boyst Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Inside the box. I think this will be misunderstood a lot, discretionary, and the first time it is called it will be noticed. The first time it negates a TD it will be blown up. My only question, I think if I read right - it continues and is called after the play is run - not a dead ball. It should be a dead ball. That would make it more interesting and avoid some of the drama.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Feels like a gradual phasing-out of the game altogether... Pay Roger Goodell to be the bad guy so the owners don't get blamed, and then slowly whittle away at the fanbase. Guess all those lawsuits make the owners position untennable. Wish there were a better way to deal with this... For example, I wouldn't mind paying more for tix and mercahndise, if the cash went to injured players. Doesn't seem fair to ruin the experience to fans who pay good money to see it. For the record, I think the rule is problematic at best and ill-advised and stupid at worst. That said, I enjoyed last year's NFL football every bit as much as any season I have ever watched. There's a lot of bitching and complaining but objectively speaking, the game is not being ruined. It's just as entertaining as it's always been. But people do like complaining about things. That's what drives talk radio, which I don't listen to. The one saving grace of this rule: it's the first safety rule that gives a shred of advantage back to the defense... Besides a variety of blocking rules NoSaint is right. Just a few days ago the NFL outlawed any blocks below the waist from behind regardless of where on the field the block occurred. As far as I'm concerned, blocking in the back should be outlawed. When we were kids we called it clipping. If there are any young players reading this thread, please ignore this horribly stupid piece of uninformed garbage posted by an individual who has demonstrated time and time again that he clearly has no clue what he is talking about. Keep your head up and see your target, just like your coaches are telling you to. Not only will it protect your neck, it will also make you a better tackler. I agree to keep your head up and see your target as a good fundamentals. But if I had a kid playing football, he would be required to wear a neck roll. Football's worst-case scenarios will entertain the possibility of a hyper-extended neck. The NFL is very proud of our actions today. We remain committed to protecting the safety of your favorite players. For me, this never gets old. Edited March 21, 2013 by San Jose Bills Fan
Beerball Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Fred Jackson responds. "I'm just going to set aside some fine money because I know I'll probably get fined a couple of times," Jackson said. "It's hard for a person to change who they are when they're running the football. I like to consider myself a physical back."
Maury Ballstein Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 If Freddy thinks its bad then I am gonna have to defer to him as the expert.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Jeff Fisher, one of the most hardnosed of NFL coaches and a guy who used a battering ram named Eddie George for many years, weighs in: “I think this is a huge victory for the National Football League,” Fisher said. “Here’s how the game should be played: Let’s bring the shoulder back. We’ve lost the shoulder in the game. Let’s bring it back." Fisher said concerns that flags will be thrown any time a running back tries to break a tackle are unfounded. “It’s not going to be over-officiated,” Fisher said. “The key thing here is you can deliver a blow with shoulder, with face, with hairline. It’s just deliberately striking with the crown, the top of the helmet.” Fisher said he understands that players oppose the rule, but he said that everyone who has studied it — from coaches to medical personnel to officials — has agreed that this rule needs to be passed. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/20/jeff-fisher-calls-helmet-rule-a-huge-victory-for-the-nfl/ Anyways it's interesting that the rule passed almost unanimously.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 At this rate, 20 years from now the nfl will just be a punt pass and kick competition. . I can't imagine any rb bing happy abou this one.
NFLBighits Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Just there way of controlling the game and it will be up to the refs which is BS because the Nfl can manipulate the game !
Saint Doug Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 This just in, RB head rule will not apply to Stevan Ridley.
HankBulloughMellencamp Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Fred Jackson responds. I am just really against this whole Roger Goodell-acting-like-he-cares-about-player-safety thing when we know he only cares about: 1. making $$$ wherever possible (3-day draft, weekly Thurs Night Football, etc), & 2. protecting the shield against lawsuits by pretending to care about player safety in the form of new nebulous rules and after-the-fact fines levied for helmet-to-helmet hits and then having the audacity to act like the whole 18-game schedule idea was in response to fan concerns about the quality of the pre-season play and does not run counter-intuitive to his lawyer-speak laden safety message Ultimately we all realize 18 games would mean 2 more weeks of top dollar fee$ for TV rights and everything associated (see rule #1). This dumb RB rule champoined by Mr. Crabs-Goodell now forces hard-charging guys like A.P. and Freddie to go against the grain of what may have gotten them to where they are in the league. And as Steve Tasker always pointed out, if you are not going all-out 100mph out there, you are more likely to get hurt. Edited March 21, 2013 by HankBulloughMellencamp
JPS Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 I dunno what the problem is. As opposed to hitting a defenseless receiver where the refs are to err on the side of throwing the flag, the refs are to err on NOT throwing the flag UNLESS it is obvious the RB is lowering his head INTO a defender. It's really no big deal. You can still dive into a gap and run with power. I think the flag will be thrown about 12 times next season for this infraction.
