well they pass the new rule leading with crown...

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13
  • WOOOOOOOOOOOW. The NFL is a joke. I get the rule, but I feel like they failed to realize that refs are going to throw flags whenever THEY feel like someone is leading with the head. Can't wait for hundreds of flags to be thrown because someone is ducking into a pile, or trying to split two defenders.


    Can't help but feel bad for the ball carriers going into this season. Chances are none of them change a damn thing they do, HOPEFULLY.


    Kind of excited to see this blow up in Roger's face. WHAT A MORON.


    ALSO. Can't wait to watch the Pro-bowl 16 weeks out of the year. Cause, we all know how exciting that can be!
    Last edited by SouthSoundHawk on Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Image

    Go Hawks.
    User avatar
    SouthSoundHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2108
    Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 5:06 am


  • SouthSoundHawk wrote:WOOOOOOOOOOOW. The NFL is a joke. I get the rule, but I feel like they failed to realize that refs are going to throw flags whenever THEY feel like someone is leading with the head. Can't wait for hundreds of flags to be thrown because someone is ducking into a pile, or trying to split two defenders.


    Can't help but feel bad for the ball carriers going into this season. Chances are none of them change a damn thing they do, HOPEFULLY.


    Kind of excited to see this blow up in Roger's face. WHAT A MORON.


    But didn't you just hear "how is this all Roger's fault?".. :stirthepot:
    User avatar
    Seahwkgal
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:27 pm


  • What a stupid rule if it goes down. What are they gonna do about the goal line when backs are fighting for every yard? It doesn't seem like it has ever been a problem. I don't remember a lot of head injuries to running backs on the plays they are trying to stop.
    User avatar
    bigtrain21
    * NET GIF Master *
     
    Posts: 1113
    Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:48 am


  • More flags, more time-outs, more commercials. I want to puke.
    User avatar
    Seahwkgal
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:27 pm


  • This will probably hurt running teams the most, I hate this passing league only crap we have to watch now. We might as well just get rid of the RB and just have a QB throw the ball then after a catch rule the play dead.

    Seattle, San Francisco, Minnesota, Tampa, and any other team with a good RB has made the running game a liability when they devise a run heavy game plan.
    NFL, all your Owlz are belong to us!
    User avatar
    12th_Bob
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1754
    Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:56 pm


  • The NFL does not want the NFC West teams to dominate. God forbid that their favorite teams don't make the SB. I am really starting to hate the league now. They keep showing the Robinson hit on Jennings over and over again. Marshall Faulk is not happy at all about this and I for one completely agree with his gripe.
    User avatar
    Seahwkgal
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 2260
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:27 pm


  • i feel bad for running backs entering this draft. have fun with your 6th/7th round salaries.
    Image
    User avatar
    Hawknballs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2672
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am


  • Hawkfan77 wrote:
    CANHawk wrote:
    Yeah, most successful business people tend to completely ignore the wishes of their clients. Seems like a good business practice...

    Let's be real, the NFL stands to lose absolutely nothing if this rule passes and nothing if it doesn't. No one will stop watching the NFL or stop spending their money on the product based on outcome of the this rule.


    Yep. and Enron was worth $100 billion dollars once upon a time ago. What's your point? I agree, this "one rule" isn't going to break them, but it's the continued errosion of what made the game popular in the first place that could eventually make people drift away. With all these cockameme rule changes, I can't help but wonder what comes next, and if I'm still going to care in 15 years.
    So you're admitting I'm a celeb...
    User avatar
    CANHawk
    * Gangnameister *
     
    Posts: 11246
    Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:29 pm
    Location: PoCompton, BC Canada


  • nfl only cares about advertising dollars, and mainstream companies only want to advertise their products during non-controversial television broadcasts. Unless of course the controversy is fraudulent faux-controversy 'reality' tv or something of course, then it's ok.

    its pretty much that simple.
    Image
    User avatar
    Hawknballs
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2672
    Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:51 am


  • It's just another vague rule that will help the NFL control outcomes of games.

    Luckily, Seattle is now one of the NFL's darling teams, so they will make sure it benefits us more then it hurts us :)

    In all honesty though, I think this would effect Robinson more then Lynch, can't remember a play with Lynch leading with the crown of his helmet...but can remember at least two where Mike Rob did.
    Image
    User avatar
    DericLee
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 862
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 4:17 pm


  • DericLee wrote:It's just another vague rule that will help the NFL control outcomes of games.

    Luckily, Seattle is now one of the NFL's darling teams, so they will make sure it benefits us more then it hurts us :)


    We'd have to hope so.
    User avatar
    Greenhell
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2717
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:46 am



  • Until they have review for these penalties, this will be a stupid rule.

