Please explain this NFL (National Flag League) rule about a defensless receiver....

[dillyyo1972]

I fail to see how Cruz was not considered a defenseless receiver. The only thing I can think of is that the catch wasn't the cleanest catch, though I'd have to see the replay and see if and when the ball moved in his hands. If that is the reason, if he caught it cleanly would that have then been considered a defenseless receiver. Seems stupid that if the intent is to prevent a receiver from being hit before he can make the catch and a football move, that they would allow it if the ball shifts in a receivers hand.

On a side note, did Victor get less time for the rest of the game? Don't recall seeing him so much.

[Hassett00]

Because it was a clean hit. Had he missed the ball and that got flattened like that, then maybe a flag might of been thrown. IT was just an all round great hit by Sensebaugh. I think it was by him anyway.

If you look at the play where Rolle got injured. He was flying in and had he connected with Brynt that would of drawn a flag for hitting a defenseless receiver.

Hopefully this link might offer some clarification on defenseless receivers for you.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/27/nfl-attempts-to-clarify-the-defenseless-player-rules/

[dillyyo1972]

Because it was a clean hit. Had he missed the ball and that got flattened like that, then maybe a flag might of been thrown. IT was just an all round great hit by Sensebaugh. I think it was by him anyway.

If you look at the play where Rolle got injured. He was flying in and had he connected with Brynt that would of drawn a flag for hitting a defenseless receiver.

Hopefully this link might offer some clarification on defenseless receivers for you.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/27/nfl-attempts-to-clarify-the-defenseless-player-rules/

“It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.
(a) Players in a defenseless posture are: [. . .]
(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;
[. . .]

I fail to see how the play does not qualify as the rule above states. Was Cruz attempting to catch a pass....yes. Did Cruz complete a catch...potentially, depending if the ball was moving in his hands just prior to the hit. Plus, he was in the air and could not make a football move until his feet would hit the ground and he took a step.

This needs to be answered....

[Eliscruzzz]

You know what play was bs the penalty on Hosley when Tuck got the sack that was bs.

[bearbryant]

There were a lot of crap calls in that game. Just because we went up by 23 points may have had something to do with that! Sad but might be true. I watch about 5 or 6 plays where NY got fouled and it wasn't called but same play on dallas and bingo: penalty. Lots of BS calls today.

You know what play was bs the penalty on Hosley when Tuck got the sack that was bs.

[dillyyo1972]

Think I'm going to have to submit this play into Mike P. for feedback on the rules. This seems like a BS call to me, unless it's as I initially stated, which only makes today's football even more like flag football.

[BlueSanta]

It was a clean hit, he did not launch himself or lead with his helmet.


Rolle on the other hand, had he connected with that sidelinne play that injured him would have received 15 yards, a fine from the league, and an injury because he absolutely launched himself and even led with his helm a bit.

[dillyyo1972]

It was a clean hit, he did not launch himself or lead with his helmet.


Rolle on the other hand, had he connected with that sidelinne play that injured him would have received 15 yards, a fine from the league, and an injury because he absolutely launched himself and even led with his helm a bit.

I have no idea what you are referring to. How the defender initiates the tackle is not relevant to the rule I am talking about. The rule is in an above post and I don't see how it doesn't qualify. Over the last few years I have seen hits later than what happened to Cruz and they were called hitting a defenseless receiver. The rule is in place to stop defenders from breaking the ball from the receiver while in the air.

[BlueSanta]

I have no idea what you are referring to. How the defender initiates the tackle is not relevant to the rule I am talking about. The rule is in an above post and I don't see how it doesn't qualify. Over the last few years I have seen hits later than what happened to Cruz and they were called hitting a defenseless receiver. The rule is in place to stop defenders from breaking the ball from the receiver while in the air.

I am not sure what confuses you. It is quite simple.

The rules state you can tackle a defenseless player such as a reciever. But the rule also states you cannot initiate "unnecessary contact" vs a defenseless player. Launching yourself is deemed unnecessary as is using the crown of your helmet or hitting the head or neck area of a defenseless player.

The rule is worded in a silly way I do agree. But, I do not think the defender did anything wrong on the Cruz play. He did not launch himself(not leave his feet) he did not got for Cruz's head or neck. I have seen plays where hits like that are penalized(the Curtis Lofton MNF one from a few weeks ago.) However, I didnt like it being called then and I wouldnt like it being called now, even if it is against Cruz.

In fact, offenses need to take responsiblity for some of this too. If you run slants into safeties or LBs these types of hits will occur. I remember back in the 80's, Bill Walsh the true innovator of the West Coast offense, and 1st guy to prominantly use slant routes stated that is was irresponsible and reckless to player safety to run a slant route vs most zone defenses. He would also blame his QBs when they led a wr into a defender, not the defender for trying to make a play.

The Rolle play ABSOLUTELY would have been a penalty and possibly an ejection had he made contact. 1) he launched himself 2) he lowered his head 3) he went high. Had he made contact, that would have been a disaster for us.

[dillyyo1972]

I am not sure what confuses you. It is quite simple.

The rules state you can tackle a defenseless player such as a reciever. But the rule also states you cannot initiate "unnecessary contact" vs a defenseless player. Launching yourself is deemed unnecessary as is using the crown of your helmet or hitting the head or neck area of a defenseless player.

The rule is worded in a silly way I do agree. But, I do not think the defender did anything wrong on the Cruz play. He did not launch himself(not leave his feet) he did not got for Cruz's head or neck. I have seen plays where hits like that are penalized(the Curtis Lofton MNF one from a few weeks ago.) However, I didnt like it being called then and I wouldnt like it being called now, even if it is against Cruz.

In fact, offenses need to take responsiblity for some of this too. If you run slants into safeties or LBs these types of hits will occur. I remember back in the 80's, Bill Walsh the true innovator of the West Coast offense, and 1st guy to prominantly use slant routes stated that is was irresponsible and reckless to player safety to run a slant route vs most zone defenses. He would also blame his QBs when they led a wr into a defender, not the defender for trying to make a play.

The Rolle play ABSOLUTELY would have been a penalty and possibly an ejection had he made contact. 1) he launched himself 2) he lowered his head 3) he went high. Had he made contact, that would have been a disaster for us.

My issue is that no where in the rule does it stipulate anything about the way the defender tackles. As far as I have understood this BS rule since it's been in place is that the receiver needs to be given time in order to allow facilitation of the catch. Essentially eliminating hits, any hit, that attempts to separate the ball from the receiver until he is able to make a football move. Aikman even made a comment about if Cruz would have made the catch better he could have drawn a penalty but they never elaborated on it.

I have seen plays in the last couple of years where a receiver has gone up for a ball and was hit while not being allowed to come down and a flag was thrown under this rule. I know Rolle would have gotten such a foul because he was defenseless, just as Cruz up in the air was defenseless. The point about the 80's is irrelevant because such a lame rule wasn't present in the past.