Lowering Helmet Rule: Three Criteria

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
Lowering Helmet Rule: Three Criteria
Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:04 pm
  • The Raider coverage really irritated me in the lack of understanding regarding the lowering of the helmet as to why Michael was NOT called for a penalty. I could tell right away, but one of my biggest pet peeves is when announcers don't know the rules of the games they are covering. It's their job to know.

    The rule only applies outside the tackle box or three yards past the line of scrimmage.

    There are THREE components to this foul:

    First, the player must line up his opponent.
    Second, he must lower his head.
    And third, he must initiate contact with and deliver a forcible blow with the crown of his helmet to any part of his opponent’s body. The crown is the very top of the helmet.

    If any of the criteria is not met, it is NOT a foul under this new rule.

    End Rant.

    Michael was clearly running at an angle and did NOT line up his opponent. Thus, no foul. It is NOT simply lowering the helmet that causes this new rule to come into effect.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3363
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Lowering Helmet Rule: Three Criteria
Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:10 pm
  • Now that the NFL law suit is settled my prediction is that this penalty is never called.
    Image
    User avatar
    JSeahawks
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 18609
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
    Location: Milwaukie, Oregon


Re: Lowering Helmet Rule: Three Criteria
Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:15 pm
  • It really not that big a deal. Takes a lot to fill all the criteria.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3363
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Lowering Helmet Rule: Three Criteria
Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:35 pm
  • JSeahawks wrote:Now that the NFL law suit is settled my prediction is that this penalty is never called.

    LOL I hope you are right but I will take that bet and raise you that it is called more than once to prove they (the NFL) are being proactive.
    Member of 38 Plus club. Seahawks + PC/JS + Russell Wilson = Superbowl XLVIII +
    User avatar
    rainger
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1734
    Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:32 am
    Location: Victoria BC


Re: Lowering Helmet Rule: Three Criteria
Thu Aug 29, 2013 9:53 pm
  • I don't know what feed you were watching, but it was discussed as not a penalty on my feed. Really if your going to get mad about calls, I would hope they were at least called:P
    seatownboy
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 107
    Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:30 pm


Re: Lowering Helmet Rule: Three Criteria
Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:30 pm
  • seatownboy wrote:I don't know what feed you were watching, but it was discussed as not a penalty on my feed. Really if your going to get mad about calls, I would hope they were at least called:P


    The Raider coverage really irritated me in the lack of understanding regarding the lowering of the helmet as to why Michael was NOT called for a penalty. I could tell right away, but one of my biggest pet peeves is when announcers don't know the rules of the games they are covering. It's their job to know.


    Read my post again. It's about the Raider announcers. Not the refs. The refs got the call right... eventually.
    Give me some damn skittles...
    User avatar
    Basis4day
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3363
    Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:57 am


Re: Lowering Helmet Rule: Three Criteria
Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:59 pm
  • I'm more worried about the Helmet to Helmet rule that seems to get called against us every game when, in fact, we're hitting shoulder to body.

    I really think that that rule (and the "Lowering the helmet" rule) need to be challengeable just due to how many times this preseason and last regular season it got called against us (e.g., the big hit on Vernon Davis that knocked loose the ball last year).
    Joe Zulaski
    User avatar
    ZLDRider
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 41
    Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 7:01 am


Re: Lowering Helmet Rule: Three Criteria
Fri Aug 30, 2013 1:52 pm
  • ZLDRider wrote:I'm more worried about the Helmet to Helmet rule that seems to get called against us every game when, in fact, we're hitting shoulder to body.

    I really think that that rule (and the "Lowering the helmet" rule) need to be challengeable just due to how many times this preseason and last regular season it got called against us (e.g., the big hit on Vernon Davis that knocked loose the ball last year).

    :13:

    This ends up extending opponent drives, which can affect the outcome of games. This should be reviewed by someone upstairs to confirm the helmet-to-helmet. It's a good rule, but the execution is very flawed and causing players to take out knees instead.
    Colin Kaepernick wrote:I think our efficiency in the huddle was more of a factor than the crowd.
    User avatar
    C-Dub
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1129
    Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:06 am
    Location: Spokane, WA


Re: Lowering Helmet Rule: Three Criteria
Sat Aug 31, 2013 9:51 am
  • ZLDRider wrote:I'm more worried about the Helmet to Helmet rule that seems to get called against us every game when, in fact, we're hitting shoulder to body.

    I really think that that rule (and the "Lowering the helmet" rule) need to be challengeable just due to how many times this preseason and last regular season it got called against us (e.g., the big hit on Vernon Davis that knocked loose the ball last year).

    The Cam to Davis hit was called a defenseless receiver penalty not helmet to helmet. However the are never defenseless they always have pads, at least that is my opinion.
    User avatar
    Kixkahn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 812
    Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:04 pm




It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:08 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information