PDA

View Full Version : runners can no longer lower their heads



Pages : [1] 2

Roosevelt
03-20-2013, 01:35 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/20/helmet-rule-passes/

I don't see this working out well. The officials have enough to worry about.

Rudyy
03-20-2013, 01:37 PM
I don't know how they are going to consistently call that..

pacco_diablo
03-20-2013, 01:39 PM
Hopefully the "intention" part of it is extremely emphasized, even more-so than it is on defense. If it's even questionable, keeping the flag in the pocket needs to happen.

Rudyy
03-20-2013, 01:41 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/156018_516855978361095_384793639_n.png

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 01:42 PM
WOW , I never thought it was going to pass. They are just changing the product so much with all those BS rules that in the end its going to bite them back .

Carter.525
03-20-2013, 01:42 PM
I don't know how they are going to consistently call that..

agreed.. there's going to be a gray area with these calls.. I don't like it

Roosevelt
03-20-2013, 01:42 PM
Actually it doesn't sound that bad. This will be for obvious/flagrant violations (we hope!)

Here's an explanation:

http://www.nflevolution.com/article/NFL-Network-8217-s-Steve-Wyche-talks-about-lower-the-helmet-rule?ref=7215

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 01:43 PM
I just don't see how in hell a game of football is going to be played from now on .

Rudyy
03-20-2013, 01:46 PM
So it has to be a blatant lowering of the head?

EJ Blue
03-20-2013, 01:47 PM
http://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q486/randomelluzive/mcnabb_zpsa7e67993.gif

darrin99
03-20-2013, 01:55 PM
What a joke.

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 02:00 PM
I'm sorry I just see a huge gray area in this rule for the Refs to FUup the game, sorry about my language but I'm a little pissed.

http://youtu.be/P_scQFxiEus

So this beautiful play from Bradshaw would have been a foul or better said is going to be a foul from now on ? Please.

Eli TO Shockey
03-20-2013, 02:00 PM
not that big of a deal. it has to be blatant and intentional. good find on that video

Ntegrase96
03-20-2013, 02:01 PM
You can probably thank your owner...

New York Giants owner John Mara, a member of the competition committee that has recommended the change, said there was "a chance" a vote could be tabled until the May meetings in Boston.

"There was a spirited discussion," Mara said.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/90...r-rule-changes

GameTime
03-20-2013, 02:02 PM
the way it is described doesnt seem too bad. No doubt there will be be some BS flags. So the RB has to use his shoulder and not his head......

BlueJayC
03-20-2013, 02:04 PM
So this is now a 15 yarder? Awful:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4p3j9e6OD1rx1kh3o1_500.gif

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 02:06 PM
So this is now a 15 yarder? Awful:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4p3j9e6OD1rx1kh3o1_500.gif
That was the first image that came running to my mind buddy and I just posted that a minute ago. That indeed is a crying shame .

Eli TO Shockey
03-20-2013, 02:07 PM
You can probably thank your owner...

New York Giants owner John Mara, a member of the competition committee that has recommended the change, said there was "a chance" a vote could be tabled until the May meetings in Boston.

"There was a spirited discussion," Mara said.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/90...r-rule-changes

how's that romo deal coming along? true clutch playoff performer. gotta love Jerry Jones.

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 02:08 PM
I don't know how they are going to consistently call that..

Yes, given how good they are with all of those holding calls :rolleyes:

ny06
03-20-2013, 02:09 PM
It's just a matter of time before they ban tackling.

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 02:09 PM
You can probably thank your owner...

New York Giants owner John Mara, a member of the competition committee that has recommended the change, said there was "a chance" a vote could be tabled until the May meetings in Boston.

"There was a spirited discussion," Mara said.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/90...r-rule-changes


Are we going to blame John Mara for everything now?

Rudyy
03-20-2013, 02:10 PM
That was the first image that came running to my mind buddy and I just posted that a minute ago. That indeed is a crying shame .Well now it's harder on the refs because is he leading with his shoulder or his head?

Kruunch
03-20-2013, 02:10 PM
And just when you think the run game is making a come back ... back to passing!

GameTime
03-20-2013, 02:13 PM
So this is now a 15 yarder? Awful:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4p3j9e6OD1rx1kh3o1_500.gif
nah..he hits with his shoulder and he didnt have time to chage his angle. I see alot of offsettign penalties too since both RB and defensive player will lower their heads...

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 02:13 PM
how's that romo deal coming along? true clutch playoff performer. gotta love Jerry Jones.
LOL ! The nerve of some cowturd fans. I guess that happens when you live in cap hell no tanks to their looney owner.

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 02:15 PM
nah..he hits with his shoulder and he didnt have time to chage his angle. I see alot of offsettign penalties too since both RB and defensive player will lower their heads...
But in reality 99 of a 100 times on a bang-bang play that is going to get called, mark my words.

Eli TO Shockey
03-20-2013, 02:15 PM
LOL ! The nerve of some cowturd fans. I guess that happens when you live in cap hell no tanks to their looney owner.

Romo wants Rodgers money...and he's going to get it.

To quote the great Tiki Barber..."thats COMICAL!"

pacco_diablo
03-20-2013, 02:15 PM
So this is now a 15 yarder? Awful:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4p3j9e6OD1rx1kh3o1_500.gif

This looks like a shoulder. Now had he lowered his head and ran and speared straight on then it would be a flag. This looks legal though. I would venture to say that most ball handlers dont want to spear straight on with the helmet.

Roosevelt
03-20-2013, 02:15 PM
So this is now a 15 yarder? Awful:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4p3j9e6OD1rx1kh3o1_500.gif

Good question, and according to what I've read, no.

The new rule will draw a 15-yard penalty if a runner or a tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players clearly are outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle-to-tackle and from three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or a tackler against an opponent would not be deemed a foul.

Ntegrase96
03-20-2013, 02:16 PM
Are we going to blame John Mara for everything now?

I'm not blaming Mara for anything.

He's a part of getting the rule passed. For those who don't like the rule then you have your team's owner partly to blame, or if you are on the fence and want to look on the bright side you can understand that the rule change was advocated by a guy most have high respect for.

flashnando
03-20-2013, 02:18 PM
In 2014 this will be the new NFL:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSWXZet0tJg

gmenfan0488
03-20-2013, 02:19 PM
Running backs can't drop their pad level anymore. They can't lead with the helmets now. All runners need to run straight upright now . ifhey get low at all, it's a penality. Head up, chin up, so many more concussions are going to happen now, more broken jaws, etc. You cannot get down to protect yourself whatsoever because it will be construed as a penalty.

Eli TO Shockey
03-20-2013, 02:19 PM
I'm not blaming Mara for anything.

He's a part of getting the rule passed. For those who don't like the rule then you have your team's owner partly to blame, or if you are on the fence and want to look on the bright side you can understand that the rule change was advocated by a guy most have high respect for.

It was a 31-1 vote. Get outta here troll.

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 02:19 PM
I'm not blaming Mara for anything.

He's a part of getting the rule passed. For those who don't like the rule then you have your team's owner partly to blame, or if you are on the fence and want to look on the bright side you can understand that the rule change was advocated by a guy most have high respect for.

You realize all the owners have to vote, right? The majority rules.

And if you weren't blaming John Mara, why not just say Jerry Jones, or Daniel Snyder, or Jeffry Laurie

Ntegrase96
03-20-2013, 02:19 PM
how's that romo deal coming along? true clutch playoff performer. gotta love Jerry Jones.

I'd rather them not extend Romo's contract... not sure what this has to do with the thread though.

egyptian420
03-20-2013, 02:20 PM
I suppose the players and refs will adjust but this new progressive NFL is becoming so wack

Kruunch
03-20-2013, 02:20 PM
Romo wants Rodgers money...and he's going to get it.

To quote the great Tiki Barber..."thats COMICAL!"

Romo is making 50% more than Rodgers this year.

cornerback30
03-20-2013, 02:21 PM
I mean what the hell man,what are they gonna take away next,you can't tackle the opposing player,harder than they allow.If it's gonna cause a scratch or bruise they will outlaw it man this some BS.This league is going to **** real quick,this is why I say Marino's records will always be better than Brees's because back when he played DBs were allowed to play ball.Now if you look at the quarterback or WR to hard they throw a dam flag.This some BS,as far as lawsuits and ,everybody and their momma knows this is a physical game and injuries are part of it.None of these players past,present or future were forced at gun point to sign up to play football.There was no draft to elect young men to go into the NFL and play or be sent to prison.If you are scared of injuries then don't play the dam game.None of these dam players say o I'm gonna sue the NFL because of all the money I'm being paid is causing my wallet to swell and cause me problems.This some BS man.I can understand being concerned about letting guys play if they are concused,I'm cool with that,but hell pee wee leaguers lowers their heads when running the ball.

gmenfan0488
03-20-2013, 02:22 PM
Runners need to run straight up now. they can't protect themselves. if they get low at all, it's a penality. Head up, chin up, so many more concussions are going to happen now, more broken jaws, etc. You cannot get down to protect yourself whatsoever because it will be construed as a penalty.

Ntegrase96
03-20-2013, 02:25 PM
You realize all the owners have to vote, right? The majority rules.

And if you weren't blaming John Mara, why not just say Jerry Jones, or Daniel Snyder, or Jeffry Laurie

Because this is a Giants forum.

Yes. I understand that it's a majority vote, but Mara is one of 8 members (as is Stepehn Jones) of the competition committee who proposed the rule.

I personally have no issue with the rule after reading several explanations. But for the people that do have issue with it, maybe they'll consider the source of the rule proposition before bashing it.

edit: Not exactly sure why you're being so touchy about it. Doesn't seem like you...

Rudyy
03-20-2013, 02:26 PM
Regardless of who was for the rule, whether it was Mara or whoever. It's a ridiculous rule.

GameTime
03-20-2013, 02:27 PM
Runners need to run straight up now. they can't protect themselves. if they get low at all, it's a penality
no not really...
go see the link Roosevelt put up......and listen to Sam Wyche....

gmen0820
03-20-2013, 02:30 PM
First image was Trent Richardson knocking that little ***** Coleman on his ***.

joemorrisforprez
03-20-2013, 02:30 PM
NFL is looking more like the NBA every season.

Kruunch
03-20-2013, 02:31 PM
I don't like this rule from the standpoint of adding another highly subjective judgment on to the Ref's plate.

Imagine a flag calling back an 80 yard TD run because Adrian Petersen lead with his helmet to get in the end zone.

Rudyy
03-20-2013, 02:32 PM
I don't like this rule from the standpoint of adding another highly subjective judgment on to the Ref's plate.

Imagine a flag calling back an 80 yard TD run because Adrian Petersen lead with his helmet to get in the end zone.That's flat out stupid.

mikeq6722
03-20-2013, 02:36 PM
I cant wait till the NFL is full of 160 pound soccer players.

GiantRoc
03-20-2013, 02:41 PM
So this is now a 15 yarder? Awful:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4p3j9e6OD1rx1kh3o1_500.gif

Was thinking of this too. But in this view looks like contact is more with the shoulder. So what's the call? That's the bad part of rules like this. One crew will flag it and another won't. A wider view at various angles show other players in close proximity. Is this open field? Just a horrible rule change. WAY too subjective.

So how many running backs get their ribs caved in for fear of a 15 yard penalty. This rule change will be more dangerous to the backs. I'm stupified

pacco_diablo
03-20-2013, 02:44 PM
Runners need to run straight up now. they can't protect themselves. if they get low at all, it's a penality. Head up, chin up, so many more concussions are going to happen now, more broken jaws, etc. You cannot get down to protect yourself whatsoever because it will be construed as a penalty.

The quickest way to get hurt is by running straight up. lol. I don't think this new rule is going to be much of an issue. I think it's going to be easy to spot, much like the horse collar tackle. It will be more obvious compared to a defender that does it.

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 02:49 PM
Because this is a Giants forum.

Yes. I understand that it's a majority vote, but Mara is one of 8 members (as is Stepehn Jones) of the competition committee who proposed the rule.

I personally have no issue with the rule after reading several explanations. But for the people that do have issue with it, maybe they'll consider the source of the rule proposition before bashing it.

edit: Not exactly sure why you're being so touchy about it. Doesn't seem like you...

It seemed you were zeroing in on John Mara which has been going on from Dallas and Washington since they got caught with their hands in the CBA lockout jar. But if you say that wasn't your intent, I'll accept that. It's been reported the vote was 31 - 1

GameTime
03-20-2013, 02:57 PM
I don't like this rule from the standpoint of adding another highly subjective judgment on to the Ref's plate.

Imagine a flag calling back an 80 yard TD run because Adrian Petersen lead with his helmet to get in the end zone.
who cares about AP. As long as isnt Wilson or Brown

blueribbon
03-20-2013, 02:58 PM
We'll start seeing 6'5 270 lb RB's

GameTime
03-20-2013, 02:58 PM
But in reality 99 of a 100 times on a bang-bang play that is going to get called, mark my words.
I think it will be just the opposite....

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 02:59 PM
^^
Give me a break. This is a great rule change. It about time ball carriers are being held responsible for helmet hits. This I not one of those outrageous changes that lessens the toughness in the game. This is a change coaches and defensive players have been asking for for years.

You don't need to lead with the crown. Helmets aren't supposed to be weapons. You are supposed to lower your shoulder not your head

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 02:59 PM
ridiculous

from the time these guys are 10 years old they are taught to lower their pad level upon impact.......what happens when you lower your pad level????....your head goes down .

this is going to be a very difficult thing to officiate in real time and will ruin more games than players it saves

Ntegrase96
03-20-2013, 03:03 PM
It seemed you were zeroing in on John Mara which has been going on from Dallas and Washington since they got caught with their hands in the CBA lockout jar. But if you say that wasn't your intent, I'll accept that. It's been reported the vote was 31 - 1

Understandable. I'm over the cap debacle. Was it annoying? Yeah, but I've come to accept a few things on the issue.

1.) The NFL does not operate the same as most businesses as evidenced by many of the actions and events it practices.
2.) Therefore, with consensus, pretty much anything passed can be legal as justified by the vague nature of the 'spirit of competition'.
3.) The competition committee acted within NFL guidelines to reduce the cap space of both franchises.
4.) It wasn't completely unwarranted. It's not like Snyder and Jones are saints in this scenario. They did, in fact, try to gain a competitive advantage in 2010 by manipulating the salary cap for future years to a greater extent than most other teams.

Those are the main points... I could go on, but I think it's clear here and no one here would probably debate otherwise.

But back to the topic... from what I can infer is that this rule, while it may annoyingly slow the pace of some games, actually does a lot to address a sizeable issue with chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

In the end, it will probably work out just like any other new rule.

Ntegrase96
03-20-2013, 03:04 PM
DP

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 03:04 PM
WOW , I never thought it was going to pass. They are just changing the product so much with all those BS rules that in the end its going to bite them back .

^^
Give me a break. This is a great rule change. It about time ball carriers are being held responsible for helmet hits. This is not one of those outrageous changes that lessens the toughness in the game. This is a change coaches and defensive players have been asking for for years.

You don't need to lead with the crown. Helmets aren't supposed to be weapons. You are supposed to lower your shoulder not your head.

Some of you sound like you have zero knowledge of the correct techniques that are used in this game.

Normally I am against these changes, but this one is an absolute no brainer.

Rudyy
03-20-2013, 03:05 PM
@ProFootballTalk: Rich McKay says NFL studied Week 10 and Week 16 from 2012; there would have been 11 flags under the new helmet rule during those two weeks. I wonder if he witnessed any injuries...

dezzzR
03-20-2013, 03:10 PM
^^
Give me a break. This is a great rule change. It about time ball carriers are being held responsible for helmet hits. This I not one of those outrageous changes that lessens the toughness in the game. This is a change coaches and defensive players have been asking for for years.

You don't need to lead with the crown. Helmets aren't supposed to be weapons. You are supposed to lower your shoulder not your headHow does one lower their shoulder without lowering their head? This is going to be called every other play.

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 03:11 PM
ridiculous

from the time these guys are 10 years old they are taught to lower their pad level upon impact.......what happens when you lower your pad level????....your head goes down .

this is going to be a very difficult thing to officiate in real time and will ruin more games than players it saves

Wrong. When lowering pad level you are using your hips and knees to get lower. NOT your neck and back.

I've been coaching for 9 years and not once do you need to lead with your crown to make a tackle or break a tackle.

Go check out that clip of B. Jacobs running over the guy from Washington. He lead with his shoulder not his head. If a 6'5 guy can do it properly anyone can.

dezzzR
03-20-2013, 03:13 PM
I think its time to start to threaten the league with boycotts, or have a big petition. If fans do nothing theyll keep making these terrible rules.

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 03:14 PM
How does one lower their shoulder without lowering their head?

Hitting with the "crown of the helmet" is the violation. If you lower your shoulders while looking up, no violation.

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 03:15 PM
I think its time to start to threaten the league with boycotts, or have a big petition. If fans do nothing theyll keep making these terrible rules.

The lawsuits that are mounting from former players are driving this safety push. They have to do something to counter the barrage.

Kruunch
03-20-2013, 03:17 PM
^^
Give me a break. This is a great rule change. It about time ball carriers are being held responsible for helmet hits. This I not one of those outrageous changes that lessens the toughness in the game. This is a change coaches and defensive players have been asking for for years.

You don't need to lead with the crown. Helmets aren't supposed to be weapons. You are supposed to lower your shoulder not your head

Thank you Rosie O'donnell.

Kruunch
03-20-2013, 03:18 PM
The lawsuits that are mounting from former players are driving this safety push. They have to do something to counter the barrage.

Waivers ftw!

rebelfan1966
03-20-2013, 03:20 PM
Why don't the NFL go ahead and make it two hand touch and be done with it.....

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 03:20 PM
Hitting with the "crown of the helmet" is the violation. If you lower your shoulders while looking up, no violation.
+1

At least there is one person on here that has a clue about proper technique.

rtlax
03-20-2013, 03:22 PM
This sort of thing is going to continue to happen. You have far too many former players with brain damage. Either the league makes proactive changes to try and protect players or the league gets hit by so many lawsuits that it will cease to exist. This is going on in other contact sports as well. I coach HS lacrosse and I can tell you for certain the game I coach now if far less violent than the game I played 20 years ago.

Besides, pass rushers haven't been able to flat out KILL qbs for many years now. I still get excited as I ever have when we get to the passer though. If rules like this prevent injuries long and short term I am all for them. Change was coming, if you haven't seen it you haven't been paying attention. I want the NFL to be around a while and changes like this are necessary to make that happen.

dezzzR
03-20-2013, 03:22 PM
The lawsuits that are mounting from former players are driving this safety push. They have to do something to counter the barrage.Then the NFL needs to start giving out better contracts when players enter the NFL. If they want to play make them sign something that says they understand the dangers and that they cant sue after they retire.

rebelfan1966
03-20-2013, 03:24 PM
You can lower your shoulder, but its a natural reflex to drop the helmet when taking on a defender. Should be interesting to see how closely they call this.... It may be like Holding, it happens on most every play, but only gets called a few times a game.

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 03:27 PM
Great post, Rtlax.

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 03:27 PM
Wrong. When lowering pad level you are using your hips and knees to get lower. NOT your neck and back.

I've been coaching for 9 years and not once do you need to lead with your crown to make a tackle or break a tackle.

Go check out that clip of B. Jacobs running over the guy from Washington. He lead with his shoulder not his head. If a 6'5 guy can do it properly anyone can.

wow thats a pretty amazing talent to be able to lower your pad level without lowering your head ....plastic man anyone?

I played ball at every level....
even was invited to and participated in an NFL training camp

and I hate to break it to you coach

but lowering your pad level for a runner involves lowering his head

players are coached to lower their pad level and protect the ball in a crouch position upon impact....and guess what...the head is involved

if you coach runners to lower their pad level and keep their head up you should be stripped of your coaching duties

and yeah watch those Jacobs highlights.....was his head up?

was Earl Campbells head up in all those highlights that are cellebrated?

Mike Alstott?...etc etc .....

NYGdraftMIND
03-20-2013, 03:28 PM
For those that are opposed to this, it is fair to assume that you have not played football at a pop-warner /junior/high-school/ semi-pro level/College level. You are thought as a running back to brace for impact but covering the ball up with both hands, compacting your body like a turtle, and leading with a shoulder, not running at full sprint with your head aimed to the impending defender. At least that is what I was thought from 6-19. I can hear my Midwood high school coach yelling in my ears right now ďThis ainít the goddamn WWF, donít spear the LB, protect yourself and the ****ing ball.Ē
The rule change is for blatant offenses, if a runner shows the intent to lower and drive the crown of his helmet to brace or inflict. Then it would get called, most runners lead with their shoulders but its so spilt second that it looks like they are leading with their head to the casual viewer watching at home. If anything this will probably slow the game down a bit with reviews or bickering defenders trying to get a call or something. But to say the NFL is becoming flag football or that the game is getting soft, thatís just ignorance.

Thanks for reading. Peace

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 03:28 PM
Waivers ftw!

Until a court of competent jurisdiction provides a decision on a test case, they are going to continue to find ways to protect players.

DVision
03-20-2013, 03:28 PM
Hitting with the "crown of the helmet" is the violation. If you lower your shoulders while looking up, no violation.

Bradshaw might as well retire :) No really, every time I see a runner lead with the crown of his helmet I get the chills. I've been a T3 para for over 10 years. It's no fun!

Kruunch
03-20-2013, 03:29 PM
Wrong. When lowering pad level you are using your hips and knees to get lower. NOT your neck and back.

I've been coaching for 9 years and not once do you need to lead with your crown to make a tackle or break a tackle.

Go check out that clip of B. Jacobs running over the guy from Washington. He lead with his shoulder not his head. If a 6'5 guy can do it properly anyone can.

Get your nose out of a book.

I played linebacker for 8 years ... leading with your helmet as a running back is a natural inclination. Any running back that charges a crowd does it at some point if not the majority of time.

Too hard to legislate this rule unless they tell the refs "in only the most obvious and flagrant situations". That's about the only way I could see it not spinning out of control.

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 03:30 PM
+1

At least there is one person on here that has a clue about proper technique.

The most likely time this will be an issue will be in short yardage and goal line plays where it doesn't require you see where you are going if you're the runner

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 03:31 PM
Bradshaw might as well retire :) No really, every time I see a runner lead with the crown of his helmet I get the chills. I've been a T3 para for over 10 years. It's no fun!

Defensive players have been very vocal about some protections for them.

dezzzR
03-20-2013, 03:31 PM
I think its time fans start threatening boycotts. Maybe a big petition. Something needs to be done or the owners and Goodell are going to keep making these horrible rules.

Moke
03-20-2013, 03:32 PM
Makes me not want to watch football. NFL defenders are getting it easy.

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 03:33 PM
The lawsuits are mainly because the NFL lied and told players there was no long term effects of concussions. Not because of geting hurt on the job.

rebelfan1966
03-20-2013, 03:34 PM
Football is a contact sport, players assume some risk when they sign those monster contracts .... Maybe they are trying to pass new rules that would keep the players "safer" / "healthier" so they (The NFL) can extend the playing season. It might be a trade off of sorts.... But Hey, I'm all for player safety including better equipment and common sense rule changes. I just don't want to see the integrity of the game go down hill.....

Toadofsteel
03-20-2013, 03:34 PM
Makes me not want to watch football. NFL defenders are getting it easy.

At least in the running game... Wide receivers meantime have all the leeway vs DBs...

Maybe it's a conspiracy to eliminate the running game and make the NFL all-pass?

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 03:35 PM
The most likely time this will be an issue will be in short yardage and goal line plays where it doesn't require you see where you are going if you're the runner

I don't think so. Pretty sure the new rule is only enforced outside the tackle box.

Cloud57
03-20-2013, 03:36 PM
so this eliminates the powerback? all you need now is a guy who can run around people.

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 03:37 PM
For those that are opposed to this, it is fair to assume that you have not played football at a pop-warner /junior/high-school/ semi-pro level/College level. You are thought as a running back to brace for impact but covering the ball up with both hands, compacting your body like a turtle, and leading with a shoulder, not running at full sprint with your head aimed to the impending defender. At least that is what I was thought from 6-19. I can hear my Midwood high school coach yelling in my ears right now ďThis ainít the goddamn WWF, donít spear the LB, protect yourself and the ****ing ball.Ē
The rule change is for blatant offenses, if a runner shows the intent to lower and drive the crown of his helmet to brace or inflict. Then it would get called, most runners lead with their shoulders but its so spilt second that it looks like they are leading with their head to the casual viewer watching at home. If anything this will probably slow the game down a bit with reviews or bickering defenders trying to get a call or something. But to say the NFL is becoming flag football or that the game is getting soft, thatís just ignorance.

Thanks for reading. Peace

when a runner lowers his pad level upon impact do you think he has time to calculate what part of his body is going to connect with the defender?
do you think the runner and defender have a nice friendly agreement about what parts of their body they will not impact with

this is ridiculous and officiating this in real time is going to be a nightmare

yes I played the game on every level......and its absolutely ridiculous

do they want these guys to lower their pad level and keep their heads up and get it knocked off by a safety ?

this rule is the beginning of the end of the game we all love

a game made for men is becoming a game made for *******

rebelfan1966
03-20-2013, 03:37 PM
I think some teams and/or team doctors should be investigated. A prime example was RG III getting hurt last season but returning to the game after visiting a funny looking outhouse on the sideline. We can all speculate about what happened in there.... the trainer gave him an injection for pain and the coach sent him back in.... This screwed up his leg even more. The same has probably been true for players who have suffered concusions.

dezzzR
03-20-2013, 03:37 PM
Wrong. When lowering pad level you are using your hips and knees to get lower. NOT your neck and back.

I've been coaching for 9 years and not once do you need to lead with your crown to make a tackle or break a tackle.

Go check out that clip of B. Jacobs running over the guy from Washington. He lead with his shoulder not his head. If a 6'5 guy can do it properly anyone can.Heres what BJ just tweeted. Seems like he doesnt agree with you.
"Our head are connected to our shoulders. There's no such thing, you can't drop your shoulders without our heads."

rebelfan1966
03-20-2013, 03:38 PM
so this eliminates the powerback? all you need now is a guy who can run around people.

Maybe why TC was interested in talking to college teams about the spread option.

njg85m
03-20-2013, 03:38 PM
I'm curious what about diving? Would that be illegal now because of this new rule?

TheAnalyst
03-20-2013, 03:39 PM
Well, Brandon Jacobs is now done. So is Adrian Peterson, Marshawn Lynch, Ray Rice, Doug Martin ect.... Those tough nosed runners are going to get flagged a bunch. They always put their heads down to protect themselves and the ball.

TheAnalyst
03-20-2013, 03:42 PM
Ahmad Bradshaw always did that as well. Remember when he did it so much his lettering decals would come off his helmet?

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 03:42 PM
anyone in favor of adding more possible subjective judgement calls into the game I just cannot agree with

this will be very difficult to officiate

GentleGiant
03-20-2013, 03:43 PM
Honestly. If its a call that cannot be consistently called and isn't obvious then it shouldn't be a rule.

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 03:43 PM
I don't think so. Pretty sure the new rule is only enforced outside the tackle box.

We'll have to read the actual rule when they publish it.

pacco_diablo
03-20-2013, 03:43 PM
Lol. typically when youre diving, youre doing so to get around a defender not through them. Unless of course youre in a goal line situation, which would still be inside the "tackle box."

dezzzR
03-20-2013, 03:44 PM
anyone in favor of adding more possible subjective judgement calls into the game I just cannot agree with

this will be very difficult to officiateLets start a petition!!

Moke
03-20-2013, 03:45 PM
At least in the running game... Wide receivers meantime have all the leeway vs DBs...

Maybe it's a conspiracy to eliminate the running game and make the NFL all-pass?

That's what it is really, IMO.

TheAnalyst
03-20-2013, 03:47 PM
Its going to be like holding, call it when it obvious, but call it 50% of the time the rest of the time.

Sundown
03-20-2013, 03:53 PM
Demarco Murray is screwed. That's the only way he runs the rock

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 03:53 PM
Get your nose out of a book.

I played linebacker for 8 years ... leading with your helmet as a running back is a natural inclination. Any running back that charges a crowd does it at some point if not the majority of time.

Too hard to legislate this rule unless they tell the refs "in only the most obvious and flagrant situations". That's about the only way I could see it not spinning out of control.

Get your head out of your *** :)

RBs lower there shoulder all the time while keeping there heads up. If your argument is about it being unnatural, the game is built around your body being in unnatural positions. Being a LB you might not have been in many 3 pt stances. But the 3 pt stance is one of the most unnatural positions for your body to be in.

Your argument in all regards is bunk. Leading with your crown is MUCH different then having your head low.

Redeyejedi
03-20-2013, 03:55 PM
Think about all the great runs Jacobs had

Redeyejedi
03-20-2013, 03:57 PM
Makes me not want to watch football. NFL defenders are getting it easy.Getting it easy? They have been neutered this is the first rule against the offense

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 03:57 PM
Get your head out of your *** :)

RBs lower there shoulder all the time while keeping there heads up. If your argument is about it being unnatural, the game is built around your body being in unnatural positions. Being a LB you might not have been in many 3 pt stances. But the 3 pt stance is one of the most unnatural positions for your body to be in.

