What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

NFL outlaws RBs lowering their heads (1 Viewer)

'Raider Nation said:
I came in here breathing fire, but a lot of you have made some pretty good points to get me off the ledge. The fact is that this game is no longer the game that most of us grew up loving. We can either deal with it, or stop watching. I just hope this won't impact the game TOO much. I can already a see a huge 4th quarter run in a huge game for a huge first down by the home team. WOOOPS! Called back because the RB used the crown of his helmet. That stadium is going to burn to the ground. Matt Forte already loves the rule:

Matt Forte ‏@MattForte22 The proposed rule change for running backs might be the most absurd suggestion of a rule change I've ever heard of.In order to lower ur shoulder u obviously have to lower ur head. It's a way of protecting ur self from a tackler and a way to break tacklesU can't change the instinctive nature of running the football.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
He clearly didn't understand it. All payers can still lower their heads. You can even hit with your head (hairline). You just can't hit with the crown of your head.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/20/mike-mayock-thinks-the-nfl-has-crossed-a-line-with-the-helmet-rule/

Mike Mayock thinks the NFL has crossed a line with the helmet rule

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 20, 2013, 1:38 PM EDT

Getty Images

Add NFL Network analyst Mike Mayock to the list of football observers who don’t like the NFL’s new rule banning running backs from lowering their heads into tacklers.

Mayock, who played defensive back for the Giants in the 1980s and is now the top analyst on the league-owned cable channel, said shortly after the owners voted 31-1 to pass the new rule that the owners were wrong.

“While I applaud the league for most of what’s going on with the safety concerns, and all players and former plays applaud that, I look at this rule and I say, at some point I think we’re crossing a line,” Mayock said. “To me, a running back has got to be able to drop his pad level. And when a running back drops his pad level, his head goes with it. That’s just the way you play football. And from a defensive player’s perspective — which I was — I understand and respect that. I think it’s part of the game, and I don’t think you can legislate all contact and all forcible head hits out of this game.”

Mayock said he believes the NFL’s owners dramatically altered the sport of football today.

“I’m not a fan of this rule at all. I think it crosses a line. We all love safety, but at some point, football’s got to be football,” Mayock said. “If a running back can’t drop his pad level, I don’t think it’s football anymore.”
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Mike Mayock thinks the NFL has crossed a line with the helmet rule

“I’m not a fan of this rule at all. I think it crosses a line. We all love safety, but at some point, football’s got to be football,” Mayock said. “If a running back can’t drop his pad level, I don’t think it’s football anymore.”
Click to expand...
Mayock just hit that straw man with the crown of his head.
 
'Concept Coop said:
'delusional said:
Sorry but i have no idea how some of you think this won't change the game at all. On paper is one thing, in game and actually happening is another.
Click to expand...
How often does a player lead with his crown in the open field?
Click to expand...
The NFL say they studied weeks 10 and 16 from 2012, and would have called this penalty 11 times. So about 1 game in 3 they would have called it when basing it off of replay and slow mo. How much that rate will change when called by on field officials at game speed remains to be seen.
 
'Concept Coop said:
Mike Mayock thinks the NFL has crossed a line with the helmet rule

“I’m not a fan of this rule at all. I think it crosses a line. We all love safety, but at some point, football’s got to be football,” Mayock said. “If a running back can’t drop his pad level, I don’t think it’s football anymore.”
Click to expand...
Mayock just hit that straw man with the crown of his head.
Click to expand...
I think Mayock is smart enough to understand that NFL referees aren't good enough to call this rule consistently by the letter. These guys don't even know what a catch looks like anymore. You're dreaming if you think otherwise.
 
'Andy Dufresne said:
'delusional said:
Difference here is officials are told to throw a flag to err on the side of safety with the H2H and DEFLESS WR hits. You don't think the same thing will happen with this now?
Click to expand...
No I don't because I clearly interpret differently from you what the NFL is trying to do with this. I like Jeff Fisher's explanation:
Fisher told Andrew Siciliano on NFL Network that the new rule is a major step forward as the NFL continues to try to take brain injuries out of the game.

