Skip to content

Launching ban will be proposed at league meetings next week

DeSeanJacksonGetty Getty Images

In March, the NFL opted to table until May a proposed changes to the rules regarding hits against defenseless players and the use of the helmet when launching.  Although many proposals that receive such treatment never again see the light of day, the NFL will be taking up the issue once again next week, when the league’s owners convene in Indianapolis.

Alex Marvez of FOXSports.com reports that the Competition Committee will make a “revised pitch” regarding changes to the unnecessary roughness rules that were regarded as too long, too broad, and too vague.  Instead, three specific proposals will be presented.

Per Marvez, two of the proposed rules provide further protection for “defenseless” wide receivers. The other would ban illegal “launching,” which occurs when a defensive player leaves his feet in order to strike an opponent helmet first.

Permalink 33 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
33 Responses to “Launching ban will be proposed at league meetings next week”
  1. alphaq2 says: May 18, 2011 2:58 PM

    Seems kinda moot untill the association is willing to offer a counter proposal.

  2. willycents says: May 18, 2011 3:06 PM

    COLLUSION..COLLUSION…ANTI TRUST!!!!
    I can hear DeSmith already.

  3. profootballwalk says: May 18, 2011 3:06 PM

    So I guess this means that no one at the NFL offices ever took a physics class. As soon as you leave your feet, you loose leverage and begin losing energy. The hits are WORSE when players stay on their feet and keep their leverage against the ground. We’re talking basic laws of physics here – there’s nothing to argue about.

    Even the NFL understands this – although they don’t know they do. Do they teach blockers to lunge and leave their feet? Do they teach QBs to jump in the air before they throw the ball? This is physics, but it ain’t rocket science.

  4. hendawg21 says: May 18, 2011 3:06 PM

    I agree alphaq2 what’s the point if there will be no football…

    As a matter of fact why don’t the owners and players launch into a lock in and not come out until they have an agreement.

  5. moochzilla says: May 18, 2011 3:08 PM

    I have some issues with this.

    Look at Austin Collie, he was rocked several times last year on that pass up the seam. Seems to me that the route itself is inherently dangerous. Should we outlaw that play as well?

    I am all for player safety, but the answer is always to clamp down on the defense.

  6. marjones45 says: May 18, 2011 3:10 PM

    If the players don’t agree to give back some money, the owners are just going to take it.

  7. danerdane says: May 18, 2011 3:19 PM

    Why would you distract me with an article about player safety. That’s like an update on the whereabouts of Santa in May.

    I’m busy finishing my business plan for the NFLPA* Payday Loans/Cash for Lambo’s 23% interest…sounds good to me.

  8. hobartbaker says: May 18, 2011 3:20 PM

    Catching defenseless players on Sunday and launching them into the middle of next week will no longer be tolerated.

  9. touchdownroddywhite says: May 18, 2011 3:35 PM

    I completely read the title in the wrong context.

    I assumed this article was about the league proposing to launch a ban on any and all football operations.

    So, you can just appreciate the free click.

  10. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 18, 2011 3:37 PM

    I wanna see Terry Tate the Office Linebacker blow up DEmo Smith

  11. paulitik74 says: May 18, 2011 3:54 PM

    It’s disengenuous to put DeSaen Jackson’s picture next to this article. Dunta Robinson didn’t launch, or even hit him illegally.

  12. dbellina says: May 18, 2011 4:02 PM

    I swear “football” is turning more and more into “futbol.”

  13. bigbeefyd says: May 18, 2011 4:17 PM

    Ban crossing patterns. And kickoff and punt returns.

  14. thephantomstranger says: May 18, 2011 4:22 PM

    Mike McCarthy nearly had a heart attack because he thought they were considering a “lunching” ban.

  15. willycents says: May 18, 2011 4:34 PM

    I propose “that all participants in football be required to dress and perform in accordance with the workplace safety standards that will be issued by the Occcupational Safety and Health Administration.(OSHA)”

    there, fixed the player safety problem.

  16. villagoo says: May 18, 2011 4:37 PM

    what am i missing, launching is already banned and flagged/fined heavily

  17. municrew says: May 18, 2011 4:43 PM

    Most people who have a dangerous job receive hazard pay. I would consider professional football hazardous, and compared to the average hazardous pay wage, I would also consider NFL players highly compensated. So let’s focus on this instead of reaching an agreement to end the lockout! I haven’t seen anyone drop the ball more since Braylon Edwards played for the Browns.

