+ Reply to Thread
Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 341

Thread: runners can no longer lower their heads

  1. #231
    Moderator YATittle1962's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Uncle YA
    Posts
    20,151
    Quote Originally Posted by giantsfan420 View Post
    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
    Last edited by YATittle1962; 03-21-2013 at 04:47 PM.

  2. #232
    All-Pro Morehead State's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Westfield, MA
    Posts
    44,808
    Quote Originally Posted by YATittle1962 View Post
    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.
    Get well soon 80.

  3. #233
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    6,139
    Quote Originally Posted by YATittle1962 View Post
    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.

  4. #234
    Veteran nycisgreat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Mount Airy, MD
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudyy View Post
    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.
    "In Reese, We No Longer Trust"

  5. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by giantsfan420 View Post
    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.

  6. #236
    All-Pro gmen46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    6,139
    Quote Originally Posted by zimonami View Post
    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.

  7. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by gmen46 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by zimonami; 03-22-2013 at 12:11 AM.

  8. #238
    All-Pro jomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    20,367
    I was thinking that maybe we could eliminate blows to the head from boxing.
    No one remembers who came in second.

  9. #239
    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

  10. #240
    All-Pro jomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    20,367
    Quote Originally Posted by YATittle1962 View Post
    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
    When 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?
    No one remembers who came in second.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts