A general football question: If someone is an ineligible receiver, is there any circumstance where they could legally handle the ball, besides a fumble? For example, can the QB pass laterally to an ineligible receiver, or hand it off to him? A followup question: Red team QB throws a pass, red team receiver catches it, then fumbles it into the air. Red team ineligible receiver catches it before it hits the ground...is the ball in play?
From Wikipedia: So, based on that it would seem that an ineligible receiver can receive a lateral or take a handoff. As to your second question, persuming the ineligible receiver is still ineligible when he catches it (such as being downfield at the time; I couldn't find any exact ruling on this) the ball would be dead if he caught it. However, if he was behind the line of scrimmage when he caught the ball after it was deflected by an eligible receiver then it's a legal catch and he can advance with it.
No, once an eligible player catches the ball, it's fair game for anyone on the field - even if it's a lineman down field. Think about a screen play; a play like that involves a lot of timing, because the lineman have to get down field to block, but they can't be so far that they're flagged for a penalty. But once the offensive player catches it, they can go wherever they want. And if he happened to fumble the ball (or cough it into the air, whatever), they could pick it up.
There has been a ton of chatter about the hit on DeSean Jackson. Announcers saying how can we stop this? ANSWER- You can't it's fucking football. The other answer is don't have rookie quarterbacks throw lofty passes that lead to impending doom. I love the Eagles but I don't think the d-back should have been penalized.
If the NFL really wanted to do something about it, they would start fining the QB's who hang guys out to dry instead of the defensive players who are just doing their job.
Your response doesn't quite answer his question all the way, because he's asking if an eligible receiver catches the ball, thus completing the pass, then fumbles it into the air to which it is scooped up by an ineligible receiver before it hits the ground. The answer to this is that it would be legal, since technically a). the ball was caught, the pass is over and thus the rules for eligible receivers no longer apply while the ball is being advanced down field, therefore b). once the ball is fumbled anyone on either team can take possession of the ball, whether or not the ball touches the ground (because the ground did not cause the fumble and the ball carrier has lost possession of the ball while it's airborne). Every rule concerning an "ineligible receiver" is no longer applicable after the pass is completed. The only rules that are then applied is that you can't attempt a second forward pass. Therefore to answer your first question, every rule concerning eligible receivers applies only to the forward pass. So as long as the ball isn't being passed forward, an ineligible receiver can catch the ball, because it's not a forward pass. Does that make sense?
This is a better explanation than I gave, but I just wanted to clarify something I mentioned but didn't explain clearly. To my knowledge, if an ineligible receiver is downfield illegally during the pass it doesn't matter what else happens because the entire play will be nullified, barring the defense declining the penalty.
This is pretty nonsensical to me. There is literally no reason in this day and age, with all the research done on concussions, for the defender to lead with his helmet for that kind of tackle. That's the type of behavior that needs to be corrected, and if that means a suspension for Dunta Robinson so be it. It's not a DB's job to knock people unconscious, their job is to make tackles.
Are we changing the definition of a tackle? He was running straight at the guy full speed! What was he supposed to do, hit the brakes, tap him on the shoulder, give him a bear hug and tickle him to the ground? Maybe give him some milk and cookies before tucking him in? Spearing I can agree is not cool, but that was just a hell of a collision. We're talking about a game played at full speed, and there's no better illustration I've ever seen than that. Fuck this shit, it's gonna happen. The BEST way to do it, is put them back in these and see how it goes.
There will always be collisions, there will always be injuries and there will always be people on both sides of this argument. Football has been played in the same basic manner it is currently for fucking years. Back when the uniforms were similar to what Dave posted, there were no where near the rules, knowledge and equipment in place to help minimize any possible permeant injury on the field. They can fine, suspend, all the shit they've already been trying. There are reasons it doesn't work. Sure some players are known for their "mean streak" or just plain being a "badass", the steps put in place to evaluate and determine if any further action should be taken against any player to lay out hits like the one was saw, will not change. It doesn't work. No one can predict how a play will play out, how hard a hit will be, how the pass will be caught. It's football people, it's only one part of why we love the game. You never know what incredible, seemingly impossible, plays will be completitions. Sometimes it's terrible and makes you wince, but moreso than not it makes you leap out of your chair and shake your head because you cannot believe what you just saw actually happened. Fining and/or suspending may deter but it will never work. As for this weekends games, the Packers couldn't pull it off. I can guarantee you that fucks them next Sunday since the Vikes did. I have a feeling that by the time that games over my TV may have a foot hole through the screen.
