Ejections for 2 Personal Fouls on the horizon?

[NorthHawk]

According to PFT, the Competition Committee is considering 2 types of Personal Fouls - one group would trigger ejection if 2 fouls within that group are committed, the other group would have no ejection.

I suspect it was as result of the Bengals/Steelers game and Burfict being an idiot.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -ejection/

[burrrton]

Hard to argue with the belief that Burfict's meltdown was an 'ejectable' offense, but creating new rules for something so rare seems... dumb.

Can't you be ejected for throwing punches and headshots and such already?

[NorthHawk]

You'd think so, wouldn't you?
Again, they seem to be going the route of over-lawyering rules to make it harder on the referees to make the correct call.

[HumanCockroach]

A player "can" be ejected for throwing punches, kicking people, dirty blocks and a bevy of other infractions, but it isn't automatic, and left up to the officials discretion. The only automatic ejection I'm aware of currently on the books is for striking an official... I'm sure Burfict has something to do with this, but it was proposed as the "Beckham" rule for his stupidity throughout the year ( Bills and Panthers games).

[c_hawkbob]

It's patterned after a yellow card and a red card foul in soccer. I got no problem with 2 red cards and you're out.

[kalibane]

I don't have a problem with it in theory. I actually think the better example though is Odell Beckham, Jr. in the game with the Panthers.

I do worry though because of the uneven officiating. In that Bengals/Steelers game for instance I think the bigger problem was the Steelers were getting away with a ton and not really being held accountable for it and the ejections then would have been Bengals for retaliating.

That entire game IMO was the fault of the Officials because there were issues in the previous game between those two teams and they should have sent a message the second someone got out of line. By the time Burfict was completely out of control an ejection wouldn't have been a deterrence. He was going to do what he was going to do.

[burrrton]

It's patterned after a yellow card and a red card foul in soccer. I got no problem with 2 red cards and you're out.

I thought more subjectivity would be better, but as I consider how uneven the refs have gotten, I can see your point.

I had forgotten about Beckham's bed-wetting, too- maybe it's more common than I thought.

[HumanCockroach]

I don't have a problem with it in theory. I actually think the better example though is Odell Beckham, Jr. in the game with the Panthers.

I do worry though because of the uneven officiating. In that Bengals/Steelers game for instance I think the bigger problem was the Steelers were getting away with a ton and not really being held accountable for it and the ejections then would have been Bengals for retaliating.

That entire game IMO was the fault of the Officials because there were issues in the previous game between those two teams and they should have sent a message the second someone got out of line. By the time Burfict was completely out of control an ejection wouldn't have been a deterrence. He was going to do what he was going to do.

LOL look up... It was proposed as the Beckham rule ( he hit bills players multiple times during a game as well earlier in the season).

[kalibane]

Yeah I missed your reply until after I posted. I saw the others talking about Burfict. I just don't care enough to edit after the fact. *shrug*

[Oly]

That article doesn't describe why those two categories are necessary if they all trigger the two-strike rule. I don't agree that verbal abuse or taunting should be in that list, but I'd be in favor of the rule if they were all examples of things that were intended to injure. Sure, that "intended" part brings out a whole lot of subjectivity, but if Russ had his hand broken after Suh's second foot stomp in a game, I would be pissed. I can live with the subjective nature of those calls if it gives officials a way of ejecting someone before they seriously injure another player.

[NorthHawk]

You're right, Oly.
Why 2 categories and what's the difference between them?

The source might be off base in what he heard.
Here's the quote again:

"The first category would consist of verbal abuse, taunting, and throwing a punch or a kick. The second category would be broader, with hits on defenseless players, impermissible use of the helmet, crown-of-helmet violations, roughing the passer, late hits, striking, kneeing, and kicking."

What's the difference between striking and kicking or punching - both are strikes outside of the game of football.
Maybe what they meant was there are two options of groups for ejectionable offenses where they will choose one, other than 2 groups to be added to the rule book.
I'm not sure that taunting twice is worthy of an ejection.

[RiverDog]

I think it's an appropriate rule proposition, and yes, I do think it was inspired by the Bengals-Steelers game. However, Burfect got his due under the existing rules, although it was a shame that it was his team and the fans were the ones that had to pay the price. They need to do something that at least as much as they can will punish the player more than it will the team, and this rule proposition is a move in the right direction.

[Uppercut]

Maybe they can make it like Hockey, for two PF's the perp would have to do 5 minutes in the penalty box and the team would have to play short-handed.