PDA

View Full Version : NFL may prevent runners from lowering their heads



thenewera44
03-15-2013, 01:44 PM
NFL may prevent runners from lowering their heads into tacklers

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 14, 2013, 3:42 PM EDT

In another sign that the days of punishing, physical running backs like Jim Brown and John Riggins are coming to an end, the NFL is considering a rules change that would penalize runners for lowering their heads and initiating contact with tacklers.


Members of the NFL’s Competition Committee revealed today that they want to see a new rule that would make it a personal foul for either a runner or a tackler to engage in head-first contact with the crown of the helmet when running into each other outside the tackle box.

“This is a pure and simple player safety rule,” NFL Competition Committee Chair Rich McKay said. “We really think the time has come where we need to address the situation in space where a runner or a tackler has a choice of how to approach his opponent.”

McKay said there was no one specific play that made the Committee propose this rule change, and he said that the play that was viewed by many as the most violent example of a helmet-to-helmet hit in the NFL all season — Bernard Pollard’s collision with Stevan Ridley in the AFC Championship Game — would not have been a penalty because neither player was directly leading with the crown of his helmet.

Rams coach Jeff Fisher, a member of the Competition Committee, said he believes coaches will be able to properly instruct their players in how to adjust to this rule.

“The ballcarrier is still going to be permitted to lower his shoulder, and the head is also going to come down to protect the football,” Fisher said. “We’re not taking that part of the run out of the game. What we’re saying is, in space, one-on-one, head-up, we’re not going to allow you to load up and use the crown of your helmet. It’s an obvious thing.”

It’s obvious that each year, the NFL’s Competition Committee is going to try a little bit harder to take us closer to a time when helmet-to-helmet hits are removed from the game completely.

fallforward3y+
03-15-2013, 11:28 PM
This is very bad news for the NFL, I agree. The rule by itself doesn't change much, because really ball carriers don't ever lower their heads INTO defenders, that would be stupid. They only lower their head if they can lean and get it past the defender, and when they lower their shoulder they put their head to the side most of the time. BUT, its just another thing for them to think about that can make a player play softer, which will hurt the game. It could get in their head, make them focus more on not getting a penalty than running as hard as they can. It's also a sign that we are progressing further away from real football but slowly so people don't panic.

The real truth is, people need to stop acting like they are heroes trying to prevent concussions, and just let them play. Firstly, if you don't want to play then just don't. Secondly, there are several ways for a player to protect theirself and still be effective, they just don't bother to do them because many of them are sort of "taboo" in football. It's a matter of choice, the choice to play at all and the choice to play stupid

People need to really think about this stuff, and stop assuming that Goodell and his goons know what they are talking about, because they don't. The precautions taken aren't even what causes injury in many cases...a few examples

Quarterbacks not running-QBs are much more likely to get hurt standing there in the pocket with a defender getting a clean head on shot at them and not being able to protect themselves than they are running, getting hit at an angle and dropping their shoulder down, which will help shield their body. RG3 actually got hurt when sliding, in a situation where if he had dropped his shoulder he would likely have been fine..but because he slid his head hit the defender's body

Hitting less in practice-you rarely see somebody get an injury in a 1 on 1 tackling situation when they are running with the ball..it's when they aren't looking that makes that happen..or getting hit by more than 1 that makes it happen. If you want to minimize risk in practice, you can have defenders only hit a ball carrier with full force if he is running with it and just make the tackle if he is not looking..you can easily drive a ball carrier who isn't running back w/o a hard hit...or have them just go for the ball instead of the hit on a pass play(which is what they should do anyway)..no reason to take away anything practicing 1 on 1 tackling situations, you have to practice that to stay good at it.

The 18 game schedule proposal is also a sign that their agenda is money, not safety. How does 2 MORE games mesh with safety.

I can look back at every bad head injury, and look at what the injured did wrong to make it happen.

Ultimately, it comes down to this..it is football, it will be guys hitting each other, at full force..otherwise its not football. If you want to make it 100 percent safe, your in the wrong sport. You can however, play smart to drastically lower the injury risk while still having it be a high level hitting game. Unfortunately, as I said before many ideas that are not only safer, but practical for effectiveness are not embraced because they are seen as taboo by hardcore traditionalists, and the new age pansies just prefer to over panic.

theMileHighGuy
03-16-2013, 06:02 AM
It's good on the surface for player safety and whatnot, but honestly it's just another way for refs to control the game. They already determined the outcome of about every game last year, now they have another tool.

Rancid
03-16-2013, 07:29 AM
The Ginger Hammer and the Hammerettes strike again!

They are ruining the game.

This will be another inconsistently called penalty by the referees that will change games. It will happen 5-times with no call and then be called on a goal line hand-off as a player jumps over the line for a touchdown-- total nonsense!

Spice 1
03-16-2013, 07:59 AM
Backwards thinking. They need to concentrate on properly enforcing the rules they already have in place. How about fining officials for not calling a face mask penalty on running backs?

Charlie Brown
03-16-2013, 10:06 AM
The NFL desperately wants to turn the game into a passing league. This will go a long way in eliminating the running back position.

samparnell
03-16-2013, 11:58 AM
Hitting with the top of the helmet is already illegal on a defender, isn't it? Hitting with the top of the helmet is a leading cause of head/neck injuries and should be illegal.

thenewera44
03-16-2013, 01:40 PM
Safer league is not the goal. Come on guys.

It is about perception. Ok?

They make yet another ambiguous rule that will be a judgment call. Yet another way to extrapolate dollars from ignorant millionaires.

They do it under the GUISE of SAFETY. That is their big thing.

To be honest, them making the league into more of a passing league has actually cause more concussions and more violent hits. The worst, most jarring hits are typically done between the DBs and the WR/TE. Yes, there are collisions all over, but the launch hit is usually on pass plays over the middle etc.

If they want the game to be "safer" they ought to bring back the rules prior to 1978. Is that too much?

Soccer is the most popular game in the world. No, not here, but it is still the most popular game in the world. They have not really changed the rules in that game to make it more "exicitng."

70s football imo is still far better than soccer.

If they want to make the game safer, encourage running plays. When I say safer, I mean head injury safer. Not knees.

No, this is not what this is about. It is about creating a perception that the game is being made safer. They need to show they are pro-active and make no mistake so that when they do go to court over these lawsuits they have tangible proof that they are pro-active.

The owners and league are constantly trying to create these ambiguous rules that are open to interpretation so they can fine X amounts on these players that have millions to give.

That is what this is about.

fallforward3y+
03-16-2013, 01:52 PM
It's good on the surface for player safety and whatnot, but honestly it's just another way for refs to control the game. They already determined the outcome of about every game last year, now they have another tool.

Aaah, you may be right man. It will give refs more control of the game with another major penalty they decide to call or not. However, it is probably more about making it a passing league than about controlling the game but still this could be some hidden agenda as well..but people are noticing.

Honestly, the reason refs get away with doing things to control the game is because of this "no excuses" nonsense that is widely believed. The fans that benefit from a bogus call play the no excuses card, then turn around and play the bad call card when they lose due to one.

I'm very annoyed by people who talk about no excuses, making excuses is a "weak" mentality as if major calls don't impact the game, and a team should have to be that much better than the other team that they overcome calls. Most games I believe are within 1 score, so a major call effecting scoring can change the game. In my opinion, its weak to benefit from calls and then play that card.

I understand the point of letting maybe a missed holding, or missed personal foul here and there..that is easier to overcome. But overtime, if you keep calling the fouls against one team and not the other its very hard to overcome. It is scary how I've heard officiating reps say that it is important to them to have the official make the call on the field. Why? There is no practical reason not to have someone else assist in the review of a play to make sure they got it right, or a reason why pass interference and other plays are not reviewable. It's utter nonsense, he practically said that they want refs to be able to control the game.

fallforward3y+
03-16-2013, 02:02 PM
Backwards thinking. They need to concentrate on properly enforcing the rules they already have in place. How about fining officials for not calling a face mask penalty on running backs?