That's not exactly true either, strictly speaking. As long as the ball is simply touched - not caught - by an eligible offensive receiver than an ineligible reciever may legally catch the ball and advance it. However, unless the eligible receiver is only a few yards away from the line of scrimmage (like the linebacker box) it's not likely a lineman would be anywhere near a pass play since they're prohibited from going downfield until the pass is completed (or touched, as the case may be). Really, the only rules concerning "ineligible receivers" that are normally applied are that they can't pass the line of scrimmage prior to a pass completion and they can't be the target of a forward pass either downfield or in the backfield. In rare occassions, a team might get flagged for an illegal formation when the split end "covers" the tight end on the line, rendering him ineligible if he runs a route. (The illegal formation rule and ineligible receiver downfield carry the same penalty, so the difference in that case would be purely semantic.)
No, we aren't changing the definition of a tackle, what I'm saying is that purposeful helmet to helmet tackles need to go. If you watch the hit, Dunta purposefully lowered his helmet going in to the hit, there's no reason he couldn't have lead with the shoulder and still delivered a jarring hit. If you're seriously trying to advocate for helmet to helmet you might as well go buddy up with KI and let him enlighten you as to why nut shots should be legal in MMA.
No, but instead of this full-out top-speed ramming that leads to this type of injuries it'd be better for the players and for the quality of football if players would stop trying to get on Sportscenter and made a proper form tackle. For every huge hit you see like the ones this weekend you'll see five whiffs by players trying to take someone's head off and go flying past a receiver/ballcarrier who easily jukes away from the would-be tackler because the idiot's flying out of control.
It was always quite entertaining watching a football player show up to try out for our rugby team. After about their 4th "tackle", and them staggering off field nearly concussed, we'd show them how to actually tackle effectively without knocking themselves out. It really is amazing what having no pads can do for your technique.
The worst concussion I ever saw on a rugby field was when someone got a flying knee to the face for throwing dickpunches in a ruck. Football players are cowboys with too much confidence. If the dumbfucks want to lead with their facemasks, the Player's Association needs to institute a rule that a certain number of stupid tackles in a career equals the loss of their already shitty medical benefits upon retirement. See how fast they cut the shit when they can't afford to pay a nursemaid to wipe their drool for them.
If all they did was change their damn helmets, you'd reduce the concussions by at least 50%. They have helmets out there, for hockey and for football, that reduce concussions. But, they look butt ugly and aren't "made for television". You look like a space cadet in that helmet, but they're exponentially safer. I find it completely ridiculous that the PA and the leagues are spending a ton of money and effort to solve a problem that is already solved, just suck it up and wear the ugly helmet. And, in hockey, change the shoulder pads so that they're not as hard as a sheet of metal. I don't know about football equipment, but in hockey, the shoulder pads are too damn hard. Back in the old days, they were made to protect you, not to hurt the other guy.
Which helmet are you talking about. I know the reason many of the players don't wear the revo helmet is because it cuts down your peripheral vision a lot. As competitive and fast the league is now I don't how many would give up that edge voluntarily. Players are taught to to tackle with their facemask beginning in pee-wee football. Leading with shoulder pads is an easy way for tacklers to get hurt because the player has to lower their head like a spear. The only time you are taught to tackle with shoulder pads is when your tackling at an angle. This last weekend was an unusually violent and the media jumped all over it. Creating a new rule is just a way to show they were proactive in case someone is seriously hurt this season. Like that kid from Rutgers. Football is an inherently violent game and the only time a player should be suspended if their was intention to injure another player. I think it looks hypocritical while they simultaneously move to a 18 game season.
Great things I heard on the radio today... The two fastest growing demographics in NFL viewership is women and kids under 18. Mommies don't want their babies playing games where they could get hurt. That hit was legit: LaVar Arrington had a GREAT segment on his show today about this, give it a listen. Here's the podcast. Segment 7 about 2:30 in. What ever happened to the 'Jacked Up' segment on MNF? We'd have a winner. Oh wait, we're pussifying football. Edit: Shawn Barber makes some great comments too in the 4' segment. I just can't see listening to anyone but the guys on the field doing the hitting. The ones that are taking the money to go out there and pummel each other.