Your argument in all regards is bunk. Leading with your crown is MUCH different then having your head low.

so I'm running into a crowd and aiming to get an extra yard.....I lower my head and run into the crowd protecting the ball and lowering my shoulders....as I was coached for my whole life .
not seeing where I am going the crown of my head ...because it is the farthest protruding part of my body ....plows unintentionally into the safetys chin and knocks him back and I gain my extra 3 yards as I intended

that should be a 15 yd penalty ?

yr head is in the clouds my friend

dezzzR
03-20-2013, 03:58 PM
Think about all the great runs Jacobs hadBradshaw too. He used his head like a torpedo

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 04:00 PM
wow thats a pretty amazing talent to be able to lower your pad level without lowering your head ....plastic man anyone?

I played ball at every level....
even was invited to and participated in an NFL training camp

and I hate to break it to you coach

but lowering your pad level for a runner involves lowering his head

players are coached to lower their pad level and protect the ball in a crouch position upon impact....and guess what...the head is involved

if you coach runners to lower their pad level and keep their head up you should be stripped of your coaching duties

and yeah watch those Jacobs highlights.....was his head up?

was Earl Campbells head up in all those highlights that are cellebrated?

Mike Alstott?...etc etc .....

We are taking about the tilting of your head, not about its height. There is no reason to tilt your head down to crown lead just to get pads low.

Go to any youth football camp run by the NFL and you will see the proper technique that doesn't rely on tilting the head down to lower shoulder pads.

I see youth kids doing it all the time but pros can't? Not to mention they said the same thing a few years ago with defensive players and they figured it out.

Players will adapt like they always do.

giantsfan420
03-20-2013, 04:06 PM
Good question, and according to what I've read, no.

The new rule will draw a 15-yard penalty if a runner or a tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players clearly are outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle-to-tackle and from three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or a tackler against an opponent would not be deemed a foul.if its enforced by the letter of the law, this is a great rule imo that actually will decrease a lot of head injuries. basically, from tackle to tackle box, extending from the LOS to the goal line (i may have interpreted end line incorrectly, it may not be goal line), the head to head contact is allowed. its only OUTSIDE the tackle to tackle box that its a foul. kind of like how a QB intentionally grounds within the tackle box and doesnt outside of it as long as it reaches the LOS...not a big deal imo as most all the lowering of the head is done inside the tackle box, i cant recall it done outside by rbs except power backs i guess...

gmen46
03-20-2013, 04:08 PM
The most likely time this will be an issue will be in short yardage and goal line plays where it doesn't require you see where you are going if you're the runner

Correct. The rule won't be an issue in these situations because under the rule there will be no violation by the RB within the Tackle box, which is defined for this rule as the area tackle-to-tackle and up to 3 yards beyond the LOS, End-to-End.

The intent of this rule, as I understand it, is to minimize the number of times a RB in open field situations has a head of steam and clearly lowers his head in order to ram an opponent straight on. Though not mentioned yet in this thread, the rule also applies to defenders who hit a RB with the crown of their helmet, straight on, in the open field. Which is the same as "spearing" really, which of course has been illegal for decades.

The "crown of the helmet" was fairly narrowly defined by an NFL spokesmen as "imagine a beanie on the top of a helmet".

"Incidental" contact of helmets and tackles on a RB running sideline-to-sideline will not be violations.

I know there are some high profile RBs--current and retired--who've spoken negatively about the rule, at first blush. But I find the response from arguably the best RB in NFL history to be interesting and relevant to the issue--

The moment the NFL’s new proposal to stop running backs from lowering the crown of their helmets at defenders came out, tailbacks immediately criticized the possible change. Matt Forte took to Twitter, calling the thought “absurd” and saying it’s impossible to lower one’s shoulder without the head following.
But at least one running back, and he’s a big one, disagrees. Hall of Famer Jim Brown is a believer in the new rule, and said it’s entirely possible to abide by it.
“I didn’t use my head,” Brown said at the NFL meetings in Phoenix. “I used my forearm. The palm of my hand. And my shoulder. And my shoulder pads. I wasn’t putting my head into too much of anything. I don’t think that’s a good idea.”
“At least it doesn’t sound like a good idea to me if I’m not guaranteed that my head is going to be strong enough to hurt somebody else and not hurt myself,” Brown added.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/nfl-legends-brown-smith-butt-heads-rb-rule-article-1.1293242#ixzz2O71hFD11

dezzzR
03-20-2013, 04:09 PM
We are taking about the tilting of your head, not about its height. There is no reason to tilt your head down to crown lead just to get pads low.

Go to any youth football camp run by the NFL and you will see the proper technique that doesn't rely on tilting the head down to lower shoulder pads.

I see youth kids doing it all the time but pros can't? Not to mention they said the same thing a few years ago with defensive players and they figured it out.

Players will adapt like they always do.Is your head not connected to your neck or shoulders or something? When you drop your head, you lower your neck and shoulders. This isnt debatable, this is biology

GeoGoGo
03-20-2013, 04:11 PM
That was the first image that came running to my mind buddy and I just posted that a minute ago. That indeed is a crying shame.

He isn't leading with the crown of his helmet. AB is using the side of his helmet and shoulder pad. Awww crap, who am I kidding...this sucks big time!

TheAnalyst
03-20-2013, 04:12 PM
I got trucked once in high school by a running back lowering his head into mine. I saw stars, but got back up like "eh, its football."

giantsfan420
03-20-2013, 04:14 PM
i dont think ppl have read up on the rule. using ur head or whatever ppl seem to be complaining about, thats still allowed inside the tackle to tackle box. its only OUTSIDE that where leading with the crown intentionally is a penalty. and almost ALWAYS, when ur outside that tackle box area, ur in the open field or like 1 on 1 or 2, i dont see how a pro nfl player couldnt make an adjustment to not lead with the crown in open space, if anything players are using more agility nowadays out in space. its only the rare slow power back who will break this rule, even BJ would start using agility and moves outside the tackle box. that run he had on laron landry years ago, thatd still be legal according to this new rule as the contact occurred inbetween the tackle to tackle area extended to the end line.

gmen46
03-20-2013, 04:14 PM
Running backs can't drop their pad level anymore. They can't lead with the helmets now. All runners need to run straight upright now . ifhey get low at all, it's a penality. Head up, chin up, so many more concussions are going to happen now, more broken jaws, etc. You cannot get down to protect yourself whatsoever because it will be construed as a penalty.

This is a complete misrepresentation of the rule. You are wrong.

giantsfan420
03-20-2013, 04:15 PM
and YA, if a player is engaging a group of defenders as in ur example, it isnt a violation. the rules seem to state that it isnt a penalty when within 3 yrds of the LOS and engaging in a crowd/group...

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 04:31 PM
and YA, if a player is engaging a group of defenders as in ur example, it isnt a violation. the rules seem to state that it isnt a penalty when within 3 yrds of the LOS and engaging in a crowd/group...

more vague ridiculousness that will result in poorly called subjective judgement fouls

njg85m
03-20-2013, 04:32 PM
He isn't leading with the crown of his helmet. AB is using the side of his helmet and shoulder pad.

Would you expect the officials to be able to differentiate that in real time?

I sure don't.

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 04:32 PM
We are taking about the tilting of your head, not about its height. There is no reason to tilt your head down to crown lead just to get pads low.

Go to any youth football camp run by the NFL and you will see the proper technique that doesn't rely on tilting the head down to lower shoulder pads.

I see youth kids doing it all the time but pros can't? Not to mention they said the same thing a few years ago with defensive players and they figured it out.

Players will adapt like they always do.

so runners will run face first into a defender with his pads low.....ok

talk about putting your neck in danger

Jahh
03-20-2013, 04:33 PM
I don't like this rule from the standpoint of adding another highly subjective judgment on to the Ref's plate.

Imagine a flag calling back an 80 yard TD run because Adrian Petersen lead with his helmet to get in the end zone.

I can't imagine a scenario in which someone would run 80 yards and still have someone directly in front of them to spear

Roosevelt
03-20-2013, 05:01 PM
so I'm running into a crowd and aiming to get an extra yard.....I lower my head and run into the crowd protecting the ball and lowering my shoulders....as I was coached for my whole life .
not seeing where I am going the crown of my head ...because it is the farthest protruding part of my body ....plows unintentionally into the safetys chin and knocks him back and I gain my extra 3 yards as I intended

that should be a 15 yd penalty ?

yr head is in the clouds my friend

This has to have been a concern for everyone.

I think the NFL owes it to us to put up video of the kind of contact that will warrant a flag.

T

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 05:11 PM
This has to have been a concern for everyone.

I think the NFL owes it to us to put up video of the kind of contact that will warrant a flag.

T

NFL Executive VP of Football Operations Ray Anderson was on the Stephen A Smith show today stating that they are prepared to do just that .

he had a very clear description of the rule .....and it still seams ridiculous to me

I understand they player safety is of the utmost importance .....but officiating this rule is going to be a nightmare and someone is going to make a judgement call in a very important game and the sky will fall

this is football....a full contact violent game that every one of these guys signed their name on a contract to play with the full and clear understanding that the possibility of future health issues is an absolute possibility

CowboysSuck
03-20-2013, 05:18 PM
I mean its a close call. I want to say most of these hit would be legal by the new rule, but then again some of them may have been illegal. What do you guys think?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r3yuWcd6zk

CowboysSuck
03-20-2013, 05:18 PM
Not going to lie, I think Bradshaw made a living off of this earlier in his career.

I've also seen Wilson lead into a defender with the crown of his helmet.

I must say, I like the theory behind the rule. If defenders cant lead with the helmet, why should a RB be able to spear you with his? Lets just wait and see how this is actually enforced before we cry and whine that the NFL is turning into a 2-hand-touch league.

Morehead State
03-20-2013, 05:19 PM
Running backs can't drop their pad level anymore. They can't lead with the helmets now. All runners need to run straight upright now . ifhey get low at all, it's a penality. Head up, chin up, so many more concussions are going to happen now, more broken jaws, etc. You cannot get down to protect yourself whatsoever because it will be construed as a penalty.
I am under the impression that they can lower their heads. Its really about using your head in a flagrant way as a battering ram.
I think the uproar may be misguided here. Its not about being forced to run upright at all. Its only about using your head as a weapon as a runner.

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 05:22 PM
wait and see how many "leading with the crown" calls are made when the runner blows a safety over with his shoulder

watch

they expect these 60 year old plus men to make these hair splitting calls that change games ...at full speed

you are going to see coaches pulling their hair out on the sidelines wishing they never voted for this ridiculous uncallable rule

more judgement calls to ruin the game

I feel bad for you Marshawn Lynch, Frank Gore, Stephen Jackson, etc...

GentleGiant
03-20-2013, 05:22 PM
so this eliminates the powerback? all you need now is a guy who can run around people. It's only if your running several yards ahead and you lower your head to clearly ram someone. If your on the line of scrimmage and its in the tackle box it's fine. Using it as a weapon to ram someone is different than lowering your ahead to protect yourself.

bg79
03-20-2013, 05:23 PM
The uproar is because with most any arbitrary rule that relies on the judgement of the official they get it wrong just as much if not more than they get it right. In this case though there is no ability to challenge the call and games absolutely will eventually be decided by this and that is not a good thing.

BlueSanta
03-20-2013, 05:27 PM
The oringinal poster is exaggerating the new rule change. Backs can get low, they can run behind their shoulders, they just cannot lower the crown of their helmet.

In truth, this rule has always existed as lowering the crown of your helmet has ALWAYS been illegal. It is called a spear. It was just never called on offensive players. Now, it will be as it has been made a point of emphasis.

GentleGiant
03-20-2013, 05:31 PM
Correct. The rule won't be an issue in these situations because under the rule there will be no violation by the RB within the Tackle box, which is defined for this rule as the area tackle-to-tackle and up to 3 yards beyond the LOS, End-to-End.The intent of this rule, as I understand it, is to minimize the number of times a RB in open field situations has a head of steam and clearly lowers his head in order to ram an opponent straight on. Though not mentioned yet in this thread, the rule also applies to defenders who hit a RB with the crown of their helmet, straight on, in the open field. Which is the same as "spearing" really, which of course has been illegal for decades. The "crown of the helmet" was fairly narrowly defined by an NFL spokesmen as "imagine a beanie on the top of a helmet"."Incidental" contact of helmets and tackles on a RB running sideline-to-sideline will not be violations. I know there are some high profile RBs--current and retired--who've spoken negatively about the rule, at first blush. But I find the response from arguably the best RB in NFL history to be interesting and relevant to the issue--The moment the NFLís new proposal to stop running backs from lowering the crown of their helmets at defenders came out, tailbacks immediately criticized the possible change. Matt Forte took to Twitter, calling the thought ďabsurdĒ and saying itís impossible to lower oneís shoulder without the head following.But at least one running back, and heís a big one, disagrees. Hall of Famer Jim Brown is a believer in the new rule, and said itís entirely possible to abide by it.ďI didnít use my head,Ē Brown said at the NFL meetings in Phoenix. ďI used my forearm. The palm of my hand. And my shoulder. And my shoulder pads. I wasnít putting my head into too much of anything. I donít think thatís a good idea.ĒďAt least it doesnít sound like a good idea to me if Iím not guaranteed that my head is going to be strong enough to hurt somebody else and not hurt myself,Ē Brown added.Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/nfl-legends-brown-smith-butt-heads-rb-rule-article-1.1293242#ixzz2O71hFD11 That's what annoys me about some D players these days. Most D players would rather ram a guy or push than actually wrap their arms around them. Every time I look at LT, the 85 bears, the steel curtain, the 2000 ravens.... They are all wrapping their arms around them.

NYGdraftMIND
03-20-2013, 05:32 PM
when a runner lowers his pad level upon impact do you think he has time to calculate what part of his body is going to connect with the defender?
do you think the runner and defender have a nice friendly agreement about what parts of their body they will not impact with

this is ridiculous and officiating this in real time is going to be a nightmare

yes I played the game on every level......and its absolutely ridiculous

do they want these guys to lower their pad level and keep their heads up and get it knocked off by a safety ?

this rule is the beginning of the end of the game we all love

a game made for men is becoming a game made for *******

As a runner you can lowerer your pad level and lead with your shoulder. its possible I have done it multiple times. Now! I am not saying that there will not be instances where it is inevtable that the head is apart of the first impact. but they are not looking for those instances where its just a happenstance they are from what i read about the ruling change looking for blatant violators. The helmet does not protect from concussion, the brain is going to rattle inside the spaces of the cranium, they are just trying to prevent the same issues the former player are now complaining they need benifits for.

embeshAtYa
03-20-2013, 05:42 PM
now the runner will receive body rattling hits. broken ribs.. that sucks!!

