Proposed Rule Changes

[NorthHawk]

According to PFT, here is a list of the proposed rule changes (Link provided in the event the formatting is an epic failure):

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... proposals/



1. By Competition Committee; Permanently moves the line of scrimmage for Try kicks to the defensive team’s 15-yard line, and allows the defense to return any missed Try.

2. By Competition Committee; Permits the offensive and defensive play callers on the coaching staffs to use the coach-to-player communication system regardless of whether they are on the field or in the coaches’ booth.

3. By Competition Committee; Makes all chop blocks illegal.

4. By Competition Committee; Disqualifies a player who is penalized twice in one game for certain types of unsportsmanlike conduct fouls.

5. By Competition Committee; Changes the spot of the next snap after a touchback resulting from a free kick to the 25-yard line.

6. By Baltimore; to amend Rule 5, Sections 3, Articles 1 and 2 (Changes in Position) to require players to wear jersey vests with numbers appropriate for their positions.

7. By Baltimore; to amend Rule 15, Section 2, Articles 1, 4, and 5 (Instant Replay) to provide each team with three challenges and expand reviewable plays.

8. By Buffalo; to amend Rule 15, Section 2, Articles 1, 4, and 5 (Instant Replay) to permit a coach to challenge any official’s decision except scoring plays and turnovers.

9. By Carolina; to amend Rule 8, Section 2, Article 1 (Intentional Grounding) to expand the definition of intentional grounding.

10. By Kansas City; to amend Rule 14, Section 2, Article 1 (Half-distance Penalty) to add penalty yards to the distance needed to gain a First Down.

11. By Kansas City; to amend Rule 8, Section 1, Article 2 (Legal Forward Pass) to prohibit quarterbacks from falling to the ground, getting up, and throwing a forward pass.

12. By Minnesota; to amend Rule 15, Section 2, Article 1 (Coaches’ Challenge) to eliminate the requirement that a team be successful on each of its first two Instant Replay challenges in order to be awarded a third challenge.

13. By Washington; to amend Rule 16, Section 1, Articles 1, 4, 6 and 7 (Overtime procedures) to eliminate overtime periods in preseason games.

14. By Washington; to amend Rule 15, Section 2, Article 4 (Reviewable Plays) to subject personal foul penalties to Instant Replay review.

15. By Washington; to amend Rule 15, Section 2, Article 1 (Coaches’ Challenge) to eliminate the requirement that a team be successful on each of its first two Instant Replay challenges in order to be awarded a third challenge.

16. By Competition Committee; Expands the horse collar rule to include when a defender grabs the jersey at the name plate or above and pulls a runner toward the ground.

17. By Competition Committee; Makes it a foul for delay of game when a team attempts to call a timeout when it is not permitted to do so.

18. By Competition Committee; Eliminates the five-yard penalty for an eligible receiver illegally touching a forward pass after being out of bounds and re-establishing himself inbounds, and makes it a loss of down.

19. By Competition Committee; Eliminates multiple spots of enforcement for a double foul after a change of possession.

[RiverDog]

I can see #4 and #14 being linked. If they are going to disqualify players for certain PF penalties, it would only make sense to review them to make sure. I think that they already do this in CFB. In addition, there are penalties like Kam's hit on Vernon Davis a few years back that are almost instinctively going to draw a flag but that should be disregarded if replay shows it was legal. I'd also like to think that the roughing the passer penalty that Earl Thomas drew against Miami 4 years ago wouldn't stand if it was able to be reviewed.

Penalties already involve a game stoppage, so the booth should be able to complete their review without the flow of the game being interrupted.

In the case of the penalties designed for player safety, I would like to know how many injuries have been sustain due to the actions they're proposing to make illegal, such as expanding the horse collar tackle and making all chop blocks illegal. If no one is getting hurt, then don't fix what is not broken.

I don't know what the problem with #11 is. Was Kansas City the team that Peyton Manning fell down then got up and completed a pass against? It seems to me that a rule like that might hinder a scrambling quarterback like Russell Wilson.

I don't like #6. So what if a receiver is wearing #17? More needless regulation.

