Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: new helmet rule

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array title="Dwinsgames has a reputation beyond repute"> Dwinsgames's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    South Western Pa
    Gender
    Posts
    7,723

    new helmet rule

    not sure how many of you looked into this new version of the rule but personally I HATE it ...

    I do not believe it solves anything and does little more than complicate the game and make it much more difficult to officiate in a consistent manner...

    so now we seemingly know what a catch is we do not know what will get you kicked out of a game ....

    this rule is not ( in wording anyways ) targeting a defensive player but instead any player .... ( more fair on the surface anyways )

    however it is again being completely left to interpretation and has no verbiage in the rule to demonstrate what happens if both players helmets collide in what would be simultaneous action ( as any and all helmet to helmet blows are )

    it also changes the game as we know it .... short yardage football per example ...

    will it change how you scout a RB ? should it ?

    lowering your shoulder lowers your helmet by default if your helmet it lowered you are leading with your helmet thus breaking this new interpretation of the rule ...

    will this be the end of the " power back" as we know it ??

    should we be scouting shifty little backs who can instead squirt through the smallest of holes and beat you with pure speed ?

    a lot to ponder here

    what are your thoughts ?
    Kenny Pickett is who I though he was .. Eagles problem now

  2. #2
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,179

    Re: new helmet rule

    We don't really know enough yet to evaluate the rule. In fact, the thing(s) that were passed were basically the idea of a rule with specific language to be worked out and voted on by the owners in May. So all we have is a sense that the NFL is going to implement something like the NCAA targeting rule.

    It will likely be a total clusterfudge and be called unevenly across the league. But the NFL has to do something. Many observers feel that rule was/is being passed largely in response to three things:
    1. Concussions still be a massive issue league-wide
    2. Shazier's injury
    3. Gronk not getting tossed in game and only being suspended for one game for his hit on White in the Bills game.

    Long story short, the league has to be seen as doing something. And this is the most logical thing to do. Assume that it ends up being worded, implemented, and called much like the targeting rule in the NCAA. That wouldn't really end football as we know it or anything. It would create consistency in tackling and targeting across the two highest levels of the sport.

    Will there be tons of issues as guys have to re-learn an instinctual muscle memory thing? Absolutely. Will we spend hours and hours talking about the seemingly unfair and arbitrary use of the rule and variance in punishment and on-field calls? Almost certainly. After all, what else is the internet for?

    Most of this is really really hard to determine because the NFL has essentially passed a rule change and then decided they will write the rule later. Once we see the rule and how it is called in preseason, we will see if there will be any actual impact.

    I think I heard somewhere that there have been 47 rule changes in the NFL since 2002 or something like that. Here is that take...

    https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2018/3...-roger-goodell

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: new helmet rule

    Translation: Expand the implementation of random 15-yard penalties to all plays, not just passing plays.

    Expect a bunch of horseshit free first downs on running plays up the middle. They word it so it's ambiguous, but they will always call it on the defense, never the running back. This is how it goes in college.

    No doubt some team will get stuffed on 4th-and-goal from the 1 to complete a great goal-line stand, then get an extra set of downs because the defender hit the running back too hard as he lowered his head into the pile. I wonder which team that will be.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array title="hawaiiansteeler has a reputation beyond repute"> hawaiiansteeler's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Aloha State
    Gender
    Posts
    8,571

    Re: new helmet rule

    Translation: the NFL is deadly afraid about being sued out of existence by ex-NFL players suffering from CTE and is trying to do everything it can to look like they're concerned about player safety.

  5. #5
    ® Array title="Steeldude "> Steeldude's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,376

    Re: new helmet rule

    If they actually enforce it there will be tons of penalties. RBs can no longer lower their head. O-linemen and D-linemen will have to be careful not to initiate contact with their helmet.

