This new football rule suggestion...

About running backs not being able to lower their heads, and lead with the crown of their helmet.  What do yall think about it?  I think it's ridiculous, why don't we outlaw tackling and make it two hand touch as well, after all it will be safer! (sheesh)

It smacks of a proposal written by someone who has never actually tried carrying a football and running with it.    I'm not really sure how one can run effectively without leading with the head - it's just the way physics works (shades of the weight forward thread elsewhere on the forum).

The way the NFL is heading, there is going to be more contact in the Lingerie Football League.    Hmmm, come to think of it I think I'd rather watch that league anyway!

I have to agree with you.  The last few years, it has been getting a little ridiculous with what they call penalties on.  It seems like every time their is a hard hit, a flag gets thrown.  Now if you don't allow the ballcarriers to deliver a blow when they have the ball, they are going to be sitting ducks.  The defensive players are trying to punish the ballcarrier, so it should be allowed to do it back.  I understand the intent behind the possible new rule, but it's the policing of it that bothers me.  You never want players on either side of the ball leading with the crown of their helmet, but it's impossible to stop and not easy to ref.

I coached high school football for 11 years, and we always taught our ballcarriers to deliver a blow on contact. Sometimes a players head goes down to either deliver a blow, protect the football, or just out of pure self-preservation.  These men in the NFL have made a decision to play this game under the current rule system.  If they do not want to risk the injury then don't play the game.

On a different note, I always find it amusing when players are bothered by the NFL's lack of concern for safety.  Then when owners and the league try and do things they think will make it safer, the players always want to whine about it.  Football is a violent game, I don't think that you can keep going forward with new rules every year and keep the game as entertaining as it is now.  I'm all for player safety, but if every year they keep adding rules, and new things you can't do or new ways to play the game, then the NFL will definitely suffer.  I don't think it will go away or lose it's stature near the top of sports in the U.S., but they will lose some fans.

I agree.  To be fair, though, I believe that some of the current rules on tackling and "defenseless players" smack of someone who has never actually tried tackling.  I think at this point the NFL is trying to legislate out random, violent collisions which is darn near impossible and is really a lose-lose (i.e., you don't REALLY make anything safer, and at the same time you ruin the spirit of the game with free first downs).

Full disclosure: I think about 15% of the penalties called for "defenseless players" and the like are legitimate and things that can be legislated out of the game with proper rule-writing and enforcement/education.  The other 85% are hits/collisions that will never change as long as physics is the law of the land.

I have to agree with you on this.  It seems like when their is a real violent collision, that a flag is automatically thrown.  Even though it was done with proper technique, it just looked ugly so it must be an illegal hit.  I think that the refs sometimes wait a little longer to see what the hittee does after getting hit. If he crumbles to the ground, you will usually see a flag.

when the NFL legislated new tackling rules, i wondered why they didn't prevent offensive players from lowering their heads. i would rather see the NFL provide better healthcare to players once they've retired, but if the NFL is saying that it's unsafe for defensive players to tackle with their heads down, then offensive players shouldn't be able to lower their heads, either.

I'd be shocked if they actually pass it at this point because it will actually put the RB in more danger since they won't be able to lower their should to protect themselves. What I don't get if they are so worried about helmet to helmet and big hits on defenseless players just eliminate the pads. I'm not saying I'm for this by any means but it seems to work fine for rugby so if they want to get that protective of players it's a simple fix.

I also think that all of this talk about safety now, is because of the numerous lawsuits that are pending against the NFL.  Maybe the PR department is trying to get the word out that the NFL cares about safety.  So when/if any of these trials make it to court, maybe they can sway some jurors.

I voted no, but as a former linebacker in college I can tell you that I'd be upset if I got called for a penalty for helmet to helmet contact due to the ball carrier lowering his helmet into mine while I'm tackling him, which happens fairly regularly.

