Rule Changes (Tuck Rule gone. RBs can't use crown of helmet)

[HairOnFire]

It was half a dozen plays from the last week of last season, IIRC.

 

 I stand corrected.

[The PatternMaster]

Clark Judge ‏@ClarkJudgeCBS1m

NFL going to encourage officials on field to have conference to make sure they get this call right.

 

 

 

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk3m

Rich McKay says NFL studied Week 10 and Week 16 from 2012; there would have been 11 flags under the new helmet rule during those two weeks.

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk5m

Rich McKay expressed hope that the new helmet rule will trickle down to lower levels of the sport.

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk55s

After hearing the rule explained, it sounds like it will not be as extreme or severe as many initially believed.

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk1m

"We're talking about keeping the head up," Jeff Fisher explains. Runners can protect themselves, just not deliver blow with top of helmet.

Clark Judge ‏@ClarkJudgeCBS53s

New helmet rule a spot foul. Where incident occurred is where yardage marked off.

 

 

Rich McKay really bothers me, for a guy who never played the game he has too much influence on how it's played, imo. He's a joke, imo.

[Bengals1181]

a great example of the type of plays they are targeting.  A good idea IMO.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yDH6x5JW7M

[HairOnFire]

a great example of the type of plays they are targeting.  A good idea IMO.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yDH6x5JW7M

 

I knew which play would be featured even befor I clicked on the link.

 

Might as well call it the Trent Richardson rule.

[scharm]

I was just sitting around thinking what the league needed was more hard to determine rules and if they get it wrong we can sit around for 10 minutes while they watch on video.

[Bengals1181]

Alex Marvez ‏@alexmarvez1m

Funny to hear Eric Dickerson kvetching about helmet rule change when he's part of the class-action concussion lawsuit against the NFL

[Oldcat]

I knew which play would be featured even befor I clicked on the link.

 

Might as well call it the Trent Richardson rule.

 

But that was inside the tackle box, wasn't it?

[Bengals1181]

Jackson wary of new rule for backs

 

 PHOENIX, Ariz. _ Amid an ESPN report that the Bengals were the only team to vote against a new rule that prohibits running backs from using the crown of their helmets outside the tackle box on the final day of the NFL meetings Wednesday, running backs coach Hue Jackson apparently agrees with club president Mike Brown.

"It’s going to be a hard rule to coach," Jackson said Wednesday morning before the vote. "Its how these guys have run since Pop Warner. Using their head and shoulders is all they know. Especially on the goal line and short-yardage."

BenJarvus Green-Ellis, the Bengals' top running back, is the kind of back that Jackson says is going to be impacted heavily by the new rule.

"He's s a power runner. He naturally drops his head and shoulders, drives, and comes out the other side," Jackson said. "That's where the power comes from.  You see the way the best ones break tackles. They do it with their head and shoulders."

Jackson also thinks the new rule means that backs are going to be exposed to injuries in the chest and knee areas.

"It makes it very difficult to protect themselves," he said. "And there'll be more fumbles."

 

http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Jackson-wary-of-new-rule-for-backs/0ce960a8-3456-4040-b25f-6b7af4d1f86a?campaign=cin:fanshare:twitter

 

 

Jackson is certainly not the only one that feels that way. During the media breakfast for the NFC coaches Wednesday morning, Vikings head coach Leslie Frazier raised the concern about exposing backs like his own Adrian Peterson to injury. 

"The little guys aren't going to be tackling the Adrian Petersons of the world up high, I can promise you that." Frazier said. "They're always going to try to get leverage and get their pads lower than his pads. That's what they're taught. From my vantage point, these running backs that have to get their pads down and aren't able to protect themselves, may open up yourself to potentially lower body injuries, or at least shoulder injuries if you start just trying to avoid hits with your shoulder. Time will tell. It seems like it could open up the running backs to other injuries."

Rams head coach Jeff Fisher, co-chairman of the NFL competition committee and a stout believer in the change, said he had a 15-minute conversation with one of his former running backs before heading into Wednesday's news conference to explain the rules changes and where the NFL confrmed the vote.

Eddie George, a prototypical power back, told Fisher he thought the rule would be difficult to enforce and make it hard to play the game. But after the talk, Fisher said George changed his mind.

"We're not going to allow the runner not to protect himself. Or (not) to drop his head to protect himself. It's delivering the blow," Fisher said.

"There's no rule that prevents the runner from using his face mask or the hairline," he said. "What we're talking about is keeping the head up…We've said numerous times about bringing the shoulder back into it."

League officials said they watched every game in two weeks this past season (Week 10 and Week 16) and that it would have been called 11 times and it was about 50-50 between the offense and the defense. It's a 15-yard penalty and a spot foul, so the entire play wouldn't be wiped out on offense.