Agree with #12. Teams should not be penalized if the refs can't get the call right in the first place.

Agree with #13, except that I'd take it a step further and eliminate the entire game and not just the OT period.

[NorthHawk]

#11 is just dumb to me. It would bring in more judgement calls from the Ref, which will undoubtedly be botched and slow the game down further.
How do they call a slip? How could anyone really tell for certain? Would just a knee touching be enough or would the QB have to have his hip or back down?

I like #7 & 8. Expand what can be challenged and just have the 3 challenges.

As an observation, with a number of the proposed changes, there seems to be concern among teams about the challenge system as it is today.

[HumanCockroach]

The slide to pass seems to be in direct response to Wilson's amazing play against Minnesota, absolutely stupid. If a running back falls down should we call that play dead as well? The QB is still restricted to the same rules they ALWAYS are, why does sliding or stumbling have anything to do with whether they can pass or not pass?


Maybe focus on the blown intentional grounding calls, and skip trying to implement something that in no way effects games, whether a player falls or doesn't simply doesn't change whether they are down or not, or whether they can complete all the actions already on the books.

[NorthHawk]

The slide to pass seems to be in direct response to Wilson's amazing play against Minnesota, absolutely stupid. If a running back falls down should we call that play dead as well? The QB is still restricted to the same rules they ALWAYS are, why does sliding or stumbling have anything to do with whether they can pass or not pass?


Maybe focus on the blown intentional grounding calls, and skip trying to implement something that in no way effects games, whether a player falls or doesn't simply doesn't change whether they are down or not, or whether they can complete all the actions already on the books.

What's been bandied about is Manning against KC as RD suggested where it has been supposed he fell down intentionally to get the Defense to stop, then got up and threw a pass.
I think that's a bit of a cowardly way to get an advantage, and is much more akin to something a soccer player would do, but it's not currently against the rules.

[RiverDog]

The slide to pass seems to be in direct response to Wilson's amazing play against Minnesota, absolutely stupid. If a running back falls down should we call that play dead as well? The QB is still restricted to the same rules they ALWAYS are, why does sliding or stumbling have anything to do with whether they can pass or not pass?


Maybe focus on the blown intentional grounding calls, and skip trying to implement something that in no way effects games, whether a player falls or doesn't simply doesn't change whether they are down or not, or whether they can complete all the actions already on the books.

Kansas City was the team that proposed that change, so as NH said, it has to have been in response to Peyton Manning tripping, falling down, then getting up to complete a pass after the defense had seen him go down. It was a fluke play. 9 times out of 10 when a quarterback goes down like that, he stays down.

But as you indicated, all it's going to accomplish is take away an amazing, extremely athletic play like Russell Wilson pulled off in the playoffs. It would be like taking away receptions where you trap the ball with your helmet as happened in the SB a few years ago.

Stupid proposition. Perhaps they should pass a rule that takes away a draft choice for any team that proposes an asinine rule change.

[burrrton]

In the case of the penalties designed for player safety, I would like to know how many injuries have been sustain due to the actions they're proposing to make illegal, such as expanding the horse collar tackle and making all chop blocks illegal. If no one is getting hurt, then don't fix what is not broken.

I generally agree, but with regard to those specific examples, it seems reasonable because the same risk exists. Your knee doesn't care whether you're getting pulled down from behind by your pads (the actual 'horse collar') or just the jersey, right?

I don't know what the problem with #11 is. Was Kansas City the team that Peyton Manning fell down then got up and completed a pass against? It seems to me that a rule like that might hinder a scrambling quarterback like Russell Wilson.

Yeah, that one's a head scratcher.

What's been bandied about is Manning against KC as RD suggested where it has been supposed he fell down intentionally to get the Defense to stop, then got up and threw a pass.

So create Yet Another Rule that breaks from the rest of the rulebook just because KC's defense was too stupid to remember the play isn't over until the player's touched down and the whistle blows?

Bizarre.

[RiverDog]

I generally agree, but with regard to those specific examples, it seems reasonable because the same risk exists. Your knee doesn't care whether you're getting pulled down from behind by your pads (the actual 'horse collar') or just the jersey, right?

