Could the new "Helmet Rule" ruin football?

[Alphadawg7]

18 hours ago, LittleJoeCartwright said:

 

Yeah, if you watch a rugby match, they aren't wearing helmets and tackle without using their heads.   The game is different though as you don't have a safety or linebacker coming at full speed from several yards behind the line.  Still, the NFL players just have to adjust.

 

I think, while helmets and shoulder pads have provided more protection, they have also provided weapons.  A defender without a helmet isn't likely to use his head to tackle.  

 

So I just bought the rights to build my own professional Rugby team as an expansion team in the US first professional Rugby league that just played its first season!  My team will come into the league in 2020 in Las Vegas.  Ive become addicted to Rugby, once you know the rules its such an amazing sport.  Was at the World Cup in San Francisco last weekend and it was epic!  Its amazing that despite full speed and full contact with no pads, that they are way down on the concussion list, not even in the top 15 sports of most concussions.  

 

Couple of reasons for that:

1. They grow up NOT using their head as a weapon as its unprotected and learn how to properly tackle.  Concussions in Rugby are almost always from incidental contact or ground impact and occur at a fraction of the rate of the NFL.
2. There are no set downs, Rugby play rarely stops and for this there isnt a reason to contest every yard like in the NFL.  In fact, Rugby is the only sport in the world where you can only advance the ball through backwards passing.  You can also kick it forward, but referencing most ball movement is a lateral or backwards pass, another reason why every yard isnt contested like in football.  

I highly recommend those you enjoy football to take a little time and learn Rugby rules.  Its non stop action where the clock is always running like soccer, yet plays with all the violence and excitement of football.  Once you understand the rules, the sport is addicting.  And if you want to watch the new professional league, Major League Rugby (MLR), it doesn't compete with the NFL.  Season 2 begins the week before the Super Bowl this year and plays essentially once the NFL ends.  So its not a choose type scenario, as it doesn't compete with NFL or College football.  Games air on CBS Sports and stream online at ESPN+ and ATT.

 

PS:  Anyone interested in getting a cool look at the excitement of Rugby and has Amazon Prime, go watch the "All or Nothing" series on the New Zealand All Blacks that just came out.  Its awesome...All or Nothing has been all NFL football up to this point, but they put out 2 special editions...All Blacks Rugby and Michigan College Football this year.  The New Zealand All Blacks are the winningest sports team of any sport in the history of the world, and its a great watch.  

 

PPS:  If anyone wants tickets to an MLR Game in 2019, you can private message me and I will arrange for you to get some free tickets.  Confirmed teams in the 2019 season:  Seattle (Defending Champs), Glendale CO, New York, Houston, Austin, San Diego, New Orleans, Utah.  Potential additions in 2019:  Los Angeles, Ontario.  Potential additions 2020: Las Vegas (ME!), Boston, Washington DC, Dallas (confirmed).  

Edited July 30, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[CountDorkula]

its going to be a bigger problem than most think:

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-helmet-rule-change-causes-confusion-frustration-eagles/1j1tgfby43jkx1kir0xf6958mj

 

In a presentation this week, NFL referees visited the Eagles to educate them on the new helmet rule. But even the referees themselves ended up confused, ESPN reported.

 

In an effort to highlight the rule — in which a player can be penalized 15 yards and be potentially fined or ejected for lowering his head against when initiating or making contact with an opponent  — videos were shown to players in the hour-long meeting. Those videos were supposed to clarify what would now be considered illegal hits but for some players, the hits looked like routine tackles.

[Soda Popinski]

I don't think so, i think they just have to be smart in the interpretation of the rule, if a player lowers his shoulders and hits with his pads, the head is going to come down there is no way for it not to.  Like a RB bracing for impact he is going to drop his pads.   That still should not be a penalty.  

 

It's the guys that tackle with their helmets like Shazier did that just cannot fly anymore.   You cannot lead with the helmet, and guys who cannot get that through their heads should definitely be flagged for it.   

[first_and_ten]

19 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

-Or, make it mostly unwatchable?  See the details on it here.

 

I'm all for player safety, but at some point you have to accept that "full contact" means exactly that.  What's next? -Tying hands?

 

 

 

next will be flags

[CountDorkula]

1 minute ago, Soda Popinski said:

I don't think so, i think they just have to be smart in the interpretation of the rule, if a player lowers his shoulders and hits with his pads, the head is going to come down there is no way for it not to.  Like a RB bracing for impact he is going to drop his pads.   That still should not be a penalty.  