“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.

“Every step along the way we’ve been unanimous,” Fisher said. “If the players knew the amount of time that went into this they’d have a better understanding.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Sorry Jeff, but I'll believe it won't be over officiated when I see it. The last few similar safety rules the NFL implemented have been over officiated. The blows to the QB's head were dialed back to a more reasonable level after the first year, but the rest are still over officiated in my opinion.The NFL's track record doesn't give them the benefit of the doubt they are going to implement it effectively from the start. If it was called sparingly for blatant, Earl Campbell style attempts to deliver a blow with the head, that would be great. Until they prove otherwise though, I'm going to expect they will "call it when in doubt" as they have other safety penalties. And that they won't do a sufficient amount of huddling to overrule the one ref who saw it from a misleading angle.

I hope they prove me wrong of course.

 
'Andy Dufresne said:
'Concept Coop said:
He clearly didn't understand it. All payers can still lower their heads. You can even hit with your head (hairline). You just can't hit with the crown of your head.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:It's clearly too much to ask to have these guys (the players I mean) READ the rules.
Click to expand...
I think you're making a big assumption that the officials are going to call this correctly as well. It's a fine line for a RB lowering their head vs leading with the crown of their helmets. I think that's why guys like Emmitt and Forte have expressed their concern over the rule. At full speed I'm not sure how these officials will be able to tell the difference. The Trent Richardson one was obvious but it's the not so obvious ones and how each officiating crew calls them could create some issues this year.
 
If they don't try to pass judgment on intent of the runner and if this rule is more like one of those rules where it is in the book but is not called unless it is egergious (like the back block inside the tackle box rule), then I think it can stand.

However, if this suddenly becomes a thing where you see a flag 3-4 times a week across the slate of games (I believe they said a snapshot study revealed there were 5 potential offenses in Week 16 last year), then I think people will be grumbling. You are in a stadium in Seattle and watch Beastmode rumble 60 yards and flatten a few guys only to have it penalized because he flattened a guy too hard; that would suck.

I also don't think we may fully understand how this changes the NFL. Half of the lexicon and attitude of the league is based on giving props to players who show toughness and a willingness to "stick their nose in the pile". Many players get their chance by being a dedicated physical player on ST. Will those traits be overlooked now if players all ease up? Will players run more upright and get destroyed? It will probably be worth watching.

 
'Greg Russell said:
'Andy Dufresne said:
'delusional said:
Difference here is officials are told to throw a flag to err on the side of safety with the H2H and DEFLESS WR hits. You don't think the same thing will happen with this now?
Click to expand...
No I don't because I clearly interpret differently from you what the NFL is trying to do with this. I like Jeff Fisher's explanation:
Fisher told Andrew Siciliano on NFL Network that the new rule is a major step forward as the NFL continues to try to take brain injuries out of the game.

“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.

“Every step along the way we’ve been unanimous,” Fisher said. “If the players knew the amount of time that went into this they’d have a better understanding.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Sorry Jeff, but I'll believe it won't be over officiated when I see it. The last few similar safety rules the NFL implemented have been over officiated. The blows to the QB's head were dialed back to a more reasonable level after the first year, but the rest are still over officiated in my opinion.The NFL's track record doesn't give them the benefit of the doubt they are going to implement it effectively from the start. If it was called sparingly for blatant, Earl Campbell style attempts to deliver a blow with the head, that would be great. Until they prove otherwise though, I'm going to expect they will "call it when in doubt" as they have other safety penalties. And that they won't do a sufficient amount of huddling to overrule the one ref who saw it from a misleading angle.