This. They need to stop with these pointless fines. For somebody that makes even 500,000 dollars a year, what's a 15,000 dollar fine? Not much

Suspend players from games for illegal plays that actually should be illegal, like helmet spearing a guy who isn't running with the ball yet. Missing a game will do the trick. For their next offense make it 2, the next make it 4, the next make it 8, the next make it 16, then make it 32. That way, well if someone wants to insist that being able to spear a guy in the head who isn't looking is so important..well, they will miss a lot of their career.

If you crack down hard, players will think and weigh things out, and force them to figure out a way to dislodge the ball without helmet spearing.

Ironically, we would see more hits that dislodge a ball if you take away the helmet hits on defenseless receivers. If you drop your shoulder onto the ball, its much more likely for it to pop out.

If anyone actually believes that the Harrisons of the league hate the rules because it will hurt their chances of dislodging the ball they are among the most gullable people I've ever met. They just want a chance to make a highlight w/o having to do something difficult..but just hit a guy who isn't running w/the ball.

Going for the ball when it is in the air, or hitting your shoulder onto the ball is much more likely to result in an incomplete pass than a high up big hit.

However, there should be no penalty for unintentional helmet contact, and if a receiver tries to put themselves in a spot where their head will get hit to draw a flag, any concussion they get is their own fault, period.

fallforward3y+
03-16-2013, 02:30 PM
Safer league is not the goal. Come on guys.

It is about perception. Ok?

They make yet another ambiguous rule that will be a judgment call. Yet another way to extrapolate dollars from ignorant millionaires.

They do it under the GUISE of SAFETY. That is their big thing.

To be honest, them making the league into more of a passing league has actually cause more concussions and more violent hits. The worst, most jarring hits are typically done between the DBs and the WR/TE. Yes, there are collisions all over, but the launch hit is usually on pass plays over the middle etc.

If they want the game to be "safer" they ought to bring back the rules prior to 1978. Is that too much?

Soccer is the most popular game in the world. No, not here, but it is still the most popular game in the world. They have not really changed the rules in that game to make it more "exicitng."

70s football imo is still far better than soccer.

If they want to make the game safer, encourage running plays. When I say safer, I mean head injury safer. Not knees.

No, this is not what this is about. It is about creating a perception that the game is being made safer. They need to show they are pro-active and make no mistake so that when they do go to court over these lawsuits they have tangible proof that they are pro-active.

The owners and league are constantly trying to create these ambiguous rules that are open to interpretation so they can fine X amounts on these players that have millions to give.

That is what this is about.

Another great point. The hits that cause injuries the most are on over the middle pass plays. Also, it will cause more hits to be made from a longer range which causes more injury...the players will come at each other from further distances.

I remember playing in high school, tackling a power back with 3 or 5 yards of steam didn't even hurt at all..but tackling a speed back who had 10 or 15(from a reverse), that hurt worse.

The kickoff rule is the only rule they made that makes perfect sense towards player safety, and doesn't appear to have some agenda relating to money or changing the game(unless Goodell hates the Bears, lol) Kickoffs are definitely the most likely place to get hurt, because guys are running at eachother with 40 yards of steam. However, I ask this..if his goal is to make it so a kickoff is never done why even have kickoffs at all? Why not just do away with them and give a team the ball at the 20 after every score. It's not like kicking it from the 35 is going to eliminate returns completely, its only 5 more yards.

It's not just about protection from law suits, its about it being a passing league. They want the NFL to become a passing league because they think its what fans want to see, and they are trying to appeal to everyone...basically losing fans of the real game to appeal to fans who likely never will embrace it.

The control of the game agenda may be part of it also, they want to be able to help the more popular team win..they were terrified of watching Atlanta, an unpopular team almost make the Superbowl. If they had faced BAL and Lewis's last ride in the Superbowl, we may have had a repeat of SB 40

We need to bring a lot of attention to every terrible call the refs make, so they are so in fear of bad publicity they never do it again...and stop attending games if they continue to ruin the NFL. This is not basketball, the game involves hitting...and it is not the WWE where it is rigged for the more popular team to win. It is football, REAL competition, REALLY trying to win, and players HITTING EACHOTHER and playing each other the best they can trying to win. They may not hit at full force for practical strategy, a different tackling method that can better work for them for instance. but NEVER for the sake of not trying their hardest to make it "safer".

captainbronco
03-16-2013, 04:49 PM
soooo is the runner supposed to just stand straight up and get tackled???

fallforward3y+
03-16-2013, 07:12 PM
soooo is the runner supposed to just stand straight up and get tackled???

for now, they are saying he just can't lower his helmet at the defender..but he can lower his shoulder...but next year I bet it will be "no leaning forward/lowering your shoulder or head at all" even though that's really the best way to not absorb the hit's blow so it makes no sense for safety....it's probably just some plan to make it hard for ball carriers to fall forward, so running becomes ineffective...then it becomes all about the pass

the further along they go, the more they are showing their agenda...but like fools, people outside of football are buying into it.

Not everybody knows about football or likes it, and that's fine by me I wouldn't expect them to learn about these things if they had no interest. BUT if your going to start making all these concerns and talk about changing the game, you better do some research and you WILL have contempt from real football fans/players if you try to change the game regardless of how good your intentions may be.

captainbronco
03-17-2013, 08:15 AM
for now, they are saying he just can't lower his helmet at the defender..but he can lower his shoulder...but next year I bet it will be "no leaning forward/lowering your shoulder or head at all" even though that's really the best way to not absorb the hit's blow so it makes no sense for safety....it's probably just some plan to make it hard for ball carriers to fall forward, so running becomes ineffective...then it becomes all about the pass




the further along they go, the more they are showing their agenda...but like fools, people outside of football are buying into it.

Not everybody knows about football or likes it, and that's fine by me I wouldn't expect them to learn about these things if they had no interest. BUT if your going to start making all these concerns and talk about changing the game, you better do some research and you WILL have contempt from real football fans/players if you try to change the game regardless of how good your intentions may be.

true it just sucks i love watching aggressive RBs just lower their battering ram and just bulldoze through people guess we wont be seeing those types of run anymore :(

fallforward3y+
03-17-2013, 04:25 PM
It really does suck, well I guess we can always hope the rule doesn't get passed. That or we can just hope RBs don't take it into account and say "well, we don't lower our heads INTO defenders anyway", an just lower their shoulder with their head to the side like they usually do.......Maybe it won't impact the game, and we can still enjoy good running....atleast until another one comes.

Players and fans need to protest it, fans could say they won't attend games until this agenda stops happening. Players could even hold out over this. If it goes too far, they should just go play in semi-pro or UFL leagues..or Canada and Australia.

In a few years, the NFL may become completely unwatchable.

91bronco
03-17-2013, 06:01 PM
The game of football as we all know it died a few years ago. Sad but true.

dizzolve
03-17-2013, 07:00 PM
I've completely had it with Roger Goodell and his holier than thou tweaking of the NFL. Just for god's sake leave it alone man it's a great game that's been around longer than you've been alive. You don't need to make sure you go down in history. Just be invisible

fallforward3y+
03-18-2013, 04:21 AM
I've completely had it with Roger Goodell and his holier than thou tweaking of the NFL. Just for god's sake leave it alone man it's a great game that's been around longer than you've been alive. You don't need to make sure you go down in history. Just be invisible

Somebody's got to figure out how to do something about it, but the question is what can be done? Players strike perhaps, they should refuse to play if such a rule is passes until they get rid of it. We all know it's about money, when no money comes in, he will give up on his holier than thou fašade you mentioned.

