Running back rule passed....

[jaybee]

Popular Science, January 2013. "The Helmet Wars". Decent article on concussions and the research and development of lids to save the game of football. Recommended reading IMO.

 

I watched a piece of the "Tuck Rule" game on the network this morning. Saw several running plays where the runner lowered the boom on contact. Wondered if those plays would have been 15 yard walk-offs by the zebes.

 

I dunno, man. I'm all about safety for the players but as an old-school fan I love the running game and I really hope this rule doesn't compromise it too much.

 

Additionally, it puts a lot of pressure on the refs. In large part..... subjective calls. The refs already have a very difficult job. There will likely be a lot of bad calls. The refs can only watch so much. They will blow calls potentially changing the outcome of games.

 

And...you are asking backs to change the way they've run their entire career. To conform to regulation. I suspect the league is trying to protect itself from litigation here. Understandable.

 

BUT.....as a rabid fan of the game of football...............

 

I really don't think I like this rule.

 

jb

Edited March 23, 2013 by jaybee

[NoSaint]

Popular Science, January 2013. "The Helmet Wars". Decent article on concussions and the research and development of lids to save the game of football. Recommended reading IMO.

 

I watched a piece of the "Tuck Rule" game on the network this morning. Saw several running plays where the runner lowered the boom on contact. Wondered if those plays would have been 15 yard walk-offs by the zebes.

 

I dunno, man. I'm all about safety for the players but as an old-school fan I love the running game and I really hope this rule doesn't compromise it too much.

 

Additionally, it puts a lot of pressure on the refs. There will likely be a lot of bad calls. The refs can only watch so much. They will blow calls potentially changing the outcome of games.

 

I really don't think I like this rule.

 

jb

 

Id say patience will be the true test here- every talking head involved for the nfl is saying the right stuff.... But that doesn't mean it'll follow suit in application. Things like competition committee members saying emmitt likely would've received a grand total of zero flags for this, if even close to true, means its not near what fans are expecting or understanding.

 

Could go either way on Sunday at full speed though.

 

I will say a tackle in the open field shouldn't be near as difficult to judge as a bang bang play with a receiver maintaining possession, getting feet down, making a move, PLUS all the elements of the tackle.

Edited March 23, 2013 by NoSaint

[jaybee]

Id say patience will be the true test here- every talking head involved for the nfl is saying the right stuff.... But that doesn't mean it'll follow suit in application. Things like competition committee members saying emmitt likely would've received a grand total of zero flags for this, if even close to true, means its not near what fans are expecting or understanding.

 

Could go either way on Sunday at full speed though.

 

I will say a tackle in the open field shouldn't be near as difficult to judge as a bang bang play with a receiver maintaining possession, getting feet down, making a move, PLUS all the elements of the tackle.

 

Right on, Saint. In regards to your comment about the competition committee, and since I'm in kind of a "whiney" mood today. Are there any NFL active players on the competition committee? I'm not certain, but I "think" the answer is no. Maybe there should be? Its pretty easy for a bunch of execs to say this or that about rules but IMO, the players should also have a say. Or, at least a player rep or 3 involved in that process.

 

Thanx,

 

jb

[Mr. WEO]

SJBF, of course I can agree that the players will experience some benefit from real safety measures, but I don't believe the RB rule will be administered effectively. Nor do I believe Roger's "gotcha" fines or mandates that ensure players wear their knee and hips pads will keep any of them safer.

 

And as for you, WEO, who the hell are you to tell me my opinion is invalid because I admit I don't like Goodell? I gave you the reasons why, him being a hypocrite and all. You have offered nothing to the conversation at all, other than to pat Rog on the back and attempt to poke holes in my argument by saying it is irrational. Oh, I forgot, you also said Fred Jackson should stop running his mouth, and speak up only when he stays healthy for a change (great point there), and then mentioned that I should take my issue up with Rog's boss, Ralph Wilson.

 

So your position is: players who exercise their right to sign up as plaintiffs are opportunists? Then why do most observers think it's not a matter of IF but HOW MUCH the NFL will have to shell out? Why shouldn't a player be concerned about his safety when he gets cut or retires from the game?

 

Is it your view that it's tough **** for Brian Westbrook if he can't remember what he had for breakfast these days at the ripe old age of 33? After all, he was guilty of being macho about things, and he didn't seem too concerned while he played? Plus, Rog has sent a few smoke signals up to make it look good, so the NFL is off the hook? He should just deal with the aftermath of years of negligent medical practices, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary? I know, he's a whiny, washed up guy who just wants his cut on a frivolous lawsuit.

 

After seeing your work in another thread or two on TBD, and seeing the inane nonsense on your signature, I now realize that you are simply one of these trolling tools that jab away and take pleasure in pissing people off. You should pay your mom another 20-spot per month to cover your internet access and the degree to which you are most certainly a pain in her ass.

 

"Hurrah, there's football that I can watch for free 3 nights a week! Roger is the man! For he's a jolly good fellow!

 

I will respond to the bolded segements:

 

I contributed the opinion that to have a beef with the commissioner of a professional sports league, as a fan, is irrational. He has done nothing to affect you personally, except bring you the product that you enjoy so much. Tell me, do you also rant on and on about the CEO of Nike, who's sneakers you might wear? Or did you also "don't like" Steve Jobs, who's iphone and ipad you may also enjoy? Both of those guys ran billion dollar companies on the backs of foreign workers under conditions far worse than those found in the game these grown men are playing (and obviously at a tiny fraction of the compensation).

 

Hmmmm--well, after he's out of the league, his safety is pretty much assured, I would think--unless he choses another profession more hazardous than the NFL.

Wouldn't it make much more sense to advocate for more safety while you are playing and exposed to danger than after you are no longer exposed? Does that really not seem logical to you? The irony here is that there is no player or player union plan for increasing their own safety. In fact, there is only the opposite--open disdain for any rule change, no matter how benign. Doesn't that strike you as a bit...hypocritical?

If Westbrook's diagnosis is due to football related injuries that could have been prevented by the NFL, then of course he deserves compensation.

As for opportunism, there are less than 7000 living retired NFL players. And almost 4000 of them are involved in lawsuits against the league? My guess is that several thousand of those players do not suffer from the CTE that Westbrook may have. You obviously believe they all have the same diagnosis as Westbrook. After Fred Jackson's comments about the latest rule change, does he get to join the class action suit when he retires?

You keep referring to the past sins of the NFL agaisnt the players, yet you mock any effort by the current Commissioner to improve the safety of the game. I'll ask again--what, exactly, should he be doing to improve safety for players in a way that would satisfy you? What action can he take to overcome your bias against him (because he's "a hypocrite", not the players responding to the rule changes)?

I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer.

I can't say any of your previous posting stands out as memorable for any reason, but your tossing in the "your mom" is clearly the white flag the rest of your posts on this thread have been dying to raise.

And by the way, the "inane nonsense on (my) signature" is brought to you by our fellow posters and all of it is completely awesome stuff!

[HankBulloughMellencamp]

I will respond to the bolded segements:

 

I contributed the opinion that to have a beef with the commissioner of a professional sports league, as a fan, is irrational. He has done nothing to affect you personally, except bring you the product that you enjoy so much. Tell me, do you also rant on and on about the CEO of Nike, who's sneakers you might wear? Or did you also "don't like" Steve Jobs, who's iphone and ipad you may also enjoy? Both of those guys ran billion dollar companies on the backs of foreign workers under conditions far worse than those found in the game these grown men are playing (and obviously at a tiny fraction of the compensation).

 

Hmmmm--well, after he's out of the league, his safety is pretty much assured, I would think--unless he choses another profession more hazardous than the NFL.

 

Wouldn't it make much more sense to advocate for more safety while you are playing and exposed to danger than after you are no longer exposed? Does that really not seem logical to you? The irony here is that there is no player or player union plan for increasing their own safety. In fact, there is only the opposite--open disdain for any rule change, no matter how benign. Doesn't that strike you as a bit...hypocritical?

 

If Westbrook's diagnosis is due to football related injuries that could have been prevented by the NFL, then of course he deserves compensation.

 

As for opportunism, there are less than 7000 living retired NFL players. And almost 4000 of them are involved in lawsuits against the league? My guess is that several thousand of those players do not suffer from the CTE that Westbrook may have. You obviously believe they all have the same diagnosis as Westbrook. After Fred Jackson's comments about the latest rule change, does he get to join the class action suit when he retires?

 

You keep referring to the past sins of the NFL agaisnt the players, yet you mock any effort by the current Commissioner to improve the safety of the game. I'll ask again--what, exactly, should he be doing to improve safety for players in a way that would satisfy you? What action can he take to overcome your bias against him (because he's "a hypocrite", not the players responding to the rule changes)?

 

I won't hold my breath waiting for your answer.

 

I can't say any of your previous posting stands out as memorable for any reason, but your tossing in the "your mom" is clearly the white flag the rest of your posts on this thread have been dying to raise.

 

And by the way, the "inane nonsense on (my) signature" is brought to you by our fellow posters and all of it is completely awesome stuff!

 

So your point now is, I must grudgingly acknowledge Roger Goodell is an outstanding commissioner unless I also want to admonish CEOs of other multi-billion dollar companies whose products I may also enjoy? I am not going to open that can of worms with you in the context of a rule change that I don't feel is good for the game. Wrestling with you about my opinion has already been so much fun. Perhaps you should read Steve Rushin's recent back page of SI, "Morality Players" - the gist of which is that we all wrestle with (and compromise) our ideals throughout our passionate following of the sports we enjoy. I'd link it, but they have not put it up online yet.

I have acknowledged that there is some hypocrisy on both sides here; my issues about what Rog is doing now have centered around the idea that beyond the new concussion protocols, very little of what he had put forth is actually going to improve player safety. You continue to blame the 'workers' for being resistant to safety efforts. This is true in all facets of manual labor. The people actually doing the work don't inherently think about the long-term consequences of their daily actions when it comes to following safety precautions. They resist improvements and take shortcuts at every turn. To expect them to resolve all potential safety issues through their union is wishful thinking at best. And a corporation does not get to wash their hands of any previous negligence by setting up new rules for the employees to follow going forward.

There's no easy answer for Rog and the NFL to be able to, as you seem to want to, sweep this pesky safety issue under the rug. But when Rog makes fundamental changes to the way NFL athletes have been trained to play, with nebulous rules that are open to interpretation (and only a fool could believe will be administered fairly and/or not be called very often), I take issue with Rog and the heavy-handed way$ he is sure to employ to go after violators.

And congrats on your claim to the white flag; I thought I already crossed the line by admitting I don't like Rog's act?

jaybee sums it up quite well:

Popular Science, January 2013. "The Helmet Wars". Decent article on concussions and the research and development of lids to save the game of football. Recommended reading IMO. I watched a piece of the "Tuck Rule" game on the network this morning. Saw several running plays where the runner lowered the boom on contact. Wondered if those plays would have been 15 yard walk-offs by the zebes. I dunno, man. I'm all about safety for the players but as an old-school fan I love the running game and I really hope this rule doesn't compromise it too much. Additionally, it puts a lot of pressure on the refs. In large part..... subjective calls. The refs already have a very difficult job. There will likely be a lot of bad calls. The refs can only watch so much. They will blow calls potentially changing the outcome of games. And...you are asking backs to change the way they've run their entire career. To conform to regulation. I suspect the league is trying to protect itself from litigation here. Understandable. BUT.....as a rabid fan of the game of football............... I really don't think I like this rule. jb

[Roger Goodell]

I acknowledge Roger Goodell is an outstanding commissioner

 

Thank you for your support. It's always nice to be appreciated by the fans.

[HankBulloughMellencamp]

Thank you for your support. It's always nice to be appreciated by the fans.

 

Commish Rog, uh, I think you may have taken that statement a bit out of context, buddy. But should I ever get the chance to meet your highness in person, I'll still give you a big 'ol bearhug & two backslaps.

[Donald Duck]

There has to come a point where the occupational hazard becomes acceptable for the games sake because If we continue down the path we're on the game of football as we know it will no longer exsist.

 

Having worked heavy construction/Nuclear for many years in the past head injurys are no stranger to me. I've been knocked out cold because a worker above me dropped something by accident. Its part of the job, goes with the territory, and I can guarantee you I'm making a lot less money then a proffessional Football player.

 

Helmet/head rules have gotten out of hand. You are asking athletes to do things that don't come natural. As a RB getting lower to the ground in many instances requires leaning your body forward and the lowering of the head. These athletes are moving at a high rate of speed and don't have time to compute and deliever what you are asking them to deliver. Defense can't predict where the Offensive players head is going to end up and the same goes for a RB.

 

 

 

Focus on the better helmet, the better neck protection. Incorporate liquid padding somehow into the protective wear. God in his infinite wisdom has used liquid by way of protection since the beginning of time. We are protected by liquid in our mothers womb until the day we are born. Mother Earth is shielded/protected by water and able to stand tremendious impact because of our Oceans.Works not only as a protective barrier but a counter balance.

 

The same could be done with a single membrane liquid inner helmet padding in my opinion. The initial impact and sloshing of the brain would be reduced because of liquids displacement properties.

