Back To The Helmet Issue (Retros)

[AROS]

So I was talking to my neighbor today...Avid Broncos fan for what it's worth...We both could not figure out why the NFL won't allow the Seahawks to wear their retro silver helmets and logo...I have heard ad nauseam how it's about safety, blah blah blah. Yet, correct us if we are wrong but have we not seen the Steelers rocking all yellow helmets? The Jets all white? I can go on and on and on...Something isn't adding up here. I have heard all about how they can be wrapped but they have to be the same helmets they already wear.

Now, each player has more than one helmet. If it gets cracked or damaged, another one is provided obviously. So tell me why there can't be a small batch of retro helmets with the same technology as their "normal" helmets?

This has been an ongoing question I, and others, have had for years now and I have yet to hear a plausible reason why it can't be done. Anyone care to take a stab?

 

[TAB420]

Why would it be a safety issue? Same helmet, different design, right?

 

[KitsapGuy]

The Steelers retired the gold helmet in 2012. The rule came out in 2013.

The Steelers re-introduced gold helmets in 2007, paired with their 1962 throwback uniforms. The gold helmets featured the current Steelers logo rather than the original version of the Steelmark that was worn in 1962, and were also paired with black facemasks. These helmets continued to be used through the 2011 season. When the Steelers replaced the 1962 throwback with the 1933 horizontally-striped "bumblebee" throwbacks in 2012, the team retired the gold helmets.

The Jets helmets were white until 2019.

1998–2018: Retro update
Upon taking over as administrator and head coach in 1997, Bill Parcells took the initiative and began the process of re-forming the team's identity, which included redesigning the team's uniforms, logos and wordmarks for the 1998 season.[6] The team changed its primary uniform color from the bright kelly green to the darker hunter green, abandoned black as a trim color, and replaced the stylized "JETS" wordmark with a modified version of the 1965-77 logo, this one oval rather than football-shaped and with a somewhat "cleaner" appearance, with starker lines defining the lettering and football graphic.[6] The helmets reverted to white with two parallel green stripes down the center, the new primary logo decal on each side, and green facemasks (unlike the gray facemasks used prior to 1978).[7] The jerseys and pants also resembled the 1963-77 uniforms, with alternating shoulder stripes, opposite-colored sleeves and TV numerals, and two green parallel stripes from hip to knee on each side. The new primary logo was also added to the jersey front, by the player's left shoulder.[7] The socks became solid green above the ankle, with no stripes.

This uniform remained largely unchanged through 2018, save for some variations in coloration and shoulder/sleeve tailoring, and the occasional commemorative patch. In 2002, the team introduced a set of green pants with two parallel white stripes on each side, along with white socks with green stripes resembling those used with the green pants from 1990-97.[8] The green pants were worn occasionally with both the green and white jerseys through 2018.[9][10] Although the white socks were meant to be worn with the green pants, the team tended to use them whenever the white jerseys were worn, with either green or white pants.

And any other questions can be found here: https://uni-watch.com/an-faq-for-the-nfls-helmet-rule/

 

[KitsapGuy]

When was the rule enacted?

The rule came to light in September of 2013, when the Buccaneers announced that their “Bucco Bruce”-era throwbacks, which they had planned to wear later that month, were being scrapped because the NFL had quietly approved a recommendation by two of the league’s advisory panels — the Head, Neck, and Spine Committee and the Player Safety Advisory Panel — that limited teams from switching helmets during the season. The Buccaneers’ normal helmets are pewter and the throwback helmets were white, so wearing the throwback uniforms would have necessitated a new set of helmets. Teams had routinely used new helmet sets for throwback games in the past, but it was no longer possible under the new rule.

What is the thinking behind the rule?

The idea is to limit the number of helmets that players wear during a season, because new helmets can be unsafe if they’re worn fresh out of the box, without a lengthy “break-in” period.

Wouldn’t a new helmet actually be safer than an old one that’s gotten banged up over the course of eight or nine games?

That does seem somewhat logical, or at least intuitive. But those two advisory committees believe it’s safer, on balance, for a player to stick with one helmet for the entire season.

 

[KitsapGuy]

In the past couple of years, I’ve seen plenty of NFL teams wearing throwback helmet designs. Doesn’t that violate the rule?

The rule limits a team to one set of helmet shells, but the team can change the way that shell is decorated. For example, when the Bears wear their “Monsters of the Midway” throwbacks, those are the exact same helmets they usually wear. They just remove the logo decals and swap out the navy facemasks for grey facemasks, both of which are allowed under the rule. Same thing with the Bills’ throwback helmet — they just swap out the side decals and striping tape. The Broncos’ Thursday-night helmets are another example — same shells, different side decals and striping tape. The rule doesn’t limit teams to one helmet design; it limits them to one set of helmet shells.

If they’re allowed to swap out the facemasks, like you just said, why do the Packers keep the green facemasks for their throwback helmet, which doesn’t match the rest of the throwback uniform?

Good question. They really ought to switch the masks to navy, or grey, or something other than green. But their failure to do so has nothing to do with the NFL rule — they’re allowed to change the masks if they want to.

I saw a player switch to a different helmet in the middle of a game. And I saw a player switch to a new helmet model in the middle of the season. And there are players who get new helmets after being traded. Doesn’t all of that violate the rule?

The rule is not designed to eliminate helmet changes. It is designed to minimize helmet changes by prohibiting teams from changing to an entire new set of helmets in one shot.

For example, if a player’s helmet is cracked or otherwise damaged or compromised, the rule does not require him to keep wearing the same helmet. He can (and should!) switch to a new one.

Based on my observations, it appears that players are also permitted to upgrade to a newer (and presumably safer) helmet model in the middle of the season. I have not heard this provision spelled out anywhere, but it appears to be the pattern, at least with a few players.

 

[KitsapGuy]

So you’re saying that there are exceptions to the rule.

I’m saying, again, that the rule is designed to minimize helmet changes, not to eliminate them.

Why does the NFL call it the “one-shell rule” if it doesn’t actually limit players to one shell?

Actually, the league doesn’t call it the “one-shell rule” (or the “one-helmet rule” either). That’s just a shorthand term that’s taken hold with fans and some writers.

If teams want a different helmet color for one week, why not just repaint the helmets, and then paint them back to the original color the week after that?

Modern helmet paints take too long to dry and cure. The helmets wouldn’t be ready in time, and the players wouldn’t be able to use them for midweek practices.

Why not wrap the helmets in colored vinyl? I’ve seen that done with cars, and it looks great!

Full-cover wraps are impractical and unsafe, because they make it hard to see if a helmet has been damaged.

Trust me, if there were an easy solution, they would have done it by now. Most equipment managers, who know a lot more about helmets than you or I, want to solve this problem, and I can assure you that they’ve gone through all of the obvious (and many not-so-obvious) approaches to it. If they haven’t come up with a solution, it’s because no good solution is available, at least for now.

With all the advances in helmet technology that we keep hearing about, is there a chance that the NFL might drop the rule?

Sure. But for now they’re sticking with it.

Didn’t a team recently try to get the rule changed?

Yes. At the owners’ meetings that took place in Phoenix in March of 2017, the Eagles proposed a rule change to allow teams to have an alternate helmet, which would have effectively killed the one-shell rule. But they later withdrew the proposal after team owner Jeffrey Lurie was told that it didn’t have enough support to pass.

I hate this rule! There are all sorts of great throwbacks (Pat Patriot, Bucco Bruce, etc.) that we don’t get to see anymore. Don’t they realize that they’re ruining throwbacks? And think of all the extra merchandise they could sell!

It’s funny — people often complain that the NFL trots out throwbacks and alternates just as a way to sell merchandise. But when the league does something in the name of safety — something that actually cuts down on the amount of merchandise, because it eliminates the possibility of certain throwback designs — people complain about that too.

 

[ZorntoLargent]

So you’re saying that there are exceptions to the rule.

I’m saying, again, that the rule is designed to minimize helmet changes, not to eliminate them.

Why does the NFL call it the “one-shell rule” if it doesn’t actually limit players to one shell?

Actually, the league doesn’t call it the “one-shell rule” (or the “one-helmet rule” either). That’s just a shorthand term that’s taken hold with fans and some writers.

If teams want a different helmet color for one week, why not just repaint the helmets, and then paint them back to the original color the week after that?

