Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

egomaniac247

Unbelievable Helmet Rule passes

108 posts in this topic

Aside from the sheer stupidity of the rule, has anyone given any thought to how it could effect fantasy football?

Does it put less value on the AP's, Trent Richardsons, Marshawn Lynch's etc and MORE emphasis on the pass catching scat backs?

Also, I wonder if a 65 yard run would be called back / waved off if a player tucks his head in the last 5 yards of the run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hard to say what the fantasy impact is right now -- we unfortunately won't have a good idea until at least a few weeks into the season when we see this rule in action. There will surely be some awful calls that leave a lot of people fuming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wait for the first 4th & 1 with the game on the line...RB up the middle, barely makes it....1st down!!! Oops, wait, flag on the play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wait for the first 4th & 1 with the game on the line...RB up the middle, barely makes it....1st down!!! Oops, wait, flag on the play.

"The rule does not apply to short-yardage or goal-line situations."

Still, where is the line drawn? A RB can put his head down to get through the pile but not after that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read on twitter that some of Adrian Peterson's highlights (like the one i posted above) were shown to coaches in a presentation detailing 'illegal' collisions.

While the new rules are helpful for defenses in an increasingly QB-friendly, offense driven game; you can't help but think that they will only kill the flow of the game with more flags, taking some of the entertainment out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the actual wording of the rule change:

Create Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (Initiating Contact with the Crown of the Helmet, pg. 67); (all subsequent articles to be re-numbered):

Article 8: Initiating Contact with the Crown of the Helmet. It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players are clearly 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 tackler against an opponent shall not be a foul.

http://www.footballz...ule-changes.pdf

Honestly, as someone with a son in Pop Warner, I don't see why this is so controversial. This isn't saying a player can't lower his shoulder or even his head to initiate contact, just that he can't "initiate forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet." Kids in football are taught (or should be taught) at a very young age to lead with their shoulder pads and not their helmet. Not only could it cause serious injury to an opposing player, but the player leading with the top of his helmet himself risks serious spinal injury, not to mention the potential resulting concussion.

Maybe now players will actually continue to use the correct fundamentals that they were taught back when they started playing the game, before ESPN highlights made it fashionable to turn your helmet into a guided missile.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say goodbye to highlight reels like this:

Watch the clip at 00:38. That's what you're going to see more often now. This isn't a rule that's going to completely change the way running backs do their jobs. They'll adapt and practice using their shoulder just like that play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense that defensive players are afforded the same protections the offensive players are and despite what some say dropping their head like that isnt designed to protect themselves but rather an attempt to win in terms of dishing out a blow. The concussion litigation is whats clouding over all this and prompting change, the players have themselves to thank for the rules changes really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you want protection and safety, get off the field. this is such a joke.

this is football

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the actual wording of the rule change:

Create Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (Initiating Contact with the Crown of the Helmet, pg. 67); (all subsequent articles to be re-numbered):

Article 8: Initiating Contact with the Crown of the Helmet. It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players are clearly 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 tackler against an opponent shall not be a foul.

http://www.footballz...ule-changes.pdf

Honestly, as someone with a son in Pop Warner, I don't see why this is so controversial. This isn't saying a player can't lower his shoulder or even his head to initiate contact, just that he can't "initiate forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet." Kids in football are taught (or should be taught) at a very young age to lead with their shoulder pads and not their helmet. Not only could it cause serious injury to an opposing player, but the player leading with the top of his helmet himself risks serious spinal injury, not to mention the potential resulting concussion.

Maybe now players will actually continue to use the correct fundamentals that they were taught back when they started playing the game, before ESPN highlights made it fashionable to turn your helmet into a guided missile.

in a split second refs are expected to tell the difference between lowering your shoulder/helmet and "forcible contact"? this is gonna lead to a bunch of horrible calls and disrupting the flow of the game.

all in the name of "player safety".

this is not a safe game. if you are that worried about your long-term health, take off the pads, stop cashing the million dollar checks, and try making a living the way everyone else in this country does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes sense that defensive players are afforded the same protections the offensive players are and despite what some say dropping their head like that isnt designed to protect themselves but rather an attempt to win in terms of dishing out a blow. The concussion litigation is whats clouding over all this and prompting change, the players have themselves to thank for the rules changes really.