I hope they prove me wrong of course.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
 
My concern is that this "infraction" will fall into the same highly arbitrary area that helmet-to-helmet contact often does. For example, the safety lowers his head to make a nice clean hit to the midsection of the receiver, but the receiver ducks to brace himself for the hit at exactly the same time. So it was the receiver who actually initiated the H2H contact, yet it's 15 yards on the defense. We've already seen that countless times. Same thing with this rule. The RB lowers his head to protect himself while the defender positions himself directly in front of the runner. By rule, now, that is a penalty on the runner if the crown makes contact. There is just too much gray area, and it's going to cause a controversy at the wrong time. It's a matter of when... not if.

 
'Pipes said:
I think you're making a big assumption that the officials are going to call this correctly as well. It's a fine line for a RB lowering their head vs leading with the crown of their helmets. I think that's why guys like Emmitt and Forte have expressed their concern over the rule. At full speed I'm not sure how these officials will be able to tell the difference. The Trent Richardson one was obvious but it's the not so obvious ones and how each officiating crew calls them could create some issues this year.
Click to expand...
It's a piece of cake. The crown is the spot on the helmet inside the airholes on top. If a guy doesn't lead with that part of the helmet it's not a penalty.I just don't see the difficulty here.
 
'Raider Nation said:
My concern is that this "infraction" will fall into the same highly arbitrary area that helmet-to-helmet contact often does. For example, the safety lowers his head to make a nice clean hit to the midsection of the receiver, but the receiver ducks to brace himself for the hit at exactly the same time. So it was the receiver who actually initiated the H2H contact, yet it's 15 yards on the defense. We've already seen that countless times. Same thing with this rule. The RB lowers his head to protect himself while the defender positions himself directly in front of the runner. By rule, now, that is a penalty on the runner if the crown makes contact. There is just too much gray area, and it's going to cause a controversy at the wrong time. It's a matter of when... not if.
Click to expand...
:thumbup:
 
'Hang 10 said:
'Concept Coop said:
Mike Mayock thinks the NFL has crossed a line with the helmet rule

“I’m not a fan of this rule at all. I think it crosses a line. We all love safety, but at some point, football’s got to be football,” Mayock said. “If a running back can’t drop his pad level, I don’t think it’s football anymore.”
Click to expand...
Mayock just hit that straw man with the crown of his head.
Click to expand...
I think Mayock is smart enough to understand that NFL referees aren't good enough to call this rule consistently by the letter. These guys don't even know what a catch looks like anymore. You're dreaming if you think otherwise.
Click to expand...
I wish he was smart enough to express that, instead of creating a rule for the sake of blasting it.
 
'Andy Dufresne said:
'Pipes said:
I think you're making a big assumption that the officials are going to call this correctly as well. It's a fine line for a RB lowering their head vs leading with the crown of their helmets. I think that's why guys like Emmitt and Forte have expressed their concern over the rule. At full speed I'm not sure how these officials will be able to tell the difference. The Trent Richardson one was obvious but it's the not so obvious ones and how each officiating crew calls them could create some issues this year.
Click to expand...
It's a piece of cake. The crown is the spot on the helmet inside the airholes on top. If a guy doesn't lead with that part of the helmet it's not a penalty.I just don't see the difficulty here.
Click to expand...
I didn't see the difficulty with the NFL's rules on blows to the heads of defenseless QBs or receivers. Yet the refs regularly botched (ETA: in idiotic fashion) those calls, like flagging a tackler for his helmet lightly touching the head of a QB who was ducked in half to avoid the tackle.Yes they can make this an ok penalty that won't disrupt the game. This NFL league office hasn't shown much aptitude at being able to do that though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Greg Russell said:
The NFL say they studied weeks 10 and 16 from 2012, and would have called this penalty 11 times.

So about 1 game in 3 they would have called it when basing it off of replay and slow mo. How much that rate will change when called by on field officials at game speed remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
:no:
 
'Greg Russell said:
I didn't see the difficulty with the NFL's rules on blows to the heads of defenseless QBs or receivers. Yet the refs regularly botched those calls, like flagging a tackler for his helmet lightly touching the head of a QB who was ducked in half to avoid the tackle.Yes they can make this an ok penalty that won't disrupt the game. This NFL league office hasn't shown much aptitude at being able to do that though.
Click to expand...
Well. You got me there.I probably am giving the refs more credit than they deserve.
 