Perhaps. But they should have enough data on horse collar-type tackles, both in the pros and colleges, that would allow them to calculate the risk of injury on horse collars or near horse collar vs. other types of tackles. To be honest, I'm a bit dubious about even pulling a player down by their shoulder pads being a more injury prone method of tackling vs. your garden variety below the waist tackle. I'm not convinced that the proposed rule change is going to make the game safer.

So create Yet Another Rule that breaks from the rest of the rulebook just because KC's defense was too stupid to remember the play isn't over until the player's touched down and the whistle blows? Bizarre.

Yea, if I were the Chiefs secondary coach, I'd be embarrassed to propose a rule change like that.

If I'm a defensive coordinator and the opposing OC had a play installed where his quarterback intentionally fell completely to the ground then got up, I'd say bring it on.

[burrrton]

I'm not convinced that the proposed rule change is going to make the game safer.

Well, if you accept that a 'horse collar tackle' is dangerous, then you have to accept that being pulled down in the same manner via other means is just as dangerous (or at least very, very close), don't you?

[obiken]

Why cant we be more like baseball and quit screwing with the game??!!!!!????

[HumanCockroach]

Pulling someone down by their jersey isn't the same as yanking them down by their shoulde pads, and isn't remotely the same kind of "danger" to the runners knees and legs ( which is the entire reason the rule was implemented in the first place) the reason a horsecollar tackle is "dangerous" is that defenders often left their feet, while using a "handle" ( the inside of the shoulder pads) making the runner be pulled back over the top of their legs, which often times had the defenders body draped across them. Grabbing a jersey, doesn't afford the defender the handle of the pads, and at full speed, it's doubtful that they can duplicate the same dangers to a runners lower body. It's simply physics. While it may still be "dangerous" ( every tackle or hit IS) it's not anymore excessively dangerous than a clean hit at the line of scrimmage.

Honestly, there wasn't a ton of injuries from horsecollar tackles either, and wasn't an exceedingly dangerous play either, certainly not close to the injuries that often occur in pileups( one of the "most" dangerous plays which while odd is true due to the weight, hits and twisting that occurs) and was "addressed" simply because there were a few more injuries than normal one year, and a desire to allow runners more freedom to accelerate from a trailing defender... ( ultimately the whole NFL go to "safety" when they really mean "longer, more explosive offensive scoring")

[burrrton]

Grabbing a jersey, doesn't afford the defender the handle of the pads, and at full speed, it's doubtful that they can duplicate the same dangers to a runners lower body.

"Doubtful" to who?? I have a moderately strong background in anatomy, physiology, and kinesiology- it's not doubtful to me.

It's tougher to get ahold of, but if you get that grip, you can pull them down in a nearly identical fashion.

Honestly, there wasn't a ton of injuries from horsecollar tackles either, and wasn't an exceedingly dangerous play either, certainly not close to the injuries that often occur in pileups

I can accept this fully (I don't know or care how statistically dangerous it actually is), but to whatever degree the horse-collar tackle is dangerous, that danger doesn't go away if the body is being pulled down from behind by the top of the jersey rather than the pads.

The pads afford a better grip, but if the defender does get ahold of the collar of the jersey and the runner is being dragged down in the same direction (down and backwards) by the same opposing force (the defender's bodyweight), the injury risk is virtually identical (allowing for small differences due to the 'give' in the cloth).

The ligaments don't know how the force is being applied.

[HumanCockroach]

Who?

Anyone who has ever strapped on pads and made a tackle from behind on a RB or receiver at full speed. Your not going to be able to hold your entire body off the ground, and pull a 200 to 250 pound individual backwards over the top of their legs. Just isn't going to work. The jersey, or your hand will give out first. I'm surprised with your "expertise" you can't grasp that, maybe you should run some experiments, I've already run mine in real life, real time.

Or is it your Assertion that a human hand is stronger than the egnertia, mass and strength of another person of equal or greater size, legs, and torso? Do tell. ( as well as the fabric of an NFL jersey).