    Football is disappearing.
    Hater = Realist

  6. #6
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,825

    Re: new helmet rule

    Football IS disappearing. It's not because of the vagueness of rules though. The issue of CTE is real and it has a real consequence for players. As much as I love the game, I get it. The NFL has to continue to 'try' and make the game safer for it's players. We are losing some of the things we grew up loving about the NFL. But maybe the end result will be a better game for our kids and grandkids to participate in. Maybe. Everybody loves those highlight big hits, except the parent of the player getting hit.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: new helmet rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Steel View Post
    Football IS disappearing. It's not because of the vagueness of rules though. The issue of CTE is real and it has a real consequence for players. As much as I love the game, I get it. The NFL has to continue to 'try' and make the game safer for it's players. We are losing some of the things we grew up loving about the NFL. But maybe the end result will be a better game for our kids and grandkids to participate in. Maybe. Everybody loves those highlight big hits, except the parent of the player getting hit.
    Yeah I wish they would figure out what anyone with half a brain knows, though. They can add all the rules they want and won't ACTUALLY make the game safer at all, only ruin it.

    Ban this, ban that - results exactly the same as before, only there's a whole lot of cumbersome bullshit to wade through and everybody hates it. The dumbest people adamantly believe it must be done because "Even if it doesn't fix anything, you have to try! Trying and failing and making things much worse is better than doing nothing, because at least you tried, right?"

    Incidentally, I also just perfectly described the Democratic Party of California. I don't understand why people want to run a football league the same way.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array title="Dwinsgames has a reputation beyond repute"> Dwinsgames's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    South Western Pa
    Gender
    Posts
    7,723

    Re: new helmet rule

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    Yeah I wish they would figure out what anyone with half a brain knows, though. They can add all the rules they want and won't ACTUALLY make the game safer at all, only ruin it.

    Ban this, ban that - results exactly the same as before, only there's a whole lot of cumbersome bullshit to wade through and everybody hates it. The dumbest people adamantly believe it must be done because "Even if it doesn't fix anything, you have to try! Trying and failing and making things much worse is better than doing nothing, because at least you tried, right?"

    Incidentally, I also just perfectly described the Democratic Party of California. I don't understand why people want to run a football league the same way.
    when I look at this I always default back to the only true solution .....

    take away the helmets

    or we are soon to have a game that looks something like this

    Kenny Pickett is who I though he was .. Eagles problem now

  9. #9

    Re: new helmet rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Steeldude View Post
    If they actually enforce it there will be tons of penalties. RBs can no longer lower their head. O-linemen and D-linemen will have to be careful not to initiate contact with their helmet.

    Football is disappearing.
    This is laughable. Probably because the changes to the sport today are not nearly as drastic as changes in the past. Let's talk about a few of them.


    1. Originally, the game was built around the flying wedge. Run plays featured it all the time. They'd simply start behind the LOS, then start running forward and bulldozing people while linked. (Remember kickoff returns with the wedge? That was the last play where the wedge was still used). It was made illegal very early because people were dying. Doing so changed the entire way an offense operated as there was no passing yet.
      .
    2. As late as 1905, there were no rules disallowing punches and dropkicks. In fact, Francis Burr took a punch to head, breaking his nose, and a dropkick that knocked him out after calling for a fair catch (all without a penalty). Surely, banning those changed the game more than banning ducking the head in a tackle. (Note, this is a rugby connection. A fair catch in rugby doesn't mean you're not hit. In fact, the rule book states (or used to state) about the player calling the fair catch . . . "If the player calling the fair catch is able to continue the game..." We always got a laugh out of that.)
      .
    3. 1897, a field goal was 5 points and a touchdown was four points. In 1898, 1904, 1909, and 1912, this rule was changed until the points reflect today's standard. Talk about the sport of football as originally intended disappearing. These rule changes would have changed the entire strategy of the game.
      .
    4. Speaking of changing the strategy and making football very different, a forward pass was legalized in 1906.
      .
    5. For the first few decades, games were 70 minutes long, there was no neutral zone, and first downs were only five yards. Changing these rules again completely changed strategy, including RBs now running off tackles. Football no longer had to be a maul whereby a group pushed another group for a player with a ball (with fists and feet flying inside it). Talk about a change to the sport.
      .
    6. Along the same lines, in 1933, the forward pass was legalized from anywhere behind the line of scrimmage. Again, it is revolutionary. A QB can now break the pocket and still pass. It changes the entire way the game is played.
      .
    7. In 1955, the game shed it's rugby roots completely, never to return to what it had been by a new rule declaring the ball dead immediately when a ball carrier touched the ground with any part of his body but his feet or hands while in the grasp. This foreshadows a massive shift to the pass forgoing all rugby roots.


    So, according to the way you're using "disappeared" here, football has disappeared at least seven other times.