 

It's the guys that tackle with their helmets like Shazier did that just cannot fly anymore.   You cannot lead with the helmet, and guys who cannot get that through their heads should definitely be flagged for it.   

See post above:

 

"videos were shown to players in the hour-long meeting. Those videos were supposed to clarify what would now be considered illegal hits but for some players, the hits looked like routine tackles."

[mrags]

19 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

-Or, make it mostly unwatchable?  See the details on it here.

 

I'm all for player safety, but at some point you have to accept that "full contact" means exactly that.  What's next? -Tying hands?

 

 

Football has already been ruined. It’s only a matter of time before they are playing flag football 

Edited July 30, 2018 by mrags

[Mrbojanglezs]

Rugby players don't wear helmets and tackle properly.

[row_33]

5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

I thought the forward pass was supposed to ruin football...

 

making the NFL roughly 95% about the forward pass during the Brady Era has taken a lot of enjoyment out of it....

 

[Foxx]

stupid thread.

[CountDorkula]

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

stupid thread.

Is it?

 

Or is it concern that Chris Ivory breaks up the middle lowers his shoulder to fight for extra yards and gets a 15 yard flag nullifying the first down and pushing the Bills out of field goal range.

 

Player and refs a like have no idea what is or is not a penalty.

[Foxx]

28 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Is it?

 

Or is it concern that Chris Ivory breaks up the middle lowers his shoulder to fight for extra yards and gets a 15 yard flag nullifying the first down and pushing the Bills out of field goal range.

 

Player and refs a like have no idea what is or is not a penalty.

have you read the thread? so far, it is, yes. 

 

i don't dispute that the topic is a legitimate concern but the OP's contention and doubling down on lowering your head to protect your eyes, not to mention your vital organs, is, well.... stupid. 

 

you don't spear someone because you are dressed to kill, you just don't and that is what the league is saying.

[That's No Moon]

I think this could significantly change if not ruin the game because it gives the officials yet another way to hand out yards and first downs, or nullify them, on essentially every snap of the game.

 

College football refs get it right sometimes and get it very very wrong other times. NFL refs are no better. More judgment calls made in real time by people who are unable to seE a replay or who are out of position to make the initial call in the first place will lead to errors.  It's going to become that a big hit is a penalty whether it's head contact or not. That is basically where college is now, particularly in the secondary. They have the benefit of replay and they STILL get it wrong.

 

Teams would be very smart to attack the intermwdiate and deep middle of the field with large bodied players. It is almost impossible to guard the way the rules have evolved. Opi is basically legal, dpi is called very close, defensive holding is an automatic first down, you already couldnt hit a "defenseless" player and now you really can't attack the receiver at all. Get someone shaped like Gronk and throw it there. All you can do is try to knock the pass away.

[Max Fischer]

New rule could lead to a much better product on the field. For whatever reason, football tackling technique is generally atrocious.  Players seem to practice the right way and then get stupid on the field by trying to be a human missile, laying the hardest hit that makes the highlight real. I'd rather see smart, sound, safe tackling. 

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

making the NFL roughly 95% about the forward pass during the Brady Era has taken a lot of enjoyment out of it....

 

 

 

I'm assume  that's sarcasm, because you obviously know that's not true.

 

Just looking at last year, no team had more than 65% pass plays vs runs.  25 years ago it was 62% max. 

 

[Gigs]

On 7/29/2018 at 6:06 PM, Foxx said:

tackling with your head is about as unnatural a thing as there is. the only reason it is a thing now is because these helmets today protect your head. if there wasn't the helmet/shoulder pad combo equipment to protect the compression of your neck/spine, there is no way in hell these idiots would ever try it.  proper tackling includes putting your shoulder into your opponent and wrapping them up to take them to the ground.

Are you sure? Because I always lower my head parallel to the ground when I’m about to rear end someone. It’s the only natural way!

[Radar]

I think the concussion factor will eventually see football die as we know it.

[Avisan]

12 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

The crown of your head is the hardest part of your cranium. -Even if you don't know that, your body does... Muscles, and fluid-filled discs in the neck are there to absorb the impact... Unfortunately, they're not made of titanium, so there's only so much shock they can absorb without damage.

 

I am 100% all-in for safer football... What I am not for, is a 15 yard flag coming out every time a RB lowers his head to grind for a 1st down.