[Bengals1181]

NFL ‏@nfl4m

WATCH: Competition Committee members explain exactly what counts as an illegal hit under 'crown of helmet' rule http://on.nfl.com/100uBf5 

[Bengals1181]

Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran7m

The 2 most important parts of helmet rule to me are "initiate contact" and "forcible blow." Can officials be consistent in interpretation.

[Bengals1181]

Joe Reedy ‏@joereedy59m

Fisher said he had a conversation with Eddie George who was against it at first. After 15 minute conversation w/Fisher, George changed mind

[HairOnFire]

But that was inside the tackle box, wasn't it?

 

 Not in my opinion. Contact looks to be initiated outside of where Joe Thomas lined up,  as well as a few steps outside of where Thomas moves during the play.

[The PatternMaster]

Alex Marvez ‏@alexmarvez1m

Funny to hear Eric Dickerson kvetching about helmet rule change when he's part of the class-action concussion lawsuit against the NFL

 

This is the main reason for this new rule, the whole thing about player safety is total bullshit...the NFL chews these guys up and spits them out once they feel like they can no longer produce at the level them deem neccessary. The owners want to show the world they are being proactive about player safety even if it means signifigantly changing the game that the fans love. The only thing the owners care about is making more money and keeping it for themselves. If there was no class action lawsuit is this rule wouldn't exist.

 

Besides there are other ways you can improve player safety, like investing in better equipment that prevents injuries...but that would mean the owners would have to spend more money...so yeah, let's just change the game in a way only someone who never played would think it makes sense.

 

How you are going to get a guy who has played one way for his entire life to suddenly play differently during the heat of battle is beyond me....

 

And the officials will screw this up, because that's what they do, especially with new rules that they might not understand.

[Bengals1181]

This is the main reason for this new rule, the whole thing about player safety is total bullshit...the NFL chews these guys up and spits them out once they feel like they can no longer produce at the level them deem neccessary. The owners want to show the world they are being proactive about player safety even if it means signifigantly changing the game that the fans love. The only thing the owners care about is making more money and keeping it for themselves. If there was no class action lawsuit is this rule wouldn't exist.

 

Besides there are other ways you can improve player safety, like investing in better equipment that prevents injuries...but that would mean the owners would have to spend more money...so yeah, let's just change the game in a way only someone who never played would think it makes sense.

 

How you are going to get a guy who has played one way for his entire life to suddenly play differently during the heat of battle is beyond me....

 

And the officials will screw this up, because that's what they do, especially with new rules that they might not understand.

 

 

 

I'm sure players who lie about concussions has nothing to do with this either...

 

 

 

 

There's really nothing wrong with the rule.  All its doing is dissuading runners from deliberately using their helmet as a weapon. 

[Bengals1181]

In an interview Tuesday before the vote, Brown said he was inclined not to vote for it because it has been such a fabric of the game.

"We’re all for safety and make it as safe as we can devise," Brown said. "The issue on this one is hard to measure. Just how much of an impact does it have on safety? There are no statistics in front of us as far as injuries. It makes me wonder if we have properly quantified it to make a decision on it now.

"In the past we have actions that have crept into the game that have been taken out," Brown said. "In the old days we had the clothesline and then the head slap. They crept into the game and then they were removed and it was good. In this case I don’t know if we are talking about anything that has crept into the game at all. It is something football has had as long as I remember.”

Brown is also hesitant to saddle the officials with another instant judgment call, such as with the hits on defenseless receivers.

"I view it as difficult, if not impossible, play to call," Brown said. "We had a lot of this with the secondary plays last year. I didn’t think those calls were always right.

“These plays happen in a flash. They’re just a reaction to people. Did he hit him with his shoulder pad? Did he hit him with his helmet? Was it intended? That’s difficult to sort out. I’m not confident we should add another discretionary call. We’re asking an awful lot of our referees to make those kind of calls. Yet it is counterbalanced by concerns for safety."

The man that Brown thinks is the greatest runner of them all, former Browns running back Jim Brown, said here Monday that he never used his helmet and Mike Brown agreed. He doesn't think any back is purposefully using his head.

“Jim Brown was powerful and had a technique that I have not seen done by others. He would hit people with his shoulder and forearm and then press them down and then fade away from it and would accelerate. He was so strong, had such good balance," Mike Brown said. "He didn’t run into anyone with his helmet. I don’t know that I can identify running backs who are purposely running into people with their helmets. To me they might react and try to protect themselves. They might dive to the goal line or try to get a first down but I don’t see them as a technique looking to steamroll someone by hitting them with their helmet. They may have examples that I am not familiar with.”