    In reality, football is again following one of its most constant and defining elements. It's changing the rules, and doing so because of player safety. Moreover, it's doing it out of public relations, which is exactly what football has done since it's inception. Heck, the NCAA was formed precisely to clean up and fix football so it would be safer,* and they introduced several new rules, such as the forward pass, the sixty minute game, six men on the LOS (no limit previous), and three downs to gain 10 yards.


    *Actually, it was the IAA, the Intercollegiate Athletic Association, which later became the NCAA.


  10. #10
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: new helmet rule

    So, according to the way you're using "disappeared" here, football has disappeared at least seven other times.

    In reality, football is again following one of its most constant and defining elements. It's changing the rules, and doing so because of player safety. Moreover, it's doing it out of public relations, which is exactly what football has done since it's inception. Heck, the NCAA was formed precisely to clean up and fix football so it would be safer,* and they introduced several new rules, such as the forward pass, the sixty minute game, six men on the LOS (no limit previous), and three downs to gain 10 yards.
    Nice try, but no. Those kinds of changes outlawed dangerous DELIBERATE kinds of plays, strategies if you will.

    The more recent changes that everybody hates are punishing ordinary, unavoidable things that happen when people are running and tackling. The vast, vast majority of plays penalized under targeting and helmet-to-helmet rules are accidental - "bad looking" but merely unfortunate collisions. Once in a great while there's a cheap shot with the intent to injure, but there are already existing rules in place for that.

    You simply cannot have the level of "player safety" that the lawyers want, unless you basically allow free catches and free runs. The rules are stupid because they're incompatible with reality. If rugby is so great and has all the answers, then go watch a fucking rugby game. Meantime, let's not have a bunch of rules that do nothing to improve safety but do add in a bunch of red tape and random penalties
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  11. #11
    ® Array title="Steeldude "> Steeldude's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6,376

    Re: new helmet rule

    But the game won't move if they enforce this rule. RBs will have to run upright at all times. Linemen will need to make sure not to initiate contact with their helmet. That will be difficult to do on short goal line runs.

    I said disappearing. Don't be surprised if QBs are not allowed to be hit at all in 20 years.
    Hater = Realist

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array title="Dwinsgames has a reputation beyond repute"> Dwinsgames's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    South Western Pa
    Gender
    Posts
    7,723

    Re: new helmet rule

    it will be Impossible to not have helmet to helmet contact on every snap UNLESS lineman all play standing up , still not sure how the center will hike the ball without his head ( helmet ) pointing directly at the DT/NT lined up across from him ( if either move before he comes into a stand up pos a flag could fly )

    I am sure they will work things out for this but I still am not close to convinced it will make any difference at all in the amount of blows to the head ....
    Kenny Pickett is who I though he was .. Eagles problem now

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array title="Born2Steel has a reputation beyond repute"> Born2Steel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    11,825

    Re: new helmet rule

    1. The kickoff is already being dismantled and soon to be done away with entirely, most likely.
    2. Already illegal for defenses to line up directly over the long snapper. Not much of a stretch to make the same rule apply to the Center on every play.
    3. Has become a passing league with the RB position becoming devalued more and more.
    4. Getting rid of helmets would get rid of MOST head to head hits. Or put players in hockey helmets.

    There are changes to the game being made now that are specifically for player safety. I don't know if they will "ruin" the game. What I do know is the game has to be made safer. It's not that tough to understand. All you need do is go look at some statistics and analytics on the forces generated by these athletes impacting and the physical damage those impacts cause. Things like what happened to Shazier are going to happen no matter how safe the game becomes. That was a freak accident. There are many stories similar to his. The player safety initiative is more about the long term health effects of football. It's not just the CTE stuff. Listen to Jerome Bettis talk about his life.

    The on the field officiating is what's taking the air out of watching games. Penalties are still too subjective and many rules are vague at best in description. The language of these rules needs to be clearer, and the officials need to be graded on performance each week. This is the part I believe all fans can agree on. This is a very separate issue effecting the game from the program to make the game safer to play.

  14. #14

    Re: new helmet rule

    The real problem, and I've said this several times, is the moves in the NFL to loosen up the scoring. Let the defense actually bump and run down the field again. Make the oline keep their hands inside their shoulders. You'll see a big drop in injuries because game speed will drop. Its a matter of physics. Of course that won't happen because it makes the game less exciting for the casual observer that Goodell wants to suck in for a few hundred dollars each year.