 

 

Don't ruin the game of football...

Edited March 25, 2013 by dog14787

[Mr. WEO]

 

So your point now is, I must grudgingly acknowledge Roger Goodell is an outstanding commissioner unless I also want to admonish CEOs of other multi-billion dollar companies whose products I may also enjoy? I am not going to open that can of worms with you in the context of a rule change that I don't feel is good for the game. Wrestling with you about my opinion has already been so much fun. Perhaps you should read Steve Rushin's recent back page of SI, "Morality Players" - the gist of which is that we all wrestle with (and compromise) our ideals throughout our passionate following of the sports we enjoy. I'd link it, but they have not put it up online yet.

 

I have acknowledged that there is some hypocrisy on both sides here; my issues about what Rog is doing now have centered around the idea that beyond the new concussion protocols, very little of what he had put forth is actually going to improve player safety. You continue to blame the 'workers' for being resistant to safety efforts. This is true in all facets of manual labor. The people actually doing the work don't inherently think about the long-term consequences of their daily actions when it comes to following safety precautions. They resist improvements and take shortcuts at every turn. To expect them to resolve all potential safety issues through their union is wishful thinking at best. And a corporation does not get to wash their hands of any previous negligence by setting up new rules for the employees to follow going forward.

 

There's no easy answer for Rog and the NFL to be able to, as you seem to want to, sweep this pesky safety issue under the rug. But when Rog makes fundamental changes to the way NFL athletes have been trained to play, with nebulous rules that are open to interpretation (and only a fool could believe will be administered fairly and/or not be called very often), I take issue with Rog and the heavy-handed way$ he is sure to employ to go after violators.

 

And congrats on your claim to the white flag; I thought I already crossed the line by admitting I don't like Rog's act?

 

jaybee sums it up quite well:

 

Labor unions in this country were created to address the issue of worker safety. There is a large and obvious difference between an individual deciding that he or she willfully will ignore safety measures (for whatever reason) and an entire group of workers loudly resisting any safety measures and their union putting forth zero safety initiatives on behalf od their workers. I"m almost postitive you can understand this difference.

 

Again (and again), what is Goodell supposed to do or say regarding safety that he hasn't said? What would satisfy you? You simply dismiss rules lie the new RB head shot rule as having no impact on safety. If all they have is that head blows cause irreversable damage and the only way they currently have to reduce risk is to reduce head blows, why is it "hypocritical" to institute a rule that may reduce head blows?

 

And your contention that this rule will somehow fundamentally change the way runners run is just histrionic nonsense. No RB is taught to use the crown of his helmet to finish off a run or a tackler. Someone posted here that some on the competiton committee commented that Emmett Smith wouldn't have been flagged for this penalty once in his entire career. Can you imagine Spiller ever getting this penalty?

 

And how is is the NFL "wash(ing) their hands of any previous negligence" or "sweep(ing) this pesky safety issue under the rug"? By passing new safety rules? You make no sense with these comments.

[HankBulloughMellencamp]

 

And your contention that this rule will somehow fundamentally change the way runners run is just histrionic nonsense. No RB is taught to use the crown of his helmet to finish off a run or a tackler. Someone posted here that some on the competiton committee commented that Emmett Smith wouldn't have been flagged for this penalty once in his entire career. Can you imagine Spiller ever getting this penalty?

 

 

Mr. WEO, I am done with your condescending nonsense, and I have argued this point more than enough with you. Claim the white flag. There is no easy answer to concussions in a collision sport, but celebrate Rog and all he has done and is doing for the game. It is obvious I am not making any sense to you.

 

I would also even wager that you have not actually played this fair game at any appreciable level, (and by that I mean while wearing a helmet at any level). I say that solely on the basis that you think it will be quite easy for the players to suck it up and deal with whatever Rog asks of them, rules-wise. I can see how simple the idea of "initiating contact with the crown" may be to you, ala Earl Campbell at his finest, but I am wondering what the definition you have for "using the crown of his helmet to finish off a run." To me, this happens all the time ... going head-first is all you can do if you are holding the ball securely at your ribcage and diving for yardage and/or at the goal-line.

 

And I love your counterpoint to the RB rule; someone commented that someone else said Emmitt would never have been called for this one his entire career. Pure conjecture, but go ahead and take it as the gospel truth because it supposedly came from someone on the competition committee, who is not trying to sell the rule to the football world or anything. Let's get back to playing rugby out there.