  18. carlgerbschmidt says: May 18, 2011 4:44 PM

    thephantomstranger says:
    May 18, 2011 4:22 PM
    Mike McCarthy nearly had a heart attack because he thought they were considering a “lunching” ban.

    ________________

    Really? My coach is fat? WEll, guess what? Your coach is terrible. I’d rather have a fat coach than a terrible coach anyday. Your team is terrible, too! How many Super Bowls have you won? I’m sorry, has this answer changed in the last year? It’s NEVER gonna change! You know why? Because your team is terrible. Your fans are terrible! Your city is terrible! Your owner is terrible! Your stadium is terr… hold on let me check…Nope! Still collapsed! Your stadium is terrible! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

  19. hit2hurt says: May 18, 2011 5:00 PM

    “when a defensive player leaves his feet in order to strike an opponent helmet first”

    Uhm.. Isn’t this pretty much “Spearing”.. which is ALREADY banned?!

  20. thephantomstranger says: May 18, 2011 5:02 PM

    Really? My coach is terrible? In case you missed it, our coach is not Brad Childress, Mike Tice, or Denny Green (otherwise known as The Three Stooges). We finally have a coach no one can make fun of. Still working on that stadium thing, though.

  21. andyreidisfat says: May 18, 2011 5:19 PM

    arlgerbschmidt says: May 18, 2011 4:44 PM

    thephantomstranger says:
    May 18, 2011 4:22 PM
    Mike McCarthy nearly had a heart attack because he thought they were considering a “lunching” ban.

    ________________

    Really? My coach is fat? WEll, guess what? Your coach is terrible. I’d rather have a fat coach than a terrible coach anyday. Your team is terrible, too! How many Super Bowls have you won? I’m sorry, has this answer changed in the last year? It’s NEVER gonna change! You know why? Because your team is terrible. Your fans are terrible! Your city is terrible! Your owner is terrible! Your stadium is terr… hold on let me check…Nope! Still collapsed! Your stadium is terrible! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

    Here on display is that humble Green bay nature …… lol …. what adouche. Calm down kid, dude was making a joke, he wasn’t calling your mom fat or anything. Perhaps a year away isn’t bad for some NFL fans. This guy almost had a heart attck he was typing with such ferver over a your coach likes lunch comment. Man. My teams coach will eat all your teams coaches lunches. But you don’t see me getting all in huff when someone points that out.

  22. bunjy96 says: May 18, 2011 5:26 PM

    Tell that to Dave Duerson-and others

  23. bunjy96 says: May 18, 2011 5:27 PM

    dbellina says: May 18, 2011 4:02 PM

    I swear “football” is turning more and more into “futbol.”

    Tell that to Dave Duerson-and others

    Forgot to post your comment

  24. jakek2 says: May 18, 2011 5:53 PM

    3 Solutions the owner crooks won’t consider because it affects their bottom line:

    1) Install grass. Logically, if one defender loses footing before launching which results in saving the WR from injury…isn’t it worth it? Wouldn’t it show the owners TRULY care about the players safety and not making the game faster and more dangerous?

    2) Nevermind further clamping down on the defense, how about flagging the QB for hanging his WR out to dry?? Watch how quick these risky passes would dry up if the offense got a double whammy (injury and penalty). If the league TRULY cared about safety, what’s the problem with this suggestion?

    3) Re-legalize chucking past 5 yards. The less time QBs have to throw to unfettered WRs will result in less injuries. Again, won’t happen b/c crook owners are more worried about bottom line than safety.

    Hypocrites they are and you dummy pro-owners are too blind or hypnotized to see it.

  25. willycents says: May 18, 2011 6:36 PM

    @ jakek2

    Except for the bashing the owners content of your post…

    I agree completely with your first and third points. However, I see the difficulty in enforcing the second one because it would require another judgement call by the officials, and, Lord knows we have enough of them already.

    And, I have a suggestion: Contact your NFLPA* lawyers and have them propose this in their latest cba offer…errrr..excuse me…in their FIRST. cba offer. Errrrrr…they do plan to make some kind of offer don’t they???

  26. jaymc1988 says: May 18, 2011 6:46 PM

    am i the only one who finds it funny that the league cant get serious on a new cba but still finds the time to sit everyone for rule changes lolol..