Someone explain to me how a team is suppose to run a Halfback Sweep from inside the 3 yard line? Once outside the tackle box, the RB has two choices. 1-make it to the goal line cone before the defender can push him out of bounds. 2-change direction towards the goal line and dive for the goal line. (you have to get lower than the defender, head down)

The other problem, how do you determine if the contact is incidental?

 
'Andy Dufresne said:
'Pipes said:
I think you're making a big assumption that the officials are going to call this correctly as well. It's a fine line for a RB lowering their head vs leading with the crown of their helmets. I think that's why guys like Emmitt and Forte have expressed their concern over the rule. At full speed I'm not sure how these officials will be able to tell the difference. The Trent Richardson one was obvious but it's the not so obvious ones and how each officiating crew calls them could create some issues this year.
Click to expand...
It's a piece of cake. The crown is the spot on the helmet inside the airholes on top. If a guy doesn't lead with that part of the helmet it's not a penalty.I just don't see the difficulty here.
Click to expand...
Well I guess you have alot more faith in NFL officials than I do. If they truly call it as the rule is written then I'm fine with it but I don't think it's as easy as you're making it sound.
 
'KCitons said:
Someone explain to me how a team is suppose to run a Halfback Sweep from inside the 3 yard line? Once outside the tackle box, the RB has two choices. 1-make it to the goal line cone before the defender can push him out of bounds. 2-change direction towards the goal line and dive for the goal line. (you have to get lower than the defender, head down)
Click to expand...
Considering how those plays flow I don't see how a back can't prevent himself from leading with the helmet. The defender will be running with him more than toward him.Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

. Bo didn't lead with his crown and it wouldn't have been a penalty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Concept Coop said:
'Greg Russell said:
The NFL say they studied weeks 10 and 16 from 2012, and would have called this penalty 11 times.

So about 1 game in 3 they would have called it when basing it off of replay and slow mo. How much that rate will change when called by on field officials at game speed remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
:no:
Click to expand...
Two weeks of football = 32 games, minus a couple games not played due to bye weeks week 10. A little higher than 1 in 3, but close enough for our purposes.
 
'Greg Russell said:
'Concept Coop said:
'delusional said:
Sorry but i have no idea how some of you think this won't change the game at all. On paper is one thing, in game and actually happening is another.
Click to expand...
How often does a player lead with his crown in the open field?
Click to expand...
The NFL say they studied weeks 10 and 16 from 2012, and would have called this penalty 11 times. So about 1 game in 3 they would have called it when basing it off of replay and slow mo. How much that rate will change when called by on field officials at game speed remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
Watching games on replay, in Slo mo. With the number of times they get HTH flags wrong, there's no reason to think they're going to be able to make the distinction between hairline hits and crown hits very well. And since its a safety oriented rule, they're going to err on the side of flag throwing, as they clearly have with defenseless receiver hits.
 
'Greg Russell said:
'Concept Coop said:
'Greg Russell said:
The NFL say they studied weeks 10 and 16 from 2012, and would have called this penalty 11 times.

So about 1 game in 3 they would have called it when basing it off of replay and slow mo. How much that rate will change when called by on field officials at game speed remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
:no:
Click to expand...
Two weeks of football = 32 games, minus a couple games not played due to bye weeks week 10. A little higher than 1 in 3, but close enough for our purposes.
Click to expand...
Is there a list of the plays they would have called a penalty on? I'd love to go back and watch those specific plays they claim would have been penalized, and maybe more importantly what players they would have been called on.
 
Some more off PFT:

The new rule is much narrower and limited than many believe.The new rule prohibits ball carriers and defensive players from initiating contact in the open field with the crown of the helmet. The crown, as explained by Rams coach Jeff Fisher, is the top of the helmet. The facemask and hairline of the helmet may still be used to initiate contact.Fisher emphasized that ball carriers will be permitted to protect themselves, by dropping their pads and dipping their helmets. A foul arises only if the top of the helmet is used to ram the opponent.In that way, the new rule is an extension of the rule against spearing, which in NFL parlance means hitting a player who is on the ground with the crown (top) of the helmet.
Click to expand...
Like I said. They're trying to penalize offensive spearing.
 
'Andy Dufresne said:
'KCitons said:
Someone explain to me how a team is suppose to run a Halfback Sweep from inside the 3 yard line? Once outside the tackle box, the RB has two choices. 1-make it to the goal line cone before the defender can push him out of bounds. 2-change direction towards the goal line and dive for the goal line. (you have to get lower than the defender, head down)
Click to expand...
Considering how those plays flow I don't see how a back can't prevent himself from leading with the helmet. The defender will be running with him more than toward him.Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

Click to expand...
It wouldnt have? Or would the official err on the side of caution and toss a flag. You (countless times in this thread) appear to think the refs will make a 100% of the calls correctlty--they won't.
 
'Hang 10 said:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/20/mike-mayock-thinks-the-nfl-has-crossed-a-line-with-the-helmet-rule/

Mike Mayock thinks the NFL has crossed a line with the helmet rulePosted by Michael David Smith on March 20, 2013, 1:38 PM EDTGetty ImagesAdd NFL Network analyst Mike Mayock to the list of football observers who don’t like the NFL’s new rule banning running backs from lowering their heads into tacklers.Mayock, who played defensive back for the Giants in the 1980s and is now the top analyst on the league-owned cable channel, said shortly after the owners voted 31-1 to pass the new rule that the owners were wrong.“While I applaud the league for most of what’s going on with the safety concerns, and all players and former plays applaud that, I look at this rule and I say, at some point I think we’re crossing a line,” Mayock said. “To me, a running back has got to be able to drop his pad level. And when a running back drops his pad level, his head goes with it. That’s just the way you play football. And from a defensive player’s perspective — which I was — I understand and respect that. I think it’s part of the game, and I don’t think you can legislate all contact and all forcible head hits out of this game.”Mayock said he believes the NFL’s owners dramatically altered the sport of football today.“I’m not a fan of this rule at all. I think it crosses a line. We all love safety, but at some point, football’s got to be football,” Mayock said. “If a running back can’t drop his pad level, I don’t think it’s football anymore.”
Click to expand...
Well said.
Click to expand...
Mayock has obviously not been on a message board before.
 
'matttyl said:
'Greg Russell said:
'Concept Coop said:
'Greg Russell said:
The NFL say they studied weeks 10 and 16 from 2012, and would have called this penalty 11 times.

So about 1 game in 3 they would have called it when basing it off of replay and slow mo. How much that rate will change when called by on field officials at game speed remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
:no:
Click to expand...
Two weeks of football = 32 games, minus a couple games not played due to bye weeks week 10. A little higher than 1 in 3, but close enough for our purposes.
Click to expand...
Is there a list of the plays they would have called a penalty on? I'd love to go back and watch those specific plays they claim would have been penalized, and maybe more importantly what players they would have been called on.
Click to expand...
Not that I've seen. My source for the above was a PFT tweet quoting Rich McKay of the competition committee.Hopefully we'll be able to see the video they made for coaches and players showing what is legal and what is illegal. They made the one for blows to the head of defenseless receivers available at one point I recall.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Bigboy10182000 said:
Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

Click to expand...
Refs make judgement calls all over the field. They get most right, some wrong. They'll get this mostly right too. And I doubt there's any way a flag would have been thrown on the Bo play as he doesn't even make contact with the crown, much less lead with it.