  15. #15

    Re: new helmet rule

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    Nice try, but no. Those kinds of changes outlawed dangerous DELIBERATE kinds of plays, strategies if you will.

    The more recent changes that everybody hates are punishing ordinary, unavoidable things that happen when people are running and tackling. The vast, vast majority of plays penalized under targeting and helmet-to-helmet rules are accidental - "bad looking" but merely unfortunate collisions. Once in a great while there's a cheap shot with the intent to injure, but there are already existing rules in place for that.

    You simply cannot have the level of "player safety" that the lawyers want, unless you basically allow free catches and free runs. The rules are stupid because they're incompatible with reality. If rugby is so great and has all the answers, then go watch a fucking rugby game. Meantime, let's not have a bunch of rules that do nothing to improve safety but do add in a bunch of red tape and random penalties
    Except, it's not. Go back and rewatch a game from the seventies or early eighties. Dont depend on memory. Most of the big tackles back then were real tackles, not espnhits that are intended to get a players name on the highlight reel. I was surprised after watching some film that even someone like Lambert was tackling in ways that everyone is saying is impossible today. Very few of his tackles would have been flagged. So no, the rules aren't ncompatble with reality. They're incompatible with the sloppy method of tackling where players come in at full speed out of control and don't even bother trying to wrap.


    EDIT: as an aside, I don't like the rule as it is written. Too much room for "oh, that looks bad, I'll throw a flag."


  16. #16
    NFL's Dirtiest Player Array title="86WARD has a reputation beyond repute"> 86WARD's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    50,473

    Re: new helmet rule

    If they enforce the penalty, you will be seeing penalties not only on ball carriers and tacklers, but O-Linemen and D-Linemen on every day downs. The number of penalties will bring players getting suspended so the rosters are going to have to be expanded to 70+ in order for teams to be able to field a team for a full 60 minutes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dwinsgames View Post
    you are a Kenny Pickett enabler

  17. #17
    Attitude is everything Array title="SteelerFanInStl has a reputation beyond repute"> SteelerFanInStl's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Gender
    Posts
    14,364

    Re: new helmet rule

    I really don't like it. They could throw a flag on every play with this rule. The rule itself is also left to the interpretation/judgement of the official and that leads to wildly inconsistent enforcement of the rules.
    I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play!- Jack Lambert

  18. #18
    Senior Member Array title="EzraTank has a reputation beyond repute"> EzraTank's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Gender
    Posts
    6,880

    Re: new helmet rule

    If they're going to do this then take the stiff arm out of the game. At least the stiff arm to the head. I never understood why an offensive player could literally grab a defensive players head and it still be legal.

  19. #19
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,179

    Re: new helmet rule

    You guys realize that you have all jumped the gun, right?

    The actual wording of the rule does NOT exist at this time and will not until the owners draft it and vote on it in May. At least that is what I was hearing from multiple reports as of last week. Has something changed? If not, then any article or Tweet or podcast or sports radio discussion and (most likely) yelling about how bad this rule is, how it will be called, what will be called, and on and on - is total speculation.

    The idea of the rule has been passed - something about leading with the head. The form and function of the rule is still very much unknown.

    Take a deep breath. Count to 10.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Craic View Post
    The real problem, and I've said this several times, is the moves in the NFL to loosen up the scoring. Let the defense actually bump and run down the field again. Make the oline keep their hands inside their shoulders. You'll see a big drop in injuries because game speed will drop. Its a matter of physics. Of course that won't happen because it makes the game less exciting for the casual observer that Goodell wants to suck in for a few hundred dollars each year.
    The speed is the issue, I think. The NFL is in the impossible situation of trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. The players have gotten so big and so fast, that it is almost a miracle that someone hasn't died.

    I have long wondered if instead of rule changes, they look into equipment changes. Smaller pads and hockey style helmets. Still could have a violent collision based sport, but the "de-weaponize" the equipment.

    I don't know if that would really do anything though...