Yep, I've never understood why an offensive player was able to do something a defender was unable to do just because they had the football. Personally, I don't get why it's that big of a deal.

this is not a safe game. if you are that worried about your long-term health, take off the pads, stop cashing the million dollar checks, and try making a living the way everyone else in this country does.

If this wasn't a litigious society and the NFL wasn't dealing with former players suing the NFL for millions because of past injuries, you wouldn't have to worry about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the actual wording of the rule change:

Create Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (Initiating Contact with the Crown of the Helmet, pg. 67); (all subsequent articles to be re-numbered):

Article 8: Initiating Contact with the Crown of the Helmet. It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players are clearly 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 tackler against an opponent shall not be a foul.

http://www.footballz...ule-changes.pdf

Honestly, as someone with a son in Pop Warner, I don't see why this is so controversial. This isn't saying a player can't lower his shoulder or even his head to initiate contact, just that he can't "initiate forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet." Kids in football are taught (or should be taught) at a very young age to lead with their shoulder pads and not their helmet. Not only could it cause serious injury to an opposing player, but the player leading with the top of his helmet himself risks serious spinal injury, not to mention the potential resulting concussion.

Maybe now players will actually continue to use the correct fundamentals that they were taught back when they started playing the game, before ESPN highlights made it fashionable to turn your helmet into a guided missile.

in a split second refs are expected to tell the difference between lowering your shoulder/helmet and "forcible contact"? this is gonna lead to a bunch of horrible calls and disrupting the flow of the game.

all in the name of "player safety".

this is not a safe game. if you are that worried about your long-term health, take off the pads, stop cashing the million dollar checks, and try making a living the way everyone else in this country does.

It's no different than any other unnecessary roughness call, will just take some getting used to on the refs' part. It's not a safe game, but that doesn't mean it can't be made safer. Just 'cause a sport is inherently physical doesn't mean we should completely ignore things about it that create serious injuries. Football has continually evolved into a safer sport throughout its history. Shall we go back to the old days of minimal pads and leather helmets? Of course not, 'cause the newer uniforms make it safer for the players.

Leading with the crown of the helmet is a bad and dangerous tactic for all involved. Anyone who has ever taught the fundamentals of the sport will tell you it's not the way football is supposed to be played. All they're doing now is putting in writing something everyone connected with the sport should have already known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is not a safe game. if you are that worried about your long-term health, take off the pads, stop cashing the million dollar checks, and try making a living the way everyone else in this country does.

Dont tell that to the NFL, tell that to the multitude of players trying to cash in from the NFL, including kickers and punters as well as the current players who still defy the rules and lie and avoid detection of injury. The NFL has to protect the brand, its not a spontaneous decision, its a calculated one borne of threats to said brand.

Having played the game at all levels, I agree theres risk involved. I always knew what I was taking on and anything that happened as a result was something I signed on for. Apparently thats not the way a lot of people think though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say goodbye to highlight reels like this:

I don't think you've read the rule carefully or understand how they are saying it will be enforced. I didn't have time to watch whole thing, but I watched the first 2 minutes of that clip and saw 12 plays I thought would be legal under the new rule and 4 I thought would draw flags (and two of those were erring on the side of "over-flagging."

Inside 3 yards of the LOS it's perfectly legal, and even outside you have to be intentionally using the top/crown of the helmet. So players will just use more shoulder/facemask than crown of the helmet, which is what is shown in the majority of the plays in that clip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't practice tackling like you used to - too risky for your overpaid skill player

you can't have training camp like you used to - too risky, plus it's like hot and stuff.

you can't hit QBs. you can't hit WRs.

it's bad enough i have to hold my breath every time the giants sack a QB or a WR gets hit over the middle ... now we get to watch first downs/big plays negated because the ref - in a split second- perceived the runner as delivering "forcible contact" with his helmet.

this "evolution" is a joke, and a result of the NFL trying to save face for screwing over so many retired vets in the past.

i also love how it's OK to still do it in short yardage ... at the 30 yard line it's illegal... but inside the 5 it's magically safe all of the sudden? i don't see how anyone can justify this rule change. it's 1 step closer to football ceasing to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is not a safe game. if you are that worried about your long-term health, take off the pads, stop cashing the million dollar checks, and try making a living the way everyone else in this country does.