 

 

There are several others in the thread that have echoed similar concerns about how the rule may negatively influence the players' ability to make split-second athletic decisions that they could be penalized for, in terms of yardage, game momentum, game outcomes, and of course, their pocketbook$ on tuesdays.

 

The NFL has demonstrated that it can barely get touchdowns called correctly, even with the benefit of replay review on every scoring play. This rule will only add to all that "completing the catch" & "making a football move" nonsense that has caused so many of us to pull our hair out when simple, obvious calls are blown.

 

I can not wait until the first time a guy is lunging forward head-first, whether it be for a score, first-down, or just extra yardage ... and he gets called for "leading with the crown of the helmet" & backs his team up 15 yards. Are they supposed to, let's say, turn their head away from incoming shoulder contact ... in mid-flight possibly?

 

Then I read some loose interpretations of where the tackle box ends, and whether leading with the facemask is/is not flaggable ... more grey area is all I can see.

 

If one RB keeps his head/facemask up higher than normal as he sweeps around the end (which would also probably slow him down), and then gets it bent back/taken off by a safety as he turns the corner, the game will have changed for the worse safety-wise. This is the hit I really worry about: body leaning forward, player running "behind his pads" as Emmitt said, and head not in a natural protective, instinctive position when he impacts a defensive player with bad intentions.

[Meathead]

This is an off-season massive non-story being blown wildly out of proportion.

 

NO WAY!?!!

[Mr. WEO]

Mr. WEO, I am done with your condescending nonsense, and I have argued this point more than enough with you. Claim the white flag. There is no easy answer to concussions in a collision sport, but celebrate Rog and all he has done and is doing for the game. It is obvious I am not making any sense to you.

 

I

 

I think I'm done too, because I keep asking the same simple question (what else would you have Goodell do?) and you cannot answer it.

 

So now you're left with this rule change causing havoc on our beloved game. Tell you what, chime in at mid season and at the end of the year and tell us all how the game of NFL football was irrevocably changed for the worse with this incredibly significant rule change.

 

NO WAY!?!!

 

way

[Roger Goodell]

 

Commish Rog, uh, I think you may have taken that statement a bit out of context, buddy. But should I ever get the chance to meet your highness in person, I'll still give you a big 'ol bearhug & two backslaps.

Don't take this personally, but I think my security people have your picture.

 

And thank you for your continuing support of the NFL.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Looks like some of the players might be coming to their senses a bit.

 

Perhaps their irrational hatred for rules that protect them is the result of too many blows to the head?

 

And so he doesn’t like it. But he also realizes (reluctantly) that it’s a good thing.

“Sooner or later we’re going to be playing touch football.” Peterson told KFAN, before changing his tune. “That’s just the passion in me that said that and then the maturity in me said, you know what, it’s an OK rule because it protects players.”

 

http://profootballta...ew-helmet-rule/

 

And another great player, Patrick Peterson:

 

“The game has definitely changed, but I believe the commissioner is changing the game for the good,” Peterson said, via SportsRadioInterviews.com. “These guys want to make the game as safe as possible, so us football players can have longevity after our football careers. I think Roger Goodell is doing a great job trying to implement these rules and just make the game as safe as possible. We don’t want to go out there spearing guys and running backs dropping their helmets into our chests. I actually love the new rule change.”

 

http://profootballta...for-the-better/

Edited April 11, 2013 by San Jose Bills Fan

[boyst]

Looks like some of the players might be coming to their senses a bit.

 

Perhaps their irrational hatred for rules that protect them is the result of too many blows to the head?

 

And so he doesn’t like it. But he also realizes (reluctantly) that it’s a good thing.

“Sooner or later we’re going to be playing touch football.” Peterson told KFAN, before changing his tune. “That’s just the passion in me that said that and then the maturity in me said, you know what, it’s an OK rule because it protects players.”

 

http://profootballta...ew-helmet-rule/

 

And another great player, Patrick Peterson:

 

“The game has definitely changed, but I believe the commissioner is changing the game for the good,” Peterson said, via SportsRadioInterviews.com. “These guys want to make the game as safe as possible, so us football players can have longevity after our football careers. I think Roger Goodell is doing a great job trying to implement these rules and just make the game as safe as possible. We don’t want to go out there spearing guys and running backs dropping their helmets into our chests. I actually love the new rule change.”

 

http://profootballta...for-the-better/

They still make the same money, they still make a lot of money making the same money.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

And so far, no penalties for improper use of the crown of the helmet:

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/13/no-violations-of-new-helmet-rule-so-far/