Mett leaned down to take the hit.
LINK
For example, this North Texas player would be ejected for this awesome play on Mettenberger, even though he does not seem to be going after a helmet to helmet hit. It just sort of happened as Mett leaned down to take the hit.
LINK
Posted on 7/22/13 at 11:57 am to Monticello
I'm not real crazy about all the new rules, either. Personally it could have been covered by unnecessary roughness. When you are on the field you have precious little time to run down a laundry list of situations and then decide whether you can hit someone or not.
I feel it was a bad hit on Murray because it was away from the play, he was not making a true effort to get to the play. There were other Georgia players moving faster toward the play that Dial could have tried to block. Guessing..the defensive coordinator made an issue that Murray was going to beat Alabama all week, trying to get his guys pumped up for the game, and it was payback time for Alabama's D. I've seen it happen before. Nothing wrong with it...but (In my opinion) Dial was wrong. Should have been 15 yard unnecessary roughness penalty and play resumed.
I feel it was a bad hit on Murray because it was away from the play, he was not making a true effort to get to the play. There were other Georgia players moving faster toward the play that Dial could have tried to block. Guessing..the defensive coordinator made an issue that Murray was going to beat Alabama all week, trying to get his guys pumped up for the game, and it was payback time for Alabama's D. I've seen it happen before. Nothing wrong with it...but (In my opinion) Dial was wrong. Should have been 15 yard unnecessary roughness penalty and play resumed.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News