The rules and equipment never considered a human weighing 280lbs running a 4.4 40 yard dash with a 4' vertical jump.  The current NFL players are freaks and trying to morph the current game into something that is safe with guys like this playing is an act of futility.  The pure impact of two super athletes colliding at full speed without any head contact is enough to cause one or both players to have a concussion.

As a former player, this is the sport I signed up to play, and accepted the potential risks.  Boxers, MMA fighters, hockey players all participate in sports where they know it's quite possible they could be seriously injured, have their careers cut short, and suffer from various problems for the rest of their lives.  You can't have a boxing or MMA match that bans punches to the head or play hockey with NERF sticks and pucks, no checking and still have a sport people want to watch.

The NFL needs to spend money to ensure a players helmets and pads provide maximum protection, but anything beyond that is changing the game, and no one is going to pay $2M to air a commercial or watch a touch or flag football game.

I'm not familiar with the details of the rule, but I remember being taught that when tackling , you lower your shoulder but keep your head up.  It sounds contradictory, but the difference being that what you want to avoid is taking the impact on the crown (axial loading?).  So your head is lower to the ground,  but you want to hit the ball carrier with your face up, not down.  I would imagine ball carriers are taught similarly, no?

The way its being reported makes it sound like ball carriers must stand straight up, but I'm not sure that that's really what "lowering the head" means.  But like I said, I'm not familiar with the details of the rule.

Two very good points.  I always find it frustrating when ball carrier lowers his head and to the tackler and the ref throws a flag for helmet-helmet.  And your second point hits something deeper, and as a fan of the sport, I think its sad.  The game might simply become obsolete.

So basically power runners are screwed? AP, Steven Jackson, and Frank Gore might as well hang em up now. And what about goal line or short yardage situations? Im all for the NFL making the game safer so players can have a better quality of life after they retire. But like someone above said they should start by providing better and maybe even FREE healthcare to retired players.

Can you imagine how expensive group health insurance for NFL players would be?

There are going to be a lot more hits like this, if this rule passes and running backs can't protect themselves.  If you want to talk about player safety, if this rule were to pass I think being a running back would be the most dangerous job in sports.

This actually gets me thinking.....if its illegal for a ball carrier to protect himself.....and illegal to hit a defenseless player....do defenders just have to trip people?

Well according to the NFL the running backs can still lower their shoulder, but they can't lead with the crown of their helmet.  How the hell you're supposed to lower your shoulder without lowering your helmet while running at full speed is beyond me.

Yeah.

I'm definitely not one of the numerous people in the "sheesh, why don't they just put skirts on and play two hand touch" camp.  I get the sentiment, however, the danger in football nowadays is real.  The game has become extremely violent to the point where numerous ex-players and fans don't want their kids to play (we talked about this last year and I'm definitely one of these people - if I have any say, my kids will play golf and baseball ) so I appreciate any attempts to make it safer.  But in this case, I'm leaning towards agreeing with Jamo and the rest of you ... it does seem like something that would be difficult to police.  Then again, maybe dsc is right ... they're simply trying to apply the defensive rule (keep your head up, don't lead with it like a missile) to the offense?  That doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me, but we'll just have to wait and see.  Remember, people have been predicting the demise of the NFL for all of these "silly" safety rules ever since they started the 5 yard chuck rule.  I'm pretty sure that football has not lost any popularity over that time (probably gained quite a bit) so maybe we're over-reacting?

I don't really know how much it matters though.  They are trying to eliminate the violent collisions, but the real worry, as I understand it, are the repeated, small collisions; those are the ones that apparently lead to CTE.  And that is what frightens me (as a parent) a lot more than the one-in-a-million, fluke hit that could lead to a serious injury.

EDIT:  So based on the assumption that the rule is just the same as the defensive rule, now also applied to the offense, and the fact that the game has not gotten any worse, in my opinion, with the other recently added safety rules (despite all of James Harrisons objections) ... I voted yes.