Sure, but like I said before, if he's in the "gray area" and is deemed a runner, contact determined incidental is legal. Basically if he's in the "gray area" he has to expect to get hit like a RB. Sometimes they'll bail him out, but he can't expect it.
There is no grey area with the launching helmet to helmet hits Newton dealt with last night. Always illegal, which is why there's such a controversy this morning that htey went uncalled. As for him running into the pile and dealing with the incidental hits? Sure, that's on him. But those aren't the one's being discussed.
The hits last night that you are calling "launching helmet to helmet" are what's often called "incidental contact" when it's a runner. That's the point. If Cam wants the additional protection that QB's get, he has to play as a QB, not a RB.
True, but admonishing the refs invites defenses to use dangerous hits without any negative ramifications. Your concept is penalizing the wrong people.
I think there are times where this grey area you speak of is valid, and that's just a flaw of football. There are also times, such as last night, where the hits are very obviously illegal.
Slightly unrelated but I think they should change the rule where if the is a roughing the passer penalty or a helmet to helmet hit to the QB, it shouldn't be cancelled out by an intentional grounding call.
I don't know about that. It's a really tough call given that both are serious violations according to the rules. How many penalties are as severe as a spot foul AND a loss of down? If the hit caused the ball to come up short of the line, then it wouldn't have been intentional grounding.
Once again...just because he starts running the ball doesn't mean helmet to helmet is eliminated from the rule book. There's a reason why there is such a controversy this morning about Cam's helmet to helmet hits. There were quite a few. It's tough. I'm not sure it can be entirely cancelled out, because then intentional grounding becomes very subjective. I do think a change to that needs to be implemented though. A personal foul like that shouldn't go entirely unpunished. Maybe something like the player committing the personal foul is forced out of the game for a determined amount of time.
When he starts running it means he loses his QB protection that makes all helmet to helmet hits banned. RB's can be hit in the head without penalty if it is deemed incidental contact during the course of a tackle. The reason there is controversy is because a QB took hard hits without penalty, most people don't look into it to think of reasons why that might have happened, they just start complaining.
If I recall correctly, intentional grounding is a 10 yard penalty and roughing the passer is a 15 yard penalty. If that happens, why not just make it a fiver yard penalty against the defense and maybe even an automatic first down?
Intentional grounding is a spot foul... plus a loss of down. Its probably the one penalty in the NFL that makes the most sense (it presumes the QB should have been sacked... whereas pass interference presumes the WR would always make the catch where it happened, which is dumb).
Apparently only if it is 10 yards or more Interesting. I still think the penalties shouldn't cancel each other when there is a roughing the passer, especially a helmet to helmet hit.
Intentional grounding is a 10 yard penalty or a spot foul if they are further behind the LOS than that PLUS a loss of down. That's arguably the most harsh penalty against the offense possible. Based on that, I'm okay with them being offsetting. That said, maybe you do something to the player that hit them if it was intentional, like a warning then an ejection.