Sorry Burton, you obviously have zero real world experience in this arena. On the football field, pulling someone down backwards while running full speed the other way, from a grip of a jersey, isn't going to work ( which would be WHY defenders used to actually PRACTICE getting their hands INSIDE the back off the shoulder pads), Hell offensive players PRACTICE being pulled down backwards by their jersey, and surprisingly enough, I've never once seen a single defender capable of actually pulling them down backwards with both hands much less one.

[RiverDog]

Well, if you accept that a 'horse collar tackle' is dangerous, then you have to accept that being pulled down in the same manner via other means is just as dangerous (or at least very, very close), don't you?

I don't necessarily accept that horse collar tackles are more dangerous than garden variety tackles. I've never seen any kind of data that would support that contention. But I didn't mind the original penalty as it's a pretty easy one to avoid as you have to get your hand clear inside the shoulder pads and pull him down. They're grabbing equipment, just like grabbing a face mask, so it makes sense. Grabbing jerseys, long hair, or pants isn't really grabbing equipment. As HC stated, there's more elasticity in a jersey or pants than there is shoulder pads.

The problem with the proposed rule change is that unlike horse collar tackles, it's going to be more difficult for players to adjust and avoid drawing a flag. IMO it's just one more rule in a never ending series of rules that have made defenses more ineffective.

[burrrton]

As HC stated, there's more elasticity in a jersey or pants than there is shoulder pads.

The elasticity around the neck isn't even close to being enough to make a difference. It'll give a couple of inches or so, then the elasticity is gone and the runner is coming down.

However, I can agree with the argument it's way too easy to grab the jersey, so perhaps there should be a distinction (pads bad, jersey ok).

[burrrton]

Jeezus- the offseason, when people here will argue about *everything*...

Anyone who has ever strapped on pads and made a tackle from behind on a RB or receiver at full speed.

Well, then you're talking to one, HC. Three years varsity in high school, got recruited to D2, but decided to play D1 baseball instead. Then took a whole sh*tload of A&P, Kinese, and so on in college.

Enough experience for you or is Dr. Dan Doornink the only guy whose statements you'll take seriously?

Just isn't going to work.

Er, we've all *seen* it "work" in NFL games. Guys get taken down by the back of the jersey regularly.

The jersey, or your hand will give out first.

HC, honestly- what do you think Nike is making these jerseys out of? They can grab the bottom of the jersey and it will stretch out, but do you need me to go buy a Nike Elite jersey so you can see the collar isn't constructed from rubber bands?

Go buy one yourself, put it on, and hook a 30 yard rope to the collar tied to a fence post. Then, run full speed for 50 yards.

Let us all know how it felt.

Sorry Burton, you obviously have zero real world experience in this arena.

LOL. HC, I'd put a cool grand on having more personal, real world experience, and more importantly *education*, in this than any two people on this board (unless Doornink or equivalent is a lurker).

That doesn't make me necessarily right (I'm happy to debate on the merits), but quit trying to play the "experience" card with me. I'm not making this sh*t up as I go- guys can be taken down quickly and violently by both the pads and the collar, and they both put similar strains on the joints.

That you can find *anything* objectionable in that statement tells me you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[HumanCockroach]

Lol sure Burton whatever you say... Don't believe you, but be my guest insisting experience it's clear you don't have. As to "it happens all the time" LMFAO no, it doesn't. Jerseys rip, please spare me the they are made out of titanium crapola. As for leaving your feet with one hand on the jersey, not in the neckline or in the PADS that whipped a player backwards, I invite you to find one that meets that criteria ( jersey, airborne defender, dragged down over the top of the defenders body) and get back to me. ( by the by, did you happen to successfully pull a 250 RB running 4.4 backwards with one hand on his jersey? No? Ok then).

[burrrton]

Don't believe you, but be my guest insisting experience it's clear you don't have.

Hehe. Ok, HC. As long as I'm your guest.

[RiverDog]

However, I can agree with the argument it's way too easy to grab the jersey, so perhaps there should be a distinction (pads bad, jersey ok).

Isn't that the current definition of a horse collar tackle, that the defender grabs the inside of the shoulder pads?

