Thursday & Long: Defending the 'Defenseless'

While the NFL's competition committee has been spending much of its time the past week discussing an awkward solution to an overtime system that's not really a problem, a couple of the proposals it plans to submit for a vote at next week's league meetings have to do with the crucial (and oft-overlooked or oft-ridiculed) issue of player safety. Specifically, the committee wants to expand the protection of what it calls "defenseless" receivers by outlawing certain methods of hitting or tackling them immediately after a catch.

"That's always been a pretty tight line for us," committee co-chair Rich McKay said on a Wednesday conference call. "We're going to try to expand that line and give him protection until he's had an opportunity to defend himself from hits to the head by defenders launching upwards towards his head."

New NFL safety rules are often decried by so-called purists as too intrusive and too restrictive of defenses, and some will certainly say that of this proposed change. But the fact that it's on the agenda is yet another signal of a new era in football -- one in which player safety is being prioritized more than ever, and in which injury prevention is deemed more important than keeping the game "tough" or "physical."

The competition committee's proposed rule change involving receivers would limit the way in which a receiver could be hit or tackled in the moments after he has completed the catch.

"Currently, the protection provided for the defenseless receiver ends when the receiver has completed the catch, meaning possession of the ball with two feet on the ground," McKay explained. "We propose language that would say that, if a receiver has completed the catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching into him in a way that causes the defensive player's helmet, facemask, shoulder or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver's head."

It sounds odd to legislate methods of tackling, but this is the NFL in the era of head-injury awareness. And McKay said a review of tape from the 2009-10 season led the committee to determine a change in this area was necessary.

"We've seen tape where people literally have caught the ball and had no opportunity to avoid or protect themselves in any way," McKay said. "It's that moment in time where we just think the receiver has not yet become a runner."

McKay said the committee also would propose rule changes designed to better protect field goal snappers -- specifically, a prohibition against lining up a defender "within the frame of the body of the snapper" -- and a new rule that blows the ball dead when a runner loses his helmet. That last one makes so much sense that it's inconceivable that it hasn't been a rule until now.

"It's not that player safety is being brought up because of numbers," McKay said. "It's being brought up because it's important and because we believe we should always look for ways to make the game safer when we can."

What's missing from all of this are the specific player-safety concerns the players' union has raised in the collective bargaining negotiations it's had with the owners. The union would like to alter the current culture in which players are either punished or criticized by their teams for missing voluntary off-season workouts, to further limit and/or structure off-season OTAs and to restrict such activities as Eric Mangini's post-practice "opportunity drills," which the union believes led to a couple of Browns players being seriously injured in 2009.

McKay said those concerns were discussed with the union at the scouting combine last month in Indianapolis, but apparently that's as far as it went. Such changes, he said, will not be on the agenda next week in Orlando.

"In Indianapolis we had some discussions, had some thoughts, nothing beyond that," McKay said. "We didn't write anything down. We just kind of had roundtable discussions and it hasn't gone any further than that. I think we're getting ready to start our off-seasons now. So far as I understand it, we'll go forward the same way we have before."

That's not going to help allay the union's belief that the league refuses to take its concerns seriously. And it's not likely to help the already challenging environment in which the sides are attempting to negotiate a new deal in time to prevent a 2011 lockout.