    Kams hit on Davis last year should not have been flagged, but was. And this new rule falls under the same "error on the side of caution" type of referee enforcement.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10850
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:Until they have review for these penalties, this will be a stupid rule.

    Kams hit on Davis last year should not have been flagged, but was. And this new rule falls under the same "error on the side of caution" type of referee enforcement.


    Yep.. and those are the some of the most aggravating bad calls. When your player shows an increased intensity of play and then gets wrongfully penalized for it...
    User avatar
    The Outfield
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2230
    Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am


  • This will certainly affect Lynch, and the refs will be watching for him.

    The actual quote from the ESPN article isn't "5 plays would've been flagged last year" but "5 backs would be flagged last year". They also go on to mention Forte, Lynch and Adrian Peterson by name as guys that will have to alter their style.

    I also agree that this will be open to misinterpretation like the Kam hit on Davis last year. That could've cost us a TD if our defense wasn't on it that game. Notice that Kam got flagged, but he didn't get fined. It still affects the outcome of the game, and this new rule will as well.
    Hawks46
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3473
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm


  • The Outfield wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:Until they have review for these penalties, this will be a stupid rule.

    Kams hit on Davis last year should not have been flagged, but was. And this new rule falls under the same "error on the side of caution" type of referee enforcement.


    Yep.. and those are the some of the most aggravating bad calls. When your player shows an increased intensity of play and then gets wrongfully penalized for it...


    I will go one farther: Until the review is done by an official who is not one of the field crew, I won't buy that it is free of bias.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10850
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • No matter what people think of this rule or what side they line up on in the debate one this is certain, it will affect us and our boy Marshawn negatively this year.

    I mean whenever we did run a toss play with Marshawn, outside the tackle box, he would almost always finishes his runs by lowering his head and squeaking out as many yards as possible and now after doing it his entire career you expect him to change that overnight?........smh. This is a horrible rule and will hurt us way more than it will help.
    Image
    User avatar
    Blitzer88
    * NET Eeyore *
     
    Posts: 10966
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
    Location: Pasco, WA


  • The NFL is a joke now. I am all for players not getting hurt but for F's-sake this game is a CONTACT sport, not baseball. Instead of keeping the game the way it is supposed to be, they want to ruin it. Instead of paying the players more and giving them guaranteed contracts, the NFL makes more and more and pays less. If they really cared about the players that's what they'd do, instead they just want to keep their "investments" on the field but don't care about the integrity of the game. With this move all they are trying to prevent is future lawsuits for brain damage and whatnot. Pretty soon the NFL will be the Arena League with 80-90% passes and running only to get 1 or 2 yards. I miss the game I grew up with.
    User avatar
    McG
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 817
    Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 3:30 am
    Location: Van Buren, AR from Kent-Covington, WA


  • It is reported that this would have been called 5 times last year.

    I will bet money it gets called more than 5 times this year. The refs will error on this one.
    SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need
    User avatar
    Scottemojo
    *Scott of Smacksville*
    *Scott of Smacksville*
     
    Posts: 10850
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am


  • Funny Jeff Fisher is behind this rule. Just sayin.
    travlinhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 424
    Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:46 pm


  • Three rule changes, all would of most likely changed the outcome of Seattle games. (Kicking rule, crown helmet rule, and down block lineman rule)

    Smells like rotten BS.
    NFL, all your Owlz are belong to us!
    User avatar
    12th_Bob
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1754
    Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:56 pm


  • Another transparent attempt to turn the NFL into a pure passing league. I'm amazed by their ingenuity.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11248
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:It is reported that this would have been called 5 times last year.

    I will bet money it gets called more than 5 times this year. The refs will error on this one.


    So actually, its been reported that when they did their homework on this, they took every game from week 10 and week 16 and watched ever single play.
    They said there was 5 cases in week 10 and 6 in week 16 that would be penalties.

    Doing the math, there is about 130 plays in a game from both sides. week 10 had 14 games playing due to bye's. Week 16 had 16 games.

    - so 30 games had an average of 3900 plays where 11 of them were deemed penalized for a ball carrier leading with his crown. I dont know what plays they deemed bad, so I looked up the injury reports for week 10 and week 16. Nobody was injured due to a ball carrier ramming them.

    -So in 0.2% of plays in those two weeks, someone rammed with their head and nobody got hurt. Better make a rule for it........
    hawksincebirth wrote:So Russell has leverage but marshawn doesn't ? I thought its next man up. Hey we got t jack and bj Daniels right ??
    User avatar
    Cartire
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2721
    Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:49 am


  • Cartire wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:It is reported that this would have been called 5 times last year.

