It's official: Tuck rule gone, helmet rule approved

The (owners are for it) argument is plainly disguised as them wanting the game to be safer and to look good for future lawsuits. This is just my opinion of course, but whoever voted against this would look as if they didn't give a crap about safety. Appearances are everything in this case!

I bet you all will still watch anyways. Even after this doomsday announcement.

Tech Worlds":34henn5a said:

I bet you all will still watch anyways. Even after this doomsday announcement.

Click to expand...

Watch while hoping it doesn't have the impact I think it will. We'll see...

Tech Worlds":1dvofwmy said:

I bet you all will still watch anyways. Even after this doomsday announcement.

Click to expand...

True,still dont like it.

Tech Worlds":ci8miyr7 said:

I bet you all will still watch anyways. Even after this doomsday announcement.

Click to expand...

Of course we will, but it doesn't mean we're not aggravated. We will watch but will enjoy the game slightly less.

I think they could solve all these issues by just removing the face mask.

Think about it... Who is going to lead with the head without a face mask?

Problem solved.

The crown of the helmet is the top of the helmet, which doesn't really have much to do with the facemask. Players would probably lead with the crown more often if they didn't have a mask. Plus, the facemask helps protect against accidental injuries like a foot to the face.

This is all driven by one thing, the concussion lawsuits. The owners are trying to protect themselves from liability. Once the proposed rule was announced, they HAD to vote it in.

I could just hear a litigant now, "They had the opportunity to protect running backs from concussion and voted it down." That's the society we live in these days. Don't like something? Sue!

That's why electing lawyers to public office is always a bad idea. They will always pass laws that benefit their profession because they might be back out there practicing when they don't get re-elected. But, I'm sure most people recognize that.

ivotuk":1c5zzohp said:

This is all driven by one thing, the concussion lawsuits. The owners are trying to protect themselves from liability. Once the proposed rule was announced, they HAD to vote it in.

I could just hear a litigant now, "They had the opportunity to protect running backs from concussion and voted it down." That's the society we live in these days. Don't like something? Sue!

That's why electing lawyers to public office is always a bad idea. They will always pass laws that benefit their profession because they might be back out there practicing when they don't get re-elected. But, I'm sure most people recognize that.

Click to expand...

Or, if you don't like something, have it banned (made illegal). *cough* large sodas *cough*

The Outfield":s3bwbbzu said:

The crown of the helmet is the top of the helmet, which doesn't really have much to do with the facemask. Players would probably lead with the crown more often if they didn't have a mask. Plus, the facemask helps protect against accidental injuries like a foot to the face.

Click to expand...

Incorrect

They wouldn't lead with the head.

The game would be played like it was intended to be played. Look back at the days of leather helmets. Guys were not turning themselves into missiles and flying in head first.

The league would go back to old school football

Upon review of every single play last year (not by me, by the rules committee) this penalty would have been called less then 30 times last season.

Tech Worlds":p4lm95mx said:

The Outfield":p4lm95mx said:

The crown of the helmet is the top of the helmet, which doesn't really have much to do with the facemask. Players would probably lead with the crown more often if they didn't have a mask. Plus, the facemask helps protect against accidental injuries like a foot to the face.

Click to expand...

Incorrect

They wouldn't lead with the head.

The game would be played like it was intended to be played. Look back at the days of leather helmets. Guys were not turning themselves into missiles and flying in head first.

The league would go back to old school football

Click to expand...

You didn't say leather helmets. You said no facemasks.

Whatever. Same thing holds true. People arnt going to stuff thier face, or even the crown without facemasks on.

JSeahawks":oo8juynl said:

Upon review of every single play last year (not by me, by the rules committee) this penalty would have been called less then 30 times last season.

Click to expand...

I'd be very interesting in seeing the distribution of those calls (ie among certain teams, certain players). 30 times is about 1/100th of 2012's total penalties.

JSeahawks":2h2zycui said:

Upon review of every single play last year (not by me, by the rules committee) this penalty would have been called less then 30 times last season.

Click to expand...

Assuming it had been called correctly.

Remember Kam's huge hit on Davis? That was 100% legal, yet it instantly drew flags from 3 different officials.

People hate on the officials. I hate on Roger Goodell for making their job flipping impossible to do.

JSeahawks":1iwug74s said:

Upon review of every single play last year (not by me, by the rules committee) this penalty would have been called less then 30 times last season.

Click to expand...

Actually no, all they determined is that after reviewing video of every play last year, there were 30 plays in which it would have been the correct call. When you factor in officials' mistakes while working games in real time, I'd be willing to better the number of flags that would have been thrown had this rule existed last year would easily be 2 to 3 times that amount.

It's easy for the league to sit back now and say "this isn't going to happen that often." But officials make mistakes and plays happen fast and they are going to err on the side of throwing the flag if a play looks bad. Look at the Chancellor hit last year: three flags came flying in on a play that was obviously clean once people saw the replay. The same thing will happen with this rule.

I think it so Goodell-esque that he finally bans a rule 12 years too late because it's too difficult to make judgement calls on, only to add a new rule in it's stead that is a hundred times more frequent and is just as hard for officials to rule on in real time. At least the tuck rule didn't change the way QBs played. This new rule probably will for RBs, and it could actually increase injuries. Can the Commissioner be impeached? He simply needs to go.

I know that if I was the commish and I had legions of players and coaches telling me a new rule was a bad idea, I'd probably table it. Sure, the owners voted on it, but the owners aren't football players. They don't have to deal with this kind of thing. And where is the input from officials? Officials just love being at the center of controversy, so I'm sure they'd love all these new opportunities to screw up at their job.

Maybe the officials were consulted.

I have no idea to what degree the competition committee debates and vets these types of issues before making the decisions they do.

I don't understand what being outside the tackle box has to do with player safety.
Is it not possible to suffer a concussion if you stay between the tackles?

kearly":1tleikqw said:

JSeahawks":1tleikqw said:

People hate on the officials. I hate on Roger Goodell for making their job flipping impossible to do.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's kind of where I'm at too man. They have been forced into the "throw flag, sort it out later" routine by shitty policies and gray area language in the rules.