 

 

This is 100% wrong.  Fully 100%.

 

The head is designed to take minor impacts on the front... and that's about it.  The back, tops, and sides of the head have much weaker protection than the front.  Beyond that, the muscles and fluid-filled disks aren't designed to take that impact, they are simply the anatomy the body has available to do so and get pressed into service.

[#34fan]

13 hours ago, blacklabel said:

I think the confusion around the new rule is what's going to be detrimental to the game. I've seen a number of reports stating that teams are very unclear on how the rule will be imposed and how coaches can teach players how to adjust with the new rule in mind. And I think it's going to be difficult for officials to get right during games. Plays happen so fast, we see it all the time, a penalty is called but after seeing the replay, it's clear that it wasn't a penalty and the official had a bad angle to view it from and made a bad call. I can see that happening a lot here. A ball-carrier hits the seam and gets hit by a linebacker who drops his head past the ball-carrier's right hip and drives his shoulder into his midsection for a typical form tackle. The official on the right side sees that the helmet avoided contact but the official on the left side just sees a player who dropped his helmet to make a tackle, so does he throw a flag because he's uncertain if the helmet was involved or not? And then the zebras convene for a 3-hour conference (seems like it, anyway) to try and get the call right and still get it wrong. I think early on it's going to be rough and they're going to get it wrong quite a bit. As the season goes on, the hope would be that they get better at recognizing it and don't need to hold up the game with their little meetings and whatnot. It works both ways too, an offensive player can't drop their helmet and drive into another player, but, as someone already pointed out, when a ball-carrier has defenders closing in on him, what's he going to do? He's going to (usually) wrap both arms around the ball and get low, and there's going to be incidental contact with his helmet. That's the thing with this rule. How can they define when it's just part of the play or when it's intentional? That's why this rule sucks and that's why it's not going to go well, at least early on.

 

11 hours ago, CountDorkula said:

its going to be a bigger problem than most think:

http://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-helmet-rule-change-causes-confusion-frustration-eagles/1j1tgfby43jkx1kir0xf6958mj

 

In a presentation this week, NFL referees visited the Eagles to educate them on the new helmet rule. But even the referees themselves ended up confused, ESPN reported.

 

In an effort to highlight the rule — in which a player can be penalized 15 yards and be potentially fined or ejected for lowering his head against when initiating or making contact with an opponent  — videos were shown to players in the hour-long meeting. Those videos were supposed to clarify what would now be considered illegal hits but for some players, the hits looked like routine tackles.

 

Officials have zero clue how they're going to enforce this rule... It's the perfect segway to the kind of ticky-tack B.S. calls that ruin good games...

 

8 hours ago, Foxx said:

 

 the OP's contention and doubling down on lowering your head to protect your eyes, not to mention your vital organs, is, well.... stupid. 

 

Misquoting because you're too lazy, or ignorant to read a thread. -Now that's stupid.

 

44 minutes ago, Avisan said:

This is 100% wrong.  Fully 100%. 

 

Really?

 

Because you basically agreed with everything I said 

 

44 minutes ago, Avisan said:

the muscles and fluid-filled disks aren't designed to take that impact,

 

It's exactly what they're designed to do!  -Absorb impact, and protect the nerves.

 

8 hours ago, Foxx said:

you don't spear someone because you are dressed to kill, you just don't and that is what the league is saying.

 

Spearing?  -I'm not calling you nuts, but you're clearly having a conversation that the rest of us aren't.

[Avisan]

1 minute ago, #34fan said:

Really?

 

Because you basically agreed with everything I said 

 

 

It's exactly what they're designed to do!  -Absorb impact, and protect the nerves.

 

 

Spearing?  -I'm not calling you nuts, but you're clearly having a conversation that the rest of us aren't.

...

 

Explain to me which part of the human anatomy you think the "crown of the head" describes

 

There's also a major difference between "structured to absorb impact and protect the nerves" and "designed to take the impact of a high-speed, high-mass head collision"

[QuoteTheRaven83]

Ask Shazier what he thinks of this rule. Most overrated LB in the NFL before his injury. If he learned how to tackle the correct way, he would still be playing right now and this isn't the first time he's tried tackling like this. I've seen multiple times where he's avoided serious injury before it finally caught up with him. 

