NFL outlaws RBs lowering their heads (2 Viewers)

[Andy Dufresne]

Let's just put some lions and sand on the field. Maybe scatter some swords and a mace or a pike out there too.I don't get the bloodlust some of you guys have for this game.

Yeah becasue so many RBs have been killed and maimed running the football in the NFL.

Killed, no. But are you seriously positing that people haven't been maimed playing football?

Are you saying they are maimed by hitting with the crown of their helmet outside the tackle box?

Do you know what a concussion IS? I suspect you do.Are you a big fan of MMA/UFC type stuff?

 

[Amused to Death]

Are hits to the chin safer? Don't they also cause concussions? If the NFL really wants to get serious they would require safer helmets and mouthpieces for all players.

Why is it chin or crown?

I only referenced 'chin' because of Smith's comment:“If I’m a running back and I’m running into a linebacker, you’re telling me I have to keep my head up so he can take my chin off?’’ Smith said Thursday in an exclusive interview with Dallas radio station 105.3 The Fan. “You’ve absolutely lost your mind.’’

Seems he has lost his mind...and not actually read or understood the rule (like a lot of people here)Nobody told him he has to keep his head up so a guy can hit him in the chin.

But you do agree, as I think most would, that mandating the best possible equipment would be the preferred first option. Seems if the mission is to minimize risk, requiring the best safety equipment should be first and foremost. Then move on (or supplement) with the rule changes that won't eliminate all injury anyway.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I only referenced 'chin' because of Smith's comment:“If I’m a running back and I’m running into a linebacker, you’re telling me I have to keep my head up so he can take my chin off?’’ Smith said Thursday in an exclusive interview with Dallas radio station 105.3 The Fan. “You’ve absolutely lost your mind.’’

The man is truly debacled.

 

[sho nuff]

Are hits to the chin safer? Don't they also cause concussions? If the NFL really wants to get serious they would require safer helmets and mouthpieces for all players.

Why is it chin or crown?

I only referenced 'chin' because of Smith's comment:“If I’m a running back and I’m running into a linebacker, you’re telling me I have to keep my head up so he can take my chin off?’’ Smith said Thursday in an exclusive interview with Dallas radio station 105.3 The Fan. “You’ve absolutely lost your mind.’’

Seems he has lost his mind...and not actually read or understood the rule (like a lot of people here)Nobody told him he has to keep his head up so a guy can hit him in the chin.

But you do agree, as I think most would, that mandating the best possible equipment would be the preferred first option. Seems if the mission is to minimize risk, requiring the best safety equipment should be first and foremost. Then move on (or supplement) with the rule changes that won't eliminate all injury anyway.

I think that should have been done long ago.But it should also not mean to not pursue a rule asuch as this one.

 

[B-Deep]

I don't think enough attention is being paid to what this means for the defenders.

Right now only defenseless players are protected, this rule would apply to defenders outside the tackle box as well, and that will have a huge impact on them

If this is the rule people will adapt. People may hate it, but they'll adapt

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think enough attention is being paid to what this means for the defenders.Right now only defenseless players are protected, this rule would apply to defenders outside the tackle box as well, and that will have a huge impact on themIf this is the rule people will adapt. People may hate it, but they'll adapt

How many concussions are caused by players hitting their head on the turf? What is the NFL doing to stop that?There are so many plays where a RB or WR/TE will ower his head and lead with the crown just to gain an extra yard or to protect themselves, or just in reacting without thinking, that enforcement will be completely arbitrary, inconsistent and lead to ridiculous results. The running game a a component in the game will suffer as well; maybe not in total yards or statistically but it's role will change.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Quite simply, it's offensive spearing and it shouldn't be that hard to alter your behavior if you're a RB.

And from earlier in this discussion, we now know what Jim Brown would feel about this rule:

Some running backs are worried about a rule that would prevent them from initiating contact with the crown of their helmets outside the tackle box.

But the guy who doled out as much punishment as he ever received said he didn’t see a problem with it.

“I didn’t use my head,” Hall of Famer Jim Brown said, via Newsday’s Tom Rock. “I used my forearm. The palm of my hand. And my shoulder. And my shoulder pads. I wasn’t putting my head into too much of anything. I don’t think that’s a good idea.