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 05:52 PM
Well now it's harder on the refs because is he leading with his shoulder or his head?
I tje heat of the moment they are going to mess up a lot, unless they are willing or given permission to review those plays.

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 05:58 PM
Romo wants Rodgers money...and he's going to get it.

To quote the great Tiki Barber..."thats COMICAL!"

Cowturd and Foreskins fans are holding hands because they can't seem to get over the hump they have crappy owners that put their franchises behind the 8 ball for years to come with bad and fraudulent managment. Oh yea, I sure love me some Mr. Mara and Tish for being owr owners.

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 05:59 PM
I got trucked once in high school by a running back lowering his head into mine. I saw stars, but got back up like "eh, its football."

That explains a lot :p

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 06:01 PM
so runners will run face first into a defender with his pads low.....ok

talk about putting your neck in danger

You lower your pads and attack with your shoulder. Your head should be placed on the side with your head up. If your head is the first thing to hit, you're doing it wrong.

When the NFL made the tackling changes youth football coaches were forced to be tested on the improved fundamentals for collisions, both tackler and ball carrier.

Ray Anderson spoke about it and demonstrated both at a coach clinic I attended years ago. If you have a problem with the technique, take it up with him. There safety slogan is "heads up football" for a reason.

How many flags have you seen called on defenders for helmet to helmet calls while having perfect tackling technique because the ball carrier decided to lower his crown at the last second. This rule evens the playing field and prevents more injuries so this game we love has a future. Its a good change.

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 06:02 PM
I cant wait till the NFL is full of 160 pound soccer players.
That will be the day hell freezes over. No way Jose .

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 06:05 PM
You lower your pads and attack with your shoulder. Your head should be placed on the side with your head up.


in a perfect world this is indeed ideal

but when was the last time you had time to place your head or the defenders head precisely where you wanted them when you wanted them there while running at full speed trying to gain yards ?

oh yeah .....almost never

here comes the impact ...ok....let me place my shoulder here my head just to the side of the point of impact ....ahh...perfect...
now let me go to the sideline and feed my unicorn

if your head is up....the defender is going to knock your block off brother....this isn't a friendly game of PAL football

but if it keeps going the way its going it will be flag football

...and "doing it wrong"...?????
then some of the best RBs to ever live have been doing it wrong for decades

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 06:05 PM
I think it will be just the opposite....
I hope, in theory could be true but in the practice I will remain skeptical until I see it work.

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 06:11 PM
It seemed you were zeroing in on John Mara which has been going on from Dallas and Washington since they got caught with their hands in the CBA lockout jar. But if you say that wasn't your intent, I'll accept that. It's been reported the vote was 31 - 1
That's the whole truth behind his claims. Everyone here sees the intent and targeting his making of Mr. Mara, if he claims otherwise then good luck with that because I don't see any weight behind his arguments.

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 06:26 PM
wow thats a pretty amazing talent to be able to lower your pad level without lowering your head ....plastic man anyone?

I played ball at every level....
even was invited to and participated in an NFL training camp

and I hate to break it to you coach

but lowering your pad level for a runner involves lowering his head

players are coached to lower their pad level and protect the ball in a crouch position upon impact....and guess what...the head is involved

if you coach runners to lower their pad level and keep their head up you should be stripped of your coaching duties

and yeah watch those Jacobs highlights.....was his head up?

was Earl Campbells head up in all those highlights that are cellebrated?

Mike Alstott?...etc etc .....
Well said YA. For the time being I don't see us fans, players and ex-players getting in the same bandgawon. I for starters do agree with . The conflicts and discussions this rule is already making are going to continue for a while. i don't oppose to the nature or essence in which this rule was proposed but I do see an insurmountable conflict of football basics and 101 definitions about the game and the full-application of the rule. I laugh about the guys in here saying this do not change the perspective we have about the game, as fans and explayers at any level.

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 06:29 PM
in a perfect world this is indeed ideal

but when was the last time you had time to place your head or the defenders head precisely where you wanted them when you wanted them there while running at full speed trying to gain yards ?

oh yeah .....almost never

here comes the impact ...ok....let me place my shoulder here my head just to the side of the point of impact ....ahh...perfect...
now let me go to the sideline and feed my unicorn

if your head is up....the defender is going to knock your block off brother....this isn't a friendly game of PAL football

but if it keeps going the way its going it will be flag football

...and "doing it wrong"...?????
then some of the best RBs to ever live have been doing it wrong for decades


Nobody says its an easy thing to do. But its still the RIGHT thing to do. 90% of the game is muscle memory and this is no different. With enough repetition players will learn to do it naturally. Just like 3pt stance or tackling fundamentals.

Your brain can process an astronomical amount of information within a fraction of a second. Its not about perfectly placing your head. Its about determining the potential threats angle to you and adjusting.

Ball carriers always have enough time to see what side the defender is on. If he is on my left, I lower my same side shoulder while sliding my head towards the opposite shoulder. And vice versa.

This is not easy but it is very much possible. Do you seriously think using a helmet as a weapon by attacking with the crown and becoming a human ram is good for this game?

Watch the Richardson highlight they keep showing. Its absolutely brutal for both players. The only good part about it as it happening to an Eagle. You can still lay devastating hits with your shoulder. You don't need to use the helmet.

giantsfan420
03-20-2013, 06:30 PM
I mean its a close call. I want to say most of these hit would be legal by the new rule, but then again some of them may have been illegal. What do you guys think?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r3yuWcd6zkalmost none would even qualify as these runs are almost exclusively inside the OT to OT area. the runs he takes outside, he tries using a bit more agility and doesnt really get helmet leading low...within the OT to OT 3 yds behind the LOS to the endline, the old rules still apply. its OUTSIDE this area unless im mistaken...

BlueReign
03-20-2013, 06:32 PM
This game is moving away from power being the focal point to agility being the main skill. Shame on the owners.

giantsfan420
03-20-2013, 06:35 PM
i dont think anyones understanding this rule, or im misunderstanding it...all these what if scenarios wont even take place and if they do itll be 1 in a 1000. its only illegal outside the OT to OT area. Is it a judgment call for intentional grounding? not really, is the qb inside the designated area and did the ball not reach the LOS or a wr's vicinity? Same thing with the new rule, unless im mistaken, the penalty is only eligible of being called outside this area so basically almost from the hash out to the sideline on each side (roughly). And a rb or ball carrier basically only reaches this area when hes out in space. thus, the need to lead with the crown shouldnt even be a concern bc a ball carrier would have to be completely without agility and vision...u can still try trucking someone over out in space but even then its never really like a lead with the crown type run over...

giantsfan420
03-20-2013, 06:38 PM
inbetween the tackles, anything goes like before, bradshaw, peterson, jacobs, etc can all run like they did yesteryear...its OUTSIDE this area...and rbs never lower their crown and lead with it bc out in space u want to get as much yardage as possible and u can usually shimmy shake a defender out in space even with a power type move

BigBlueAllDay
03-20-2013, 06:39 PM
It's gonna be a lot more running to the sidelines outside the tackle box.

Roosevelt
03-20-2013, 06:39 PM
NFL Executive VP of Football Operations Ray Anderson was on the Stephen A Smith show today stating that they are prepared to do just that .

he had a very clear description of the rule .....and it still seams ridiculous to me

I understand they player safety is of the utmost importance .....but officiating this rule is going to be a nightmare and someone is going to make a judgement call in a very important game and the sky will fall

this is football....a full contact violent game that every one of these guys signed their name on a contract to play with the full and clear understanding that the possibility of future health issues is an absolute possibility

I agree. And what happens when a player looks to lower his shoulder but the other guy moves causing initial contact on the crown of the helmet?

giantsfan420
03-20-2013, 06:40 PM
and its inbetween the tackles to the endline, which i take it to mean goal line. so essentially its between the tackles to the end line, they can run like before. its outside this area. presumably wr's would have to change the most if at all bc they play out in space...but whens the last time u saw a wr just lower the crown and lead?

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 06:46 PM
Get your nose out of a book.

I played linebacker for 8 years ... leading with your helmet as a running back is a natural inclination. Any running back that charges a crowd does it at some point if not the majority of time.

Too hard to legislate this rule unless they tell the refs "in only the most obvious and flagrant situations". That's about the only way I could see it not spinning out of control.

This guy is lost and for him to say we don't know what we are talking about makes it more comical. I played football back in the days since I was 8-9 years old and played my last 6 or 7 years as a fullback in HS and college and can't envision my self not being flaged 2 times in every play for lowering my pad level and of course my helmet too. If someone has the solution for unscrewing my head from my shoulders then I don't see a problem here but by God thats not possible.

tcseacliff
03-20-2013, 06:50 PM
should be a helmet ban, then we will see who wants to lower their head NOW! Rugby, anyone?

njsean
03-20-2013, 06:50 PM
"Heads Up" Football has been in the works for sometime now, and I think its great the NFL is leading the example for the college, high school, and PeeWee leagues. Kids are being taught and trained to do this regularly and are already accomplishing it - there is no reason to believe that some of the best athletes on this planet cannot also adapt.

Like some one mentioned, defenders have had to adapt to not leading with their helmets, and now so do running backs. Pushing piles and falling for extra yards is NOT what this rule is about it. It's about using the crown of your head to truck over an opponent in the open field. Use your shoulder, use a stiff arm - not your head.

I think the rule is great, and if some of the tough guys think its wussifying the sport, I won't miss the extra bodies when I'm online for food at the games.

G-Men Surg.
03-20-2013, 06:55 PM
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdbYpMEpRnB4AIifBGOd_;_ylu=X3oDMTE0a25uaW0 2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA01PVVM0NV83M g--/SIG=13hpkpsg0/EXP=1363845289/**http%3a//espn.go.com/blog/new-york/giants/post/_/id/23704/jacobs-not-happy-with-new-helmet-rule
I'm with the big guy too.

njsean
03-20-2013, 06:57 PM
I wonder why people aren't listening to what intellectual analysis Jacobs has to provide. Oh wait. No I don't.

BigBlueAllDay
03-20-2013, 07:02 PM
What's to prevent the defender from overdramatizing getting trucked by the RB to get the flag? RB lowers his pads, just fly back 3-4 yards on contact. Flag!

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 07:04 PM
eliminate the RB position all together ....go 5 wide and toss it down field every snap

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 07:05 PM
What's to prevent the defender from overdramatizing getting trucked by the RB to get the flag? RB lowers his pads, just fly back 3-4 yards on contact. Flag!

That makes zero sense. The rule isn't about hitting hard. Its about using the helmet as a weapon and using the crown as a battering ram.

AGiantDynasty
03-20-2013, 07:06 PM
eliminate the RB position all together ....go 5 wide and toss it down field every snap

Lmao over dramatic much? :D

BigBlueAllDay
03-20-2013, 07:09 PM
That makes zero sense. The rule isn't about hitting hard. Its about using the helmet as a weapon and using the crown as a battering ram.

Which causes hard/impact hits... hard hits and player safety go together dude. I guess no WR in history ever flopped to get the hitting a defenseless receiver penalty either. No player in history is going try to sell the crown helmet hits either to get the refs to throw the flag for this new rule.

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 07:21 PM
Lmao over dramatic much? :D

yes

thank you for noticing

GiantRoc
03-20-2013, 07:22 PM
^^
Give me a break. This is a great rule change. It about time ball carriers are being held responsible for helmet hits. This is not one of those outrageous changes that lessens the toughness in the game. This is a change coaches and defensive players have been asking for for years.

You don't need to lead with the crown. Helmets aren't supposed to be weapons. You are supposed to lower your shoulder not your head.

Some of you sound like you have zero knowledge of the correct techniques that are used in this game.

Normally I am against these changes, but this one is an absolute no brainer.

That's not the point Agiantdynasty and Draftmind. No one teaches leading with the head down. Not with tackling or running. But at times in the heat of the moment you lower and brace to deliver contact not to receive it. If you don't understand that then YOU 2 never played the game. You don't lower your shoulder pads strictly by lowering your hips and bending your knees when you are the running back. There is no way to run in a squat! You are describing preparing to tackle. That is completely different. The main argument from most of us is that the calls will be much to subjective, and will vary from official to official. There are very few instances where a running back will subject his head to a blow like that. It's not smart ball carrying. Stick to the Pop Warner and JV rules if you want. I prefer men rules.

BigBlueAllDay
03-20-2013, 07:29 PM
Explanation from nfl.com

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap2000000152145/Crown-of-the-helmet-hit-rule-explained (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap2000000152145/Crown-of-the-helmet-hit-rule-explained)

Jeff Fisher pretty much states it clearly: "Keeping the head up"

nhpgiantsfan
03-20-2013, 07:57 PM
Remember this rule only applies outside the tackle box. It's not that big a deal. They are trying to avoid the open field full speed helmet to helmet contact.

KillaRich
03-20-2013, 08:01 PM
Hitting with the "crown of the helmet" is the violation. If you lower your shoulders while looking up, no violation.

Think about you just described .... And simulate it yourself .....how awkward is that .... And the offensive player is in high risk of injuring his neck..... Stupid rule

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 08:03 PM
Running backs can't drop their pad level anymore. They can't lead with the helmets now. All runners need to run straight upright now . ifhey get low at all, it's a penality. Head up, chin up, so many more concussions are going to happen now, more broken jaws, etc. You cannot get down to protect yourself whatsoever because it will be construed as a penalty.

The headline made me think this was another prayer ban :p

miked1958
03-20-2013, 08:05 PM
I don't like it. I think they should of left well enough alone and just kept it helmet to helmet only

miked1958
03-20-2013, 08:06 PM
There is already a four page Thread on this subject

Flip Empty
03-20-2013, 08:08 PM
eliminate the RB position all together ....go 5 wide and toss it down field every snap
Sounds like the Lions

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 08:12 PM
Think about you just described .... And simulate it yourself .....how awkward is that .... And the offensive player is in high risk of injuring his neck..... Stupid rule

No more awkward than linemen in their three point stance

giantsfan420
03-20-2013, 08:17 PM
Remember this rule only applies outside the tackle box. It's not that big a deal. They are trying to avoid the open field full speed helmet to helmet contact.no one seems to get that besides u and me

titwio
03-20-2013, 08:20 PM
This may be a dumb question but how many injuries did players suffer from RB's leading with the crown? From what I understand Fisher said there were about 6 instances last year that were plays that would have been penalized.....In those instances I'd like to know how many players were actually hurt.