Wayne Cubed Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 I dunno what the problem is. As opposed to hitting a defenseless receiver where the refs are to err on the side of throwing the flag, the refs are to err on NOT throwing the flag UNLESS it is obvious the RB is lowering his head INTO a defender. It's really no big deal. You can still dive into a gap and run with power. I think the flag will be thrown about 12 times next season for this infraction. I have to agree with this as well. Not sure what the big deal is... As SJBF posted from Jeff Fisher, just lower the shoulder if you want to hit. Turn your shoulder into the hit. The game has gotten to the point where the helmet itself is used as a weapon.
prissythecat Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Guess we won't be seeing plays like this anymore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9y_KZwOq9g Adrian Peterson is not liking this at all. So did Earl Campbell use his helmet or his shoulder to lower the boom there?
26CornerBlitz Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 So did Earl Campbell use his helmet or his shoulder to lower the boom there? Used the Crown like a King of Texas, Pardner.
Mr. WEO Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 I dunno what the problem is. As opposed to hitting a defenseless receiver where the refs are to err on the side of throwing the flag, the refs are to err on NOT throwing the flag UNLESS it is obvious the RB is lowering his head INTO a defender. It's really no big deal. You can still dive into a gap and run with power. I think the flag will be thrown about 12 times next season for this infraction. I agree. This is an off-season massive non-story being blown wildly out of proportion. Players whining about this rule will certainly sign on to any future class action suit against the league for "not caring about player safety", or they will no doubt blame "CTE" for their future decision to snuff their baby momma. Any RB who wishes to use his face or forehead to break a tackle is still welcomed to by the league to do so. Freddy mouthing off about any safety/injury reduction measure is a bit funny--having finished his last 2 seasons on IR. Gotta play to get fined, Fred. Fans who claim this is somehow ruining the game of will still watch as much football as they ever have. It's all just BS... Used the Crown like a King of Texas, Pardner. Actually, he didn't. Used his face/hairline.
26CornerBlitz Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Actually, he didn't. Used his face/hairline. Not to my eyes. Looks like the classic RB lowering the head to weaponize the crown that was just made illegal.
HankBulloughMellencamp Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) I agree. This is an off-season massive non-story being blown wildly out of proportion. Players whining about this rule will certainly sign on to any future class action suit against the league for "not caring about player safety", or they will no doubt blame "CTE" for their future decision to snuff their baby momma. Any RB who wishes to use his face or forehead to break a tackle is still welcomed to by the league to do so. Freddy mouthing off about any safety/injury reduction measure is a bit funny--having finished his last 2 seasons on IR. Gotta play to get fined, Fred. Fans who claim this is somehow ruining the game of will still watch as much football as they ever have. It's all just BS... Freddie mouthing off? He had a broken freakin leg and knee sprain ... who are you, Jack Youngblood? If a humble man like Fred Jackson says that much already, it should be a warning as to the merits of such a grey-area rule. And if the NFL's all-time rushing leader says it's a B.S. rule, fans should take note. Fred and Emmitt have little/nothing to gain by speaking their minds now. The NFL only recently cares about player safety due to public pressure and the mounting concussion-related evidence that they ignored for years. Strzelczyk, Dronett, Duerson, Waters, Seau, Easterling, Murdock, Belcher, the list is getting long. And they have barely even acknowledged the issues faced by many retired players up until maybe a few years ago, mainly for P.R. reasons. Guys like Joe DeLamielleure have always had a legit gripe. Those guys are not after lawsuit cash, as you imply, but in a multi-billion dollar empire, they deserve full healthcare at a minimum. And isn't it touching how Roger goes right to the youth level of football to promote safe tackling ... he's so genuine ... haven't you seen him bear-hug those first round draft picks each April? Just wait until an offense gets backed up 15 yards after a great run at a crucial time on a close interpretation of "leading with the crown" and/or where the "tackle box" actually ends ... I hope it happens in the opening game. This new RB rule might not be called very often, but when it does get called, it will be more ridiculous than the tuck rule ever was. Then again, the tuck rule really did little to promote the image of the NFL's "concern over player safety". Edited March 22, 2013 by HankBulloughMellencamp
Maury Ballstein Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) couple of statements from people who actually play the game. Matt Forte Wow so they really passed that rule...last time I checked football was a contact sport. Calling bank now to set up my lowering the boom fund 6:22 PM - 20 Mar 13 "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." (some are calling it the Trent Richardson rule) Jerome Bettis says NFL’s new helmet rule “makes no sense” “Get your daughters ready,” Jacobs tweeted from his account, @gatorboyrb, “because they'll be playing football soon!!!!! ” Edited March 21, 2013 by Ryan L Billz
JPS Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Not to my eyes. Looks like the classic RB lowering the head to weaponize the crown that was just made illegal. It was the crown. But then again, he only launched Isaiah Robertson, so it might have been a slight breeze.