“At least it doesn’t sound like a good idea to me if I’m not guaranteed that my head is going to be strong enough to hurt somebody else and not hurt myself.”

All-time leading rusher Emmitt Smith was among the first critical of the proposed rule, saying it was “almost impossible” to not lower your head going into contact.

“Emmitt probably used his head,” Brown said. “I don’t know.”

“Nobody I ever broke bread with, and I see players all the time, talked about using their head running the football. I’ve seen Barry Sanders and Eric Dickerson and Marcus Allen and Franco Harris and we’ve all been together — we were all together at the Super Bowl — and no one talked about using their head.”

If the league gets its way, no one will, either.

I think the bolded is hilarious, BTW.

 

[sho nuff]

Quite simply, it's offensive spearing and it shouldn't be that hard to alter your behavior if you're a RB.

And from earlier in this discussion, we now know what Jim Brown would feel about this rule:

Some running backs are worried about a rule that would prevent them from initiating contact with the crown of their helmets outside the tackle box.

But the guy who doled out as much punishment as he ever received said he didn’t see a problem with it.

“I didn’t use my head,” Hall of Famer Jim Brown said, via Newsday’s Tom Rock. “I used my forearm. The palm of my hand. And my shoulder. And my shoulder pads. I wasn’t putting my head into too much of anything. I don’t think that’s a good idea.

“At least it doesn’t sound like a good idea to me if I’m not guaranteed that my head is going to be strong enough to hurt somebody else and not hurt myself.”

All-time leading rusher Emmitt Smith was among the first critical of the proposed rule, saying it was “almost impossible” to not lower your head going into contact.

“Emmitt probably used his head,” Brown said. “I don’t know.”

“Nobody I ever broke bread with, and I see players all the time, talked about using their head running the football. I’ve seen Barry Sanders and Eric Dickerson and Marcus Allen and Franco Harris and we’ve all been together — we were all together at the Super Bowl — and no one talked about using their head.”

If the league gets its way, no one will, either.

I think the bolded is hilarious, BTW.

Have to find it in my twitter feed...but another older RB said they did not use their head...they were too worried about getting paralyzed if they did that going into a hit.

 

[Concept Coop]

How many concussions are caused by players hitting their head on the turf? What is the NFL doing to stop that?

Investing millions on research and improving the equipment.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

How many concussions are caused by players hitting their head on the turf? What is the NFL doing to stop that?

Investing millions on research and improving the equipment.

That could be said about offensive helmet penalties as well. What exactly did the NFL learn this year from their research and from the helmet manufacturers that led them to (try to) enact this penalty? --->>> Nothing.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Quite simply, it's offensive spearing and it shouldn't be that hard to alter your behavior if you're a RB.

And from earlier in this discussion, we now know what Jim Brown would feel about this rule:

Some running backs are worried about a rule that would prevent them from initiating contact with the crown of their helmets outside the tackle box.

But the guy who doled out as much punishment as he ever received said he didn’t see a problem with it.

“I didn’t use my head,” Hall of Famer Jim Brown said, via Newsday’s Tom Rock. “I used my forearm. The palm of my hand. And my shoulder. And my shoulder pads. I wasn’t putting my head into too much of anything. I don’t think that’s a good idea.

“At least it doesn’t sound like a good idea to me if I’m not guaranteed that my head is going to be strong enough to hurt somebody else and not hurt myself.”

All-time leading rusher Emmitt Smith was among the first critical of the proposed rule, saying it was “almost impossible” to not lower your head going into contact.

“Emmitt probably used his head,” Brown said. “I don’t know.”

“Nobody I ever broke bread with, and I see players all the time, talked about using their head running the football. I’ve seen Barry Sanders and Eric Dickerson and Marcus Allen and Franco Harris and we’ve all been together — we were all together at the Super Bowl — and no one talked about using their head.”

If the league gets its way, no one will, either.

I think the bolded is hilarious, BTW.

Have to find it in my twitter feed...but another older RB said they did not use their head...they were too worried about getting paralyzed if they did that going into a hit.

The difference was probably in the helmets they used.