Modern helmet paints take too long to dry and cure. The helmets wouldn’t be ready in time, and the players wouldn’t be able to use them for midweek practices.

Why not wrap the helmets in colored vinyl? I’ve seen that done with cars, and it looks great!

Full-cover wraps are impractical and unsafe, because they make it hard to see if a helmet has been damaged.

Trust me, if there were an easy solution, they would have done it by now. Most equipment managers, who know a lot more about helmets than you or I, want to solve this problem, and I can assure you that they’ve gone through all of the obvious (and many not-so-obvious) approaches to it. If they haven’t come up with a solution, it’s because no good solution is available, at least for now.

With all the advances in helmet technology that we keep hearing about, is there a chance that the NFL might drop the rule?

Sure. But for now they’re sticking with it.

Didn’t a team recently try to get the rule changed?

Yes. At the owners’ meetings that took place in Phoenix in March of 2017, the Eagles proposed a rule change to allow teams to have an alternate helmet, which would have effectively killed the one-shell rule. But they later withdrew the proposal after team owner Jeffrey Lurie was told that it didn’t have enough support to pass.

I hate this rule! There are all sorts of great throwbacks (Pat Patriot, Bucco Bruce, etc.) that we don’t get to see anymore. Don’t they realize that they’re ruining throwbacks? And think of all the extra merchandise they could sell!

It’s funny — people often complain that the NFL trots out throwbacks and alternates just as a way to sell merchandise. But when the league does something in the name of safety — something that actually cuts down on the amount of merchandise, because it eliminates the possibility of certain throwback designs — people complain about that too.

So the Oregon Ducks aren't even close to safe, is what I'm getting from this?

 

[Sun Tzu]

So you’re saying that there are exceptions to the rule.

I’m saying, again, that the rule is designed to minimize helmet changes, not to eliminate them.

Why does the NFL call it the “one-shell rule” if it doesn’t actually limit players to one shell?

Actually, the league doesn’t call it the “one-shell rule” (or the “one-helmet rule” either). That’s just a shorthand term that’s taken hold with fans and some writers.

If teams want a different helmet color for one week, why not just repaint the helmets, and then paint them back to the original color the week after that?

Modern helmet paints take too long to dry and cure. The helmets wouldn’t be ready in time, and the players wouldn’t be able to use them for midweek practices.

Why not wrap the helmets in colored vinyl? I’ve seen that done with cars, and it looks great!

Full-cover wraps are impractical and unsafe, because they make it hard to see if a helmet has been damaged.

Trust me, if there were an easy solution, they would have done it by now. Most equipment managers, who know a lot more about helmets than you or I, want to solve this problem, and I can assure you that they’ve gone through all of the obvious (and many not-so-obvious) approaches to it. If they haven’t come up with a solution, it’s because no good solution is available, at least for now.

With all the advances in helmet technology that we keep hearing about, is there a chance that the NFL might drop the rule?

Sure. But for now they’re sticking with it.

Didn’t a team recently try to get the rule changed?

Yes. At the owners’ meetings that took place in Phoenix in March of 2017, the Eagles proposed a rule change to allow teams to have an alternate helmet, which would have effectively killed the one-shell rule. But they later withdrew the proposal after team owner Jeffrey Lurie was told that it didn’t have enough support to pass.

I hate this rule! There are all sorts of great throwbacks (Pat Patriot, Bucco Bruce, etc.) that we don’t get to see anymore. Don’t they realize that they’re ruining throwbacks? And think of all the extra merchandise they could sell!

It’s funny — people often complain that the NFL trots out throwbacks and alternates just as a way to sell merchandise. But when the league does something in the name of safety — something that actually cuts down on the amount of merchandise, because it eliminates the possibility of certain throwback designs — people complain about that too.

So the Oregon Ducks aren't even close to safe, is what I'm getting from this?

Maybe the Ducks don't have anything to protect; the helmets are just for show.

 

[Seanhawk]

Winds are blowin'.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/28953140/throwback-look-nfl-more-common-2021-possible-rule-change

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Face it boys and girls, the NFL simply has neither the money nor the technology available to make two different colored helmets for the same team and stay within safety standards. It's only 2020.