Edited July 31, 2018 by QuoteTheRaven83

[#34fan]

3 hours ago, QuoteTheRaven83 said:

Ask Shazier what he thinks of this rule. Most overrated LB in the NFL before his injury. If he learned how to tackle the correct way, he would still be playing right now and this isn't the first time he's tried tackling like this. I've seen multiple times where he's avoided serious injury before it finally caught up with him. 

 

I've watched that video a thousand times, and It still seems like Shazier is aware of Vince Williams closing on his left... I think he also expects Malone to

 

keep running, which he doesn't... At the last second he lowers his head to deliver a shoulder hit, and it all goes wrong... I don't think he was spearing at all...

 

Just a bad angle.  I'll concede improper form on his part,  but he's not alone... Lots of players do it and don't lose their legs... Like I said, I'm all for safer

 

techniques. -But there's no way to catastrophe-proof this game. -The only way to do that, would be to stop playing it.

 

 

5 hours ago, Avisan said:

...

 

Explain to me which part of the human anatomy you think the "crown of the head" describes

 

There's also a major difference between "structured to absorb impact and protect the nerves" and "designed to take the impact of a high-speed, high-mass head collision"

 

I'm using the entire dome, skullcap, or calvaria of the skull as a reference here... The hardest part of which would be the frontal bone, roughly two finger-walks

 

up from the center of your forehead.   For hairdressing purposes, the "crown of the head" might have different implications... 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by #34fan

[QuoteTheRaven83]

3 hours ago, #34fan said:

 

I've watched that video a thousand times, and It still seems like Shazier is aware of Vince Williams closing on his left... I think he also expects Malone to

 

keep running, which he doesn't... At the last second he lowers his head to deliver a shoulder hit, and it all goes wrong... I don't think he was spearing at all...

 

Just a bad angle.  I'll concede improper form on his part,  but he's not alone... Lots of players do it and don't lose their legs... Like I said, I'm all for safer

 

techniques. -But there's no way to catastrophe-proof this game. -The only way to do that, would be to stop playing it.

 

 

 

I'm using the entire dome, skullcap, or calvaria of the skull as a reference here... The hardest part of which would be the frontal bone, roughly two finger-walks

 

up from the center of your forehead.   For hairdressing purposes, the "crown of the head" might have different implications... 

 

 

 

It was PISS POOR technique.

 

 

Again...he lucked out with this hit. There was another hit against the Broncos where he does the same thing. When he attacks the ball carrier straight on, he can never get his head out the way. He's lucked out a lot in the past before his freak injury. 

 

 

 

[Avisan]

7 hours ago, #34fan said:

I'm using the entire dome, skullcap, or calvaria of the skull as a reference here... The hardest part of which would be the frontal bone, roughly two finger-walks

 

up from the center of your forehead.   For hairdressing purposes, the "crown of the head" might have different implications... 

 

 

Grow up.

 

Crown of the head refers to the top rear, FYI, which is why the other poster was discussing spearing.

[Engelwood]

On 7/29/2018 at 9:03 PM, #34fan said:

 

 

I was starting to wonder when the "safe space" and padded playground-loving geeks of the board would show up to tell us all what terrible people we are

 

for suggesting that the best way to avoid a football injury is not to play the effing sport to begin with...  No one says you have to.... Fact is, there's absolutely no

 

safe way to run full speed into any object in any frickin' position... But don't tell that to the morons who would have you believe there's a safe way to bring down

 

a 250 pound animal running  toward you at 20 miles per hour     Don't like the risks, don't play the game... How hard is that?

 

 

 

Yes there are injuries bound to happen but at the same time you can also prevent some of the worst injuries from happening by teaching proper technique, punishing poor technique and limiting their liability in the future.

[folz]

I'm a bit of a football purist and I definitely don't want to see the game completely changed into a no special teams, flag football league. But, some of

those  hits that the NFL shows in the video, in the article that the OP linked to, should be penalized and taken out of the game. Most of us played

backyard football as kids. And I was a shorter guy, so I always went low to make tackles (wrap up the legs), but because we were never wearing any helmets, 

pads, etc. you just knew to get your head out of the way. No one wanted a knee or shoulder or foot to the face. There is definitely a way to still make

great tackles without using your helmet. You just might not get on a SportsCenter highlight for it (which is part of the problem). So, there may be fewer

"You got jacked up" plays in the  future, but that wouldn't ruin the integrity of the game. I'd rather see a great, clean open field tackle  or a RB get stood

up and dumped at the line of scrimmage than some kid getting knocked unconcious because they are going at each other with their helmets like battering

rams. That's not football. The plays they showed in the video, guys were  purposefully leading with their head, using their helmet to make the big hit and knock

the guy down or out. There is no need for that.

 

The problem, as everyone knows, is the officiating of the rule. Incidental contact of say a helmet to the body or head of a running back who is coming through the line, when the RB is trying to get small and the defensive player is just trying to go low for the tackle, as he was taught, should not be called. Or if a guy lowers his shoulders for momentum while making a tackle, but is basically keeping his helmet to the side or away from the other player's body/head, but it grazes the other player in some way. Nope. But when a guy is using his helmet to actually help him make the tackle or hit (as some of the hits in the NFL's video show), he should get penalized to discourage those types of hits. 

 

The two problems I see with the rule is first, the "lowering of the head." phrase. That is just too ambiguous. It should still be more like "leading with the helmet" or "using the helmet to make a hit or tackle." Guys have to lower their heads all the time for different reasons during the course of a game. And you'll even do it instinctively to protect yourself at times. And the second problem is making the refs decide intent. That is another very gray area. Trying to decide incidental versus intentional in the moment of a fast-moving game can be very difficult. The impetus for making the rule is good, but the language of the rule is not, which I'm sure will lead to some really bad calls if they try to enforce it strictly. 

 

I don't know, I feel like what an NFL catch was and what was unnecessary roughness was pretty clear at one time and the NFL just keeps making things murkier rather than solving the problems they are trying to fix. And I guess that too is their own fault because, as others have said, they have allowed that behavior for so long and glorified it on tv and the internet that guys were always looking for the big hit, the knock-out blows, rather than just a sure tackle. So, it is probably going to take some time to transition away from that.

Edited July 31, 2018 by folz

[#34fan]

11 hours ago, Avisan said:

Grow up.

 

Crown of the head refers to the top rear, FYI, which is why the other poster was discussing spearing.

 

You're using a diagram you saw on hairfinder.com..

 

"Crown" isn't a specific medical term. It can refer to the region made up of the 4 bones that form the skullcap or calvaria.

 

2 Parietal, 1 frontal, 1 Ocipital…  Also,  everyone here knows what spearing is, and no one thinks it's cool.

 

 

11 hours ago, Engelwood said:

Yes there are injuries bound to happen but at the same time you can also prevent some of the worst injuries from happening by teaching proper technique, punishing poor technique and limiting their liability in the future.

 

This isn't just about poor tackling, and dirty hits from LB's... Runners, and receivers (outside the tackle box) may inadvertently lower their heads in traffic to push through. That's a 15-yard flag if we're going by the definition of this rule... I don't see how it can be enforced without wiping out lots of good yardage.

 

9 hours ago, folz said:

 

The two problems I see with the rule is first, the "lowering of the head." phrase. That is just too ambiguous. It should still be more like "leading with the helmet" or "using the helmet to make a hit or tackle." Guys have to lower their heads all the time for different reasons during the course of a game. And you'll even do it instinctively to protect yourself at times. And the second problem is making the refs decide intent. That is another very gray area. Trying to decide incidental versus intentional in the moment of a fast-moving game can be very difficult. The impetus for making the rule is good, but the language of the rule is not, which I'm sure will lead to some really bad calls if they try to enforce it strictly. 

 

No more fighting for that extra yard to win the game... That could cost you 15 yards now.

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by #34fan

[Boatdrinks]

On 7/30/2018 at 8:23 PM, Radar said:

I think the concussion factor will eventually see football die as we know it.

Nah, hockey concussions are much worse. Hell, you can die on the spot in auto racing. Too much money involved , so the game will continue. 

[#34fan]

56 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Nah, hockey concussions are much worse.  

 

Is there a push for heads-up cross-checking? Maybe there is and I haven't heard about it.

[leonbus23]

Like many, my main concern involves how referees will enforce this rule. I imagine that it will go uncalled many times; but, at some point, it will be a huge factor in a crucial moment of a game. In other words, a Patriots game where an opposing star defensive player is ejected. Sort of like the catch rules, it can be used to determine / influence outcomes of games. 

[leonbus23]

On 7/29/2018 at 8:03 PM, #34fan said:

 

 

I was starting to wonder when the "safe space" and padded playground-loving geeks of the board would show up to tell us all what terrible people we are

 

for suggesting that the best way to avoid a football injury is not to play the effing sport to begin with...  No one says you have to.... Fact is, there's absolutely no

 

safe way to run full speed into any object in any frickin' position... But don't tell that to the morons who would have you believe there's a safe way to bring down

 

a 250 pound animal running  toward you at 20 miles per hour     Don't like the risks, don't play the game... How hard is that?

 

 

 

 

This is a bit absurd, considering that American Football has become an intricate part of our cultural framework. The argument that playing or not playing involves an individual choice decontextualizes the significant role football plays socially and economically in our culture.

 

Furthermore, your claim about a "safe way" to tackle appears as a straw man argument, as nobody is asserting that there exists an entirely "safe way" to bring down a 250 lb animal going 20 mph. People are claiming that there are safer ways on a spectrum of potential harm. 

 

Also, nobody is claiming that people like you are "terrible" as individuals. I am sure you do some admirable things in your life, personally. The debate is about how to decrease injury while maintaining the basic characteristics of the sport. 

 

Finally, playgrounds are for children.  A padded playground is safer for children.   

 

Obviously, your comment carries a subtext about our United States culture, in general (and we can all easily see what media you ingest). But relax and simply restrict your arguments, as fallacious as they are, to the topic of American Football and not how our entire culture is becoming soft, weak, bleeding heart pussies. 

[#34fan]

9 hours ago, leonbus23 said:

 

This is a bit absurd, considering that American Football has become an intricate part of our cultural framework. The argument that playing or not playing involves an individual choice decontextualizes the significant role football plays socially and economically in our culture.

 

A dog-pile of fancy words in vain.  -People can choose not to play pro football. Full stop.

 

9 hours ago, leonbus23 said:

 The debate is about how to decrease injury while maintaining the basic characteristics of the sport. 

 

We're actually debating whether or not that's even possible. Like many posters here, I'm skeptical. 

 

It's possible to maintain the basic characteristics of the sport, and still suck all the joy out of it... That's what we're against.

 

9 hours ago, leonbus23 said:

 People are claiming that there are safer ways on a spectrum of potential harm. 

 

There are... I'm sure there's a safer approach to bomb-disposal  as well... -Doesn't make the job any less risky.

 

Risk, by the way, is an integral part of football... it's much of what makes the game so entertaining and mesmerizing...

 

9 hours ago, leonbus23 said:

 

Finally, playgrounds are for children.  A padded playground is safer for children.   

 

 

The Padded playground is the cruelest invention since the chastity belt. -No kid I care about will ever play in one.

 

Hard playgrounds give kids a chance to learn their limitations, strengths, weaknesses, and reap instant consequences from poor decisions.

 

Most importantly, hard playgrounds  teach kids that all risks are not equal... -A vital lesson for new human beings.  JMO.

[Engelwood]

1 hour ago, #34fan said:

 

A dog-pile of fancy words in vain.  -People can choose not to play pro football. Full stop.

 

We're actually debating whether or not that's even possible. Like many posters here, I'm skeptical. 

 

It's possible to maintain the basic characteristics of the sport, and still suck all the joy out of it... That's what we're against.

 

 

There are... I'm sure there's a safer approach to bomb-disposal  as well... -Doesn't make the job any less risky.

 

Risk, by the way, is an integral part of football... it's much of what makes the game so entertaining and mesmerizing...

 

 

The Padded playground is the cruelest invention since the chastity belt. -No kid I care about will ever play in one.

 

Hard playgrounds give kids a chance to learn their limitations, strengths, weaknesses, and reap instant consequences from poor decisions.

 

Most importantly, hard playgrounds  teach kids that all risks are not equal... -A vital lesson for new human beings.  JMO.

IN all that you said here......you are jumping to conclusions before letting them enforce the rule.

 

As for the bomb disposal comment there is significantly less risk if you take a methodical approach compared to picking it up and tossing it in disposal container.....also now using Robots to preform this job......hmm seems like they changed the risk by introducing guildlines and tools to increase the life expectancy of a bomb disposal person........Sounds kind of like what they are doing here...... 

[#34fan]

22 hours ago, Engelwood said:

IN all that you said here......you are jumping to conclusions before letting them enforce the rule.

 

Lost count of how many players lowered their helmet in the HOF game...  Gonna be interesting to see how they enforce this rule.

 

-And by interesting I mean sickening.

[DrDawkinstein]

So far, so good in the HoF Game. They've called it a couple times now, and it's been justified each time. These players have had more than enough time to go back to proper tackling technique, and refused to do so on their own. So now it's going to be regulated and penalized, as it should be.

 

Dont drop your head. And definitely dont drop your head and use your dropped helmet as the main point of contact. It's as simple as that, and how tackling is supposed to be done. Eyes through the thighs!

 

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by DrDawkinstein

[Figster]

On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2018 at 4:29 PM, That's No Moon said:

I think this could significantly change if not ruin the game because it gives the officials yet another way to hand out yards and first downs, or nullify them, on essentially every snap of the game.

 

College football refs get it right sometimes and get it very very wrong other times. NFL refs are no better. More judgment calls made in real time by people who are unable to seE a replay or who are out of position to make the initial call in the first place will lead to errors.  It's going to become that a big hit is a penalty whether it's head contact or not. That is basically where college is now, particularly in the secondary. They have the benefit of replay and they STILL get it wrong.

 

Teams would be very smart to attack the intermwdiate and deep middle of the field with large bodied players. It is almost impossible to guard the way the rules have evolved. Opi is basically legal, dpi is called very close, defensive holding is an automatic first down, you already couldnt hit a "defenseless" player and now you really can't attack the receiver at all. Get someone shaped like Gronk and throw it there. All you can do is try to knock the pass away.

Its practically impossible for a defender to make a tackle because his fool head gets in the way,

 

I agree, the last thing football fans want is another way officials can control the outcome of a game. ( on every snap )

13 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

So far, so good in the HoF Game. They've called it a couple times now, and it's been justified each time. These players have had more than enough time to go back to proper tackling technique, and refused to do so on their own. So now it's going to be regulated and penalized, as it should be.

 

Dont drop your head. And definitely dont drop your head and use your dropped helmet as the main point of contact. It's as simple as that, and how tackling is supposed to be done. Eyes through the thighs!

 

 

Tell me how a defender is supposed to dive forward and make a tackle the way you suggest

[DrDawkinstein]

14 minutes ago, Figster said:

 

Tell me how a defender is supposed to dive forward and make a tackle the way you suggest

 

I dont get what you are asking.

 

If the runner is in front of you and coming at you, there is absolutely no reason to drop your helmet down and "dive" forward. That is even worse technique.

And if the defender is chasing him down from behind and dives, the helmet wont come into play.

 

But if you are asking how to tackle properly, in general, here's a great tutorial. None of it includes (1) dropping your face down, and (2) using the helmet to initiate contact, which is what the new rule addresses.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by DrDawkinstein

[Figster]

22 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I dont get what you are asking.

 

If the runner is in front of you and coming at you, there is absolutely no reason to drop your helmet down and "dive" forward. That is even worse technique.

And if the defender is chasing him down from behind and dives, the helmet wont come into play.

 

But if you are asking how to tackle properly, in general, here's a great tutorial. None of it includes (1) dropping your face down, and (2) using the helmet to initiate contact, which is what the new rule addresses.

 

 

 

 

Every tackle will be open to interpretation,

 

To make matters worse the what could be unintentional penalty also gets players ejected.

Edited August 3, 2018 by Figster

[#34fan]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I dont get what you are asking.

 

If the runner is in front of you and coming at you, there is absolutely no reason to drop your helmet down and "dive" forward. That is even worse technique.

And if the defender is chasing him down from behind and dives, the helmet wont come into play.

 

What if he drops his helmet down? -You will instinctively do the same to keep yourself from getting speared, I guarantee it.

 

The helmet to helmet rules they had in place were more than adequate, and easier to interpret.  -This is shaping up to be a nightmare.

 

[RaoulDuke79]

You're going to hear about this every week all season if they call it like they did last night.

[DrDawkinstein]

10 hours ago, Figster said:

 

 

Every tackle will be open to interpretation,

 

To make matters worse the what could be unintentional penalty also gets players ejected.

 

Not really. It's pretty obvious when guys drop their face. I can see it from the stands/on tv.

 

I will agree with the worry that this gives the refs another way to control the outcome of games. However, this has been needed for a long time, and as I mentioned the players had a chance to self-regulate, but failed to do so.

 

1 hour ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

You're going to hear about this every week all season if they call it like they did last night.

 

They wont call it all season like they did last night. The preseason is the time that new rules get over-called in order to set the precedent and get players serious about it. You might see some in the first couple weeks of regular season, but then it will drop off once the players take it upon themselves to correct their behavior.