    I will bet money it gets called more than 5 times this year. The refs will error on this one.


    So actually, its been reported that when they did their homework on this, they took every game from week 10 and week 16 and watched ever single play.
    They said there was 5 cases in week 10 and 6 in week 16 that would be penalties.

    Doing the math, there is about 130 plays in a game from both sides. week 10 had 14 games playing due to bye's. Week 16 had 16 games.

    - so 30 games had an average of 3900 plays where 11 of them were deemed penalized for a ball carrier leading with his crown. I dont know what plays they deemed bad, so I looked up the injury reports for week 10 and week 16. Nobody was injured due to a ball carrier ramming them.

    -So in 0.2% of plays in those two weeks, someone rammed with their head and nobody got hurt. Better make a rule for it........


    And that's the opinion of people looking at game film after the fact. The number of flags that would have ACTUALLY been thrown would almost certainly be much higher.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1237
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:Until they have review for these penalties, this will be a stupid rule.

    Kams hit on Davis last year should not have been flagged, but was. And this new rule falls under the same "error on the side of caution" type of referee enforcement.


    Exactly. Those that blame the NFLPA don't. It's the owners afraid of concussions and the resulting law suits
    User avatar
    Happypuppy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1859
    Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:40 pm


  • Scottemojo wrote:
    The Outfield wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:Until they have review for these penalties, this will be a stupid rule.

    Kams hit on Davis last year should not have been flagged, but was. And this new rule falls under the same "error on the side of caution" type of referee enforcement.


    Yep.. and those are the some of the most aggravating bad calls. When your player shows an increased intensity of play and then gets wrongfully penalized for it...


    I will go one farther: Until the review is done by an official who is not one of the field crew, I won't buy that it is free of bias.


    This. Exactly. Not only free from bias, but a lot faster.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1237
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • Shadowhawk wrote:
    Scottemojo wrote:
    The Outfield wrote:
    Yep.. and those are the some of the most aggravating bad calls. When your player shows an increased intensity of play and then gets wrongfully penalized for it...


    I will go one farther: Until the review is done by an official who is not one of the field crew, I won't buy that it is free of bias.


    This. Exactly. Not only free from bias, but a lot faster.


    EXACTLY. With todays tv coverage and the speed they can rewatch plays, I dont understand why they cant just have someone dedicated to rewatching plays right after they happen and slow action plays down to quickly determine the proper outcome. They can handle this while the players are in huddle, and send a call down to the ref if they can reverse a blown call. The clock would be stopped for a bit anyway if its a flag, so you dont have to worry about hurry up offenses going too fast.

    They only need to call-down during flags, and they'll have the time to help the field crew with the correct call. No ref running to the replay booth. They can talk it over on the field (which they do anyways) why the guy upstairs watches the film. Sends his verdict down. And in all honesty, it wouldnt even be used on obvious calls. Offsides, False starts, obvious interferences, the ref can just make the call on the field quickly. But timing calls, personal fouls, intentional grounding, should always be reviewed quickly upstairs with a verdict within 30 seconds.
    hawksincebirth wrote:So Russell has leverage but marshawn doesn't ? I thought its next man up. Hey we got t jack and bj Daniels right ??
    User avatar
    Cartire
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2721
    Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:49 am


  • Teqneek wrote:Can we wait till the rule passes before we post completely false information? In no article I read could I even come to half a conclusion that rule was passed yesterday.

    It is being voted on today.




    read again!!!
    Darrenv17
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 193
    Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:51 pm
    Location: new york,ny


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:Another transparent attempt to turn the NFL into a pure passing league. I'm amazed by their ingenuity.


    Good point. I hadn't even considered that angle.

    I hold nothing but contempt for those that made this rule possible.
    Tall men come down to my height when I hit 'em in the body.

    Jack Dempsey
    User avatar
    Fuzzman55
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1572
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:10 pm


  • Fuzzman55 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:Another transparent attempt to turn the NFL into a pure passing league. I'm amazed by their ingenuity.


    Good point. I hadn't even considered that angle.

    I hold nothing but contempt for those that made this rule possible.


    Paul Allen was one of the people that voted yes for it. Im conflicted.
    hawksincebirth wrote:So Russell has leverage but marshawn doesn't ? I thought its next man up. Hey we got t jack and bj Daniels right ??
    User avatar
    Cartire
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2721
    Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:49 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:Another transparent attempt to turn the NFL into a pure passing league. I'm amazed by their ingenuity.