[burrrton]

Isn't that the current definition of a horse collar tackle, that the defender grabs the inside of the shoulder pads?

That's my understanding. I'm just saying I can see your rationale for leaving the rule as-is due to the ease with which a defender can desperately end up with a handful of jersey (vs being in position to grab the inside of the pads).

It'll be little consolation to the runner's knees in those instances where the force mimics the 'horse collar', but it seems tougher to call that intentional to me.

[RiverDog]

That's my understanding. I'm just saying I can see your rationale for leaving the rule as-is due to the ease with which a defender can desperately end up with a handful of jersey (vs being in position to grab the inside of the pads).

It'll be little consolation to the runner's knees in those instances where the force mimics the 'horse collar', but it seems tougher to call that intentional to me.

That's just it. Rules need to be made as objective as possible so both refs and players have a clear understanding of the difference between a legal tackle and an illegal one. With the rule the way it is written, a player can tell just by feel if he has ahold of the shoulder pads or not. But without actually being able to see where his hand is on the player's jersey, how can a defender tell that he has his hand on the part of the jersey that is at or above the player's name?

If it were a very blatant, no brainer safety issue, like helmet to helmet, defenseless receivers, going low on the QB, et al, then I'd be all for it. But the safety benefits of this proposed rule change are questionable at best.

[burrrton]

[edited- disregard. I see what you're saying now. Agreed]

[obiken]

Just leave the game alone we don't need ANY changes. Tell Goodell to take a flying leap!

[RiverDog]

Just leave the game alone we don't need ANY changes. Tell Goodell to take a flying leap!

I agree, obi. Every year they have to tinker with something.

However, Goodell doesn't have much to do with rule changes. With the exception of selecting the members of the competition committee, he doesn't have a say. Once the competition committee approves a proposal, it goes before the owners who need to approve the proposal by a 75% margin before they are adapted.

[NorthHawk]

16. By Competition Committee; Expands the horse collar rule to include when a defender grabs the jersey at the name plate or above and pulls a runner toward the ground.

Is there a rule stating where the nameplate has to be affixed - something like not more than 4 inches from the collar? If not, I can see a team like the Patriots move the numbers and nameplate down 6 or so inches to get an advantage. It's the kind of thing they seem to thrive on.

[HumanCockroach]

Any jersey design has to be approved by the NFL. This wouldn't ever pass.

[c_hawkbob]

Why is no one talking about #3? The elimination of the chop block from the game is huge, easily the biggest news of the bunch. It's the first time in recent memory that a major rule change benefits the defense! I understand of course that it's safety related and not generated by the competition committee but it's the one rule that could have an actual statistical effect on the game.

[mykc14]

Why is no one talking about #3? The elimination of the chop block from the game is huge, easily the biggest news of the bunch. It's the first time in recent memory that a major rule change benefits the defense! I understand of course that it's safety related and not generated by the competition committee but it's the one rule that could have an actual statistical effect on the game.

Yep, especially for us. We ALWAYS chop backside, its a staple of the ZBS. Pete has always, IMO, been a head of the game on getting guys ready for these big rule changes. He did it when the league put in the targeting rule and when the league put a point of emphasis on the defensive holding so I have no doubt he will with this if it goes through, but it certainly will impact what we can do. Cutting is by far the easiest way to slow down the backside pursuit of the DL in a ZBS. IMO it is one reason why we think we can get away with really good athletes who aren't polished O-lineman because it doesn't take as much technical skill and footwork (not to say that it doesn't take skill or good footwork, just not as technical as other types of blocking).

[NorthHawk]

"Yep, especially for us. We ALWAYS chop backside, its a staple of the ZBS."

Aren't those called Cut Blocks as opposed to the Chop Block which is blocking below the waist on a defender when he is already engaged?
Or maybe I'm confused...

[mykc14]

"Yep, especially for us. We ALWAYS chop backside, its a staple of the ZBS."

Aren't those called Cut Blocks as opposed to the Chop Block which is blocking below the waist on a defender when he is already engaged?
Or maybe I'm confused...