They need to place the purity of the sport above everything else, above not only money but winning as well. They make more than enough money to save it to use for a few years, and they need to have the mentality of "who cares if we win if its not even real football"

There was a time in the NFL when the forward pass was considered a sissified part of the game, then it was added in and though I am more of a running fan, that I can live with and it actually makes the game better in certain ways. But, football's essence is tackling and trying to take that part of the game out is unacceptable.

It has gone way too far, and at a point you have to say "this is not football anymore, I signed up to play football I'm out"

Players also need to stop suing the NFL over injuries, and should shun all players who do such things. This is part of what's causing this to happen. It's also because the strongest voices against Goodell only make his points look valid......the James Harrisons of the league act as if they need to spear a guy in the helmet when he isn't looking, THAT should not be done.

When they say things like that, it just makes Goodell look like he has a point. Those hits do nothing but give a guy a highlight w/o doing anything impressive in truth. The way to stop a ball from being caught is to bat it away when its in the air. Good receivers rarely drop passes regardless of how hard the hit is, and when they do its just because they messed up or never fully had the ball. It actually works much better to drop your shoulder onto the ball, because it would punch it loose rather than going all out up high.

Rules for defenseless receivers are fine, rules for ball carriers are not.

Rollo
03-18-2013, 09:07 AM
I will boycott the NFL and refuse to wear gear, visit NFL sites, or take place in anything related to the NFL. They are systematically ruining the NFL, and if that rule is passed, im done. I have loved the game of football since I was a toddler, religiously followed the game, and spent countless dollars on merchandise. I will no longer follow or support the NFL if this rule is passed.

Football is an integral part of my life, and I will no longer stand for the systematic depletion of the game. Period. Firstly, they make hitting the QB impossible. Then, they ban helmet to helmet hits on a defensiveness Receivers. They are truly ruining the game.

If you cannot handle the long term affects of the game, DONT PLAY. PERIOD. These are GROWN men playing a CHILDS game for millions of dollars. If you cant handle the repercussions of the game, dont play. Period.

Drug addicts know that if they do drugs, they will eventually die. But still do the drugs because they love the rush and feeling it gives them. They understand the affects, and do it anyways. Same rules apply to sports, except theyre getting paid a kings ransom. People need to realize that the NFL is a game and the game is going to be RUINED by Lawyers and People whom have NEVER PLAYED THE GAME.

/rant

sorry folks

SBboundBRONCOS
03-18-2013, 09:53 AM
cool story :thumb:

Justblaze2729
03-18-2013, 10:00 AM
But millions of others will still watch etc so yea..

akbroncoguy
03-18-2013, 10:16 AM
I am probably the only one that is okay with this rule. Every rule over the last ten years it seems has been designed to aid the offense. The rule was ridiculous to give to the defense and creates an unfair advantage for the offense or ballcarrier. Adding this rule would be fair, and finally give a win to the defense.

one_bad_55
03-18-2013, 10:46 AM
This rule is stupid, just like the other rules they have changed, end of story. I am so sick of our society blaming everyone else for decisions we make. These players know they could get hurt and yet they sign the contract to make millions of dollars they would never make anywhere else and then want to blame someone else if they get hurt.

With this thinking pretty soon you will not be able to buy alcohol because it kills your liver or you could kill someone by being intoxicated. Or you will not be able to drive a car because you could hurt someone. For Pete's sake these morons actually think these rules prevent people from getting hurt. You can get a concussion from falling and hitting your head on the ground.

Instead of changing the rules they just need to make the players sign a release form saying they understand and accept the fact that they could get hurt. By signing this piece of paper we are going to pay you 1000-5000 times more money than what you could make anywhere else so you waive your right to sue the NFL and its affiliates. If you are worried about injuries you should stick some money away for your health benefits or DO NOT PLAY THE GAME.

These players are given everything from a free education and make more money in a year than most of us will see in a lifetime. Then they want to SUE EVERYBODY because they got hurt in a game that is violent and that they CHOSE to play.

This is turning into a whimps league played by lawyers in the background.

I know I am getting pretty darn frustrated with these stupid rule changes. The players need to accept the fact that they could get hurt and it is not the NFL's fault.

thenewera44
03-18-2013, 01:24 PM
I am probably the only one that is okay with this rule. Every rule over the last ten years it seems has been designed to aid the offense. The rule was ridiculous to give to the defense and creates an unfair advantage for the offense or ballcarrier. Adding this rule would be fair, and finally give a win to the defense.

Have you ever played the game?

Your comment makes it seem like you have never played it at all.

A RB cannot run with his head UP.

He could literally die.

Like I said. If this league was interested at all in making the game safer, they would make it tougher for teams to pass the ball. Bring the league back to pre-1978 rules.

There will still be passing, but it will not be as easy.

The collisions that cause the most problems are the DBs that launch into WRs. It is no coincidence that incidence of concussions have raised since it has been easier and easier to pass the ball.

You cannot ask the RBs to run with out lowering their heads. They will be utterly confused. Running upright is the best way to get yourself killed in football.

Literally killed.

Oh btw. The notion of them ever making it harder to pass is absurd. It does show the league really does not care about safety. They care about perception and ambiguous rules so they can make an excuse to fine the players under the guise of safety.

nickmeyer
03-18-2013, 02:22 PM
Player safety lol this is football if you want to be safe play another sport. To many judgement calls already control the out come of games now another?

akbroncoguy
03-18-2013, 04:46 PM
Have you ever played the game?

Your comment makes it seem like you have never played it at all.

A RB cannot run with his head UP.

He could literally die.

Like I said. If this league was interested at all in making the game safer, they would make it tougher for teams to pass the ball. Bring the league back to pre-1978 rules.

There will still be passing, but it will not be as easy.

The collisions that cause the most problems are the DBs that launch into WRs. It is no coincidence that incidence of concussions have raised since it has been easier and easier to pass the ball.

You cannot ask the RBs to run with out lowering their heads. They will be utterly confused. Running upright is the best way to get yourself killed in football.

Literally killed.

Oh btw. The notion of them ever making it harder to pass is absurd. It does show the league really does not care about safety. They care about perception and ambiguous rules so they can make an excuse to fine the players under the guise of safety.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! I played the game for 10 years including JC. Mainly on offense as well. And as for your 'a runningback has to lower their head'.... that is unbelievably wrong. The physical bruiserbacks don't spear people with their helmet as much as they lower the shoulder or brace with a forearm. that is dangerous, and insanely more dangerous to the spinal column especially to the atlas and axis vertebrae. Or C1 and C2 vertebrae. Or still for those that need it the two uppermost bones in your neck. And this is taught at every level of football. You look up at contact so your head gets pushed back, brutally, but does not compound on the spinal column.

Now that your anatomy lesson is over.

In specific to your post it doesn't say run upright. It says the top of the helmet. You are participating in reductio ad absurdum. Debates are better served without it. "he could literally die" Actually you are more likely to die from a snapped spinal column than a concussion.

As for my side in this. I am only pointing out that safety rules have pretty much been extensively defensive and so far have been biased. This rule would be unbiased as now DEFENSIVE AND OFFENSIVE players have to be aware of the head, not just the defense. With the direction of the nfl, which unfortunately I have no control over I am sorry, this is in the right direction and have the rules distributed more evenly.

I do however disagree with the overall direction of the league and believe that these instances are contributing to the softness of our nation. Carpeters make $40,000 a year and are payed to destroy their knees. Drywallers make about the same and are payed to destroy their shoulders. NFL players are payed millions of dollars to destroy their bodies just like any other labor intensive career.

akbroncoguy
03-18-2013, 04:52 PM
It's good on the surface for player safety and whatnot, but honestly it's just another way for refs to control the game. They already determined the outcome of about every game last year, now they have another tool.

