New NFL Quarterback Rule: Good, Bad, Or Biased?

So, in the very first game of the 2008 NFL season, Tom Brady suffers a season-ending knee injury. Whoop-de-doo right? Wrong! This injury stirred up quite a few questions as to the health of players, mainly the high-profile athletes.

In a new NFL rule instituted Tuesday, any defender who is on his knees can no longer lunge at a quarterback's knee and destroy his season without taking a 15-yard penalty. Ridiculous, is what I think. Why is it the NFL decides to change the ruling on this after the Brady injury? Is it because Brady is the NFL?

No, that cant be the reason. But it is.

I haven't heard anything about the offensive lineman from Detroit who chop-blocked Jared Allen and almost ended his season. No, the NFL would never look at that as the reason to change a rule. Why not, you ask? He is not Tom Brady.

Why is it they change the rule this year? Someone please give me a valid reason. What I am writing will probably get quite a few Patriots fans upset, but it is what I believe. I feel the NFL must protect its most winning QB so he can try to make history every time he takes the field. Makes me sick.

Well, what other big-name quarterback has had a serious knee injury since maybe Daunte Culpepper? Nothing was done after Vinny Testaverde went down in 1999 with a ACL tear.

You can try to make the game as safe as possible, but injuries are going to happen. It is unpredictable and inevitable in a physical game such as this. If the NFL wants to cut back on injuries, why not change it to flag football?

How about we go ask some legends what they think of all these rules and listen to their opinions? They didn't have this "let's run at the QB, make him scared, and step back stuff." No. They played until their guts fell out, until their knuckles bled, until their ankles broke.

Tom Brady is good, but it's inexcusable that he is the sole reason for a league rule change.