A chop block is a type of cut block and it does occur when a player is engaged, but both are technically cut blocks. We use both strategies but there is much more leeway in the way you can straight cut block a defender than actually chopping him (which is why you see it more often than not). Right now the only times you can chop block a guy is if you and the guy you are chopping with are lined up next to each other or if the cut is in the direction of the flow of the play. Also they are only allowed on running plays.

On this note I think that cut blocking is an important part of football. It allows guys who may be a little overmatched physically still use skill and technique to beat a bigger faster athlete. I can see the danger in chop blocks, although they really have cleaned up that rule so that the defender can at least see the hit coming and prepare themselves for the chop. It's not like the Broncos of the 90's, coming opposite the flow of play and diving at an engaged defenders knees, that type of play was dirty.

[RiverDog]

Although I don't have a link, I saw where Richard Sherman came out strongly against the proposed rule of ejecting players flagged with two PF's, started trashing the Commish for advocating it. The intensity of his objection surprised me. Plus he's going after the wrong guy. Goodell doesn't even have a vote if this proposal makes it that far.

My understanding that it isn't just garden variety PF's that would trigger automatic ejections, just certain types. However, this could be a rule change that's fixing what isn't broken. The officials already have the power to eject players from a game, do they not? Why can't they just make it a point of emphasis, and tell players they're going to be on a short leash regarding PF's?

[NorthHawk]

Although I don't have a link, I saw where Richard Sherman came out strongly against the proposed rule of ejecting players flagged with two PF's, started trashing the Commish for advocating it. The intensity of his objection surprised me. Plus he's going after the wrong guy. Goodell doesn't even have a vote if this proposal makes it that far.

My understanding that it isn't just garden variety PF's that would trigger automatic ejections, just certain types. However, this could be a rule change that's fixing what isn't broken. The officials already have the power to eject players from a game, do they not? Why can't they just make it a point of emphasis, and tell players they're going to be on a short leash regarding PF's?

PFT has an article from a couple of days ago with Blandino discussing ejecting players.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... g-players/

[NorthHawk]

"A chop block is a type of cut block and it does occur when a player is engaged, but both are technically cut blocks. We use both strategies but there is much more leeway in the way you can straight cut block a defender than actually chopping him (which is why you see it more often than not). Right now the only times you can chop block a guy is if you and the guy you are chopping with are lined up next to each other or if the cut is in the direction of the flow of the play. Also they are only allowed on running plays.

On this note I think that cut blocking is an important part of football. It allows guys who may be a little overmatched physically still use skill and technique to beat a bigger faster athlete. I can see the danger in chop blocks, although they really have cleaned up that rule so that the defender can at least see the hit coming and prepare themselves for the chop. It's not like the Broncos of the 90's, coming opposite the flow of play and diving at an engaged defenders knees, that type of play was dirty."

I'm under the impression that the only proposed change is to remove the existing permitted Chop Block as currently defined in the rules. Everything else would remain the same, and low blocks would remain legal.

[c_hawkbob]

Specifically a chop block is below the waist and from a blind spot, while the player being blocked is engaged above the waist by another blocker. This doesn't eliminate the cut block on the back side of a zone blocking scheme (unless of course the player is ruled to be already engaged).

[NorthHawk]

It makes sense to do that considering it's not permitted in High School or College, so players aren't coming into the league knowing how to do it or how to try to defend themselves from it.

On another note, Ryan Shaziers hit on Giovani Bernard will now be illegal.
From PFT:
"Specifically, the new interpretation eliminates the requirement that a defender would have to “line up” his opponent in order for a hit with the crown of the helmet to be a penalty. Starting this season, when a defender lowers his head and forcibly hits with the crown of the helmet, it will be a foul, regardless of the angle the player takes. "

[HumanCockroach]

A "chop block" on an engaged player has been illegal for a long time Myck, maybe I'm not deciphering your post correctly, but I believe than a low block from in front of a player that isn't engaged with another defender is called a "cut" block, while a "chop" block occurs from the side ( and can even be done from behind inside the tackle box, without being a clip) if the defender isn't engaged. I'm not sure if the are simply making it illegal for any "chop" block ( as it definitely is incredibly "dangerous" to lineman knees) while still allowing "cut" blocks ( from in front of the player) or not. That said, I'm almost positive that any low block ( even a cut from in front) is an illegal block when a defender is engaged.

