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
 
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: 4220
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What evidence is there that the rule was ever changed to make cut blocking as described illegal and then reversed? Short of any past rule books, it cannot be proven i do not think.
I'm not sure that just because Yanda cut Snack and Steeler players and fans were unhappy that that alone constitutes evidence of a rule change. Again, that is not evidence of a change, that is evidence of an agenda in this era of player safety.

The second part of the bolded is kind of what got me thinking about this. In this era of player safety, it would have been big news if a rule had been altered to allow unsafe, and previously illegal methods of blocking. It may not have been changed, but the simple fact that it has been allowed to exist with that particular wording, in this era - tells me all I need know about the Rules Committee and the NFL's quest for safety.

It's a dirty play when the cut blocker rolls up a guy's leg, and has been considered dirty since the inception of the ZBS that made the technique prominent....but I don't think that, as we've described it above, this technique has ever been illegal....hence I don't think the league has done anything to target any specific type of defense, 2 gap or otherwise. I think there is proof out there, I just can't find it. Why would low blocks in so many other instances, especially in the past, be considered penalties and this not? Why the convoluted wording? Why is this block considered dirty because of it's nature. Finally, why add that special stipulation that the low blocker has to be lined up next to the high blocker? Why is this block not allowed in college and most high schools?


It might not have ever been changed. Teams have always tried to either run through the defense, if they can, or they have tried to run around a Defense. That hasn't changed so you may be right in that regard. But, as far as your conclusion that u - don't think the league has done anything to target any specific type of defense, 2 gap or otherwise - how could there be more evidence, than allowing this type of blocking to exist, when other blocks in this category are penalties, especially in this era of safety?
_________________

Thanks Lyasr 529
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
treat88


Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 6343
PostPosted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SMashMouthMike wrote:
Quote:
What evidence is there that the rule was ever changed to make cut blocking as described illegal and then reversed? Short of any past rule books, it cannot be proven i do not think.
I'm not sure that just because Yanda cut Snack and Steeler players and fans were unhappy that that alone constitutes evidence of a rule change. Again, that is not evidence of a change, that is evidence of an agenda in this era of player safety.

The second part of the bolded is kind of what got me thinking about this. In this era of player safety, it would have been big news if a rule had been altered to allow unsafe, and previously illegal methods of blocking. It may not have been changed, but the simple fact that it has been allowed to exist with that particular wording, in this era - tells me all I need know about the Rules Committee and the NFL's quest for safety.

It's a dirty play when the cut blocker rolls up a guy's leg, and has been considered dirty since the inception of the ZBS that made the technique prominent....but I don't think that, as we've described it above, this technique has ever been illegal....hence I don't think the league has done anything to target any specific type of defense, 2 gap or otherwise. I think there is proof out there, I just can't find it. Why would low blocks in so many other instances, especially in the past, be considered penalties and this not? Why the convoluted wording? Why is this block considered dirty because of it's nature. Finally, why add that special stipulation that the low blocker has to be lined up next to the high blocker? Why is this block not allowed in college and most high schools?


It might not have ever been changed. Teams have always tried to either run through the defense, if they can, or they have tried to run around a Defense. That hasn't changed so you may be right in that regard. But, as far as your conclusion that u - don't think the league has done anything to target any specific type of defense, 2 gap or otherwise - how could there be more evidence, than allowing this type of blocking to exist, when other blocks in this category are penalties, especially in this era of safety?


If it's always been legal...how is the league targeting anything? In fact, if they implement changes to eliminate it are they not specifically favoring 2 gap schemes? I guess I just don't see evidence that new rules about cut blocking have been implemented at all, so I don't see an agenda on the league's part.

I 100% agree that this type of block should be illegal. In fact, an engaged blocker is far more "defenseless" than many players already classified as "defenseless".

Don't get me wrong at all, I am not arguing in favor of this technique. I am just trying to figure out it's legality and respond to those who said the NFL specifically changed the rule recently and extrapolated that to indicate they wanted to eliminate 2 gap systems apparently in the interest of increased scoring.

That's not the point tho, allowing this type of blocking to be legal isn't in specific response to the 2 gap system is the point. As far as I can tell, the league has not implemented any changes so they have done nothing to target any system, team, or style of play is all I'm saying.

If the rule has not changed, and this type of blocking has always existed legally, than the 2 gap has been very successful in the past even with this technique in play.

The question becomes is it being utilized more frequently/effectively currently, or are our players less capable of defending themselves against it? Something has changed, but it doesn't seem to be the rule itself.

If there is proof out there of changes to the cut blocking rules I would love to see it. News reports, coaches comments, player comments...as long as it references a rule change....it doesn't have to be the official rule book. My whole line of thinking here is based off my inability to find any evidence that the rule has changed as many have claimed. I want to figure out what is accurate on this topic.
_________________



"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
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
Page 4 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