  20. #20
    Senior Member Array title="steelreserve has a reputation beyond repute"> steelreserve's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Old Mexico
    Gender
    Posts
    13,413

    Re: new helmet rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Craic View Post
    Except, it's not. Go back and rewatch a game from the seventies or early eighties. Dont depend on memory. Most of the big tackles back then were real tackles, not espnhits that are intended to get a players name on the highlight reel. I was surprised after watching some film that even someone like Lambert was tackling in ways that everyone is saying is impossible today. Very few of his tackles would have been flagged. So no, the rules aren't ncompatble with reality. They're incompatible with the sloppy method of tackling where players come in at full speed out of control and don't even bother trying to wrap.


    EDIT: as an aside, I don't like the rule as it is written. Too much room for "oh, that looks bad, I'll throw a flag."

    That's basically the premise of the entire rule and the entire "player safety" movement. Just arbitrary penalties when a play looks violent.

    The real problem is, about 15 years of tightening the rules has proven that the rules don't change the way people run or tackle. Maybe the game has more stupid flying shoulder hits today than it used to, but that's the way people play and they continue to do that despite whatever you change in the rules. I hate to say it, but if anything affects that, it will be something like Shazier's injury, causing people to become aware of that at the high school level and below, and to grow up playing less stupidly. In the meantime, it will continue as-is with more random penalties that don't do anything.

    As I said earlier, the rules for player safety are already there. Unnecessary roughness, spearing, and so on have been against the rules for well over 20 years. They've just expanded it from covering dangerous plays to things that aren't actually dangerous but look bad. I don't really think the couple of highlight-reel hits a season that players dish out or absorb have much to do with CTE or any of the football-related health problems you see in older players - it's the 2,000 run-of-the-mill collisions per year that are just part of the game. I mean, why else would players from the '60s through the '80s be suffering from them if the game was cleaner and full of textbook tackling back then?

    I could probably get knocked out cold 10 times and still have far less chance of brain injury than a pro boxer who took 50,000 punches and never lost a fight. Even Shazier's injury wasn't on a big hit or anything unusual, just a regular tackle executed poorly. No doubt they wouldn't call a penalty on that. Just the ones that look too rough.

    Funny thing is, the single biggest thing that could've been done to improve safety happened about 10 years ago and had nothing to do with the rules. That was that they figured out the link between brain injuries and getting hit in the head (real rocket science there), and players are aware of it. Less rushing back into games after you got fucked up, and you do see more and more people quit playing by choice because they know now. All the rest is just a bunch of PR bullshit that doesn't do anything but make the game worse.
    See you Space Cowboy ...

  21. #21
    Senior Member Array title="smokin3000gt has a reputation beyond repute"> smokin3000gt's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    3,364

    Re: new helmet rule

    I don't understand the thinking here. The NFL is bleeding fans and viewership because of questionable calls and automatic 1st down penalties in crucial moments so their answer to an over officiated game is to add more rules and grey area? I would say the NFL has peaked and is on a downward trajectory
    Quote Originally Posted by 86WARD View Post
    Tomlin is that good.



    PATRIOTS**

    BUNGLES
    Steelers - 18 Bengals - 16 #0in25 #anotherseasonBungled




    HTG ¤-

  22. #22
    Quest For Seven Array title="Mach1 has a reputation beyond repute"> Mach1's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Idaho
    Gender
    Posts
    5,161

    Re: new helmet rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojouw View Post
    You guys realize that you have all jumped the gun, right?

    The actual wording of the rule does NOT exist at this time and will not until the owners draft it and vote on it in May. At least that is what I was hearing from multiple reports as of last week. Has something changed? If not, then any article or Tweet or podcast or sports radio discussion and (most likely) yelling about how bad this rule is, how it will be called, what will be called, and on and on - is total speculation.

    The idea of the rule has been passed - something about leading with the head. The form and function of the rule is still very much unknown.

    Take a deep breath. Count to 10.

    - - - Updated - - -



    The speed is the issue, I think. The NFL is in the impossible situation of trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. The players have gotten so big and so fast, that it is almost a miracle that someone hasn't died.

    I have long wondered if instead of rule changes, they look into equipment changes. Smaller pads and hockey style helmets. Still could have a violent collision based sport, but the "de-weaponize" the equipment.

    I don't know if that would really do anything though...


    Give a lib a fish--he eats for a day

    Teach a lib to fish--he is back the next day asking for more free fish.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  23. #23

    Re: new helmet rule

    Quote Originally Posted by steelreserve View Post
    That's basically the premise of the entire rule and the entire "player safety" movement. Just arbitrary penalties when a play looks violent.