I know this is about player safety but I really don't recall this being a major issue that causes many injuries. I may be wrong but if someone has the numbers....I'm willing to listen. Honestly it sounds like a rule to appease the defenders who had the rule brought down upon them also.

wideright91
03-20-2013, 08:22 PM
Yes, given how good they are with all of those holding calls :rolleyes:

Not to mention the defenseless receiver calls. And QB blow to the head calls. And pass interference calls.

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 08:25 PM
This may be a dumb question but how many injuries did players suffer from RB's leading with the crown? From what I understand Fisher said there were about 6 instances last year that were plays that would have been penalized.....In those instances I'd like to know how many players were actually hurt.

I know this is about player safety but I really don't recall this being a major issue that causes many injuries. I may be wrong but if someone has the numbers....I'm willing to listen. Honestly it sounds like a rule to appease the defenders who had the rule brought down upon them also.

It's not a dumb question and I don't know the answer. But I am pretty sure they have stats on it, just like they do on kickoffs. At some point some mmedia head will think to ask and we'll know.

BlueSanta
03-20-2013, 08:33 PM
It's not a dumb question and I don't know the answer. But I am pretty sure they have stats on it, just like they do on kickoffs. At some point some mmedia head will think to ask and we'll know.

The other day ESPN refered to this as the Trent Richardson Rule because of the hit you can see at the 0:29 mark of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDwRkONl10

But, I say again. Lowering the crown of your helmet has ALWAYS been illegal in the NFL. They are simply making it a point of emphasis to include offensive players in the enforcement.

titwio
03-20-2013, 08:34 PM
It's not a dumb question and I don't know the answer. But I am pretty sure they have stats on it, just like they do on kickoffs. At some point some mmedia head will think to ask and we'll know.

I hope they do ask it soon cause I'm interested in hearing the statistics.

wideright91
03-20-2013, 08:35 PM
Understandable. I'm over the cap debacle. Was it annoying? Yeah, but I've come to accept a few things on the issue.

1.) The NFL does not operate the same as most businesses as evidenced by many of the actions and events it practices.
2.) Therefore, with consensus, pretty much anything passed can be legal as justified by the vague nature of the 'spirit of competition'.
3.) The competition committee acted within NFL guidelines to reduce the cap space of both franchises.
4.) It wasn't completely unwarranted. It's not like Snyder and Jones are saints in this scenario. They did, in fact, try to gain a competitive advantage in 2010 by manipulating the salary cap for future years to a greater extent than most other teams.

Those are the main points... I could go on, but I think it's clear here and no one here would probably debate otherwise.

But back to the topic... from what I can infer is that this rule, while it may annoyingly slow the pace of some games, actually does a lot to address a sizeable issue with chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

In the end, it will probably work out just like any other new rule.

Dude, if you want to troll around & talk smack, maybe wait until your team stops perennially sucking? Or is the off-season your golden window of opportunity for that? Seriously, piss off.

RoanokeFan
03-20-2013, 08:41 PM
Dude, if you want to troll around & talk smack, maybe wait until your team stops perennially sucking? Or is the off-season your golden window of opportunity for that? Seriously, piss off.

Ease up, he wasn't talking smack, he was responding to something I said.

TroyArcher
03-20-2013, 08:44 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/20/helmet-rule-passes/

I don't see this working out well. The officials have enough to worry about.

Worst rule ever

TCHOF
03-20-2013, 08:51 PM
Dude, if you want to troll around & talk smack, maybe wait until your team stops perennially sucking? Or is the off-season your golden window of opportunity for that? Seriously, piss off.

How is this talking smack? It's a good post.

TCHOF
03-20-2013, 08:53 PM
This may be a dumb question but how many injuries did players suffer from RB's leading with the crown? From what I understand Fisher said there were about 6 instances last year that were plays that would have been penalized.....In those instances I'd like to know how many players were actually hurt.

I know this is about player safety but I really don't recall this being a major issue that causes many injuries. I may be wrong but if someone has the numbers....I'm willing to listen. Honestly it sounds like a rule to appease the defenders who had the rule brought down upon them also.

I'm with you.

giantyankee1976
03-20-2013, 10:47 PM
it's nuts really. look at any vintage NFL film footage. They use to Mack truck defenders and LBs use to kill QBs.

where did that League go to?

YATittle1962
03-20-2013, 10:56 PM
it's nuts really. look at any vintage NFL film footage. They use to Mack truck defenders and LBs use to kill QBs.

where did that League go to?

my sentiments exactly

guys bleeding from the mouth
breaking bones in their face and coming back in the game
playing for weeks with broken bones
spitting teeth out on the field before the next snap

now guys are out for 2 months with turf toe

turf toe!!!!!

tell Jack Lambert he has turf toe
tell Mark Bavaro he can't play because his jaw is broken
tell Jack Youngblood he has a sprain
tell Tim Krumrie he cant play because he has stitches
tell Mike Curtis ...well anything without him knocking you on your ***

this powder puff league makes me sick.....and yet I still watch every second

something wrong with me

giantyankee1976
03-20-2013, 11:07 PM
something wrong with all of us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yDH6x5JW7M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1v2n3jOEYBY)

dude got Macked, LOL

zimonami
03-20-2013, 11:33 PM
my sentiments exactly

guys bleeding from the mouth
breaking bones in their face and coming back in the game
playing for weeks with broken bones
spitting teeth out on the field before the next snap

now guys are out for 2 months with turf toe

turf toe!!!!!

tell Jack Lambert he has turf toe
tell Mark Bavaro he can't play because his jaw is broken
tell Jack Youngblood he has a sprain
tell Tim Krumrie he cant play because he has stitches
tell Mike Curtis ...well anything without him knocking you on your ***

this powder puff league makes me sick.....and yet I still watch every second

something wrong with me
I'm with you, YA. I watch the games praying that a BS call won't change the game on us. This rule is horrible, and as I read back I agree with dezzz... you can't lower your shoulders without lowering your head... it's biologically impossible. And, if you think it isn't, you never carried the ball in a varsity game and tried to win that one on one battle with a defender aiming to take your kneecaps off. Stand up straight and take it? F NO! You put your head down and and try to get lower than him, and protect yourself and the ball..
I played RB and QB in HS. We were always taught that the low man wins most battles. How does a RB have a chance not to get crushed if he can't put his head down? Can't be done... and for most runners it is instinctive to try to get low on a would be one on one tackler. Lower your shoulder and try to keep your head up??? You're asking for a broken neck.
I haven't read all the posts here, so I hope I'm not redundant in saying that I feel a lot of this is posturing... showing the court, in upcoming court battles, that we did everything we could to protect players from concussions. If this concussion suit weren't alive we never would have seen this rule. For the NFL it is better late than never, and they've over-reacted.

slipknottin
03-20-2013, 11:37 PM
Interestingly, brown and Wilson don't seem to lower their heads into contact often.

This could be to the giants benefit

gmen0820
03-20-2013, 11:41 PM
something wrong with all of us...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yDH6x5JW7M

dude got Macked, LOLI ****ing hate Kurt Coleman. Arrogant little ****.

YATittle1962
03-21-2013, 12:46 AM
I'm with you, YA. I watch the games praying that a BS call won't change the game on us. This rule is horrible, and as I read back I agree with dezzz... you can't lower your shoulders without lowering your head... it's biologically impossible. And, if you think it isn't, you never carried the ball in a varsity game and tried to win that one on one battle with a defender aiming to take your kneecaps off. Stand up straight and take it? F NO! You put your head down and and try to get lower than him, and protect yourself and the ball..
I played RB and QB in HS. We were always taught that the low man wins most battles. How does a RB have a chance not to get crushed if he can't put his head down? Can't be done... and for most runners it is instinctive to try to get low on a would be one on one tackler. Lower your shoulder and try to keep your head up??? You're asking for a broken neck.
I haven't read all the posts here, so I hope I'm not redundant in saying that I feel a lot of this is posturing... showing the court, in upcoming court battles, that we did everything we could to protect players from concussions. If this concussion suit weren't alive we never would have seen this rule. For the NFL it is better late than never, and they've over-reacted.

dead on as always zimmy

Giants5699
03-21-2013, 12:49 AM
Time to start watching the big boy league.. AKA the CFL.

giantsfan420
03-21-2013, 12:53 AM
jeff fisher explained it the best. ppl are misinterpreting and freaking out over a penalty that by the definition would have only been flagged SIX times last yr. again, OUTSIDE the tackle box (basically out in space, even the infamous T.Richardson on Coleman play, Richardson was 1 v 1 outside the Tackle box. Almost ever rb doesnt lead with the crown and instead would try to set up the defender to make him miss. I bet even Richardson would do it different if he were ttrying for yardage, i personally think his intent was to deliver a blow and set the tone).
This isnt a every game type penalty. It will be enforced on the blatant, outside the tackle box blatant lead with the crown. all the stuff we loved from rbs is still there. even outside the tackle box, the ball carrier is still allowed to try and go down and can appear like its a crown leading but it wont be called, it has to be blatant that the ball carrier is seeking out a defender to lead with the crown. Jacobs prob woulda been flagged a total of like 3x over the last few yrs...not worried at all, its intended to focus on players out in space running a mile a minute, which imho, a ball carrier shouldnt ever take his eyes away from the field of vision, which u do when leading with the crown...

giantsfan420
03-21-2013, 12:56 AM
apparently a ton of time is going into this, and the owners/committees all understood the potential complaints from the get go and worked with them in mind. 1 of the first things they want to address is that it isnt something that will be called more than a handful of times. its for the extreme and blatant instances and i dont have an issue trying to take that out of the game. B.Dawkins used to be notorious for spearing after the play with his crown. how many players has he hurt? including himself?

mercurio
03-21-2013, 12:59 AM
Does helmet to helmet contact end up in offsetting penalties?

giantsfan420
03-21-2013, 12:59 AM
like fisher said the committees were all aware that ball carriers had to have the ability to lower the pad level, bend the hips, and get down as a conservation tactic. that in no way is eligible for the penalty, outside the tackle box or not. they dont want to get rid of that bc thats part of players protect themselves. its when the ball carrier like singles a defender out, and tries using his head as a weapon. basically they want to protect the players from themselves and this isnt a bad idea. i think ppl arent realizing the OUTSIDE the tackle box aspect...

giantsfan420
03-21-2013, 01:00 AM
Does helmet to helmet contact end up in offsetting penalties?chances are, if u have 2 players colliding with their crowns, a football game penalty is gonna be the last thing ppl are concerned about...thats usually the time u need ambulances and asap

mercurio
03-21-2013, 01:06 AM
chances are, if u have 2 players colliding with their crowns, a football game penalty is gonna be the last thing ppl are concerned about...thats usually the time u need ambulances and asapLast season the defense were called for helmet to helmet without using the crown a lot.

P_Simms_#11
03-21-2013, 01:07 AM
The headline made me think this was another prayer ban :p

The Tebow Rule :)

zimonami
03-21-2013, 01:15 AM
jeff fisher explained it the best. ppl are misinterpreting and freaking out over a penalty that by the definition would have only been flagged SIX times last yr. again, OUTSIDE the tackle box (basically out in space, even the infamous T.Richardson on Coleman play, Richardson was 1 v 1 outside the Tackle box. Almost ever rb doesnt lead with the crown and instead would try to set up the defender to make him miss. I bet even Richardson would do it different if he were ttrying for yardage, i personally think his intent was to deliver a blow and set the tone).
This isnt a every game type penalty. It will be enforced on the blatant, outside the tackle box blatant lead with the crown. all the stuff we loved from rbs is still there. even outside the tackle box, the ball carrier is still allowed to try and go down and can appear like its a crown leading but it wont be called, it has to be blatant that the ball carrier is seeking out a defender to lead with the crown. Jacobs prob woulda been flagged a total of like 3x over the last few yrs...not worried at all, its intended to focus on players out in space running a mile a minute, which imho, a ball carrier shouldnt ever take his eyes away from the field of vision, which u do when leading with the crown...
I hope you're right. You make good points. As Slip pointed out, Brown and Wilson run more upright, preferring to use their vision and speed and moves to elude a tackle, rather than challenge it. Someone else pointed out that Bradshaw ran with his head down, but I think he ran more upright in his early years and gradually started to lower his head when he was found no holes and no place to run and elude. At or behind the LOS he lowered his head instead of hitting a hole straight up and get crushed. Out in the open field a good RB always feels he can elude a one on one, and must remain upright to do that. Jacobs didn't have that elusiveness, so it was head down and plow the defender under (Like Landry... who can forget that embarrassment?...hahaha... it was shown 10,000 times on these boards.
We'll see. I've seen poor enforcement of the rules cost us a few games in the past. I'll never forget the first year of the "In the grasp rule". Scott Brunner was scrambling for his life and broke free across the LOS and looked to make a nice gain and a first down, and a San Diego defender dove at him in the open field and got a hand on Brunner's foot. Brunner easily and instantly pulled his leg free, running past the first down marker. TOO Late. A ref called in the grasp, and Brunner was a few yards short and we had to punt. We lost that game by less than a TD.

gmen46
03-21-2013, 02:53 AM
my sentiments exactly

guys bleeding from the mouth
breaking bones in their face and coming back in the game
playing for weeks with broken bones
spitting teeth out on the field before the next snap

now guys are out for 2 months with turf toe

turf toe!!!!!

tell Jack Lambert he has turf toe
tell Mark Bavaro he can't play because his jaw is broken
tell Jack Youngblood he has a sprain
tell Tim Krumrie he cant play because he has stitches
tell Mike Curtis ...well anything without him knocking you on your ***

this powder puff league makes me sick.....and yet I still watch every second

something wrong with me

You're right about those days of yore, and about those guys in particular.

On the other hand, Jim Brown has said he sees nothing wrong with the new helmet rule, that in fact he never led with the crown of his helmet because that seemed stupid and would more likely hurt himself more than the opponent. As he put it, he used his hand, his shoulder, his shoulder pads.

And I'm pretty sure I can safely assume you viewed Brown as a tough sob.

gmen46
03-21-2013, 03:01 AM
I hope you're right. You make good points. As Slip pointed out, Brown and Wilson run more upright, preferring to use their vision and speed and moves to elude a tackle, rather than challenge it. Someone else pointed out that Bradshaw ran with his head down, but I think he ran more upright in his early years and gradually started to lower his head when he was found no holes and no place to run and elude. At or behind the LOS he lowered his head instead of hitting a hole straight up and get crushed. Out in the open field a good RB always feels he can elude a one on one, and must remain upright to do that. Jacobs didn't have that elusiveness, so it was head down and plow the defender under (Like Landry... who can forget that embarrassment?...hahaha... it was shown 10,000 times on these boards.
We'll see. I've seen poor enforcement of the rules cost us a few games in the past. I'll never forget the first year of the "In the grasp rule". Scott Brunner was scrambling for his life and broke free across the LOS and looked to make a nice gain and a first down, and a San Diego defender dove at him in the open field and got a hand on Brunner's foot. Brunner easily and instantly pulled his leg free, running past the first down marker. TOO Late. A ref called in the grasp, and Brunner was a few yards short and we had to punt. We lost that game by less than a TD.