Mr. WEO Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 Freddie mouthing off? He had a broken freakin leg and knee sprain ... who are you, Jack Youngblood? If a humble man like Fred Jackson says that much already, it should be a warning as to the merits of such a grey-area rule. And if the NFL's all-time rushing leader says it's a B.S. rule, fans should take note. Fred and Emmitt have little/nothing to gain by speaking their minds now. The NFL only recently cares about player safety due to public pressure and the mounting concussion-related evidence that they ignored for years. Strzelczyk, Dronett, Duerson, Waters, Seau, Easterling, Murdock, Belcher, the list is getting long. And they have barely even acknowledged the issues faced by many retired players up until maybe a few weeks ago, mainly for P.R. reasons. Guys like Joe DeLamielleure have always had a legit gripe. Those guys are not after lawsuit cash, as you imply, but in a multi-billion dollar empire, they deserve full healthcare at a minimum. And isn't it touching how Roger goes right to the youth level of football to promote safe tackling ... he's so genuine ... haven't you seen him bear-hug those first round draft picks each April? Just wait until an offense gets backed up 15 yards after a great run at a crucial time on a close interpretation of "leading with the crown" and/or where the "tackle box" actually ends ... I hope it happens in the opening game. This new RB rule might not be called very often, but when it does get called, it will be more ridiculous than the tuck rule ever was. Then again, the tuck rule really did little to promote the image of the NFL's "concern over player safety". Goodell wasn't Commisioner back when Joe D was playing. And now, as the only Commish to do anything about player safety, you fault him for doing soemthing about player safety? And mock him in the process? Who cares what his motivation is at this point? He's doing soemthing none of those before him did--and all we see is how "it's ruining the game". Makes absolutely no sense. You want him to take no steps to impact safety, yet want him to pay lifetime benefits when players in a tough business get old and achey? Goodell and the NFLPA set up a $620 million retirement fund for players from the 60's, 70s and 80s (players before that are almost all covered by Medicare--the best insurance in the world). The benefit is for the lifetime of the player and/or his beneficiary. If the players have a beef--they can take it up with their union, can't they? Anyway--here's what the toughest RB ever had to say about this nonsense: (USA Today) "I'm going to be very honest with you: I didn't use my head," Brown said. "I used my forearm. And the palm of my hand. And my shoulders. And my shoulder pads. I wasn't putting my head into too much of anything. I don't think that sounds like a good idea to me. What is my guarantee that my head is going to be strong enough to hurt somebody else, and not hurt myself?" I'm gonna go with Brown over Freddie on this for obvious reasons. It was the crown. But then again, he only launched Isaiah Robertson, so it might have been a slight breeze. The funny part is the comment "the Rams thought they were facing Tony Dorsett"...ouch--sorry Tony!
San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 21, 2013 Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) couple of statements from people who actually play the game. Matt Forte Wow so they really passed that rule...last time I checked football was a contact sport. Calling bank now to set up my lowering the boom fund 6:22 PM - 20 Mar 13 "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." (some are calling it the Trent Richardson rule) Jerome Bettis says NFL’s new helmet rule “makes no sense” “Get your daughters ready,” Jacobs tweeted from his account, @gatorboyrb, “because they'll be playing football soon!!!!! ” None of the players liked the "hitting a defenseless receiver" rule. Not even the receivers. Almost to a man the receivers said that it was part of football and they accepted it. It was almost like being in favor of the rules made them pussies. None of the players like the fact that the NFL will now enforce the mandatory wearing of hip and knee pads that the officials have been ignoring. However the players should be grateful to the league (whatever the league's motivations) for the numerous initiatives in trying to make NFL football more safe because their own union, the NFLPA rarely makes an issue of player safety. The NFLPA doesn't want to substitute player safety for their primary bargaining chips of asking for more money. Again the players almost never like player safety rules because they're macho guys. If guys on construction sites weren't required to wear hard hats, safety glasses, gloves, work boots and safety vests, believe me, most of them wouldn't. And as WEO, Wayne and others have pointed out, all of us will continue to watch and enjoy NFL football as much as we ever have. It's just that there will be a bit more to complain about for those people who feel the need to complain about things in the world around us. edit: Believe me, some people are gonna say this is an example of "too much government regulation," "big brother looking over our shoulders," etc. Edited March 21, 2013 by San Jose Bills Fan
Recommended Posts