This new football rule suggestion...

[RonTheSavage]

Originally Posted by dsc123

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

Probably alot cheaper than former players filing multi-million dollar lawsuits. I forgot where but I read somewhere that the benefits former players get are nothing to write home about. The NFL can do better.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by tmf9

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.

Isn't what the defender did here already illegal?  It's pretty clear from the slow motion replay at the end that the guy led with the crown of his helmet.  Or does that rule currently only apply towards "defenseless receivers" and quarterbacks?  If this is a legal hit by the defender, and will continue to be legal, and now there will be a rule that the offensive player cannot do the same ... then, yeah, I would tend to agree with you.

I can't imagine that they'd be that hypocritical though.  Then again, it is Roger Goodell so who knows, right?  "I'm all about player safety so I think the wisest thing to do will be to make them play more games!"

[tmf9]

Im all for player safety, but I don't see how this protects anyone.  Very rarely to you see a defender get laid out with a concussion because a running back trucked him.  Quite often I see an offensive player, get a concussion because he got leveled by a defender, and now that he can't protect himself by lowering his helmet to lower his chances of getting absolutely destroyed.  Lets not forget that these running backs are often being tackled by 300 pound lineman and 250 pound grown men.

The Clowney hit as shown above is still a perfectly legal hit, he didn't lead with his helmet because as a defender you can move your head to the side while still lowering your shoulder and still have a lot of power to tackle someone.  What is a running back suppose to do lower his shoulder and try to somehow get his head out of the way to defend himself?

Like mentioned below running backs like Stephen Jackson, and Marshawn Lynch might as well hang it up now because this is exactly how power runners run, they lower their head and try to truck everyone in sight.  That amazing run Marshawn had against the Saints would have been called back for probably multiple Penalties.  Speed backs like Chris Johnson would probably get crippled because their going to have lineman tackle them while they're standing straight up and that's not going to end well at all.  This rule change will end up changing the NFL into an exclusive passing league.  (my conspiracy theory as to why they want to pass this rule)

I have yet to see anyone in favor of this rule tell me how running backs are protected by this rule change, and if they do maybe I'll become more in favor of it.  Most people in favor of this rule I'm pretty sure have never played organized football in their life.

[tmf9]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Isn't what the defender did here already illegal?  It's pretty clear from the slow motion replay at the end that the guy led with the crown of his helmet.  Or does that rule currently only apply towards "defenseless receivers" and quarterbacks?  If this is a legal hit by the defender, and will continue to be legal, and now there will be a rule that the offensive player cannot do the same ... then, yeah, I would tend to agree with you.

I can't imagine that they'd be that hypocritical though.  Then again, it is Roger Goodell so who knows, right?  "I'm all about player safety so I think the wisest thing to do will be to make them play more games!"

Nope.  A defender can lead with his helmet as long as its not "helmet to helmet" and this was helmet to chest.  Running backs are not deemed to be "defenseless players" because they can see what's ahead of them, even if they don't have time to react.  (as is the case with this) Only recievers catching balls over the middle are considered "defenseless players" as I understand

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by tmf9

Nope.  A defender can lead with his helmet as long as its not "helmet to helmet" and this was helmet to chest.  Running backs are not deemed to be "defenseless players" because they can see what's ahead of them, even if they don't have time to react.  (as is the case with this) Only recievers catching balls over the middle are considered "defenseless players" as I understand

If what you are saying is true, then that means that if we could re-enact the play in the video, but allow the running back 1 extra split second to lower his head for protection, that they would throw a flag ON HIM??  I don't buy that.  I refuse to believe that the powers-that-be in the NFL would be that dumb.

We have to be missing something here.  If we're not, then this is the dumbest rule ever, and it will CAUSE more injuries than it will prevent and I just don't believe that would be the case.

[SCfanatic35]

This is what it says in the NCAA rulebook in regards to helmets.

Targeting/Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet

ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with

the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6.)

The NFL did approve the helmet rule this morning, making it illegal for ballcarriers to lower the head and hit with the crown of the helmet.  They did say that they want it to be only for obvious situations where the ballcarrier is attempting to use the head as a weapon kind of like an unnecessary blow.  The only problem with that is that you have over a hundred refs in the league who will have a different view/interpretation of that so it makes it almost impossible to enforce, or enforce consistently which will be annoying.

Back in the day it was illegal for any player to lead with the crown of their helmet when hitting a player.  I remember the poster hanging up in the locker room when I played high school football.  They would call spearing a lot if kids were doing that. Over the years and even when I was head coaching I noticed that it wasn't being called anymore.

[jamo]

R.I.P. Tuck Rule.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by dsc123

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?