I was thinking about this last year. LOL. The NBA got caught allowing star players extra fouls a while ago. Then when R. Good. is in the stands we go on our biggest penalty spree of the year against Ray Lewis. The penalties calmed down after a while. And we screwed ourselves the last bit in the game. But if it weren't for the horrid calls the ravens wouldn't have been in the game. I am beginning to listen to people's conspiracy theories about how some games are fixed, or at least partially staged. It happened in the NBA, it could happen here.

fallforward3y+
03-18-2013, 05:02 PM
I will boycott the NFL and refuse to wear gear, visit NFL sites, or take place in anything related to the NFL. They are systematically ruining the NFL, and if that rule is passed, im done. I have loved the game of football since I was a toddler, religiously followed the game, and spent countless dollars on merchandise. I will no longer follow or support the NFL if this rule is passed.

Football is an integral part of my life, and I will no longer stand for the systematic depletion of the game. Period. Firstly, they make hitting the QB impossible. Then, they ban helmet to helmet hits on a defensiveness Receivers. They are truly ruining the game.

If you cannot handle the long term affects of the game, DONT PLAY. PERIOD. These are GROWN men playing a CHILDS game for millions of dollars. If you cant handle the repercussions of the game, dont play. Period.

Drug addicts know that if they do drugs, they will eventually die. But still do the drugs because they love the rush and feeling it gives them. They understand the affects, and do it anyways. Same rules apply to sports, except theyre getting paid a kings ransom. People need to realize that the NFL is a game and the game is going to be RUINED by Lawyers and People whom have NEVER PLAYED THE GAME.

/rant

sorry folks

Don't apologize, I appreciate your rant. Though I don't have a problem with rules for defenseless receivers, this rule as well as the NFL's agenda is terrible.

If it was 2 kinds of football, one league for hitting/tackling style football and the other for new age football crap then I would be fine with it, do what you want. But the problem is, that as the latter grows, real football does not have a league of its own to stay alive in, it is simply dying.

I propose someone start their own league for high level REAL football, it would be best for everyone.

If you think about it, it already went way down from what real football should be..The game is supposed to be oriented around tackling, it is what makes it football.......BUT, today a good cover safety that can't tackle could be considered a star..whereas a good tackling safety that can't cover will be lucky to even get drafted, and if they do will soon be in the CFL or UFL...Quarterbacks are ENCOURAGED to slide, QBs that play like real men are criticized...think about how messed up that is in FOOTBALL.

I also agree this is stupid, that lawyers, lawmakers and "concerned citizens" who have never played the game are ruining it. First of all, it is a player's choice whether or not they want to play..it is possible they will get hurt, it is also possible they won't it's a risk they take on their own choice. That alone is enough for it to not be a problem.....If all you have to do to avoid something is choose not to do it, then there's no problem.............This is really just another form of a stupid mentality people have........people act all holier than thou like they want to be heroes, and they are making it so people can't even take responsibility for their own choices

These people don't even do any research or thinking about the subject, to realize what actually causes the football injuries...or to look and find out ways that players could avoid them, because there are ways for players to minimize the risk of injury while still being contact oriented players, and playing at a high level.

fallforward3y+
03-18-2013, 05:12 PM
I was thinking about this last year. LOL. The NBA got caught allowing star players extra fouls a while ago. Then when R. Good. is in the stands we go on our biggest penalty spree of the year against Ray Lewis. The penalties calmed down after a while. And we screwed ourselves the last bit in the game. But if it weren't for the horrid calls the ravens wouldn't have been in the game. I am beginning to listen to people's conspiracy theories about how some games are fixed, or at least partially staged. It happened in the NBA, it could happen here.

I wouldn't say that its games being fixed, I think that sometimes refs try and help out a team sometimes. I don't think the outcome is rigged, a team could if they were that much better than the other team still win a game despite the calls. Also, I am certain that the players going against each other are really trying to win their matchups as I highly doubt that is staged and that each team is trying to win.

I however do think, as it is obvious after Superbowl 40 that sometimes refs help out a team. They did an awful job hiding it though...does anybody remember the "illegal block below the waste" call on Matt Hasselback? He made a tackle on Ike Taylor running back a pick on that play..how do you call an illegal block on somebody for making a tackle? That was an absolute atrocity, and really stupid by the NFL.

I guess they counted that people would just ignore it and have the "no excuses" mentality about it they always do. Still though, I can't believe they risked that. It was only 15 more yards off of a pick anyway, so why do something that shows such obvious bias?

BroncoBreeder
03-18-2013, 05:14 PM
Maybe Elway can throw in a new fax machine or a toaster to sweeten the deal.

akbroncoguy
03-18-2013, 05:33 PM
I wouldn't say that its games being fixed, I think that sometimes refs try and help out a team sometimes. I don't think the outcome is rigged, a team could if they were that much better than the other team still win a game despite the calls. Also, I am certain that the players going against each other are really trying to win their matchups as I highly doubt that is staged and that each team is trying to win.

I however do think, as it is obvious after Superbowl 40 that sometimes refs help out a team. They did an awful job hiding it though...does anybody remember the "illegal block below the waste" call on Matt Hasselback? He made a tackle on Ike Taylor running back a pick on that play..how do you call an illegal block on somebody for making a tackle? That was an absolute atrocity, and really stupid by the NFL.

I guess they counted that people would just ignore it and have the "no excuses" mentality about it they always do. Still though, I can't believe they risked that. It was only 15 more yards off of a pick anyway, so why do something that shows such obvious bias?

I picked bad words. But yes the refs definitely help one team out. And the pushoff call in sb XL, lol. which could have gone either way, but guess which way it went. hahaha.

fallforward3y+
03-18-2013, 05:36 PM
Have you ever played the game?

Your comment makes it seem like you have never played it at all.

A RB cannot run with his head UP.

He could literally die.

Like I said. If this league was interested at all in making the game safer, they would make it tougher for teams to pass the ball. Bring the league back to pre-1978 rules.

There will still be passing, but it will not be as easy.

The collisions that cause the most problems are the DBs that launch into WRs. It is no coincidence that incidence of concussions have raised since it has been easier and easier to pass the ball.

You cannot ask the RBs to run with out lowering their heads. They will be utterly confused. Running upright is the best way to get yourself killed in football.

Literally killed.

Oh btw. The notion of them ever making it harder to pass is absurd. It does show the league really does not care about safety. They care about perception and ambiguous rules so they can make an excuse to fine the players under the guise of safety.

Yeah, your absolutely right and I'm glad someone is bringing this up. The most injuries happen from DBs launching at WRs, and those hits are the most dangerous. Why, because a player has their body completely upright when they are hit, and fully open for full punishment.

I have played football as well, and will play semi pro in April. Because of this, I know that lowering your head when running is essential to falling forward through a good tackle, and it also is essential to your protection. If you don't lower your head and lean forward your body takes much more of a blow, and your head can get crushed by the tackler's body. If you don't lean forward and lower your head then it makes it easy for the tackler to get his head across your body and drive you back.

We would do one on one tackling drills, I would lean forward lower my head when I took on contact and be able to do a move to fall forward...on a few occasions I would mess up and not lower my head..and our helmets crashed into eachother....thankfully, when that happened there was no concussion for either of us.

However, that was only a couple of times...Imagine a ball carrier who gets 20 carries a game...concussion is almost guaranteed, that or they would get so severely beaten from their body being upright and taking the full blow that they wouldn't be able to finish the game.

fallforward3y+
03-18-2013, 05:50 PM
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! I played the game for 10 years including JC. Mainly on offense as well. And as for your 'a runningback has to lower their head'.... that is unbelievably wrong. The physical bruiserbacks don't spear people with their helmet as much as they lower the shoulder or brace with a forearm. that is dangerous, and insanely more dangerous to the spinal column especially to the atlas and axis vertebrae. Or C1 and C2 vertebrae. Or still for those that need it the two uppermost bones in your neck. And this is taught at every level of football. You look up at contact so your head gets pushed back, brutally, but does not compound on the spinal column.