  27. fltharley says: May 18, 2011 6:56 PM

    its just a plan by roger goodell to make hits illegal so players can play a 18 game schedule . roger goodelll is trying to turn football into the sissy league. i hate roger goodell and the owners they want to change football and if there allowed to suceed the game will never be the same, for god sake wake up and stop the changes goodell is trying to get

  28. dwoofer says: May 18, 2011 7:02 PM

    I thought you meant when players run up to the stands and launch themselves into the crowd after they score. I think this should be banned. Jay Feely did it in a Cardinals game and smashed into a young kid’s noggin on Row 1. The kid was not wearing a helmet. The kid was fine. Feely was taken to the hospital with a concussion from the kid’s head. I think he’s suing the dad for shielding himself with the kid’s head.

  29. jakek2 says: May 18, 2011 7:24 PM

    willycents -

    1) Simple enforcement of proposal #2. If the WR gets laid out, flag the offense.

    2) I’ve posted about the players not proposing a counteroffer ad nauseum. I’ll summarize for you. The owners proposed the same crummy offer that they made two years ago. In the world of business and negotiation, which I have 15 years experience in, the responding party (here the players) are NOT obligated to propose a counteroffer when the original offer (here the owners) is so off the wall that it doesn’t merit a response. Parties walk away from negotiating tables all the time when this happens. If the owners made a proposal worth countering, the players would have countered. People, such as the majority of bloggers here, have zero idea how negotiating works. The extent of their negotiating experience is haggling over a chotchke at a garage sale ($20,$1,$19,$2…..$10 sold). That’s not negotiations in the business world work. There’s posturing involved, leverage grabs, etc., etc. It’s over the heads of most people here.

  30. heyzeus143 says: May 18, 2011 7:27 PM

    football is about hitting, take off the pads and helmets and give ‘em flags if you don’t like to get hit

  31. jleimer says: May 18, 2011 10:14 PM

    I have a suggestion why not go to replay in borderline cases of helmet to helmet such as collie last year and to determine if a player should be ejected because I remember Jason Taylor Rich Eisen and Mike Periera call for this and I feel that if the NFL had a system similar to basketball in which the officials are allowed to review these cases we would have a level headed policy between safety and physical play, but since they dont want to slow the game down they overreact. Listen I know some people here may say oh this will slow the game down but lets say if a defensive player in this case Kurt Colemans hit on Collie which they flagged, but determined it was not a helmet to helmet hit later wouldnt you want the booth to buzz down and tell the ref he made the wrong call and he should look at it to recind the flag because it wasnt a helmet to helmet hit.

  32. willycents says: May 18, 2011 10:23 PM

    @jakek2
    gotcha on your qb point. reasonable thought but still a bitch to enforce…did he get laid out or just violently tackled? Judgement call that would be debated ad nauseum like so many other calls (possession of a pass)
    As for negotiations, I deal with business to business frequently in my baby company. I agree there are all the considerations you listed, but, when it comes right down to it, IF I do not respond to an offer from another business, or they do not respond to mine, I consider the negotiation over with and find another business to negotiate with for what i need. Most businesses I know of do the same.
    Granted, I am not dealing with a bunch of diva(on both sides in the NFL case). But, I have a unionized workforce and have negotiated contracts with them 6 times in my 20+ years of business. I have presented them with some pretty horrible contract offers, intentionally, and have received some pretty horrible offers from them, untenable stuff on both sides. I have NEVER made an offer that they have not responded to with a counter offer, nor have they given me one I have not responded to. That is negotiation. They have the strike option, I have the lockout option. We have never had to use either one because we consider ourselves intelligent human beings with the maturity to sit at a table(location of the union reps choice) and NEGOTIATE.
    The BS of an offer not being worth responding to is something that equates to children throwing a temper tantrum. An absolute indication of a total lack of maturity. JMAO

    And a pleasure having an intelligent and insightful conversation with you, and a chance to disagree civilly.

  33. GG Eden says: May 19, 2011 6:57 AM

    The lockout/litigation sequence has turned a lot of people off, but even before that happened, there was the fear of these new rules ruining the sport as a spectacle even more. The NFL isnt like the other global sporting entities — they dont govern the sport. We need competition in the pro-football market again. The NFL reached a dull point before the AFL caused innovation etc that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred. Monopolies are never good. It’s time again. If the integrity of american football continues to wilter like these proposed rules potentially will, I am heading to the UFL.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!