 

[Concept Coop]

That could be said about offensive helmet penalties as well. What exactly did the NFL learn this year from their research and from the helmet manufacturers that led them to (try to) enact this penalty? --->>> Nothing.

I'm not really sure if I understand the question, and certainly don't understand the point you are making.

 

[sho nuff]

So...now the conversation turned from....what would Jim Brown say...to, well, it was the helmets.

BTW, the helmet is not going to prevent the paralysis that they talked about.

Next excuse?

 

[ericttspikes]

Guess Jim Brown never broke bread with Walter Payton.

 

[Spin]

From what I hear, this is the play that they are using for justification.

Trent Richardson running over Kurt Coleman.

My link

Fwiw, I think it's a good rule if it's officiated correctly, but in the spur of the moment, does Richardson look like he's trying to spear Coleman or just protect himself. I'm not really sure, and I've watched it a few times. It looks like he's bracing for a hit from Coleman, but Coleman was on his heels letting Richardson run into him.

 

[B-Deep]

I don't think enough attention is being paid to what this means for the defenders.Right now only defenseless players are protected, this rule would apply to defenders outside the tackle box as well, and that will have a huge impact on themIf this is the rule people will adapt. People may hate it, but they'll adapt

How many concussions are caused by players hitting their head on the turf? What is the NFL doing to stop that?There are so many plays where a RB or WR/TE will ower his head and lead with the crown just to gain an extra yard or to protect themselves, or just in reacting without thinking, that enforcement will be completely arbitrary, inconsistent and lead to ridiculous results. The running game a a component in the game will suffer as well; maybe not in total yards or statistically but it's role will change.

I am not saying the rule is good or badbut the logic that if we cannot stop all concussions there is no reason to try and stop any is flawedMost nfl penalties are enforced in a completely arbitrary manner, from PI to holding and all in between. The new non tuck rule will be as well.I think the push behind this is clear, these rules will not threaten the game, but the lawsuits clearly do. Rules come down people yell and then they adjust, but the amount of liability the NFL fears it could face is huge. They need to seem proactive.

 

[ericttspikes]

From what I hear, this is the play that they are using for justification.

Trent Richardson running over Kurt Coleman.

My link

Fwiw, I think it's a good rule if it's officiated correctly, but in the spur of the moment, does Richardson look like he's trying to spear Coleman or just protect himself. I'm not really sure, and I've watched it a few times. It looks like he's bracing for a hit from Coleman, but Coleman was on his heels letting Richardson run into him.

Trent Richardson and Lynch come immediately to mind as backs most impacted by this rule. Tough runners who get a large percentage of yards after contact. It will be interesting to see if or how it effects their stats, and conversely if speed backs who avoid contact become more valuable NFL and fantasy wise.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't think enough attention is being paid to what this means for the defenders.

Right now only defenseless players are protected, this rule would apply to defenders outside the tackle box as well, and that will have a huge impact on them

If this is the rule people will adapt. People may hate it, but they'll adapt

How many concussions are caused by players hitting their head on the turf? What is the NFL doing to stop that?There are so many plays where a RB or WR/TE will ower his head and lead with the crown just to gain an extra yard or to protect themselves, or just in reacting without thinking, that enforcement will be completely arbitrary, inconsistent and lead to ridiculous results. The running game a a component in the game will suffer as well; maybe not in total yards or statistically but it's role will change.

I am not saying the rule is good or badbut the logic that if we cannot stop all concussions there is no reason to try and stop any is flawed

Most nfl penalties are enforced in a completely arbitrary manner, from PI to holding and all in between. The new non tuck rule will be as well.

I think the push behind this is clear, these rules will not threaten the game, but the lawsuits clearly do. Rules come down people yell and then they adjust, but the amount of liability the NFL fears it could face is huge. They need to seem proactive.

Thanks, what you say what makes sense.This is the problem I think the league is in.

They are faced with being involved in an inherantly dangerous game, or rather a game which can be dangerous at any given point in time in any given situation.

I respect and acknowledge and get that the idea is to limit the number of chances or possibilities that a player can get concussed, but it does not eliminate all concussions. I do think that with each instance the league applies a new rule to eliminate the possibility of concussion it gets further and further away from the traditional game. It becomes another game actually.