Now that your anatomy lesson is over.

In specific to your post it doesn't say run upright. It says the top of the helmet. You are participating in reductio ad absurdum. Debates are better served without it. "he could literally die" Actually you are more likely to die from a snapped spinal column than a concussion.

As for my side in this. I am only pointing out that safety rules have pretty much been extensively defensive and so far have been biased. This rule would be unbiased as now DEFENSIVE AND OFFENSIVE players have to be aware of the head, not just the defense. With the direction of the nfl, which unfortunately I have no control over I am sorry, this is in the right direction and have the rules distributed more evenly.

I do however disagree with the overall direction of the league and believe that these instances are contributing to the softness of our nation. Carpeters make $40,000 a year and are payed to destroy their knees. Drywallers make about the same and are payed to destroy their shoulders. NFL players are payed millions of dollars to destroy their bodies just like any other labor intensive career.

Atleast you disagree with the direction it is going, but the rule is still dumb. Nobody is saying a ball carrier should lower their head INTO a defender..they lower their shoulder, but their head also lowers with it..they get their head to the side of the defender when they lower it.

The reason why the rule is objected to is because it is clearly the start of them trying to make it harder on RBs to make yards. Soon it will be no lowering your head at all if this gets passed. No back ever actually tries to lower their head INTO a defender anyway, if it happens its by accident and shouldn't be fined..so there is no use making the rule. But it could lead to backs worrying about the rule and being reluctant to lower their head.

This does not fix any kind off offense/defense bias..because its not really about offense vs defense...its about contact vs passing....they want to get rid of the days when it was about tackling, ball carrying...and make it all about the pass now, and the big play and yes they are biased towards the PASS offense, but not the run offense. They want to create a game full of big plays and shootouts, where the only defense is interceptions(aka other big plays)They may be hoping it cons people into thinking they are trying to even it out.

Like the guy you quoted said, the most likely places to get hurt are in the passing game. Guys are getting hit when they can't drop their shoulder and protect themselves, and are hitting each other from longer distances to build momentum. If you want to reduce injury ironically it would be better if it was more of a run centered league.

fallforward3y+
03-18-2013, 05:54 PM
I picked bad words. But yes the refs definitely help one team out. And the pushoff call in sb XL, lol. which could have gone either way, but guess which way it went. hahaha.

Indeed, and I really don't understand why people won't admit that those types of calls impact the game. I mean I get that its stupid to pick at every little call like a missed hold, offsides or whatever and say your team should have won, but when it comes to major calls they impact the game. I hate it when fans say you have to overcome that..it's so easy to say when your the benefitiary of the call. Games are often close, may come down to a few plays...why do you have to be able to beat the team despite the refs aiding them..why don't they just get it right and see who wins in a fair game......the difference in a game should not be a call

On plays with major impact, get it right.

fallforward3y+
03-18-2013, 06:14 PM
This rule is stupid, just like the other rules they have changed, end of story. I am so sick of our society blaming everyone else for decisions we make. These players know they could get hurt and yet they sign the contract to make millions of dollars they would never make anywhere else and then want to blame someone else if they get hurt.

With this thinking pretty soon you will not be able to buy alcohol because it kills your liver or you could kill someone by being intoxicated. Or you will not be able to drive a car because you could hurt someone. For Pete's sake these morons actually think these rules prevent people from getting hurt. You can get a concussion from falling and hitting your head on the ground.

Instead of changing the rules they just need to make the players sign a release form saying they understand and accept the fact that they could get hurt. By signing this piece of paper we are going to pay you 1000-5000 times more money than what you could make anywhere else so you waive your right to sue the NFL and its affiliates. If you are worried about injuries you should stick some money away for your health benefits or DO NOT PLAY THE GAME.

These players are given everything from a free education and make more money in a year than most of us will see in a lifetime. Then they want to SUE EVERYBODY because they got hurt in a game that is violent and that they CHOSE to play.

This is turning into a whimps league played by lawyers in the background.

I know I am getting pretty darn frustrated with these stupid rule changes. The players need to accept the fact that they could get hurt and it is not the NFL's fault.

Another great point, I agree that it is actually a part of a pathetic mentality society has as I mentioned earlier. People in general act like they need to change things to protect people from their own decisions, like we're all stupid and can't even make a risk/reward analysis. Do they think that it makes them heroes or something? They actually have a law against selling big soda in New York, what a waste of time. You can choose not to buy the big soda, you can choose not to buy it everyday so you don't get fat overtime its a PERSONAL CHOICE. Not to mention it's not even practical because someone could easily just get 3-4 refills and have more soda than a big size cup.

These morons waste time protecting people from their own choices "problems" that they shouldn't bother to 'fix" in the first place, and take measures that don't even accomplish their agenda.

It is strongly on the players that sue the NFL, and on the lawyers who take their cases. They should be shunned and disliked by other players, due to their role in this.

As for the NFL making a contract that says they can't sue, in that regard I don't blame them. In a system full of loopholes, and skumbag attorneys who find them it's almost impossible to make something full proof. We have lawyers who specialize in "eating pre-numps for breakfast".

The only way to make this go away is to fight it, and have nothing but animosity and contempt for those who are a part of the anti-football stigma.

It's stupid too because football is targeted more than boxing, when boxing has a much higher risk of injury and even death. There is little you can do to prevent risks in boxing, but even with that it's still a choice and not a problem. Perhaps I've said too much, I don't want to start a war against another sport.

one_bad_55
03-18-2013, 06:45 PM
Indeed, and I really don't understand why people won't admit that those types of calls impact the game. I mean I get that its stupid to pick at every little call like a missed hold, offsides or whatever and say your team should have won, but when it comes to major calls they impact the game. I hate it when fans say you have to overcome that..it's so easy to say when your the benefitiary of the call. Games are often close, may come down to a few plays...why do you have to be able to beat the team despite the refs aiding them..why don't they just get it right and see who wins in a fair game......the difference in a game should not be a call

On plays with major impact, get it right.

These calls have really become a problem since the cap era where the whole idea is that all teams are pretty much created equal and when you have refs swaying calls it definitely effects the out come of these games more now than ever before.

With the video technology we have there is no reason that these calls can not be checked. My biggest complaints about the refs are the inconsistency in the calls they make and don't make. Make calls all day on one team and ignore them on the other.

one_bad_55
03-18-2013, 06:57 PM
Runners do not lower their head to make contact with it other than to brace themselves and use their shoulders to try and get additional yards. The problem with these rules is your head is attached to your shoulders and when you use your shoulders chances are you are going to make contact with your helmet.

There have been so many bad calls this past year against defensive players for helmet to helmet hits when that is not the first place of contact but because your head is attached to your shoulders it also hits the player.

They need to quit trying to make the game safer and just have the players sign waivers.

fallforward3y+
03-18-2013, 07:17 PM
These calls have really become a problem since the cap era where the whole idea is that all teams are pretty much created equal and when you have refs swaying calls it definitely effects the out come of these games more now than ever before.

With the video technology we have there is no reason that these calls can not be checked. My biggest complaints about the refs are the inconsistency in the calls they make and don't make. Make calls all day on one team and ignore them on the other.

Yeah, and when people bring them up people think they are just being bitter fans. But, sometimes a bitter fan is right, and sometimes your team really was screwed. Your right, the worst kinds of calls are the ones that they just pick and choose when to call and when not to. If a team is on a GW drive attempt, there is a hit where helmets hit each other. They can decide whether or not to aide that team another 15 yards or not. All rules have to be consistently called or ignored for the game to be fair.

fallforward3y+
03-18-2013, 07:34 PM
Runners do not lower their head to make contact with it other than to brace themselves and use their shoulders to try and get additional yards. The problem with these rules is your head is attached to your shoulders and when you use your shoulders chances are you are going to make contact with your helmet.

There have been so many bad calls this past year against defensive players for helmet to helmet hits when that is not the first place of contact but because your head is attached to your shoulders it also hits the player.

They need to quit trying to make the game safer and just have the players sign waivers.

Generally they try and drop their shoulders, but get their head to the side but sometimes contact will happen incidentally. That is why this rule goes far in the wrong direction.

Your right, just have them sign waivers. SOME safety rules are fine with me, but this goes way too far. We can't have rules that effect what is done in a ball carrier running vs a tackler situation..we have to keep high level play in that aspect a part of the game. If your going to make rules, make sure they don't hurt the game..and actually help w/safety. Rules to protect a receiver who isn't running yet and can't do anything to protect himself aren't bad, but you have to be consistent, call it or don't. Also, have the guts to dish out a real punishment and stop acting like fines are going to make anybody care. They just want money from fines, otherwise they'd give out suspensions. If I made that kind of money I wouldn't bother appealing, and would just pay it so I don't have to get up early for a hearing about it.

These morons are either really blind to what is going on, or they expect us to be so they can get away with what they're doing. The more its a passing league, the more the dangerous hits happen. The more rules to favor the passing game get made, the more it becomes one. If you don't give a punishment that the players care about, they won't follow the rules.

one_bad_55
03-19-2013, 01:42 PM
Yeah, and when people bring them up people think they are just being bitter fans. But, sometimes a bitter fan is right, and sometimes your team really was screwed. Your right, the worst kinds of calls are the ones that they just pick and choose when to call and when not to. If a team is on a GW drive attempt, there is a hit where helmets hit each other. They can decide whether or not to aide that team another 15 yards or not. All rules have to be consistently called or ignored for the game to be fair.

I am still pissed about the Ravens game. I may never get over it. :rockon:

Freyaka
03-20-2013, 07:27 AM
I am still pissed about the Ravens game. I may never get over it. :rockon:

You won't....I'm still not over our playoff loss to the steelers with Plummer at the helm... Another ring or two might lessen the pain but I'll still always hate the steelers...

thenewera44
03-20-2013, 10:11 AM
You won't....I'm still not over our playoff loss to the steelers with Plummer at the helm... Another ring or two might lessen the pain but I'll still always hate the steelers...

Really was not Plummer's fault. I mean the Steelers defense was pretty good. Cannot expect for the QB not to have some struggles against that.

What lost that game were the huge number of 3rd and long conversions from Roethlisberger.

He converted 10 3rd downs. The Steelers only averaged 2.2 yards per carry in that game rushing. They did not rush at all, and they were faced with a number of 3rd and longs. He was 6 of 7 on critical third down conversions in the first half.

Meaning 3rd and 8 or more. Cedric Wilson of all people picked Foxworth and Champ apart really.

Once the Broncos were down 24-3, their strength was taken away from them. The running game, and play action pass, which was what Plummer thrived on.


The defense and not stopping the 3rd down conversions crushed us.

BroncoFanNC
03-20-2013, 11:03 AM
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view6/4476786/bernard-pollard-ridley-o.gif

I thought you guys said lowering your head was an awesome way to prevent injury?

fallforward3y+
03-20-2013, 02:09 PM
I said lowering it AWAY from defenders was..lowering your BODY is how you can keep from getting hurt...but yeah, if you lower it INTO a defender you will likely get hurt.

But you have to lower your shoulder when you get hit, for effective running and safety..and with it, your head will lower.....just get your head to the side..getting your head to the tackler's outside is much more effective anyway.

The problem with the rule is that incidental contact could happen for whatever reason, and it could make backs worry about the rule and not run as well..........also, that it is unlikely this is the end of the path the NFL is going down...new and worse rules will likely get passed, and put an end to all good 1 on 1s between ball carriers/tacklers and the end of real football

thenewera44
03-20-2013, 02:33 PM
Is there any way to lower your shoulder, with out lowering your head, with out exposing your neck?

thenewera44
03-20-2013, 02:38 PM
For those of you that ever played football, did your coaches teach you that you need to get lower than the other player in order to get the proper leverage?


You know, it would help if the people making rules, played the game.


By forcing players (RBs) to play more upright, there will be a neck broken.

I hope at that point a lawsuit is sought, and I hope Goodell has to personally pay out of his own pocket.

fallforward3y+
03-21-2013, 12:58 AM
After they analyzed it out in NFL Live, I apparently like many others don't think the rule itself is quite so bad anymore...mainly since it only applies out in open space. In space, a back is usually running at an angle...they still are allowed to run low, just no leading with their helmet...If your running at an angle, you will fall forward for more yards if you can get your head to the outside of the tackler, away from their body

As long as you can still lean forward as you take on contact and get low, you can still run well..and the rule will have little effect. However, there is the concern about incidental contact with the helmet. If it happens for whatever reason, incidental shouldn't be called, but something tells me they will still call it if they want to.

It's mainly a concern because of what I fear it will turn into, if it stays as it is though it won't be a big problem. I overreacted a bit. With the direction that the NFL is going, I panicked and assumed the worst as did many(which I can blame NO ONE for)

If they take away leaning forward when you take on contact, that will be the end of me watching NFL Football. Good ball carrying/good tackling is my favorite part of football as a fan and player...football w/o it is not football.

thenewera44
03-21-2013, 07:17 AM
After they analyzed it out in NFL Live, I apparently like many others don't think the rule itself is quite so bad anymore...mainly since it only applies out in open space. In space, a back is usually running at an angle...they still are allowed to run low, just no leading with their helmet...If your running at an angle, you will fall forward for more yards if you can get your head to the outside of the tackler, away from their body

As long as you can still lean forward as you take on contact and get low, you can still run well..and the rule will have little effect. However, there is the concern about incidental contact with the helmet. If it happens for whatever reason, incidental shouldn't be called, but something tells me they will still call it if they want to.

It's mainly a concern because of what I fear it will turn into, if it stays as it is though it won't be a big problem. I overreacted a bit. With the direction that the NFL is going, I panicked and assumed the worst as did many(which I can blame NO ONE for)

If they take away leaning forward when you take on contact, that will be the end of me watching NFL Football. Good ball carrying/good tackling is my favorite part of football as a fan and player...football w/o it is not football.

Yeah, if it was a cut and dry interpretation that may all be fine and good. However, there is too much subjectivity on the part of the ref to make calls in real time, which are fractions of a second.

There is simply too much ambiguity in it. The refs are being asked to do too much. They are becoming too much of part of the game. We cannot even cheer on incomplete passes as it is right now cause most of us are expecting to see the yellow handke being tossed. When it is not, and it our team that is on defense, we are relieved and to a degree surprised.

The refs right now need to identify holding, off sides, hands to the facemask, and things that are very cut and dry. Now they being asked to identify whether or not the head was lowered beyond the 3 yard buffer?


Wait until a a Broncos RB gets a first down after fighting for it, and he is called for a 15 yarder and instead of the first down, it is 2nd and 25 or 3rd and 18.


The game has become ridiculous and anyone not seeing the built in problems are really kidding themselves.


The game is being incrementally changed each year. Love to see the 20 year plan on what the game is being steered to, but if the country exists with in 20 years, football will be gone.

Of course, I am thinking they ought to ban any profession that is detrimental to a person's long term health if they are going to ban football. Cause there are a lot of hobbies and or professions that are very dangerous. Many that are very detrimental to persons long term health. I guess when the lawyers are done feeding off of the carcass of football and it has been all picked clean they will move on to the next thing.