    As I said earlier, the rules for player safety are already there. Unnecessary roughness, spearing, and so on have been against the rules for well over 20 years. They've just expanded it from covering dangerous plays to things that aren't actually dangerous but look bad. I don't really think the couple of highlight-reel hits a season that players dish out or absorb have much to do with CTE or any of the football-related health problems you see in older players - it's the 2,000 run-of-the-mill collisions per year that are just part of the game. I mean, why else would players from the '60s through the '80s be suffering from them if the game was cleaner and full of textbook tackling back then?
    .
    While I wouldn't (and didn't) say "textbook tackling" most of the rest of this entire post and especially this paragraph is absolutely correct. Notice how many offensive lineman suffer it as well, and they probably tackle someone 5-8 times in their entire NFL career at most.

    Although I'd say concussions contribute, according to this peer-reviewed journal article, you're absolutely right as well in what causes it.
    Overall, the number of years of exposure, not the number of concussions, was significantly associated with worse tau pathology in CTE. This suggests that it is the chronic and repetitive nature of head trauma, irrespective of concussive symptoms, that is the most important driver of disease.
    Again, you're also right on "looking bad." Remember a few years ago when the suspensions were being handed out left and right? I said then that it's all about protecting the shield. That is exactly what's going on now. In fact, most of the rule changes I listed in an earlier post all through the history of football was exactly that, it was about making it look like something was being done.

    So, what changes would I introduce to really fix the game concerning player injury . . . hmm, that might be good material for another thread.

    EDIT: One point of difference, rules have changed the way people hit today. We used to see multiple hits to the head in every game on WRs. That number has gone way down. Sure, it still happens, but not nearly to the same degree.


  24. #24
    Senior Member Array title="Mojouw has a reputation beyond repute"> Mojouw's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Gender
    Posts
    20,179

    Re: new helmet rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach1 View Post
    Well, that wasn't what I said or meant at all. But, sure, go with that.

  25. #25
    Senior Member Array title="AtlantaDan has a reputation beyond repute"> AtlantaDan's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Gender
    Posts
    5,297

    Re: new helmet rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Dwinsgames View Post
    not sure how many of you looked into this new version of the rule but personally I HATE it
    So does DeCastro

    You remember David DeCastro positively detonating Vontaze Burfict in a game two years ago, yes? Just destroyed him.

    Well, that block would be illegal now....

    DeCastro is livid, at least when he’s not laughing at the possibility of players getting ejected for blocking with the crown of their helmet.
    “I just can’t wait until the referees come into training camp like they do every year, and they show us the videos of what to do and not do in the rule changes,” DeCastro said. “I just can’t wait to see it because I have no idea what they’re talking about. It doesn’t make any sense to me.”...

    “You’re taught from a young age, the low man wins,” DeCastro said. “Get your head lower than theirs. It’s like the nature of the game. You might as well take the ball away while you’re at it.”...

    “We’re going to look like sumo wrestlers,” DeCastro said. “Put our bellies against each other.”

    http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/j...s/201804050157

    I definitely like this saltier version of DeCastro making comments like this and observing the Steelers should have just shut up and focused on taking care of business after the Jax playoff loss. Looking for DeCastro to join Pouncey in asserting leadership from the offense in 2018.

  26. #26
    Senior Member Array title="Shoes has a reputation beyond repute"> Shoes's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Gender
    Posts
    11,632

    Re: new helmet rule

    Its all about the money. If Goodell could rake in the same money with a new NFL Flag Football League, football as we know it would be over. But he won't do that because he'd lose 95% of the fan base, so instead he'll continue complicating the game in the name of safety until he's long gone.

  27. #27
    Senior Member Array title="Moose has a brilliant future">

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dillsboro, Indiana
    Gender
    Posts
    2,413

    Re: new helmet rule

    Football is getting so hard to watch. With the 'refs' and all the 'new rules' it's disgusting. It's getting to the point of a flag thrown after EVERY play and then there are so many times the ref's can't even agree on calls. And then of course you have the typical Monday morning crap of the NFL admitting they F''Ked up the call all together, which many times could have changed the outcome of the game. I hate saying it, but I backed off of watching alot of the games on Sunday. Between the National Anthem BS and the petty ref calls there is no entertainment for me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •