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.

"Crown"of the Helmet.....OFFENSE....? (1 Viewer)

Stinkin Ref

IBL Representative
So it's ok for the runner to lead with the crown of helmet and even in some cases "deliver the blow" with the crown of the helmet when contact is immment......but if the defense does it...its a penalty....?

if the runner ducks his head and leads with crown.....should that be a penalty....?

they see contact coming just like a defender does....almost better sometimes....

 
So it's ok for the runner to lead with the crown of helmet and even in some cases "deliver the blow" with the crown of the helmet when contact is immment......but if the defense does it...its a penalty....?

if the runner ducks his head and leads with crown.....should that be a penalty....?

they see contact coming just like a defender does....almost better sometimes....


Yes, it is okay.  The RB carrying the ball is always at an inherent disadvantage because he has one arm committed to the ball and therefore is more defenseless than any other player on the field during the run.  It is also why RBs can apply stiff arms to the helmet without penalty.  He gets more latitude per the rules.  As to attacking with the crown, RBs usually are trying to avoid contact and are not hunting other players using the helmet as a weapon.  There are some exceptions - I remember Jim Taylor in the open field running across the field so he could run over a CB before he scored, but that is rare.

.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, it is okay.  The RB carrying the ball is always at an inherent disadvantage because he has one arm committed to the ball and therefore is more defenseless than any other player on the field during the run.  It is also why RBs can apply stiff arms to the helmet without penalty.  He gets more latitude per the rules.
but its supposed to be "all about safety".....so why is it not safe for one....but ok for another

 
but its supposed to be "all about safety".....so why is it not safe for one....but ok for another


No one is saying it is a safe technique.  It is just a way to allow a runner to attempt to protect themselves a little more on a run.

I don’t think anyone wants to see the NFL change so that RBs are flagged for hitting with the crown on runs.  Well, maybe the fans who watch from safe zones...

Imagine if they enforced that rule on OLs and DLs during the course of play.  You’d never see another running play between the tackles in the NFL moving forward.  

.

.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
and the stiff arm is another good example.....it is illegal hands to the face in every other aspect of the game, but ok for a runner....

just always found these situations a little hypocritical when it came to enforcement and falling under the blanket of "safety"....

 
and the stiff arm is another good example.....it is illegal hands to the face in every other aspect of the game, but ok for a runner....

just always found these situations a little hypocritical when it came to enforcement and falling under the blanket of "safety"....


Why are you doing this?  Do you want to see the rules change so that there are more penalties and less contact?  Try soccer.  It might work better for you.

 
Why are you doing this?  Do you want to see the rules change so that there are more penalties and less contact?  Try soccer.  It might work better for you.
my bad....was just bringing up a little rules discussion on a football website.....sorry I drug you into the thread...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was a simple question for the discussion.  What’s your end goal in bringing this up?
to be a good father/husband/provider...play a little golf, catch a few fish....visit a few beaches before I die....but in here, just talk a little football....

 
So it's ok for the runner to lead with the crown of helmet and even in some cases "deliver the blow" with the crown of the helmet when contact is immment......but if the defense does it...its a penalty....?

if the runner ducks his head and leads with crown.....should that be a penalty....?

they see contact coming just like a defender does....almost better sometimes....


Yes, it is okay.  The RB carrying the ball is always at an inherent disadvantage because he has one arm committed to the ball and therefore is more defenseless than any other player on the field during the run.  It is also why RBs can apply stiff arms to the helmet without penalty.  He gets more latitude per the rules.  As to attacking with the crown, RBs usually are trying to avoid contact and are not hunting other players using the helmet as a weapon.  There are some exceptions - I remember Jim Taylor in the open field running across the field so he could run over a CB before he scored, but that is rare.
This is a penalty by the RB if done outside of some defined box - I think it's tackle-to-tackle within a few yards of the line of scrimmage.  I don't think it's been called once though.

 
I think, in most instances, not necessarily this one but most, the confusion about the helmet to helmet issues comes down to the understanding of defenseless player definitions.

Using the crown as a weapon is a separate discussion, but also further confuses the whole issue of helmet related contact.

Folks who don't follow the game and these rules closely really struggle with these concepts and add lots of emotion and hyperbole to discussions.  

Regardless, any type of forceful contact that involves the head is likely baseline unsafe.  The NFL is what it is tho.  It's a violent sport.  Guys are going to bump heads in all kinds of ways no matter how many rules are instituted.  The NFL is in a position where they have to quantify what is a realistic use of the head and helmet in the contact inherent to the game.  If a runner could be prevented from dipping his head and striking with the crown it would be safer, but the player they are striking likely has the ability to prevent or diminish the blow so they have allowed it to remain a part of the game.

I think the best the NFL can do is try to legislate out the blows that can be avoided meaning those to defenseless players and egregious use of the crown as a weapon.

 
I think you're forgetting that an offensive player is at an extreme disadvantage in the sense that every single defensive player is out there head-hunting him. Rules are in place to protect the guy with the ball because he cannot reasonably sniff out every guy with an angle on his head at any given moment. 

But a defensive player needs only worry about the guy with the ball and, on certain open-field broken plays, one or two blockers who could chip him (but those guys get penalties for these exact same rules too if they don't have the ball). 

The entire game of football is centered around a single item: a football. He who has it shall be given more leeway since there are a dozen guys on the field barreling down on him. 

 
If the offensive player initiates a forceful blow with the crown of his helmet outside of the tackle box, it is a penalty.

Most of the time though the defensive player does as much to initiate contact - it sort of being his job after all - so it is probably rarely going to get called.  It would probably take something blatant... like spearing a guy who was letting you go out of bounds without contact otherwise.

 
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000238662/article/new-nfl-rules-crownofhelmet-change-to-help-runner-defender
 

NEW RULE: A ban on a ball carrier initiating contact with the crown of his helmet in the open field or by a defender while making a tackle.

What the rule changes: A 15-yard penalty will be called if a runner or a tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players clearly are outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle-to-tackle and from 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team's end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or a tackler against an opponent would not be deemed a foul.

Why the change was made: The NFL is trying to avoid concussions at all costs, so this rule will make it illegal for players to use their helmets as weapons. Using the helmet on hits against receivers already is illegal, so this is the next logical step.

How it will impact player health and safety: Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay, chairman of the NFL Competition Committee, said after the rule passed: "We really think the time has come that we need to address the situation in space when a runner or a tackler has a choice as to how they are going to approach the opponent. We are going to say that you can't make that choice ducking your head and delivering a blow, a forcible blow, with the top crown of your helmet. We are trying to protect the runner or the tackler from himself in that instance."

What players are saying about it: "I don't use my head anyway. That's dangerous. It won't affect me at all. I don't lower my head when I'm contacting defenders. I lower my shoulder. It might be a thin line, like a judgment call, if you ask me. It's a thin line between what's lowering your shoulder and what's lowering your head. But the way they stated the rule how you have to first line him up, then you have to lower your head and deliver a blow -- it's understandable. I've never done that before. So I'm not worried at all." -- Washington Redskins running back Alfred Morris to The Washington Post.


As others have noted, I haven't seen it called.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top