I blame lawyers and greed.

fallforward3y+
03-21-2013, 05:23 PM
Yeah, if it was a cut and dry interpretation that may all be fine and good. However, there is too much subjectivity on the part of the ref to make calls in real time, which are fractions of a second.

There is simply too much ambiguity in it. The refs are being asked to do too much. They are becoming too much of part of the game. We cannot even cheer on incomplete passes as it is right now cause most of us are expecting to see the yellow handke being tossed. When it is not, and it our team that is on defense, we are relieved and to a degree surprised.

The refs right now need to identify holding, off sides, hands to the facemask, and things that are very cut and dry. Now they being asked to identify whether or not the head was lowered beyond the 3 yard buffer?


Wait until a a Broncos RB gets a first down after fighting for it, and he is called for a 15 yarder and instead of the first down, it is 2nd and 25 or 3rd and 18.


The game has become ridiculous and anyone not seeing the built in problems are really kidding themselves.


The game is being incrementally changed each year. Love to see the 20 year plan on what the game is being steered to, but if the country exists with in 20 years, football will be gone.

Of course, I am thinking they ought to ban any profession that is detrimental to a person's long term health if they are going to ban football. Cause there are a lot of hobbies and or professions that are very dangerous. Many that are very detrimental to persons long term health. I guess when the lawyers are done feeding off of the carcass of football and it has been all picked clean they will move on to the next thing.

I blame lawyers and greed.

There's actually a legislator in Illinois trying to pass a law limiting the hitting done in high school practice, if it gets passed it could spread and maybe turn into no hitting at all in practice, I've heard it suggested as a good solution as well. This would be very bad for that aspect of the game for several reasons 1-you have to practice tackling/running against tackling or your skills will go down 2-if you don't have hitting, how do you ever figure out who can tackle and who to start 3-it isn't fair to people who come to practice but don't start, they should get to tackle as well and if they don't want to then they should GTFO its football! lol 4-how can anyone try and move up to get better without being able to practice

It all leads to low quality of skill in running/tackling...they can't practice to get better or stay good at it, and players won't get put on the field based on those skills...it leads to making running irrelevant in the game.

fallforward3y+
03-21-2013, 05:29 PM
I pretty much blame it on everyone involved...lawyers who as you said feed off the carcass of the game for money, not caring if it's ruined. Players who sue are to blame as well, as well as families. People heading the NFL as well, who are trying to make it a pass obsessed league, anyone trying to make laws about it.

The ruining of the game is a collection of the faults of many.

one_bad_55
03-22-2013, 10:58 AM
It is these rules of interpretation/judgement that are going to ruin the game. Look at all the horrible calls last year where a defenders were fined and the league didn't even look at the plays to see if they were warranted. Yes there were some calls that were good but some of them I thought were absolute crap.

The league right now is saving up money for the concussion lawsuit and they are making the players pay for it. Like last year where they overturned a suspension in lieu of a fine so they could get money from the player. Granted the player made out better because he didn't lose 3 games pay but he still had to pay $50,000.00 fine.

The league says they are making these changes for player safety but in reality it is an effort to try and remove liability so they can say they did everything they could to make the game safe. The problem with this thinking is the game isn't safe and these players need to come to the realization that they could get hurt. If they want to play a safe game maybe they should try Texas Hold-em or some other non contact sport.

one_bad_55
03-22-2013, 11:00 AM
What is up with the boards today. Super slow and double post every response.

fallforward3y+
03-22-2013, 11:39 PM
It is these rules of interpretation/judgement that are going to ruin the game. Look at all the horrible calls last year where a defenders were fined and the league didn't even look at the plays to see if they were warranted. Yes there were some calls that were good but some of them I thought were absolute crap.

The league right now is saving up money for the concussion lawsuit and they are making the players pay for it. Like last year where they overturned a suspension in lieu of a fine so they could get money from the player. Granted the player made out better because he didn't lose 3 games pay but he still had to pay $50,000.00 fine.

The league says they are making these changes for player safety but in reality it is an effort to try and remove liability so they can say they did everything they could to make the game safe. The problem with this thinking is the game isn't safe and these players need to come to the realization that they could get hurt. If they want to play a safe game maybe they should try Texas Hold-em or some other non contact sport.

That's why it will never work, because the game isn't totally safe. Players can play smart with certain tactics and still have it be a high level contact oriented game, but it will never be 100 percent safe, if that's what you want then don't play football your right.

The rules will never work, their general passing agenda is counter productive to safety and their failure will continue to allow them to make new rules and more times they can fine a player.

A lot of blame to go around, it's about a league that could more than afford to pay for a lawsuit and has truckloads of money ruining the game slowly because of money agendas, as well as a society that allows someone to sue a league because they got hurt, knowing full well that it was dangerous. As long as we continue to think that people aren't accountable for their own choices, the freedom of others will be restricted and things will be ruined.

Unless a player was FORCED to play injured or something like that, then they should not be allowed to sue.

Charlie Brown
03-26-2013, 11:34 AM
This new rule is proof that the NFL wants to see Cleveland fail. This rule is the Trent Richardson Rule. The reason this rule came into existence is because of the hit that Richardson did against the Eagles. It can be viewed here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRXrQ6dkf74

The NFL wants to see Richardson fail. Because of his running style this takes away what was supposed to be the Browns premier player. The NFL wants to see the running game fail. Talk about an all-pass league.

BroncoFanBoy
03-26-2013, 12:09 PM
This new rule is proof that the NFL wants to see Cleveland fail. This rule is the Trent Richardson Rule. The reason this rule came into existence is because of the hit that Richardson did against the Eagles. It can be viewed here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRXrQ6dkf74

The NFL wants to see Richardson fail. Because of his running style this takes away what was supposed to be the Browns premier player. The NFL wants to see the running game fail. Talk about an all-pass league.

Things like this are why I can't stand Goodell.

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/c0.0.401.401/p403x403/166716_440566156018348_195966429_n.jpg

Charlie Brown
03-26-2013, 12:13 PM
LINK (http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/03/21/browns-trent-richardson-crown-of-helmet-rule-nfl/2005017/)

Browns' Trent Richardson blames himself for helmet rule

It's not how he planned it, but Cleveland Browns running back Trent Richardson feels he has changed the NFL forever after only one season.

The league's owners on Wednesday voted 31-1 in favor of a controversial new crown-of-the-helmet rule, and Richardson is taking responsibility for its enactment.

"I feel like I made it bad for all the backs," Richardson told The Plain Dealer. "I feel like it's my fault. ... People keep telling me it's the T-Rich rule. I guess I made history today."

The reason Richardson feels that way is because the NFL's competition committee showed owners his awesome helmet-to-helmet lambasting of the Eagles' Kurt Coleman last season to convince them the rule was necessary to player safety.

Anything similar next season is sure to come with a 15-yard penalty and hefty fine.

"That hit made me a hero with Browns fans, but that was just me playing football," Richardson said. "That hit made history right there, and it was big."

Evidently too big, though Richardson said it was a product of football instincts.

"It just happened," Richardson said. "It was just me and him, and he was trying to hit me. It just comes natural, when you lower your shoulder, your head comes down with it.

"I'm not trying to harm no other players; that's just not me. But I do bring a lot of pain when I run, and I understand where it's coming from. If you ask Bo Jackson, Emmitt Smith, guys like that, the rule is kind of frustrating when it comes to being a running back."

"Most likely I'm going to be the one getting all the fines and all the penalties, because I just know I just can't change the way I play the game ..." Richardson said. "I'll still play me. I'll still play the way I play. ...

"I'm going to try to be as safe as I can, but I'm going to protect myself first. I know there are a lot of runners that feel the way I feel."

Charlie Brown
03-26-2013, 12:18 PM
^
This is why the NFL wants to see the Browns fail. Every time Richardson touches the football and runs, the NFL will force the team back 15.