[HumanCockroach]

It makes sense to do that considering it's not permitted in High School or College, so players aren't coming into the league knowing how to do it or how to try to defend themselves from it.

On another note, Ryan Shaziers hit on Giovani Bernard will now be illegal.
From PFT:
"Specifically, the new interpretation eliminates the requirement that a defender would have to “line up” his opponent in order for a hit with the crown of the helmet to be a penalty. Starting this season, when a defender lowers his head and forcibly hits with the crown of the helmet, it will be a foul, regardless of the angle the player takes. "

Cut blocks, as well as chop blocks are legal in Kingco, son lost his senior season to one, and the offensive lineman are taught it as well. Not to mention things that aren't legal, but still "encouraged" ( like dragging offensive lineman down with you as a defensive lineman, which is technically defensive holding and a penalty) HS football isn't like it used to be, winning at all costs is encouraged and taught unfortunately.

Edit: as for the Shazier hit, does the rule proposal also protect defenders getting earholed by offensive players on blocks? If not, it's simply another "safety" rule put in place to encourage offense. ( as blockers have free reign to take shots at defenders, and even when a rule is put in place like the RB targeting rule, it's never enforced).

[mykc14]

A "chop block" on an engaged player has been illegal for a long time Myck, maybe I'm not deciphering your post correctly, but I believe than a low block from in front of a player that isn't engaged with another defender is called a "cut" block, while a "chop" block occurs from the side ( and can even be done from behind inside the tackle box, without being a clip) if the defender isn't engaged. I'm not sure if the are simply making it illegal for any "chop" block ( as it definitely is incredibly "dangerous" to lineman knees) while still allowing "cut" blocks ( from in front of the player) or not. That said, I'm almost positive that any low block ( even a cut from in front) is an illegal block when a defender is engaged.

Technically speaking they are both 'cut' blocks, with a 'chop' block being type of cut block, but that part is just semantics. It sounds like you did decipher my post correctly. The nfl has greatly restricted the chop block but it is not entirely illegal. Currently they can chop block an opponent in certain situations (mainly the ones I listed earlier: both lineman are next to each other when the ball is snapped or the block is going with the flow of the play, etc.. There are actually a few other exceptions as well). If it were already illegal why would there be a proposal to ban it outright right now? It is a strategy that we use and will continue to use as long as it is legal (which obviously might not be much longer).

[mykc14]

Here is the rule from the nfl rule book: see rule 12 section 2 article 3

http://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/2015-nfl-rulebook/

This is from the 2015 nfl rule book. It's hard to navigate on my phone but it might be easier on a computer, just search chop blocks and scroll down and you should be able to find it. I tried to paste the section below but I don't know if it will work with my phone.

ARTICLE 3. CHOP BLOCK
A Chop Block is a block by the offense in which one offensive player (designated as A1 for purposes of this rule) blocks a defensive player in the area of the thigh or lower while another offensive player (A2) engages that same defensive player above the waist.

A Chop Block is a legal block in the following situations on Running Plays:
Offensive players A1 and A2, who are initially aligned adjacent to each other on the line of scrimmage, may chop a defensive player.
Offensive players A1 and A2, who are initially aligned more than one position away from each other on the line of scrimmage, may chop a defensive player when the flow of the play is toward the block.
All other Chop Blocks are illegal, including in the following situations:

[NorthHawk]

No more chop blocks, the new horse collar rule, and permanently moved the extra point as last year have been approved so far.

Edit:
From PFT, more changes:
"In addition to those changes, offensive and defensive play callers on the coaching staffs will now be able to use the coach-to-player communication system regardless of whether they are on the field or in the coaches’ booth. It is now a foul for delay of game when a team attempts to call a timeout when it is not permitted to do so while the five-yard penalty for an eligible receiver illegally touching a forward pass after being out of bounds has been eliminated. Teams will now lose a down if that happens and the league also eliminated multiple spots of enforcement for a double foul after a change of possession."