They could eliminate kickoffs as we have heard, but then why not punts?

The QB is protected from being picked up and slammed to the turf, but not from being tackled hard so that his head hits the turf.

PI penalties are different, but I do think they are clearer (if the rule is followed) than this penalty can ever be.

And defensive helmet to helmet seems similar, and it is new, and it is slippier than PI but still the offensive version is different just because of the player need to protect himself and also because the whole nature of the game is to drive the ball forward and also the offensive player does not typically have the angle or ability to consciously target a defensive player.

Personally I think enough ex-RBs could have the ability to pick up the phone and personally call the owners of their former teams and get this thing killed. Then again maybe the owners are all about having a piece of paper to throw out at court showing how much they care so maybe that wins the day. But I won't be surprised if it's shot down.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I respect and acknowledge and get that the idea is to limit the number of chances or possibilities that a player can get concussed, but it does not eliminate all concussions. I do think that with each instance the league applies a new rule to eliminate the possibility of concussion it gets further and further away from the traditional game. It becomes another game actually.

Because of the size and speed of the people involved today it has ALREADY become another game from what it was "traditionally".

 

[B-Deep]

I don't think enough attention is being paid to what this means for the defenders.

Right now only defenseless players are protected, this rule would apply to defenders outside the tackle box as well, and that will have a huge impact on them

If this is the rule people will adapt. People may hate it, but they'll adapt

How many concussions are caused by players hitting their head on the turf? What is the NFL doing to stop that?There are so many plays where a RB or WR/TE will ower his head and lead with the crown just to gain an extra yard or to protect themselves, or just in reacting without thinking, that enforcement will be completely arbitrary, inconsistent and lead to ridiculous results. The running game a a component in the game will suffer as well; maybe not in total yards or statistically but it's role will change.

I am not saying the rule is good or badbut the logic that if we cannot stop all concussions there is no reason to try and stop any is flawed

Most nfl penalties are enforced in a completely arbitrary manner, from PI to holding and all in between. The new non tuck rule will be as well.

I think the push behind this is clear, these rules will not threaten the game, but the lawsuits clearly do. Rules come down people yell and then they adjust, but the amount of liability the NFL fears it could face is huge. They need to seem proactive.

Thanks, what you say what makes sense.This is the problem I think the league is in.

They are faced with being involved in an inherantly dangerous game, or rather a game which can be dangerous at any given point in time in any given situation.

I respect and acknowledge and get that the idea is to limit the number of chances or possibilities that a player can get concussed, but it does not eliminate all concussions. I do think that with each instance the league applies a new rule to eliminate the possibility of concussion it gets further and further away from the traditional game. It becomes another game actually.

They could eliminate kickoffs as we have heard, but then why not punts?

The QB is protected from being picked up and slammed to the turf, but not from being tackled hard so that his head hits the turf.

PI penalties are different, but I do think they are clearer (if the rule is followed) than this penalty can ever be.

And defensive helmet to helmet seems similar, and it is new, and it is slippier than PI but still the offensive version is different just because of the player need to protect himself and also because the whole nature of the game is to drive the ball forward and also the offensive player does not typically have the angle or ability to consciously target a defensive player.

Personally I think enough ex-RBs could have the ability to pick up the phone and personally call the owners of their former teams and get this thing killed. Then again maybe the owners are all about having a piece of paper to throw out at court showing how much they care so maybe that wins the day. But I won't be surprised if it's shot down.

I think that is the case, though I could be wrong.

I think the lawsuits have the league trembling in fear, because it can be pretty clearly shown that very recently they were brushing off the head issue. Who knows hoe much a jury could smack them with.

I also think you could argue Goodell's ego plays a role. He wants to make concussions and lawsuits hurt the league that everyone knows he did all he could. Plus he loves power and would love for his legacy to be "made the game safer".

Perhaps there is some legit concern over players as well, though I am cynical enough to doubt how much there is.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

How is a rb supposed to lower their shoulder for impact without also lowering their head? This sport is really losing its identity.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I respect and acknowledge and get that the idea is to limit the number of chances or possibilities that a player can get concussed, but it does not eliminate all concussions. I do think that with each instance the league applies a new rule to eliminate the possibility of concussion it gets further and further away from the traditional game. It becomes another game actually.

Because of the size and speed of the people involved today it has ALREADY become another game from what it was "traditionally".

So go to the soft outer shell helmets that are known to lessen the impact on the brain instead of the glossy hard shell that they're keeping for aesthetics.I can't believe that the current helmets haven't been changed instead of rules to the game.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

A rb or any other player unable to lower his head in the open field prevents the player from delivering contact and protecting himself. Instead, he is now just a mere target and this will lead to more jaw and knee injuries.

 

[Amused to Death]

I respect and acknowledge and get that the idea is to limit the number of chances or possibilities that a player can get concussed, but it does not eliminate all concussions. I do think that with each instance the league applies a new rule to eliminate the possibility of concussion it gets further and further away from the traditional game. It becomes another game actually.

Because of the size and speed of the people involved today it has ALREADY become another game from what it was "traditionally".

So go to the soft outer shell helmets that are known to lessen the impact on the brain instead of the glossy hard shell that they're keeping for aesthetics.I can't believe that the current helmets haven't been changed instead of rules to the game.

Mandate safer equipment (that already exists) then change the rules if further action is required. Changing the rules in and of itself does not make the game safer. The same collisions will cause the same damage. Better equipment makes the game safer instantly.My opinion is that they change the rules because that's what the viewing public sees. Requiring mouthpieces isn't visible to the average fan. I think its more of a PR move than a legit safety issue.

 

[NJ]

They were talking about this on Sirius NFL yesterday and they had players/coaches saying that the league was showing them game film of the supposedly legal vs. illegal ball carriers initiating contact and most of them said they still couldn't tell the difference between the two or why one was legal vs. the other. And thats in slow motion with the NFL telling you which is which, how the hell are the officials supposed to make that call on the field at live speed. I'm all for player safety, but I think this one is going to cause some seriously controversal calls by the officials. Also, not sure if this was mentioned already, but this rule is for all ball carriers, not just RBs (they specifically mentioned it even applies to linemen that pickup fumbles, etc.).

 

[Andy Dufresne]

How is a rb supposed to lower their shoulder for impact without also lowering their head? This sport is really losing its identity.

It's easy. You turn your upper body so that your shoulder delivers the blow instead of your head.Of course, if the league would return to being a tackling league instead of a hitting league, a lot of this would be moot.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

How is a rb supposed to lower their shoulder for impact without also lowering their head? This sport is really losing its identity.

It's easy. You turn your upper body so that your shoulder delivers the blow instead of your head.Of course, if the league would return to being a tackling league instead of a hitting league, a lot of this would be moot.

Hitting is just a style...just like being sound at tackling is. Expecting everyone to be the same isnt realistic, IMO.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

How is a rb supposed to lower their shoulder for impact without also lowering their head? This sport is really losing its identity.

It's easy. You turn your upper body so that your shoulder delivers the blow instead of your head.Of course, if the league would return to being a tackling league instead of a hitting league, a lot of this would be moot.

Hitting is just a style...just like being sound at tackling is. Expecting everyone to be the same isnt realistic, IMO.

If that "style" leads to injury then either adjust your style or don't play.

 

[sho nuff]

A rb or any other player unable to lower his head in the open field prevents the player from delivering contact and protecting himself. Instead, he is now just a mere target and this will lead to more jaw and knee injuries.

They are not unable to lower their head...why do opponents of this continue to get the rule incorrect.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

And it's preposterous that someone like Eric Dickerson can be involved in a lawsuit against the NFL for just the type of injuries this rule is designed to reduce yet simultaneously decry the proposal of a rule to prevent such injuries in the first place.

It's maddening.

 

[sho nuff]

And its interesting that most of the quotes about the rule I have seen...are that coaches are concerned on how its called...but most have said they agree those types of hits need to be eliminated.

 

[Spin]

They were talking about this on Sirius NFL yesterday and they had players/coaches saying that the league was showing them game film of the supposedly legal vs. illegal ball carriers initiating contact and most of them said they still couldn't tell the difference between the two or why one was legal vs. the other. And thats in slow motion with the NFL telling you which is which, how the hell are the officials supposed to make that call on the field at live speed. I'm all for player safety, but I think this one is going to cause some seriously controversal calls by the officials. Also, not sure if this was mentioned already, but this rule is for all ball carriers, not just RBs (they specifically mentioned it even applies to linemen that pickup fumbles, etc.).

This. This is going to be the biggest issue with this rule imo.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

How is a rb supposed to lower their shoulder for impact without also lowering their head? This sport is really losing its identity.

It's easy. You turn your upper body so that your shoulder delivers the blow instead of your head.Of course, if the league would return to being a tackling league instead of a hitting league, a lot of this would be moot.

Hitting is just a style...just like being sound at tackling is. Expecting everyone to be the same isnt realistic, IMO.

If that "style" leads to injury then either adjust your style or don't play.

All styles lead to injuries...again, expecting otherwise is not realistic. In a contact sport injuries (as you knwo) are going to happen. Should they try to eliminate them? Sure. My only issue is that at what point are you chaising your tail with these changes? The NFL went concussion heavy over the years and concussion injuries have been UP...not down.What's lost in all of this is--how many injuries have players AVOIDED by lowering their heads? We will soon see....and then next year we'll open the discussion back up.

I didnt see all of the examples they used for this rule but I find it odd that the main one (Trich hitting Coleman) didnt even result in an injury...

 

[Concept Coop]

What's lost in all of this is--how many injuries have players AVOIDED by lowering their heads? We will soon see....and then next year we'll open the discussion back up.

How is leading with the crown of your helmet protecting yourself? How are you avoiding injury by doing so?

 

[FF Ninja]

Why are you guys still worried about this? The rule didn't pass, right? I read there were only two new rules and this wasn't one of them. The only new rules had to do with peel back blocks and defensive formations on field goals.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

All styles lead to injuries...again, expecting otherwise is not realistic.

But you can minimize the effects of the violent ones that lead to long term injury - especially ones to the brain.I guess as I've gotten older, the hits like the one Richardson applied to Coleman don't make me go "ooh, ahh" as much as they make me go "eww, aww" now.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

What's lost in all of this is--how many injuries have players AVOIDED by lowering their heads? We will soon see....and then next year we'll open the discussion back up.

How is leading with the crown of your helmet protecting yourself? How are you avoiding injury by doing so?

Imagine he didnt lower anything and was hit and driven to the ground--can that result in injury? The answer is yes.Imagine he was leading with his shoulder and suffered a shoulder injury.Concussions are not the only injury people can suffer and injuries are not limited to the head.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

What's lost in all of this is--how many injuries have players AVOIDED by lowering their heads? We will soon see....and then next year we'll open the discussion back up.

How is leading with the crown of your helmet protecting yourself? How are you avoiding injury by doing so?

Imagine he didnt lower anything and was hit and driven to the ground--can that result in injury? The answer is yes.Imagine he was leading with his shoulder and suffered a shoulder injury.Concussions are not the only injury people can suffer and injuries are not limited to the head.

But nobody's suing the NFL for long term shoulder injuries.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

A rb or any other player unable to lower his head in the open field prevents the player from delivering contact and protecting himself. Instead, he is now just a mere target and this will lead to more jaw and knee injuries.

They are not unable to lower their head...why do opponents of this continue to get the rule incorrect.

Dipping your should lowers you head and neck. It doesn't prevent injury. It opens your jaw to a hit and leans and dips your head in another direction opening yourself for a helmet to helmet hit from the side or another angle. Basically the rule does not lessen the likelihood of injury and adds a job for officials that all who have seen side by side legal and illegal examples have been unable to differentiate even in slow motion.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

All styles lead to injuries...again, expecting otherwise is not realistic.

But you can minimize the effects of the violent ones that lead to long term injury - especially ones to the brain.I guess as I've gotten older, the hits like the one Richardson applied to Coleman don't make me go "ooh, ahh" as much as they make me go "eww, aww" now.

Different strokes.I enjoy (and I'm 35 if that matters) the hard hits...knock outs in boxing/ UFC, hard checks in hockey/ Lacrosse etc.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

What's lost in all of this is--how many injuries have players AVOIDED by lowering their heads? We will soon see....and then next year we'll open the discussion back up.