This will not only make Trent Richardson an expendable player, but it will force the team into passing situations because they are back 15 yards and every subsequent run will force the team back 15 more yards. So, the only way for teams like Cleveland to gain positive yards is through passing the football again, again, and again.

That is the league that the NFL wants. Actually, I should change that to the NPFFL - The National Passing Flag Football League.

#87Birdman
03-26-2013, 12:28 PM
This new rule is proof that the NFL wants to see Cleveland fail. This rule is the Trent Richardson Rule. The reason this rule came into existence is because of the hit that Richardson did against the Eagles. It can be viewed here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRXrQ6dkf74

The NFL wants to see Richardson fail. Because of his running style this takes away what was supposed to be the Browns premier player. The NFL wants to see the running game fail. Talk about an all-pass league.

Just going to play devils adivcate here. But if a defender can't spear aka using the top of his helmet to tackle, why would it be okay for a defender to use the top of his helmet to try to run through someone? He could have still lower his shoulder and kept his eyes looking where he was going instead he dropped his head and his eyes to the ground and speared the defender. Illegal for the defense so why shouldn't it be illegal for the offense?

Charlie Brown
03-26-2013, 12:45 PM
Just going to play devils adivcate here. But if a defender can't spear aka using the top of his helmet to tackle, why would it be okay for a defender to use the top of his helmet to try to run through someone? He could have still lower his shoulder and kept his eyes looking where he was going instead he dropped his head and his eyes to the ground and speared the defender. Illegal for the defense so why shouldn't it be illegal for the offense?

Why is it ok for a team that is desperate to do something, to throw the football as far as they can hoping that the Referees will call a flag?

Shouldn't football be about letting people play football without over-regulating it? Referees determine the outcome of games before the football is even kicked to the other team. Don't believe me? Where is the starting field position at now? Penalty flags are more about what football has become than anything else. People used to allowed to tackle in football. Now? Now it is about "how" you tackle and "who" you tackle. This is especially true of Quarterbacks - who you are never allowed to touch now. Anytime a quarterback gets hit or somebody even THINKS about hitting a quarterback, a flag is thrown. If a quarterback runs with the football, a flag is thrown because somebody tackled him. Anytime Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger or any other big name quarterback is touched - AT ALL by the opposing team, a flag is thrown.

This is literally Flag football. This isn't about who the tougher, stronger player is anymore. This is about what team gets less flags thrown against them.

Now, rushing with the football is a penalty.

#87Birdman
03-26-2013, 01:07 PM
Why is it ok for a team that is desperate to do something, to throw the football as far as they can hoping that the Referees will call a flag?

Shouldn't football be about letting people play football without over-regulating it? Referees determine the outcome of games before the football is even kicked to the other team. Don't believe me? Where is the starting field position at now? Penalty flags are more about what football has become than anything else. People used to allowed to tackle in football. Now? Now it is about "how" you tackle and "who" you tackle. This is especially true of Quarterbacks - who you are never allowed to touch now. Anytime a quarterback gets hit or somebody even THINKS about hitting a quarterback, a flag is thrown. If a quarterback runs with the football, a flag is thrown because somebody tackled him. Anytime Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger or any other big name quarterback is touched - AT ALL by the opposing team, a flag is thrown.

This is literally Flag football. This isn't about who the tougher, stronger player is anymore. This is about what team gets less flags thrown against them.

Now, rushing with the football is a penalty.

Straw man and hyperboles. But I never disagreed that they are taking a lot from this game because everyone is getting greedy and trying to milk the NFL for injuries they received while doing the job. The risk were known when they took the job, and they are still trying to get money out of the NFL. So the NFL is forced to protect them selves till this sue happyness ends.

That rant never did answer the simple question of

Why should an offensive player be allowed to spear while a defensive player isn't?

thenewera44
03-26-2013, 01:19 PM
I wonder how this will be judged from a subjective manner in fractions of a second with out the benefit of replay.

http://thenewsportsguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/StevanRidley_original.gif

#87Birdman
03-26-2013, 01:27 PM
I wonder how this will be judged from a subjective manner in fractions of a second with out the benefit of replay.

http://thenewsportsguru.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/StevanRidley_original.gif

I hope they call that on the offense every time. I'm tired of the D getting the short of the stick on these calls, and there is a reason one was injuried and one wasn't. The RB dropped his eyes to ground and used the top of his head as a battering ram. The defender still had his head and eyes up which is why he didn't get injuried. I just hope it also eliminates defenders getting called for helmet to helmet when a WR drops after catching the ball and gets a blow to the head.

Charlie Brown
03-26-2013, 01:30 PM
Straw man and hyperboles. But I never disagreed that they are taking a lot from this game because everyone is getting greedy and trying to milk the NFL for injuries they received while doing the job. The risk were known when they took the job, and they are still trying to get money out of the NFL. So the NFL is forced to protect them selves till this sue happyness ends.

That rant never did answer the simple question of

Why should an offensive player be allowed to spear while a defensive player isn't?

I did answer it:

The NPFFL should allow defenders to tackle and running backs to plow through defenders. Meaning, they both should be allowed to do it. Just as defenders should be allowed to defend against the pass beyond five yards. Just as quarterbacks should be tackled and sacked. Just as defenders that were already in the air trying to sack a quarterback, should not be penalized for hitting a quarterback after he has thrown the ball. Numerous roughing the passer calls have been called because a player was already lunging at a quarterback that had the football when the player lunged, but by the time he hit the quarterback he no longer had the ball, resulting in pass interference. Once a defender is in the air lunging at a quarterback he cannot magically stop his momentum.

thenewera44
03-26-2013, 02:04 PM
I hope they call that on the offense every time. I'm tired of the D getting the short of the stick on these calls, and there is a reason one was injuried and one wasn't. The RB dropped his eyes to ground and used the top of his head as a battering ram. The defender still had his head and eyes up which is why he didn't get injuried. I just hope it also eliminates defenders getting called for helmet to helmet when a WR drops after catching the ball and gets a blow to the head.

You think a ref will be able to distinguish where their eyes were looking in fractions of second along with trying to see everything else they need to be looking for?

BroncoFanBoy
03-26-2013, 02:08 PM
^
NPFFL - The National Passing Flag Football League.

What a great name for the league.

#87Birdman
03-26-2013, 02:14 PM
You think a ref will be able to distinguish where their eyes were looking in fractions of second along with trying to see everything else they need to be looking for?

A ref should be able to see a RB drop the crown of his head, and if for some reason they can't see that then don't throw a flag because you can't call what you can't see. Now I know they make calls they don't see, but that is why I feel refs need to be full time employees and be held to a consistent standard.

thenewera44
03-26-2013, 02:18 PM
A ref should be able to see a RB drop the crown of his head, and if for some reason they can't see that then don't throw a flag because you can't call what you can't see. Now I know they make calls they don't see, but that is why I feel refs need to be full time employees and be held to a consistent standard.

Full time employees?

You think adding more and more subjective rules in order for them to make ambiguous judgments is not the actual problem?

I hope you are not one of those that believe the game is safer.

Look, at this point I can read the writing on the wall.

Tackle football in this country is on a clock. It is being incrementally abolished.

#87Birdman
03-26-2013, 02:31 PM
Full time employees?

You think adding more and more subjective rules in order for them to make ambiguous judgments is not the actual problem?

I hope you are not one of those that believe the game is safer.

Look, at this point I can read the writing on the wall.

Tackle football in this country is on a clock. It is being incrementally abolished.

No I do not agree with all these rules but former players and the sue happiness is what is bringing to this point. That isn't going to change till the law suit is finish and favors the NFL. But the best thing to do is make the best with what you have. So if that means getting full time employees to make consistent calls so to elminate the gray spots as best as they can so be it.