Glad you referenced the in-the-grasp rule. It was reversed after a few years, wasn't it? Same thing will happen with this rule if it is as bad as many here fear. I personally don't think it will be nearly as bad or mis-officiated as everyone seems to believe.

zimonami
03-21-2013, 03:19 AM
Glad you referenced the in-the-grasp rule. It was reversed after a few years, wasn't it? Same thing will happen with this rule if it is as bad as many here fear. I personally don't think it will be nearly as bad or mis-officiated as everyone seems to believe.
You never know if the refs will have trouble with it until we see some penalties. I don't think this goes away anytime soon, mostly because of the concussion suits. NFL is almost forced to establish that it takes the problem seriously and don't want concussions.
You're right about J.Brown... a tough sob. He had such strong legs and hips that he just shred a lot of would be tacklers... left them eating dirt. But there also wasn't a lot of kamikaze tacklers back then. IT was a different game, and the players weren't chiselled rock then, either. Few giuys worked in the offseason, and took weights seriously. Many had to work A second job from December to June. Preseason was to get in shape. Today if you don't come to camp in shape, your at a big disadvantage. You see the old player pics and you don't see the ripped physiques that you see today..

giantsfan420
03-21-2013, 03:48 AM
thank u for bringing some actual intelligence to the thread zimonami.

the way i see it, is intentional grounding all that difficult to call? i mean that has some grayish areas to it. but really, the refs are looking to see where the qb is in relation to the rule. once the qb escapes the pocket, the refs know the ball simply must reach the LOSish if the QB throws it away.

Same thing with this new rule, imo. The refs will know when the penalty is even eligible. Once the ball carrier is OUTSIDE the tackle box, and I dont think its gonna be measured to the inch, I'm sure the refs will allow some more room in the defining of the tackle box as to reduce the area of the field the refs have to even look for it. but anyways, once the ball carriers outside, the ref will know what to look for...a player who has no interest in advancing the ball or protecting himself, but instead is using the crown of his helmet as a weapon to inflcit harm intentionally.

remember, even if the ball carrier does contact a defender with the crown of his helmet outside the tackle box, if hes doing so in an attempt to lower the pad level and get low to protect himself and get down, it isnt a penalty.

the difference between both scenarios should be clear.


does anyone have clarification for what "endline" means. the area that isnt affected by the new rule is between the tackles, 3 yds within the LOS to the endline. I take that to mean goal line but why then would they not just use the term goal line. could it mean 1rst down marker? they need to define end line...

IamGiantsfan
03-21-2013, 04:03 AM
These are all just knee jerk reactions to the rule, I admit at first I was pissed, but after reading a bit it starts to make sense =P

PRGiant
03-21-2013, 05:12 AM
Romo wants Rodgers money...and he's going to get it.

To quote the great Tiki Barber..."thats COMICAL!"
If the Cowboys get Romo for Rodgers money they are set! Rodgers makes less than half of what Eli makes! lol

titwio
03-21-2013, 10:18 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9yDH6x5JW7M

I ****ing hate Kurt Coleman. Arrogant little ****.

Go back and pause the video at 30-31 seconds. Coleman's helmet is halfway off his face before Trent even contacts him. The play is being blown way out of proportion and Richardson could have just shoved him and his helmet would have came off. Coleman's going in for the tackle and his chin strap is on his nose.

To think this play was the catalyst to the new rule is just ridiculous.

GiantsSB23
03-21-2013, 10:22 AM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/156018_516855978361095_384793639_n.png

That's how I feel you might as well make it flag football or touch

bigblue58
03-21-2013, 10:33 AM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/20/helmet-rule-passes/

I don't see this working out well. The officials have enough to worry about.

I lost interest in basketball and baseball...... and now Goodell is on a mission to make football an over officiated, unwatchable mess as well!
Another arcane rule whose only affect will be to to call back big runs and ruin the outcome of games. And to make matters worse...it's not even reviewable which is ludicrous!
God how I long for the good ole days of sports

AGiantDynasty
03-21-2013, 10:53 AM
1) The Richardson play is not blown out of proportion. It has nothing to do with the helmet flying off. It has to do with Trent leading with his crown and putting his own neck in severe jeopardy. He could of very easily broke his own neck.

2) This is not a new rule. It has always been illegal to lead with your crown. Now it is just being enforced. Not to mention only outside the tackle box.

3) Goodell has very little to do with this. He is just the representative for the owners. And competition committee. If you have an issue, blame the owners and CC.

4) If you love this game, you will accept these safety issues. I've watched first hand in the last 10 years that youth football is losing numbers at a staggering pace. Up to 30% less kids are signing up to play. Why is that when the game itself has never been more popular? Because parents don't feel its a safe enough sport and are pushing their kids towards other "safer" sports. If that keeps up another 15 years, the NFL will suffer greatly. Youth football is the backbone of this sport. If we don't get the kids and parents back on our side we could lose this incredible game all together.

5) This board is a breeding ground of misinformation from people who have zero clue what they are talking about. Does anyone actually do their own research before spouting of nonesense?

nhpgiantsfan
03-21-2013, 11:00 AM
1) The Richardson play is not blown out of proportion. It has nothing to do with the helmet flying off. It has to do with Trent leading with his crown and putting his own neck in severe jeopardy. He could of very easily broke his own neck.

2) This is not a new rule. It has always been illegal to lead with your crown. Now it is just being enforced. Not to mention only outside the tackle box.

3) Goodell has very little to do with this. He is just the representative for the owners. And competition committee. If you have an issue, blame the owners and CC.

4) If you love this game, you will accept these safety issues. I've watched first hand in the last 10 years that youth football is losing numbers at a staggering pace. Up to 30% less kids are signing up to play. Why is that when the game itself has never been more popular? Because parents don't feel its a safe enough sport and are pushing their kids towards other "safer" sports. If that keeps up another 15 years, the NFL will suffer greatly. Youth football is the backbone of this sport. If we don't get the kids and parents back on our side we could lose this incredible game all together.

5) This board is a breeding ground of misinformation from people who have zero clue what they are talking about. Does anyone actually do their own research before spouting of nonesense?

+1 excellent post... especially the part about Goodell having very little to do with this. He is the mouth piece for the owners and the competition committee. And , btw, our owner is a very big part of the competition committee.

nygpolishpunk
03-21-2013, 11:03 AM
So this is now a 15 yarder? Awful:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4p3j9e6OD1rx1kh3o1_500.gif

No, Bradshaw led with the shoulder, not his head.

titwio
03-21-2013, 11:06 AM
1) The Richardson play is not blown out of proportion. It has nothing to do with the helmet flying off. It has to do with Trent leading with his crown and putting his own neck in severe jeopardy. He could of very easily broke his own neck.

Oh come on. Players have been doing it since football's inception. He was getting low because a player was in front of him squared up and he dropped his pad level. Do you really think he's using the force of his blow with his helmet? No...he's putting the force of his weight in his momentum with the top of his shoulders. The helmet goes down when players get low.


2) This is not a new rule. It has always been illegal to lead with your crown. Now it is just being enforced. Not to mention only outside the tackle box.

No doubt but if a runner drops his pad level then how can it be distinguished if he's actually leading with the crown if helmets make contact (which is going to happen no matter what). Runners can't always run with their heads up and if they plan on protecting themselves.

I guess all the people speaking out about this rule including former NFL players and RB's haven't done their research either huh? They're just talking from nonsense.

dezzzR
03-21-2013, 11:11 AM
No, Bradshaw led with the shoulder, not his head.It happens so fast these refs wont be able to tell.

titwio
03-21-2013, 11:12 AM
It happens so fast these refs wont be able to tell.

Exactly.

AGiantDynasty
03-21-2013, 11:27 AM
Oh come on. Players have been doing it since football's inception. He was getting low because a player was in front of him squared up and he dropped his pad level. Do you really think he's using the force of his blow with his helmet? No...he's putting the force of his weight in his momentum with the top of his shoulders. The helmet goes down when players get low.



No doubt but if a runner drops his pad level then how can it be distinguished if he's actually leading with the crown if helmets make contact (which is going to happen no matter what). Runners can't always run with their heads up and if they plan on protecting themselves.

I guess all the people speaking out about this rule including former NFL players and RB's haven't done their research either huh? They're just talking from nonsense.

1) You bend at the knees and hips with your head TILTED UP and sliding to the off side of the defender while using your defender side shoulder making contact. You NEVER lead with head first. If you seriously think Trent was using proper technique you need to some research.

2) You mean the same players that are now brain damaged and suing the NFL?

3) Bringing up past players is a moot point. You are under the impression that they as perfectly sound from a technique standpoint. These pro athletes have coach's for a reason. Because they aren't perfect and still need to improve their technique.

4) for every player complaining I can name 1 or 2 that are for the rule. Players ***** about everything.

dezzzR
03-21-2013, 11:32 AM
1) You bend at the knees and hips with your head TILTED UP and sliding to the off side of the defender while using your defender side shoulder making contact. You NEVER lead with head first. If you seriously think Trent was using proper technique you need to some research.

2) You mean the same players that are now brain damaged and suing the NFL?

3) Bringing up past players is a moot point. You are under the impression that they as perfectly sound from a technique standpoint. These pro athletes have coach's for a reason. Because they aren't perfect and still need to improve their technique.

4) for every player complaining I can name 1 or 2 that are for the rule. Players ***** about everything.You guys keep saying that. It doesnt matter if its "proper technique". Almost all, if not every single rb does this. If you run with your head tilted up into a defender, youre going to break your neck.

TCHOF
03-21-2013, 11:34 AM
You guys keep saying that. It doesnt matter if its "proper technique". Almost all, if not every single rb does this. If you run with your head tilted up into a defender, youre going to break your neck.

Not every RB leads with the crown of his helmet when running outside of the tackle box.

titwio
03-21-2013, 11:42 AM
1) You bend at the knees and hips with your head TILTED UP and sliding to the off side of the defender while using your defender side shoulder making contact. You NEVER lead with head first. If you seriously think Trent was using proper technique you need to some research.

Why are you numbering each point like your the ambassador for the rule and are schooling the rest of us like we're completely clueless? Your explaining the rule from the standpoint of what they're expecting from players NOW....not before. Trent Richardson was simply doing what every other RB has been doing throughout history including Earl Campbell, OJ Simpson, Walter Payton, Jerome Bettis....(seriously my RESEARCH could go on and on) Some of those plays being involved in the greatest plays of all time to boot.


2) You mean the same players that are now brain damaged and suing the NFL?

There are so many arguments that can be made for this statement that I'm not going to even get started. Would just be wasting my time and the debate would never end. Bottom line is players including former players know what they were getting into and like Deion Sanders said....are now looking for ways to make money off the NFL. But that's another discussion.

AGiantDynasty
03-21-2013, 11:55 AM
You're right, proper technique means absolutely nothing...

AGiantDynasty
03-21-2013, 11:59 AM
Not ever RB leads with the crown of his helmet when running outside of the tackle box.

At least we agree on one thing ;)

But don't bother.. according to this board, if Richardson and Campbell does it, all RBs do. Because as we all know, players never make mistakes

dezzzR
03-21-2013, 12:03 PM
Not every RB leads with the crown of his helmet when running outside of the tackle box.I wasnt talking about where it happens. I was commenting on technique.

Rudyy
03-21-2013, 12:09 PM
No, Bradshaw led with the shoulder, not his head.So the ref will be standing there and realize that from the jump? Or is he going to go under the hood for 5 hours?

TCHOF
03-21-2013, 12:18 PM
I wasnt talking about where it happens. I was commenting on technique.

Well the rule only applies outside of the tackle box, so the technique outside of the tackle box is the only technique that is relevant.

dezzzR
03-21-2013, 12:25 PM
Well the rule only applies outside of the tackle box, so the technique outside of the tackle box is the only technique that is relevant.Its going to happen regardless of where the rb is if leading with his head and shoulders is his style/technique. Iv seen plenty of rbs lead with their head outside the tackle box

njsean
03-21-2013, 12:30 PM
Its going to happen regardless of where the rb is if leading with his head and shoulders is his style/technique. Iv seen plenty of rbs lead with their head outside the tackle box

Now you'll see them get flagged.

StrahanSoup92
03-21-2013, 01:35 PM
This new rule is total BS I agree completly. However, its still allowed inside the tackle box, which is where you see RBs lowering there heads anyway. In open field, they just cant bullrush anymore. I think its a crock but it is what it is, and hopefully the backs can adjust, as the defenses have this last year. I really dont think this is going to change much. Plus if the penalty is called on a RB, the play is not taken away, just 15 yards will be taken off the end of the run, which I think was an important addition to the rule.

gmen46
03-21-2013, 02:22 PM
You never know if the refs will have trouble with it until we see some penalties. I don't think this goes away anytime soon, mostly because of the concussion suits. NFL is almost forced to establish that it takes the problem seriously and don't want concussions.
You're right about J.Brown... a tough sob. He had such strong legs and hips that he just shred a lot of would be tacklers... left them eating dirt. But there also wasn't a lot of kamikaze tacklers back then. IT was a different game, and the players weren't chiselled rock then, either. Few giuys worked in the offseason, and took weights seriously. Many had to work A second job from December to June. Preseason was to get in shape. Today if you don't come to camp in shape, your at a big disadvantage. You see the old player pics and you don't see the ripped physiques that you see today..

I agree with most of what you say here. (Although Brown was ripped, even by today's standards!)

But I was responding to the point you and YA were making about the toughness of players from that era and another poster or two who referenced how runners from back in the day "trucked" defenders. I refer to Brown as an example of a RB from that era who "trucked" defenders without feeling the need to spear them in the process. It can be--and has been--done.

As to the in-the-grasp rule again, I remember Lambert reacting quite a bit like current RBs are now reacting to this new rule by saying "next, we'll have QBs wearing skirts!" I'm sure his own QB, Bradshaw, appreciated that comment, HA!

Anyway, Lambert's reaction sounds a heck of a lot like today's reactions to the RB helmet rule. Yet here we are 30-some years later, making the same comments about how this softening the rules will make a tough sport soft.

The largest concern, to me, is what effect this rule may have on officiating and the subsequent pace of the game. Which is what seems to concern YA and perhaps yourself an others on this board. Well, we won't know that until a few weeks into the 2013 season. Between now and then the officials will have a lot of time to review film of all the various potential RB situations and to try to narrow down the actual violations so that they won't be hesitating--or more importantly, overreacting--on every running play beyond 3 yards of the los. (This rule applies to any runner beyond the 3 yards, so WRs, TEs will also be subject to the rule in that situation).