 
'delusional said:
'Andy Dufresne said:
'delusional said:
Well look how long its taken officials in game and the people that dole out the fines to get helmet to helmet or hits on a defenseless reciever correct...hell they aren't even at that point yet of getting things correct. Now factor in this? Its going to be a freaking mess
Click to expand...
As in the rule will be misapplied sometimes? You mean like holding or pass interference is about fourteen times a game?
Click to expand...
Difference here is officials are told to throw a flag to err on the side of safety with the H2H and DEFLESS WR hits. You don't think the same thing will happen with this now?
Click to expand...
Don't worry. The same ones that defend it will be right back here in 6 months, and pissed off, because their team got flagged for it when the super slow-motion instant replay clearly showed he wasnt leading with his helmet...
 
'delusional said:
Sorry but i have no idea how some of you think this won't change the game at all. On paper is one thing, in game and actually happening is another.
Click to expand...
outlawing head slaps damn near killed the gameprotecting the QB's knees made it lose a substantial number of fansdefensless receiver put it in the grave...wait, noit was cool through all of that
 
'Greg Russell said:
'Concept Coop said:
'delusional said:
Sorry but i have no idea how some of you think this won't change the game at all. On paper is one thing, in game and actually happening is another.
Click to expand...
How often does a player lead with his crown in the open field?
Click to expand...
The NFL say they studied weeks 10 and 16 from 2012, and would have called this penalty 11 times. So about 1 game in 3 they would have called it when basing it off of replay and slow mo. How much that rate will change when called by on field officials at game speed remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
Can't be just 1 in 3 games they would have called it.Ive been told its ruining the game...and making the NFL not the game we grew up watching. :lmao:
 
'Raider Nation said:
I came in here breathing fire, but a lot of you have made some pretty good points to get me off the ledge. The fact is that this game is no longer the game that most of us grew up loving. We can either deal with it, or stop watching. I just hope this won't impact the game TOO much. I can already a see a huge 4th quarter run in a huge game for a huge first down by the home team. WOOOPS! Called back because the RB used the crown of his helmet. That stadium is going to burn to the ground. Matt Forte already loves the rule:

Matt Forte ‏@MattForte22 The proposed rule change for running backs might be the most absurd suggestion of a rule change I've ever heard of.In order to lower ur shoulder u obviously have to lower ur head. It's a way of protecting ur self from a tackler and a way to break tacklesU can't change the instinctive nature of running the football.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
againnot to be rude to youbut before you lament the great game we are losing perhaps you should reach out to the Seau or Duerson familes and get their perspective. Ask them if the big hits we all lvoe were worth the price they paid.these are people, not video games, not machines.
 
'Raider Nation said:
My concern is that this "infraction" will fall into the same highly arbitrary area that helmet-to-helmet contact often does. For example, the safety lowers his head to make a nice clean hit to the midsection of the receiver, but the receiver ducks to brace himself for the hit at exactly the same time. So it was the receiver who actually initiated the H2H contact, yet it's 15 yards on the defense. We've already seen that countless times. Same thing with this rule. The RB lowers his head to protect himself while the defender positions himself directly in front of the runner. By rule, now, that is a penalty on the runner if the crown makes contact. There is just too much gray area, and it's going to cause a controversy at the wrong time. It's a matter of when... not if.
Click to expand...
like when there is contact on a reception and they do not call PIor like when there are 6 holding calls not called then an arbitrary one calledI am sure that like all rules this rule will be miscalled at times. But since people hate this rule, miscalling it will be worse
 
'Andy Dufresne said:
Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

Click to expand...
He doesnt make contact with it but he most certainly lead with it. Whether this would have been called or not would be a case of where the ref was and what he THOUGHT he saw. If Boz is a foot over to his right the crown of the helmet hits him directly in the chest.
 