Dont tell that to the NFL, tell that to the multitude of players trying to cash in from the NFL, including kickers and punters as well as the current players who still defy the rules and lie and avoid detection of injury. The NFL has to protect the brand, its not a spontaneous decision, its a calculated one borne of threats to said brand.

There's another way this is going to affect the brand. With all the talk of concussions and safety issues, the number of participants in football, from youth leagues all the way up to high school, has seen a fairly sharp drop in the last couple of years across the country. A lot of people ARE taking off the pads and finding other things to do, and that can't be good for the long-term health of the sport. Just ask boxing...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't practice tackling like you used to - too risky for your overpaid skill player

you can't have training camp like you used to - too risky, plus it's like hot and stuff.

you can't hit QBs. you can't hit WRs.

it's bad enough i have to hold my breath every time the giants sack a QB or a WR gets hit over the middle ... now we get to watch first downs/big plays negated because the ref - in a split second- perceived the runner as delivering "forcible contact" with his helmet.

this "evolution" is a joke. can't wait to see what's next.

I actually agree with you on much of this... I hate the "in the grasp" rule and the whole "defenseless receiver" thing, no player on the field should be protected from a good hit, as long as the defensive player is tackling the right way. Which is NOT by leading with the crown of his helmet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a nice rule, in theory. my problem with all these changes is it attempting to make a violent sport "safe". at some point those changes start to change the way the game is played .... and eventually the product is ruined.

the concept of "safe" football, in my opinion, is a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say goodbye to highlight reels like this:

I don't think you've read the rule carefully or understand how they are saying it will be enforced. I didn't have time to watch whole thing, but I watched the first 2 minutes of that clip and saw 12 plays I thought would be legal under the new rule and 4 I thought would draw flags (and two of those were erring on the side of "over-flagging."

Inside 3 yards of the LOS it's perfectly legal, and even outside you have to be intentionally using the top/crown of the helmet. So players will just use more shoulder/facemask than crown of the helmet, which is what is shown in the majority of the plays in that clip.

I don't have a problem with the rule in theory, but I feel that we're going to see some ugly calls when a ref is forced to make a split-second decision on whether the RB lowered his head or his shoulder.

I'd hate to see the outcome of a game affected by a penalty when a RB lowers his head to plow through a defender to pick up a crucial first-down at the end of a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't practice tackling like you used to - too risky for your overpaid skill player

you can't have training camp like you used to - too risky, plus it's like hot and stuff.

you can't hit QBs. you can't hit WRs.

it's bad enough i have to hold my breath every time the giants sack a QB or a WR gets hit over the middle ... now we get to watch first downs/big plays negated because the ref - in a split second- perceived the runner as delivering "forcible contact" with his helmet.

this "evolution" is a joke, and a result of the NFL trying to save face for screwing over so many retired vets in the past.

i also love how it's OK to still do it in short yardage ... at the 30 yard line it's illegal... but inside the 5 it's magically safe all of the sudden? i don't see how anyone can justify this rule change. it's 1 step closer to football ceasing to exist.

The first two examples you cite were demanded by the NFLPA, not the NFL. The third I agree with QB's are overly protected.

This isnt an issue about older vets being screwed a lot of the law suits filed are by the more recent generations of players, 90s era etc. Guys who knew something was wrong and hid it from the medical staffs and trainers. You can call it a CYA move if you want and Id agree but these changes are being made as a result of the players and their litigation, no other reason and its a result of players claiming ignorance even though the current generation of players still admits that they will do the same things that were done in the past. Its a problem shared by both sides of the equation but one being forced by the players and as a result the players are being forced to change because they will never look out for their own safety or that of other players on their own, they are asking for intervention, whether directly or not.

As with any of these rules though there is far to much judgement calls and subjective views, its not a hard fast truth thats what makes them so frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites