written by JMB on 2019-12-07
For many reasons, it is harder than ever for a defender in the National Football League to tackle the quarterback. In my opinion, the number one obstacle (outside of opposing offensive lines) is the Roughing the Passer penalty, A.K.A. NFL Rule 12, § 2, art. 11 (2019). Here’s why and how that penalty should be abolished.
I’ll admit my biases up front: I believe that the legalization of the forward pass was a mistake (what did John Heisman know about football anyway), so I am naturally disinclined toward any rule that promotes passing. However, Roughing the Passer is a particularly insidious rule. For one thing, unlike its nanny-state number-neighbor regarding the kicker (Rule 12, § 2, art. 12), there is no lesser-yardage penalty for simply “Running into” the passer. Officials have no means to differentiate between degrees of contact and must give no penalty (the equivalent of not even touching the passer) or 15 yards (the maximum sentence). Having a uniform penalty for a wide range of conduct is a design failure for any penal system; if tapping the passer is penalized the same as launching at a passer’s knees, then there is in effect no incentive for a player to commit less contact once he expects be penalized. See Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Penal Law in The Works of Jeremy Bentham, vol. 1, pg. 399–402 (John Bowring 1843) (“If the punishment is the same for simple theft, as for theft and murder, you give the thieves a motive for committing murder”)
The other reason Roughing the Passer grinds my gears is that it overly-encourages specialization. My ideal form of football is closer to rugby, where the quarterback can always be a threat to pass the ball (backward or forward), run with the ball, or kick the ball away (like a pooch punt). But with the Roughing the Passer penalty, only one of these options can draw a 15 yard penalty without a 5-yard minor. The NFL rule justifies this favoritism by saying that “because the act of passing often puts the [passer] in a position where he is particularly vulnerable to injury, special rules” apply. Medically speaking, this is horseshit. Everyone knows you’re more likely to avoid breaking stuff if you go limp and don’t tense up before a hit. What better way to not tense up when hit by a linebacker than to stay on your feet and throw a pass? A player who has decided to run is more vulnerable to injury because his body is tensed up to tuck and carry ball
Looking past the NFL’s pseudo-science on injury rates by play type, its clear that the NFL enforces Roughing the Passer because passers are normally quarterbacks who are the face of the franchise, and anything to minimize their injuries makes the NFL more money. (“What about college football, JMB?”, asked none of you, so I will not treat you with a lengthier explanation of how the NCAA’s Roughing the Passer rule is the product of the East Coast elite trying to stymie the powerhouse programs in the Midwest that operate with a superior, manlier style of football). But while the quarterback position’s premier profitability is no doubt true in most cases, it is not a perfect proxy. Do you think the New York Giants really care if Eli Manning gets the shit kicked out of him anymore? No; 100 times out of 100 they would rather have a Roughing the Runner penalty to protect a defenseless Saquon Barkley out there.
So instead, I have two alternate proposals to better match the NFL’s greedy goals. The first is Roughing the Biggest Salary. Every down, a defender has to be aware of who on the offense is providing the most value to the league as determined by the closed market. Now again, this would normally be the quarterback on non-punting downs. But not always, especially when the starting quarterback is injured or benched. Finally, a wide receiver left to become a CTE sandwich between two safeties can at least get 15 more yards for his team because he makes $25,000 more per year than his team’s starting center. The second alternative is Roughing the Franchise Tag, which operates exactly how it sounds. This would add a lot of intrigue to the offseason because it would integrate personnel management to play on the field. It might force front offices during contract negotiations to actually interact their coaching staffs and decide whether they really should franchise tag a defensive end this year. Plus, this would give a lot of leverage to the poor franchise tagged players who cannot leave their teams. Imagine if La’Veon Bell sitting out 2018 at Pittsburgh also meant that one penalty could never be called against Steelers opponents all season—Vontaze Burfict would have had a field day, which is always a sign of a well-functioning penal system.
This was Just My Blog.
コメント