I've been coaching for about 5-7 of the last 10-12 years since I finished playing college.  I always emphasize keeping the facemask up.  As you allude to, if the body is leaning in toward the target with the shoulders down, the head necessarily has to be in front of the body and is technically also "down".  If you look down at the ground then the facemask is parallel to the ground.  If you're looking at the target, the facemask will be at more of an angle, but that should do enough to prevent spearing or launching crown-first into the target.  The lower the hips/butt are, the easier it is to maintain a proper angle of attack at impact.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by jamo

R.I.P. Tuck Rule.

But it was there when you needed it ;)

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by tmf9

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.

And this is the crux of the argument I've been having for years with my TV, except for defensive players.  The physics are the same.  We protect our exposed mid-section by bending at the waist and lowering our shoulders to absorb the impact.  Since the head is on top of the body, there is nowhere for it to go.

IMO the commissioner should be focusing on the subtle but discernable distinction between a player who is launching himself with the crown of his helmet as opposed to "helmet-to-helmet contact."

If two opposing football players are employing proper techniques as taught by both coaches and NFL rulemakers alike, helmet-to-helmet contact is actually going to happen much more often than not.

[SCfanatic35]

IMO, all of these things that the NFL is trying to do is nonsense.  The goal should be to get rid of the unneccesary hits and dangerous ones, not the accidental situations that seem to be getting called all of the time now.  Most of the time a defensive player is trying to hit the ballcarrier hard and the defender is aiming for his shoulders or mid-section, but at the last split second the ballcarrier is in self preservation mode and will lower the head and thus you get helmet to helmet.  I am more concerned about hitting low from the front or side in the knees.  That to me is more devastating to a player's career than the helmets.  Let's face it, anyone who does what guys do in the NFL have to be a little nuts.  Let me think about this one, I got a 240+ RB headed straight for me running a 4.5-4.6.  Uh, no thank you, and I think any sane person would be thinking the same thing.

The NFL trying to police all of these things is like professional boxing forcing guys to wear headgear, not allowing combo punches, or hitting a guy who is obviously shaken up.  It is the sport that they have chosen to play.  No one is holding a gun to any of these guys heads and forcing them to hit each other helmet to helmet.  Since the overwhelming majority of NFL football players had scholarships to college, why not stay in school and finish the degree you started.  That way you can have a long career in the field you chose, rather than the 2-3 year average the majority of these guys get.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by SCfanatic35

IMO, all of these things that the NFL is trying to do is nonsense.  The goal should be to get rid of the unneccesary hits and dangerous ones, not the accidental situations that seem to be getting called all of the time now.  Most of the time a defensive player is trying to hit the ballcarrier hard and the defender is aiming for his shoulders or mid-section, but at the last split second the ballcarrier is in self preservation mode and will lower the head and thus you get helmet to helmet.  I am more concerned about hitting low from the front or side in the knees.  That to me is more devastating to a player's career than the helmets.  Let's face it, anyone who does what guys do in the NFL have to be a little nuts.  Let me think about this one, I got a 240+ RB headed straight for me running a 4.5-4.6.  Uh, no thank you, and I think any sane person would be thinking the same thing.

The NFL trying to police all of these things is like professional boxing forcing guys to wear headgear, not allowing combo punches, or hitting a guy who is obviously shaken up.  It is the sport that they have chosen to play.  No one is holding a gun to any of these guys heads and forcing them to hit each other helmet to helmet.  Since the overwhelming majority of NFL football players had scholarships to college, why not stay in school and finish the degree you started.  That way you can have a long career in the field you chose, rather than the 2-3 year average the majority of these guys get.

This is all correct, except I don't think that the NFL is looking at it from the standpoint of their careers .  What we're learning lately (with Junior Seau and others) is the devastating after effects of a life playing football.  Yes, its much easier to have your career ended by blown out knees and ankles.  But THAT is the sport they signed up for.  THAT is the risk they were willing to take when they started playing.  The long term damage is something that we are all still learning about (CTE, etc) and I don't think it's fair to say "they knew what they were getting into when they signed up" in regards to that.

I applaud the NFL for at least trying to do something about this, however, I'm not sure that its possible, and I'm definitely not sure if this rule is going to help ... assuming I'm understanding it correctly.  But at least they're trying.

[SCfanatic35]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

This is all correct, except I don't think that the NFL is looking at it from the standpoint of their careers.  What we're learning lately (with Junior Seau and others) is the devastating after effects of a life playing football.  Yes, its much easier to have your career ended by blown out knees and ankles.  But THAT is the sport they signed up for.  THAT is the risk they were willing to take when they started playing.  The long term damage is something that we are all still learning about (CTE, etc) and I don't think it's fair to say "they knew what they were getting into when they signed up" in regards to that.