 

Also backing the rule is head coach Marvin Lewis, a member of the NFL Competition Committee. On Sunday he talked about why he supported it.

"I think it's the way football was coached from the time we started playing, the way we were instructed to play, so the game has evolved over time because of the size, strength and speed of players," Lewis said. "It's changed a little bit and you were always taught to never lower your head and have your eyes down at the ground. You want to play football with eyes and head up. It is a change, but there have been a lot of positive changes done over time that make it easier all the time to both play, coach it and for everyone to understand."

Fisher is confident the play isn't going to be "over officiated."

"The key thing here is you can deliver a blow with shoulder, with face, with hairline; it is just deliberately striking with the crown [that’s been outlawed," Fisher said on NFL Network. "The helmet is a protective device. We know there is going to be helmet-to helmet contact. The running back has an opportunity to protect the football, lower the head, lower the shoulder, as long as he doesn’t load up and strike with the top of the helmet. That is also the case with a defensive player. There will be forth coming plays and examples of things we want to get out of the game and when you see them, you will say ‘I understand why’…. This is not going to change the game, it is not going to be over-officiated. We are just protecting the players against themselves.”

 

 

 

http://www.bengals.com/news/article-1/Jackson-wary-of-new-rule-for-backs/0ce960a8-3456-4040-b25f-6b7af4d1f86a?campaign=cin:fanshare:twitter

[The PatternMaster]

I'm sure players who lie about concussions has nothing to do with this either...

 

 

 

 

There's really nothing wrong with the rule.  All its doing is dissuading runners from deliberately using their helmet as a weapon. 

 

I think in theory the rule is great, but in reality it's going to make the officials job even harder than it already is and it allows the refs to have more influence on the outcome of a game and think they have enough as it is. I can see a team's season being decided because of a judgement call by a referee, which is occurring more and more in today's NFL.

 

Ultimately I think his rule has the potential to take the outcome of games out of the players hand and into the hands of officials, who could be on the take from organized crime...and before you laugh at think about Tim Dounahagy from the NBA who said he wasn't the only one on the take. So if they can get to a pro ref in the NBA, why not another sport...just sayin.

[The PatternMaster]

an interview Tuesday before the vote, Brown said he was inclined not to vote for it because it has been such a fabric of the game.

"We’re all for safety and make it as safe as we can devise," Brown said. "The issue on this one is hard to measure. Just how much of an impact does it have on safety? There are no statistics in front of us as far as injuries. It makes me wonder if we have properly quantified it to make a decision on it now.

"In the past we have actions that have crept into the game that have been taken out," Brown said. "In the old days we had the clothesline and then the head slap. They crept into the game and then they were removed and it was good. In this case I don’t know if we are talking about anything that has crept into the game at all. It is something football has had as long as I remember.”

Brown is also hesitant to saddle the officials with another instant judgment call, such as with the hits on defenseless receivers.

"I view it as difficult, if not impossible, play to call," Brown said. "We had a lot of this with the secondary plays last year. I didn’t think those calls were always right.

“These plays happen in a flash. They’re just a reaction to people. Did he hit him with his shoulder pad? Did he hit him with his helmet? Was it intended? That’s difficult to sort out. I’m not confident we should add another discretionary call. We’re asking an awful lot of our referees to make those kind of calls. Yet it is counterbalanced by concerns for safety."

The man that Brown thinks is the greatest runner of them all, former Browns running back Jim Brown, said here Monday that he never used his helmet and Mike Brown agreed. He doesn't think any back is purposefully using his head.

“Jim Brown was powerful and had a technique that I have not seen done by others. He would hit people with his shoulder and forearm and then press them down and then fade away from it and would accelerate. He was so strong, had such good balance," Mike Brown said. "He didn’t run into anyone with his helmet. I don’t know that I can identify running backs who are purposely running into people with their helmets. To me they might react and try to protect themselves. They might dive to the goal line or try to get a first down but I don’t see them as a technique looking to steamroll someone by hitting them with their helmet. They may have examples that I am not familiar with.”

 

I'd never thought I say this but Mike Brown is 100% correct, imo.

[scharm]

This is the main reason for this new rule, the whole thing about player safety is total bullshit...the NFL chews these guys up and spits them out once they feel like they can no longer produce at the level them deem neccessary. The owners want to show the world they are being proactive about player safety even if it means signifigantly changing the game that the fans love. The only thing the owners care about is making more money and keeping it for themselves. If there was no class action lawsuit is this rule wouldn't exist.

 

Besides there are other ways you can improve player safety, like investing in better equipment that prevents injuries...but that would mean the owners would have to spend more money...so yeah, let's just change the game in a way only someone who never played would think it makes sense.

 

How you are going to get a guy who has played one way for his entire life to suddenly play differently during the heat of battle is beyond me....