Additionally, teams have the entire off season OTAs, mini camps, and pre season camp and games to coach everyone on how to run the ball beyond the los without spearing a defender. Just like they've been doing in recent off seasons with defenders.

We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out before we can truly make judgments about how this will "ruin" the game.

But the immediate player and fan reaction so far, beyond a legitimate concern for placing another judgement burden upon the officials, is a bit hysterical and misplaced, in my opinion.

zimonami
03-21-2013, 02:54 PM
I agree with most of what you say here. (Although Brown was ripped, even by today's standards!)

But I was responding to the point you and YA were making about the toughness of players from that era and another poster or two who referenced how runners from back in the day "trucked" defenders. I refer to Brown as an example of a RB from that era who "trucked" defenders without feeling the need to spear them in the process. It can be--and has been--done.

As to the in-the-grasp rule again, I remember Lambert reacting quite a bit like current RBs are now reacting to this new rule by saying "next, we'll have QBs wearing skirts!" I'm sure his own QB, Bradshaw, appreciated that comment, HA!

Anyway, Lambert's reaction sounds a heck of a lot like today's reactions to the RB helmet rule. Yet here we are 30-some years later, making the same comments about how this softening the rules will make a tough sport soft.

The largest concern, to me, is what effect this rule may have on officiating and the subsequent pace of the game. Which is what seems to concern YA and perhaps yourself an others on this board. Well, we won't know that until a few weeks into the 2013 season. Between now and then the officials will have a lot of time to review film of all the various potential RB situations and to try to narrow down the actual violations so that they won't be hesitating--or more importantly, overreacting--on every running play beyond 3 yards of the los. (This rule applies to any runner beyond the 3 yards, so WRs, TEs will also be subject to the rule in that situation).

Additionally, teams have the entire off season OTAs, mini camps, and pre season camp and games to coach everyone on how to run the ball beyond the los without spearing a defender. Just like they've been doing in recent off seasons with defenders.

We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out before we can truly make judgments about how this will "ruin" the game.

But the immediate player and fan reaction so far, beyond a legitimate concern for placing another judgement burden upon the officials, is a bit hysterical and misplaced, in my opinion.
Exactly right... hysterical and misplaced over-reaction... just like the immediate reaction to Sandy Hook and taking guns out of the hands of all citizens.
Yes, we have to see what eventuates... and, your point about them having all preseason/camp time to work on this is also relevent. Plus, refs work with the teams... not that refs really know how they'll react to bang-bang incidents.
You see guys launching themselves at a ball carriers mid section and in that split second the ball carrier moves his body/head in such a way that they hit helmet to helmet. FLAG. It was not the defenders aim to hit the man's helmet, but that's what happened, and he gets penalized.
I think intent means everything... but, you can't recognize intent in that split second.
Just like in the vid in this thread where the Eagle defender gets his helmet knocked off. The RB just intended to put his head in the defender's chest... but ended up hitting his face guard and knocking the helmet off. I think in the future that same play draws a flag, and if the helmet is not knocked off, the refs won't throw a flag. In both of those cases the RB's intent was the same... but one will get a flag and the other won't.
Like you say... there is time for the refs and the players to sort things out. But, what happens in real life often depends upon a split second feel by a ref for what he thinks he just saw. Since it's not reviewable we'll see all sorts of moaning and groaning that it should, or should not have been called. Being a ref gets harder and harder.

zimonami
03-21-2013, 02:57 PM
This new rule is total BS I agree completly. However, its still allowed inside the tackle box, which is where you see RBs lowering there heads anyway. In open field, they just cant bullrush anymore. I think its a crock but it is what it is, and hopefully the backs can adjust, as the defenses have this last year. I really dont think this is going to change much. Plus if the penalty is called on a RB, the play is not taken away, just 15 yards will be taken off the end of the run, which I think was an important addition to the rule.
Good to see you, Stray>
I didn't get that part until now... taking 15 yds off of the play result. Good, I like that.
But, what if it results in a TD? Put the ball out on the 15?

Morehead State
03-21-2013, 02:59 PM
I think ultimately this new rule will be much ado about nothing.
They just don't want a player using their heads overtly as a battering ram. From what I understand it has to be very blatant.

GameTime
03-21-2013, 03:25 PM
I think ultimately this new rule with me much ado about nothing.
They just don't want a player using their heads overtly as a battering ram. From what I understand it has to be very blatant.

agreed.....some fans are flipping out about this before they even read or hear what the rule is all about.

zimonami
03-21-2013, 03:32 PM
I think ultimately this new rule will be much ado about nothing.
They just don't want a player using their heads overtly as a battering ram. From what I understand it has to be very blatant.
I think you're right.
We'll inevitably have some questionable flags. Two guys coming at each other and they both lower their heads, and they have a brutal helmet to helmet contact. Who gets flagged? The one who wins the battle and blows the other man backwards?
I'm glad I'm not a ref... tough job, and thankless

YATittle1962
03-21-2013, 03:34 PM
I agree with most of what you say here. (Although Brown was ripped, even by today's standards!)

But I was responding to the point you and YA were making about the toughness of players from that era and another poster or two who referenced how runners from back in the day "trucked" defenders. I refer to Brown as an example of a RB from that era who "trucked" defenders without feeling the need to spear them in the process. It can be--and has been--done.

As to the in-the-grasp rule again, I remember Lambert reacting quite a bit like current RBs are now reacting to this new rule by saying "next, we'll have QBs wearing skirts!" I'm sure his own QB, Bradshaw, appreciated that comment, HA!

Anyway, Lambert's reaction sounds a heck of a lot like today's reactions to the RB helmet rule. Yet here we are 30-some years later, making the same comments about how this softening the rules will make a tough sport soft.

The largest concern, to me, is what effect this rule may have on officiating and the subsequent pace of the game. Which is what seems to concern YA and perhaps yourself an others on this board. Well, we won't know that until a few weeks into the 2013 season. Between now and then the officials will have a lot of time to review film of all the various potential RB situations and to try to narrow down the actual violations so that they won't be hesitating--or more importantly, overreacting--on every running play beyond 3 yards of the los. (This rule applies to any runner beyond the 3 yards, so WRs, TEs will also be subject to the rule in that situation).

Additionally, teams have the entire off season OTAs, mini camps, and pre season camp and games to coach everyone on how to run the ball beyond the los without spearing a defender. Just like they've been doing in recent off seasons with defenders.

We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out before we can truly make judgments about how this will "ruin" the game.

But the immediate player and fan reaction so far, beyond a legitimate concern for placing another judgement burden upon the officials, is a bit hysterical and misplaced, in my opinion.

the way it will be officiated definitely concerns me the most

and as for the "trucking" using the crown....it's not always intentional

a RB lowers his head to "get small" and protect the ball as he has been coached forever and gain a yard and unintentionally "spears" a defender ....out comes the laundry

unfair

and I dont want to see some poster coming at me about the "correct" way to do things and how it is taught in youth leagues.....becuase guys have been dropping their heads to gain yards and go through defenders since before there were helmets in the game ....and have been praised for it for decades

giantsfan420
03-21-2013, 03:51 PM
they reviewed all 32 teams seasons, all the games week to week, and found the penalty would be warranted ELEVEN times people...this is merely a ploy by the owners to try and come off as concern over player health when really its concern over profit health. it would be called 1 every 3 games...its not a big deal at least not nearly as big a deal as people are making it. do people understand that this rule doesnt take effect inbetween the tackles? that it only takes effect outside the tackles, basically the hash marks to the sideline...and a ball carrier in that area is usually almost always in space. u rarely even see ball carriers try to seek out a defender and use his head as a weapon anymore bc its a waste of an opportunity in space that could be turned into a TD...the only times a ball carrier is leading with the crown out in that space is blatantly intentional, ala Jacobs would know he wasnt out running the d so he would pick a DB and look to truck him...thats fine, as long as jacobs doesnt lunge with the crown of his helmet.

IF a ball carrier initiates contact with the crown but u could tell hes making a football move to get low and protect himself on the way to being tackles, its not gonna be called and will look nothing like what the refs will look for in flagging the penalty...

ELEVEN times...1x in 3 games...not a big deal and really isnt going to need players to change/adapt all that much...

YATittle1962
03-21-2013, 04:44 PM
they reviewed all 32 teams seasons, all the games week to week, and found the penalty would be warranted ELEVEN times people...this is merely a ploy by the owners to try and come off as concern over player health when really its concern over profit health. it would be called 1 every 3 games...its not a big deal at least not nearly as big a deal as people are making it. do people understand that this rule doesnt take effect inbetween the tackles? that it only takes effect outside the tackles, basically the hash marks to the sideline...and a ball carrier in that area is usually almost always in space. u rarely even see ball carriers try to seek out a defender and use his head as a weapon anymore bc its a waste of an opportunity in space that could be turned into a TD...the only times a ball carrier is leading with the crown out in that space is blatantly intentional, ala Jacobs would know he wasnt out running the d so he would pick a DB and look to truck him...thats fine, as long as jacobs doesnt lunge with the crown of his helmet.

IF a ball carrier initiates contact with the crown but u could tell hes making a football move to get low and protect himself on the way to being tackles, its not gonna be called and will look nothing like what the refs will look for in flagging the penalty...

ELEVEN times...1x in 3 games...not a big deal and really isnt going to need players to change/adapt all that much...

what you are not thinking of is that they are reviewing tape sitting comfortably in a room with a coaches clicker in their hand sipping on a nice cup of coffee with a discussion determining this

full speed live action out on the field in the elements without the luxury of camera angles and needing to make a judgement call within seconds is a completely different story

there is no way of saying how many would have been called last year ....no possible way

its nice that they sat and watched film to try to ease peoples minds.....but I'm sorry ....it means absolutely nothing

Morehead State
03-21-2013, 04:57 PM
what you are not thinking of is that they are reviewing tape sitting comfortably in a room with a coaches clicker in their hand sipping on a nice cup of coffee with a discussion determining this

full speed live action out on the field in the elements without the luxury of camera angles and needing to make a judgement call within seconds is a completely different story

there is no way of saying how many would have been called last year ....no possible way

its nice that they sat and watched film to try to ease peoples minds.....but I'm sorry ....it means absolutely nothing
Yes but you also have to factor in the fact that it wasn't illegal either. So players had no motivation not to use their helmets.
Now that the rule has changed, the act itself will be more rare.

As someone else said. this is not a big deal. Its really just an attempt to demonstrate to future litigants that the league is placing a high priority of player safety.
It shouldn't effect the game very much at all.

gmen46
03-21-2013, 04:58 PM
the way it will be officiated definitely concerns me the most

and as for the "trucking" using the crown....it's not always intentional

a RB lowers his head to "get small" and protect the ball as he has been coached forever and gain a yard and unintentionally "spears" a defender ....out comes the laundry

unfair

and I dont want to see some poster coming at me about the "correct" way to do things and how it is taught in youth leagues.....becuase guys have been dropping their heads to gain yards and go through defenders since before there were helmets in the game ....and have been praised for it for decades

Can't disagree with your concerns.

But to me it will all come down to how it is officiated over the course of a game, and over the course of a season. We--fans and players alike--have no idea as to how that will play out for another few months.

But I'm fairly confident the officials will be under much scrutiny as to how they call this, and as a result will work hard to not "over officiate" this part of the game. The loud negative reaction so far to this rule--by not only fans and several RBs, but also ex players / pundits such as Mike Mayock--will ensure that this will be managed very carefully in order to not "ruin" the game. At least that is my hope and opinion based upon other major rule changes of the past.

nycisgreat
03-21-2013, 05:07 PM
I don't know how they are going to consistently call that..

When I first heard about this, I hated the idea, but after reading through the proposed rule, It is only in the open field runners will get called for the lowering of the helmet. The goal line situations should remain the same.

zimonami
03-21-2013, 06:40 PM
they reviewed all 32 teams seasons, all the games week to week, and found the penalty would be warranted ELEVEN times people...this is merely a ploy by the owners to try and come off as concern over player health when really its concern over profit health. it would be called 1 every 3 games...its not a big deal at least not nearly as big a deal as people are making it. do people understand that this rule doesnt take effect inbetween the tackles? that it only takes effect outside the tackles, basically the hash marks to the sideline...and a ball carrier in that area is usually almost always in space. u rarely even see ball carriers try to seek out a defender and use his head as a weapon anymore bc its a waste of an opportunity in space that could be turned into a TD...the only times a ball carrier is leading with the crown out in that space is blatantly intentional, ala Jacobs would know he wasnt out running the d so he would pick a DB and look to truck him...thats fine, as long as jacobs doesnt lunge with the crown of his helmet.

IF a ball carrier initiates contact with the crown but u could tell hes making a football move to get low and protect himself on the way to being tackles, its not gonna be called and will look nothing like what the refs will look for in flagging the penalty...

ELEVEN times...1x in 3 games...not a big deal and really isnt going to need players to change/adapt all that much...
Actually, there are 256 regular season games, total, for the 32 teams... 16 games a week for 16 weeks. If it would have been called 11 times, then it is called 1X every23 games. How significant is that?
To review every play of every game to come up with that figure... 11 X total for all games... had to consume hundreds of hours of one or more people... just to come up with a number relevent to what they wanted to legislate.
I ask every one of you... Is that significant? How many players got hurt those 11 times? 1 play every 23 games. There are about 120 plays per game, so... 1 play every 2,760 snaps.
Why would they even consider that?
As I have said, and by a few others... this is all about the on-going concussion litigation so that the NFL can show that they are being proactive in reducing, or eliminating head injuries.
Yet, it is what it is, and we'll live with it, like everyone else, and hope it isn't the reason someoone loses a game on a critical play.

gmen46
03-21-2013, 11:21 PM
Actually, there are 256 regular season games, total, for the 32 teams... 16 games a week for 16 weeks. If it would have been called 11 times, then it is called 1X every23 games. How significant is that?
To review every play of every game to come up with that figure... 11 X total for all games... had to consume hundreds of hours of one or more people... just to come up with a number relevent to what they wanted to legislate.
I ask every one of you... Is that significant? How many players got hurt those 11 times? 1 play every 23 games. There are about 120 plays per game, so... 1 play every 2,760 snaps.
Why would they even consider that?
As I have said, and by a few others... this is all about the on-going concussion litigation so that the NFL can show that they are being proactive in reducing, or eliminating head injuries.
Yet, it is what it is, and we'll live with it, like everyone else, and hope it isn't the reason someoone loses a game on a critical play.

There's a misunderstanding of what process of review occurred before proposing and voting on this rule.