I applaud the NFL for at least trying to do something about this, however, I'm not sure that its possible, and I'm definitely not sure if this rule is going to help ... assuming I'm understanding it correctly.  But at least they're trying.

You are right, they don't care about careers of players. They care about bad publicity, and the things that have been coming out lately in regards to concussions is a serious and important matter that could affect their future business.  They need to try and show they are doing something, but lets be honest.  The only way you are truly going to make the game of football safe is to not have contact.  When you allow contact, you will always get injuries or freak accidents.  I am glad that they are trying to do something about it, I do hope all of this attentions will lead to something that will allow the game to continue the way it was meant to be played.  I love the game of football and I want my son to play it if he chooses, but like any parent I want him to be safe, which is more important.

It usually takes issues like the Seau thing and others to institute real change.  I just don't know if that's possible unless you put every athletes head into a bubbble.  It is obviously more of a concern at the higher levels because of the speed and size of the players.  Heck I had 2 documented concussions, 1 Junior year and 1 Senior year in high school, I probably had a couple more from what it felt like.  There wasn't much of an understanding on concussions or the effects back in the day.  All that happened was mom and dad would wake me a few times during the night, and when I was symptom free for 24 hours I was good to start hitting again.  I am sure that everyone that plays the game of football has had a lot of smaller type concussions.  IMO, it is the smaller repeated hits to the head that are causing these problems, not the huge hits.  I am sure that they don't help but how many times does the same guy get blown up?  Every player makes contact with their head repeatedly in a game.  I am not a doctor, nor do I have any science to back up my statement.  The issues I see with all of these new rules, without sounding like dad, is the enforcement of them.  Their are too many different factors to take into account when deciding these types of penalties and it's next to impossible to determine what happened in the blink of an eye.

[tmf9]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

If what you are saying is true, then that means that if we could re-enact the play in the video, but allow the running back 1 extra split second to lower his head for protection, that they would throw a flag ON HIM??  I don't buy that.  I refuse to believe that the powers-that-be in the NFL would be that dumb.

We have to be missing something here.  If we're not, then this is the dumbest rule ever, and it will CAUSE more injuries than it will prevent and I just don't believe that would be the case.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/3/19/4122860/nfl-rules-committee-running-backs-crown-helmet-penalty

There's an article describing the rule, according to it he could have lowered his helmet in this situation because he was inside the tackle box, but if he were outside the tackle box then yes the penalty would be called on him for lowering and leading with the crown of his helmet, so yes the people suggesting the rule chance are "that dumb" or they know exactly what they're doing and are trying to make it even more of a pass-first league, which is what I believe.

[tmf9]

No more "beast mode" with this rule change

[dhanson]

Originally Posted by tmf9

No more "beast mode" with this rule change

i don't think this video is really helping your case - at no point more than three yards down the field does he lower his head.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by dhanson

i don't think this video is really helping your case - at no point more than three yards down the field does he lower his head.

Yeah, this particular run would not have been penalized.  but I get his sentiment.  Guys like Marshawn love to build up a head of steam and lower the boom on a defender.  Offensive players spend all of their time trying to avoid getting creamed by the defense, its always fun to see guys like Lynch turn the tables.  What's good for the gander ...

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmf9

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/3/19/4122860/nfl-rules-committee-running-backs-crown-helmet-penalty

There's an article describing the rule, according to it he could have lowered his helmet in this situation because he was inside the tackle box, but if he were outside the tackle box then yes the penalty would be called on him for lowering and leading with the crown of his helmet, so yes the people suggesting the rule chance are "that dumb" or they know exactly what they're doing and are trying to make it even more of a pass-first league, which is what I believe.

OK, after reading this article: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9075058/nfl-owners-end-tuck-rule-approve-helmet-penalty I definitely am OK with the rule.  Here's an excerpt ...

Quote:

It will now be a 15-yard penalty if a player who is more than three yards downfield or outside of the tackle box delivers a blow with the crown of his helmet. If the offensive and defensive player each lowers his head and uses the crown of the helmet to make contact, each will be penalized.

The key here is that it's about "a player."  This isn't about running backs, nor is it even about offensive players.  It just says "a player" cannot lead with the crown of his helmet.  That tells me that nobody, including the defense, can do this in the open field.  Sounds like its basically the "hit on a defenseless receiver" rule extended to every player on the field.  Seems fine by me. :)

Off topic:  Did you watch the Earl Campbell play in the video of the link you attached?  Dude runs around, through, and over the entire defense for 20 yards or so, and when he gets up out of the pile he's not wearing a jersey anymore!  Thing got completely ripped off during the end of the play.  That's hilarious!