Why is helmet to chest roughing the passer?

[Legatron4]

I'm watching the 49ers va Seahawks on NFL replay and the 9ers got a penalty for roughing the passer. The ref said "hitting the QB helmet to chest". But that doesn't make any sense. With all the rules the NFL is making to protect the QB, how are you supposed to hit them? I don't really understand this penalty.

 

[DaveFan'51]

I'm watching the 49ers va Seahawks on NFL replay and the 9ers got a penalty for roughing the passer. The ref said "hitting the QB helmet to chest". But that doesn't make any sense. With all the rules the NFL is making to protect the QB, how are you supposed to hit them? I don't really understand this penalty.

Good question! Maybe they look at it like 'Spearing' or something IDK!!

 

[snackdaddy]

I really think it depends on how hard they hit a QB. Remember that play Brockers made against the Bears a couple years ago? It was a clean hit. No violation of rules. No helmet. Couldn't be late because the QB still had the ball. It was jarred loose, picked up and returned for a TD. But it was a penalty nonetheless. When its all said and done I believe the reason was because the hit was so vicious they called roughing the passer. Replays showed a clean hit to the chest area. The ref never said it looked like a helmet hit or above the shoulders. The only explanation I can come up with is Brockers hit him too hard. Sometimes this protecting the QB gets out of hand. These guys know they're playing a violent game. They signed up for it.

 

[Alan]

The reason is the same reason why there's been talk about doing away with the helmet altogether, it's a weapon. It doesn't matter what part of the body you aim your helmet at because it's dangerous everywhere. All one need do is think about the physics involved with 250lbs (rough average) of mass and muscle behind a blunt object.

 

[Debacled]

Its one of those hits they've determined (by which means I am not sure) to be too violent. Makes some sense, as a hard hit to the chest leads to some pretty wicked whip lash.

Doesn't have to be just a QB. They can't drop their helmet into a player just about anywhere anymore. If you see a guy drop his head, regardless of how hard or where the contact really is, there is likely to be a yellow hankie following shortly.

Kinda ties into the NFLs heads up initiative with youth football. Teaching kids to not spear with the head down like we used to see a lot more often. Still, they will call it if its just a face mask hitting those areas as well.

 

[Angry Ram]

Get rid of that stupid hand grazing/tapping the helmet as roughing.

As to the rule, it's a penalty if the player led with his helmet, and the crown hit him in the chest.

 

[Pancake]

Basically defensive players have their arms and around 6" worth of shoulder to tackle with now days. And then the legal area to hit has to be above the knees and below the head.

Might as well wear flags and count alligators at this point.

 

[Robocop]

that is the exact reason all these safety rules are bullshit and why Fisher is tired of it too. rules like that are discretionary plain and simple. there's no black and white with the rules any more its whatever each ref feels like calling. and the players can't read the refs mind so how the fuck is a defender suppose to make any kind of play at all when the rules are interpreted 100 different ways. football games used to be won by pure talent and strategy. now it's more like a roll of a dice and hope you don't get a 15 yard penalty for doing your job

 

[LACHAMP46]

I seriously think, in the heat of the moment, when a defender isn't sure where a player is going, that he just instinctively dives/leads with his upper body...hence the head and shoulders are launched at an opponent. Not sure if any player can stop this type of tackling...now hitting a QB in the back with the helmet should be able to be controlled....

 

[Alan]

LACHAMP46 thinking they can't be trained:
he just instinctively dives/leads with his upper body Not sure if any player can stop this type of tackling

I agree with that CHAMP but upper body isn't helmet. One shoulder and both arms wrapping up yes? If they had lead with their heads back in the days of leather helmets I would think they'd all have had broken necks. I think they were able to do that because they actually used proper tackling technique back then and were drilled on tackling mercilessly. Many/most of today's players can't tackle that well, they just launch themselves at the opposing player to get that "big hit." It would probably require a lot more training time be devoted to the fundamentals. Not a bad thing in my opinion.

Of course you could train back then for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week too.

 

[DaveFan'51]

The reason is the same reason why there's been talk about doing away with the helmet altogether, it's a weapon. It doesn't matter what part of the body you aim your helmet at because it's dangerous everywhere. All one need do is think about the physics involved with 250lbs (rough average) of mass and muscle behind a blunt object.

Then I suppose they should get rid of helmets in Hockey Too!?!

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

It's very simple. The helmet is a weapon. Tackle with the shoulder and arms.

.

 

[DaveFan'51]

.

It's very simple. The helmet is a weapon. Tackle with the shoulder and arms.

.

Then we have roughly 92 men, from both teams, out their 'Armed and Dangerous' I call that an even match-up!! PLAY BALL!!!!

 

[Alan]

DaveFan'51 thinking about inventing a new sport:
Then I suppose they should get rid of helmets in Hockey Too!?!

Well, if they ever bring back tackle hockey then yes.

One of the nice things about hockey is you can't violently check another player in any manner. They made that rule (charging) for the same reasons the NFL made hitting a player in the chest with your helmet a penalty, the physics involved. Along with boarding and cross checking which involve many of the same forces. All (except charging) involve the use of a weapon too.

 

[Mojo Ram]

Because Tom Brady's boobs might get injured.

 

[jrry32]

They are discouraging players from leading with their helmets. They don't want guys leading with their helmets while hitting "defenseless players."

 

[nighttrain]

The reason is the same reason why there's been talk about doing away with the helmet altogether, it's a weapon. It doesn't matter what part of the body you aim your helmet at because it's dangerous everywhere. All one need do is think about the physics involved with 250lbs (rough average) of mass and muscle behind a blunt object.

Lets go back to leather helmets with no facemasks, be a freaking car wreck every game
train

 

[nighttrain]

They are discouraging players from leading with their helmets. They don't want guys leading with their helmets while hitting "defenseless players."

You cant tackle with your Butt, gotta be looking em right in the eyes, hence the helmet on your head is first there
train

 

[Alan]

nighttrain forgetting the other mechanics:
You cant tackle with your Butt, gotta be looking em right in the eyes, hence the helmet on your head is first there

You also have to DNA rifle your head to the side to kiss or you'll bump noses.