'B-Deep said:
'delusional said:
Sorry but i have no idea how some of you think this won't change the game at all. On paper is one thing, in game and actually happening is another.
Click to expand...
outlawing head slaps damn near killed the gameprotecting the QB's knees made it lose a substantial number of fansdefensless receiver put it in the grave...wait, noit was cool through all of that
Click to expand...
yeah....in an effort to be a D, you kind of missed the point. And it was clear :thumbup:
 
'B-Deep said:
'Raider Nation said:
I came in here breathing fire, but a lot of you have made some pretty good points to get me off the ledge. The fact is that this game is no longer the game that most of us grew up loving. We can either deal with it, or stop watching. I just hope this won't impact the game TOO much. I can already a see a huge 4th quarter run in a huge game for a huge first down by the home team. WOOOPS! Called back because the RB used the crown of his helmet. That stadium is going to burn to the ground. Matt Forte already loves the rule:

Matt Forte ‏@MattForte22 The proposed rule change for running backs might be the most absurd suggestion of a rule change I've ever heard of.In order to lower ur shoulder u obviously have to lower ur head. It's a way of protecting ur self from a tackler and a way to break tacklesU can't change the instinctive nature of running the football.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
againnot to be rude to youbut before you lament the great game we are losing perhaps you should reach out to the Seau or Duerson familes and get their perspective. Ask them if the big hits we all lvoe were worth the price they paid.these are people, not video games, not machines.
Click to expand...
They knew the risks when they chose to accept huge salaries to play professional football. A window-washer on the 78th floor knows the risks. A coal miner knows the risks. I am a fan. I want to see the game played the way it was originally conceived. Ten, twenty years from now, we will no longer be watching FOOTBALL. We will be watching a distant cousin of what we once knew as football. If that sounds insensitive, so be it. None of them were forced at gunpoint to play this game.
 
'Raider Nation said:
'B-Deep said:
'Raider Nation said:
I came in here breathing fire, but a lot of you have made some pretty good points to get me off the ledge. The fact is that this game is no longer the game that most of us grew up loving. We can either deal with it, or stop watching. I just hope this won't impact the game TOO much. I can already a see a huge 4th quarter run in a huge game for a huge first down by the home team. WOOOPS! Called back because the RB used the crown of his helmet. That stadium is going to burn to the ground. Matt Forte already loves the rule:

Matt Forte ‏@MattForte22 The proposed rule change for running backs might be the most absurd suggestion of a rule change I've ever heard of.In order to lower ur shoulder u obviously have to lower ur head. It's a way of protecting ur self from a tackler and a way to break tacklesU can't change the instinctive nature of running the football.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
againnot to be rude to youbut before you lament the great game we are losing perhaps you should reach out to the Seau or Duerson familes and get their perspective. Ask them if the big hits we all lvoe were worth the price they paid.these are people, not video games, not machines.
Click to expand...
They knew the risks when they chose to accept huge salaries to play professional football. A window-washer on the 78th floor knows the risks. A coal miner knows the risks. I am a fan. I want to see the game played the way it was originally conceived. Ten, twenty years from now, we will no longer be watching FOOTBALL. We will be watching a distant cousin of what we once knew as football. If that sounds insensitive, so be it. None of them were forced at gunpoint to play this game.
Click to expand...
And your not forced at gunpoint to watch a safer gameI'll sacrifice a little bit to let the people who play the game i love have a better life. I don't think the defenselessness receiver ruined football and I don't think this will. It may save a life though.
 
Just wait till they eliminate the kick off. Didn't also add a rule that you can't overload one side of the center during punts/FGs? No more than 6 players to either side of the center? Can't have too many players running over the guard.

 
'Andy Dufresne said:
Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

Click to expand...
Are we watching the same videos?!? Bo is bent almost in a 90 degree angle...has NO visioon of what's in front of him and IS LEADING with the crown of his helmet! If the ref is in the middle of the field there is a great chance this is called.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnnyU
QB Stetson Bennett, LAR
Replies
19
Views
1K
titusbramble
titusbramble
BobbyLayne
Running Backs Don't Matter 101
4 5 6
Replies
284
Views
10K
humpback
H
Ministry of Pain
Coaching Carousel '24 or The next batch of folks that will be walked out the door in 2-3 years
Replies
26
Views
662
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top