How is leading with the crown of your helmet protecting yourself? How are you avoiding injury by doing so?

Imagine he didnt lower anything and was hit and driven to the ground--can that result in injury? The answer is yes.Imagine he was leading with his shoulder and suffered a shoulder injury.Concussions are not the only injury people can suffer and injuries are not limited to the head.

But nobody's suing the NFL for long term shoulder injuries.

Agreed. The driving force of this is strictly political and that's why I disagree with it. If were truely about players saftey the attire would be adjusted more then the play- but its not.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

All styles lead to injuries...again, expecting otherwise is not realistic.

But you can minimize the effects of the violent ones that lead to long term injury - especially ones to the brain.I guess as I've gotten older, the hits like the one Richardson applied to Coleman don't make me go "ooh, ahh" as much as they make me go "eww, aww" now.

Different strokes.I enjoy (and I'm 35 if that matters) the hard hits...knock outs in boxing/ UFC, hard checks in hockey/ Lacrosse etc.

I was wondering about this earlier...if you like stuff like UFC/MMA are you more likely to think this rule is stupid.Not a value judgement, just an observation. I can't stand the UFC/MMA stuff. But if those folks want to do it and other folks want to watch it, more power to ya.

 

[Amused to Death]

What's lost in all of this is--how many injuries have players AVOIDED by lowering their heads? We will soon see....and then next year we'll open the discussion back up.

How is leading with the crown of your helmet protecting yourself? How are you avoiding injury by doing so?

Imagine he didnt lower anything and was hit and driven to the ground--can that result in injury? The answer is yes.Imagine he was leading with his shoulder and suffered a shoulder injury.

Concussions are not the only injury people can suffer and injuries are not limited to the head.

But nobody's suing the NFL for long term shoulder injuries.

Agreed. The driving force of this is strictly political and that's why I disagree with it. If were truely about players saftey the attire would be adjusted more then the play- but its not.

Yup. Nobody cared until the lawsuits hit. Safer equipment people...not rule changes (yet).

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'd be awesome to have a whole field of Steve Tasker-like Mario mushrooms out there.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

All styles lead to injuries...again, expecting otherwise is not realistic.

But you can minimize the effects of the violent ones that lead to long term injury - especially ones to the brain.I guess as I've gotten older, the hits like the one Richardson applied to Coleman don't make me go "ooh, ahh" as much as they make me go "eww, aww" now.

Different strokes.I enjoy (and I'm 35 if that matters) the hard hits...knock outs in boxing/ UFC, hard checks in hockey/ Lacrosse etc.

I was wondering about this earlier...if you like stuff like UFC/MMA are you more likely to think this rule is stupid.Not a value judgement, just an observation. I can't stand the UFC/MMA stuff. But if those folks want to do it and other folks want to watch it, more power to ya.

FWIW, I dont think its stupid. I think there's a different approach or two and the driving force shouldnt be a lawsuit to cover your ###

 

[Sabertooth]

Mark Kelso

 

[Andy Dufresne]

FWIW, I dont think its stupid. I think there's a different approach or two and the driving force shouldnt be a lawsuit to cover your ###

Hey, I'm an idealist too. But unless it costs the NFL money they're not going to change.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

I'd be awesome to have a whole field of Steve Tasker-like Mario mushrooms out there.

They had an NFL equipment manufacturer on Mike and Mike one morning and they were asking him about the helmets and equipment and if they can be safer. The guys stated that they already have safer equipment but the players do not want to wear it. He mentioned one specific incident where a prominent NFL QB came in and tried the helmet on....took one look in the mirror and gave it back....maybe the NFL should mandate better equipment and force this on the players...if that doesn’t upset Nike...

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I'd be awesome to have a whole field of Steve Tasker-like Mario mushrooms out there.

If actual safety were the goal instead of the illusion of it, then we would have such less aesthetically pleasing helmets.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'd be awesome to have a whole field of Steve Tasker-like Mario mushrooms out there.

If actual safety were the goal instead of the illusion of it, then we would have such less aesthetically pleasing helmets.

You're making a good point there.