The games reviewed were all 16 games in Week 17 and all 16 games in Week 14. A total of 32 games were reviewed, with 11 instances of a potential penalty incurred under the new rule.

So, giantsfan420 was incorrect only in stating the review involved all the games week to week, but is correct in his reckoning of the 11 "violations" adding up to approximately one foul every 3 games.

While still not an overwhelming number of times--and the obvious goal is for it to become a smaller number because of adhering to the new rule--it is a more understandable answer to your question of "why would they even consider?" this rule. Instead of 1 play every 2760 snaps that you posit, it was closer to 1 play every 360 snaps. Apparently enough occurrences to cause 31 of 32 owners to vote for it.

All that said, there is no debate about the current litigation being a cause of concern and therefore a driving force behind all recent and future rule changes that involve efforts to reduce head trauma in particular. But that's the irreversible reality of the NFL today and from now on. The good news is that these changes will ultimately be applied to the various youth football leagues, and in the long run that will be a positive for both the kids and for extending the future of the game at all levels.

zimonami
03-21-2013, 11:57 PM
There's a misunderstanding of what process of review occurred before proposing and voting on this rule.

The games reviewed were all 16 games in Week 17 and all 16 games in Week 14. A total of 32 games were reviewed, with 11 instances of a potential penalty incurred under the new rule.

So, giantsfan420 was incorrect only in stating the review involved all the games week to week, but is correct in his reckoning of the 11 "violations" adding up to approximately one foul every 3 games.

While still not an overwhelming number of times--and the obvious goal is for it to become a smaller number because of adhering to the new rule--it is a more understandable answer to your question of "why would they even consider?" this rule. Instead of 1 play every 2760 snaps that you posit, it was closer to 1 play every 360 snaps. Apparently enough occurrences to cause 31 of 32 owners to vote for it.

All that said, there is no debate about the current litigation being a cause of concern and therefore a driving force behind all recent and future rule changes that involve efforts to reduce head trauma in particular. But that's the irreversible reality of the NFL today and from now on. The good news is that these changes will ultimately be applied to the various youth football leagues, and in the long run that will be a positive for both the kids and for extending the future of the game at all levels.
Thank you for correcting me. That makes a whole lot more sense... I did read GF420 wrong. A much higher incidence.
You're absolutely right about youth leagues. They are undoubtedly taking this quite seriously. Already their numbers have decreased in recent years with all the concussion emphasis.
I remember when I first got my NCAA ref's credentials (back around '73). They start you at the Pee Wee and Freshmen HS level. My own kids were only 6 and 3, so I wasn't used to seeing a Pee Wee game. My first surprise was walking onto the field and realizing that there was an ambulance, ready to go... and, it did. I hated seeing 10 year old kids getting broken collar bones, etc., and I saw a lot of it. So, when my kids got old enough I told them they had to stick with soccer until they were in HS and their bodies matured a bit more. I was glad I waited... soccer was better for them at that age of 9, 10.

jomo
03-22-2013, 02:21 AM
I was thinking that maybe we could eliminate blows to the head from boxing.

giantsfan420
03-22-2013, 02:30 AM
thanks for the clarification gmen46.


and YA ur point is valid. but i still think that the officials can look at this penalty similarly to how intentional grounding is flagged, meaning they will only look for it in specific areas of the field, and even then, it'd have to be obviously blatant. From my understanding, if its even questionable, it will not be called. it is for those extreme and blatant scenarios where the ball carrier singles a defender out and basically uses his head as a weapon, something i rarely have seen anyways from ball carriers in space...at least in todays game with the speed at each position capable of a TD anywhere on the field, guys arent looking for that kill shot bc it means they're forfeiting that chance at a TD.
what the refs will need to pay attn to is when the ball carrier is clearly incapable of breaking a TD and knows it, thats when the bravado of being alpha dog comes into play more imo

jomo
03-22-2013, 02:32 AM
what you are not thinking of is that they are reviewing tape sitting comfortably in a room with a coaches clicker in their hand sipping on a nice cup of coffee with a discussion determining this

full speed live action out on the field in the elements without the luxury of camera angles and needing to make a judgement call within seconds is a completely different story

there is no way of saying how many would have been called last year ....no possible way

its nice that they sat and watched film to try to ease peoples minds.....but I'm sorry ....it means absolutely nothingWhen someone tells you that Jim Brown, the greatest running back of all time is in favor of the rule, understand that Brown was as big as many lineman and as fast as the defensive backs. Of course he wouldn't want defensive backs to be able to gain leverage by lowering their head. He is perfectly content to have an unfair advantage because of his God given size and speed advantage. For the average runner who breaks through the box and heads for the goal line with 2 safeties closing on him I don't see how (or why) we expect him to move to an upright position which will decrease his chances of scoring. The league, like much of our life, is now being run by the lawyers. How has that been working out for the country?

zimonami
03-22-2013, 02:55 AM
I was thinking that maybe we could eliminate blows to the head from boxing.
Good idea... and we have to tone down the violence in MMA. In fact, why don't we resurrect the equipment from jousting where the riders can wear a metal helmet. Body armour might be appropriate instead of the current pads.

You're right about the lawyers, jomo. Everything in our lives is jacked up in price to cover liability costs.

StrahanSoup92
03-22-2013, 07:41 AM
Good to see you, Stray>
I didn't get that part until now... taking 15 yds off of the play result. Good, I like that.
But, what if it results in a TD? Put the ball out on the 15?

Good to see you too man, and yes I believe that will be the case, but I have not seen the specifics on the rule yet. From what I have learned so far, yes the ball will be placed on the 15.

I wanna also add that this rule is not a RB rule...this is an open field rule. Even plays like Shockeys brutal mauling in that famous play against the Eagles would have been called back 15 yards.

gmen46
03-22-2013, 04:34 PM
Thank you for correcting me. That makes a whole lot more sense... I did read GF420 wrong. A much higher incidence.
You're absolutely right about youth leagues. They are undoubtedly taking this quite seriously. Already their numbers have decreased in recent years with all the concussion emphasis.
I remember when I first got my NCAA ref's credentials (back around '73). They start you at the Pee Wee and Freshmen HS level. My own kids were only 6 and 3, so I wasn't used to seeing a Pee Wee game. My first surprise was walking onto the field and realizing that there was an ambulance, ready to go... and, it did. I hated seeing 10 year old kids getting broken collar bones, etc., and I saw a lot of it. So, when my kids got old enough I told them they had to stick with soccer until they were in HS and their bodies matured a bit more. I was glad I waited... soccer was better for them at that age of 9, 10.

Yes, I had the same attitude about having my 2 sons wait until freshman year in HS.

In fact, I was actually convinced irreversibly years earlier by something Larry Csonka said on some daytime TV show in the early 70s when he was still in his prime. The discussion turned to Pop Warner and other organized youth football. Czonka was adamantly opposed to having kids younger than 15 playing organized tackle football, and that if and when he had kids he would insist they wait until then. His reason was the fact that human skulls aren't fully formed before that age (especially the top center of the skull, which never completely fuses together anyway, where there is still a significant gap--exposing part of the brain--until one reaches mid adolescence).

That was enough for me! The combination of the fervid opinion of a pro whose yards were all gained by butting and fighting his way through mass quantities of large angry men--and who was at the time the best at doing it--and my acquisition of scientific information years later confirming his comments about the development of the human skull were all I needed to make the decision about my sons waiting until HS.

Roosevelt
03-22-2013, 05:01 PM
It happens so fast these refs wont be able to tell.

That in a nut shell is the problem. That and the fact that these guys call penalties on things they "think" they saw instead of clearly saw.

The NFL needs to make sure the officials never call any penalty unless it's unquestionable. If there is any question, don't call it. There should never be flags getting picked up for "non-calls."

Roosevelt
03-22-2013, 05:06 PM
1) You bend at the knees and hips with your head TILTED UP and sliding to the off side of the defender while using your defender side shoulder making contact. You NEVER lead with head first. If you seriously think Trent was using proper technique you need to some research.

2) You mean the same players that are now brain damaged and suing the NFL?

3) Bringing up past players is a moot point. You are under the impression that they as perfectly sound from a technique standpoint. These pro athletes have coach's for a reason. Because they aren't perfect and still need to improve their technique.

4) for every player complaining I can name 1 or 2 that are for the rule. Players ***** about everything.

If you watch it again you will see that his head is tilted and it appears he is attacking the players right shoulder.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9yDH6x5JW7M

BlueSanta
03-22-2013, 05:38 PM
If you watch it again you will see that his head is tilted and it appears he is attacking the players right shoulder.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9yDH6x5JW7M
Huh?

No. the very 1st point of impact is the crown of his helmet contacting the facemask of the defender. Stop the video at 0:31 and tell that that isnt the case.


I will say it again, lowering the crown of your helmet has always been illegal in football. It was just never enforced against offensive players.


Furthermore, for those crying about Goodell or the owners implementing such silly rules, you need to do some research. much of the new rule changes came about from former players and their familiy members suing the league. This was a major point of discussion in the last CBA talks. Retired players argued the NFL has done nothing to make the league safer. So, now the league is responding.

I have been critical of many of the rule changes in recent years as too game changing, particularly for defenses who simply play at too big of a disadvantage now.

The fact is player safety is as much the offensive players responsibility as the defensive players. If a defensive player cannot lower the crown of his helmet for safety purposes, there is no reason a rb should be allowed to. People are making a mountain out of a molehill on this. It isnt a big deal.

jomo
03-22-2013, 07:35 PM
Huh?

No. the very 1st point of impact is the crown of his helmet contacting the facemask of the defender. Stop the video at 0:31 and tell that that isnt the case.


I will say it again, lowering the crown of your helmet has always been illegal in football. It was just never enforced against offensive players.


Furthermore, for those crying about Goodell or the owners implementing such silly rules, you need to do some research. much of the new rule changes came about from former players and their familiy members suing the league. This was a major point of discussion in the last CBA talks. Retired players argued the NFL has done nothing to make the league safer. So, now the league is responding.

I have been critical of many of the rule changes in recent years as too game changing, particularly for defenses who simply play at too big of a disadvantage now.

The fact is player safety is as much the offensive players responsibility as the defensive players. If a defensive player cannot lower the crown of his helmet for safety purposes, there is no reason a rb should be allowed to. People are making a mountain out of a molehill on this. It isnt a big deal.If this video is the best the NFL has then it is pretty weak. Trent was lowering his shoulders (and head) to get as much yardage as possible. The defender was lowering himself to take on the barreling TR. The defender could have stayed upright and been run over even more. I can't lay this one on Richardson and if you have to tell us to "stop the video at 0:31" you make the point for me perfectly. The game doesn't stop. It is fluid and dynamic and there is 1 inch between the helmet and shoulder pad and you've got 2 or more guys moving quickly and changing their levels independent of one another. The zebras have enough trouble getting holding penalties correct. We have too many lawyers in the NFL office, starting with the commish.

AGiantDynasty
03-22-2013, 08:18 PM
Huh?

No. the very 1st point of impact is the crown of his helmet contacting the facemask of the defender. Stop the video at 0:31 and tell that that isnt the case.


I will say it again, lowering the crown of your helmet has always been illegal in football. It was just never enforced against offensive players.


Furthermore, for those crying about Goodell or the owners implementing such silly rules, you need to do some research. much of the new rule changes came about from former players and their familiy members suing the league. This was a major point of discussion in the last CBA talks. Retired players argued the NFL has done nothing to make the league safer. So, now the league is responding.

I have been critical of many of the rule changes in recent years as too game changing, particularly for defenses who simply play at too big of a disadvantage now.

The fact is player safety is as much the offensive players responsibility as the defensive players. If a defensive player cannot lower the crown of his helmet for safety purposes, there is no reason a rb should be allowed to. People are making a mountain out of a molehill on this. It isnt a big deal.

Finally a solitary voice of reason around here. He as certainly using the crown first.

And Jomo, its one single play as an example that was the most recent. Who said anything about it being the best example the NFL has?

The straw man arguments around here are beyond comical.

zimonami
03-22-2013, 08:20 PM
If this video is the best the NFL has then it is pretty weak. Trent was lowering his shoulders (and head) to get as much yardage as possible. The defender was lowering himself to take on the barreling TR. The defender could have stayed upright and been run over even more. I can't lay this one on Richardson and if you have to tell us to "stop the video at 0:31" you make the point for me perfectly. The game doesn't stop. It is fluid and dynamic and there is 1 inch between the helmet and shoulder pad and you've got 2 or more guys moving quickly and changing their levels independent of one another. The zebras have enough trouble getting holding penalties correct. We have too many lawyers in the NFL office, starting with the commish.
+1.
Things happen so quickly thatt it's impossible to even determine intent. These guys make instantaneous instinctive decisions and are looking to take a man down, or plow the defender out of the way the best you can, in a flash. **** happens and helmets clash. It's all incidental to me, because it's hard to believe that specifically hurting a guy is intent. It's your intent to hit him as hard as you can, and to drive thru him... that's your job, and if you DON"T, then you're the one who will end up being hurt. It's a brutal game. The players know it and they say, "Bring it on."
Like I've said before, these are our modern day gladiators.
Now the freakin' lawyers are salivating at years of hearings, papers to write and present, juries to sway, and let's keep the players and owners at each other's throats.... and the lawyers will make their milllions.
Sad

BlueSanta
03-22-2013, 08:23 PM
If this video is the best the NFL has then it is pretty weak. Trent was lowering his shoulders (and head) to get as much yardage as possible. The defender was lowering himself to take on the barreling TR. The defender could have stayed upright and been run over even more. I can't lay this one on Richardson and if you have to tell us to "stop the video at 0:31" you make the point for me perfectly. The game doesn't stop. It is fluid and dynamic and there is 1 inch between the helmet and shoulder pad and you've got 2 or more guys moving quickly and changing their levels independent of one another. The zebras have enough trouble getting holding penalties correct. We have too many lawyers in the NFL office, starting with the commish.

"lowering" yourself isnt illegal. Where are people getting this? You can still do that, you just have to keep your facemask up and looking where you are going.

I will say it again, THIS RULE HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN PLACE.


The rule simply prohibits players from lowering the crown of their helmet, something that has ALWAYS been illegal for defenders and is now illegal for offensive players too. BTW, the original implementation of this rule was decades before Goodell ever took the commish job.

I agree with the "dynamic" game argument for a lot of recent rule implementations, most notably the helmet to helmet rule. But, this is a simple rule. If you lower the crown of your helmet as a RB ( ei: look a he ground as you run into a defender) it is a penalty just like it would be for a defender to do that to you..

I have never seen a single thread complaining about the decades old spearing rule that has existed in the NFL. But now that RBs cant spear anymore the complaints are filling the forums.