 

And the officials will screw this up, because that's what they do, especially with new rules that they might not understand.

 

So what?   These players will swallow anything they think would give them an advantage.   There are also some well documented instances of players hiding medical issues so they can still cash the checks.

 

The concussion lawsuit is as much as a money grab as the NFL owners chewing up players and spitting them out.

 

No one wants to say it but Performance Enhancing Drugs have out paced the methods to catch them and the safety measures of the game. 

 

I also believe the desire for more offense has played a role in this.   You simply see more agressive pass patterns that do not account for the type of hits WRs can take.   For example crossing patterns into zone coverage.  In the 80s/90s that was a big time avoidance.

[scharm]

I'm sure players who lie about concussions has nothing to do with this either...

 

 

 

 

There's really nothing wrong with the rule.  All its doing is dissuading runners from deliberately using their helmet as a weapon. 

 

The opinions of the rule from NFL radio is that it puts the ref in a position to judge intent which has in the past been avoided.   They've wanted them to act based on what has happened.

 

As a fan, I don't worry about the reduce violence.  I actually think that is overblown.   I just cringe at another rule that has so many dynamics.   These calls almost seem like a weekly discussion in this forum. Most of the time a poster gives still photos etc.  to get explanations.   At the end of the day it destroys the flow of the game.    Football sidelines resemble a basketball game in which the coach lobbies every call now.

 

The collection of all the rules put together, IMO, puts the quality of the game at risk.   There are too many rules that have sub rules and exceptions. 

 

When you get QBs knocked to the ground and they start giving the throw the flag motion.  That's just too much like Basketball and players/lobbying for fouls.

 

Something just doesn't seem right.

[Go Skins]

Pittsburgh opposed the tuck rule:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/tuck-rule-eliminated-initial-helmet-contact-now-illegal-032013

[T-Dub]

Tom E. Curran ‏@tomecurran7m
The 2 most important parts of helmet rule to me are "initiate contact" and "forcible blow." Can officials be consistent in interpretation.

Hell no; this will be another selectively-enforced personal foul just like "defenseless receivers". Player safety is great but vague rules suck. What's really bothersome is that they don't really give a shit about reducing injuries. What they're trying to reduce is their own liability.

[|High School Harry|]

 

Clark Judge ‏@ClarkJudgeCBS32s

New rule not reviewable.

 

Dang!  Lost a time out six months before the season even starts.

[T-Dub]

Ultimately I think his rule has the potential to take the outcome of games out of the players hand and into the hands of officials, who could be on the take from organized crime...and before you laugh at think about Tim Dounahagy from the NBA who said he wasn't the only one on the take. So if they can get to a pro ref in the NBA, why not another sport...just sayin.

 

Why not the NFL? Because the league itself was in large part founded by people with ties to organized crime. Many of the owners were bookies, degenerate gamblers, etc. They made the Rooneys get rid of (ie, sell out to shell companies/trusts) their shares in race tracks, and that was fairly recent. The earlier history of the league, even post-merger, was a hell of a lot shadier.

 

Combined with the relatively low salary of secondary officials like line judges in comparison to the amount of money to be made fixing a game, it would be extremely naive to think the NFL has somehow managed to miraculously avoid the gambling scandals that have occurred in every other major sport.

 

Much more likely in my mind that the owners are getting a piece of the action and the refs are already bought and paid for, making a bribe pointless.  The stink around Gretzky and his wife post-Superbowl XL sure disappeared in a hurry.

[Oldcat]

 Not in my opinion. Contact looks to be initiated outside of where Joe Thomas lined up,  as well as a few steps outside of where Thomas moves during the play.

 

Ok - I remembered it as a run up the middle.  Of course, the location of the tackle box is another subjective call, because at the time of the play there's no mark as to where it was exactly.  

[Oldcat]

Why not the NFL? Because the league itself was in large part founded by people with ties to organized crime. Many of the owners were bookies, degenerate gamblers, etc. They made the Rooneys get rid of (ie, sell out to shell companies/trusts) their shares in race tracks, and that was fairly recent. The earlier history of the league, even post-merger, was a hell of a lot shadier.

 

Combined with the relatively low salary of secondary officials like line judges in comparison to the amount of money to be made fixing a game, it would be extremely naive to think the NFL has somehow managed to miraculously avoid the gambling scandals that have occurred in every other major sport.

 

Much more likely in my mind that the owners are getting a piece of the action and the refs are already bought and paid for, making a bribe pointless.  The stink around Gretzky and his wife post-Superbowl XL sure disappeared in a hurry.

 

There was a lot of scuttlebut that the 70s Denver/Cowboys superbowl had some point shaving by the Denver QB.