    Yet the owners (ours included) voted for it...hmmm...maybe there is no vast conspiracy?
    SUPERBOWL!!
    User avatar
    Hawkfan77
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1669
    Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 2:46 pm


  • Cartire wrote:That seems fine until you have refs calling the penalty in real-time. To many plays will get flagged because its to fast and the refs will flag it regardless. To many huge plays have been reversed because of flags. See Kam hit on Davis for an example. All were doing is giving the refs more opinionated control of the game.

    This has way to much conspiracy written into it, but I truly think that money talks. And with the amount of money that football betting brings in, you would be stupid not to assume that some of these refs cant be bought. And you would also be stupid to not assume, that some of these rules are in place just to give the refs some extra ability at controlling games.

    I think what pisses me off even more than giving SOME of these clowns the freedom to make a call like this without INSTANT replay conformation, or overturn, is the dumbass Leagues head honcho following up on a bad call with a f#^@&g fine.
    That's like saying I don't care that this bad call was unwarented, just suck it up, and take the injustice up your ass.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3530
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • edogg23 wrote:Hope they come to their senses and vote that one down. This is rediculous.

    personally I think it's greendiculous, but that's just me.
    Richard Sherman doesn't just wanna get in your head, he wants to build a vacation home there.

    R. Sherman: "I don't want to be an island. I want to be a tourist attraction. You come, I take your money & you go."
    User avatar
    SalishHawkFan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4582
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:39 pm


  • kidhawk wrote:
    sa_seahawker wrote:So much for the goal line fullback dive. That move leads with the crown of the helmet too.


    Dives are ALWAYS between the tackles, and this rule is only OUTSIDE the tackles. It doesn't change this one bit. This is for OPEN FIELD situations, not BUNCHED up groups.

    So if it's done in a bunched up situation, it removes the penalty option, as well as the same possibility for injury?
    I guess I don't understand the difference.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3530
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • The NFL is covering their ass, because there are too many bleeding hearts that would like to see football banned. :thfight7:
    Why is it when I try to come off as a smart ass, the opposite happens? :-(
    User avatar
    grizbob
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 2311
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:17 am
    Location: St George, UT


  • This is about former player lawsuits, not about player safety or anything else.
    User avatar
    hoxrox
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1214
    Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:29 pm


  • All this player safety BS is really starting to piss me off. Nobody forces the players to play, they all choose to because it beats pumping gas or working a checkout at Walmart.
    There are so many far more dangerous jobs done by hard working people who never come close to seeing a million dollars in their whole lifetime never mind the tens of millions that some of these nancy boys make.
    Another rule change or two similar to this one and it won't be long before teams are regularly racking up more penalty yards than passing yards.
    User avatar
    el capitan
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 351
    Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:48 am


  • Scottemojo wrote:Until they have review for these penalties, this will be a stupid rule.

    Kams hit on Davis last year should not have been flagged, but was. And this new rule falls under the same "error on the side of caution" type of referee enforcement.


    How many other plays should not have been flagged but were due to "heat of the moment" flags?
    ie. how many flags were thrown but fines not given for such plays for us last year?

    Kam didn't get a fine for that play because they reviewed it and said it was OK.
    I don't remember it happening any other time in over 1000 snaps. Note: I'm not talking about plays where the refs have thrown soft flags like Earl's PI against Miami or just about every call in the Green Bay game, I'm talking about ones where they've called a player's play dangerous when it was within the rules.
    themunn
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2379
    Joined: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm


  • hoxrox wrote:This is about former player lawsuits, not about player safety or anything else.


    While you and I .....and many folk with common sense...know this, many will "cover their asses" by saying that it is for "player safety"......all the time knowing that it will radically change the game as we now know it!! These "bleeding-heart Liberals" just can't help themselves!
    Bigpumpkin
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4789
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
    Location: Puyallup, WA USA


  • My guess is that we won't even know this rule exists in 90% of games and it will not have any impact and we won't notice a different. Freaking out about nothing.
    Image
    User avatar
    JSeahawks
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 18527
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
    Location: Milwaukie, Oregon


  • JSeahawks wrote:My guess is that we won't even know this rule exists in 90% of games and it will not have any impact and we won't notice a different. Freaking out about nothing.


    True, but it's that 10% that "freaks" me out. This IS the Seahawks we're talking about :180670:
    Why is it when I try to come off as a smart ass, the opposite happens? :-(
    User avatar
    grizbob
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
    *TOP 5 SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 2311
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:17 am
    Location: St George, UT


  • Hawkfan77 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:Another transparent attempt to turn the NFL into a pure passing league. I'm amazed by their ingenuity.

    Yet the owners (ours included) voted for it...hmmm...maybe there is no vast conspiracy?


    Not there, but there might be a common belief that more passing = more points = more viewers = more revenue.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

    Follow me on Twitter at @17power
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 11248
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • For people who keep saying this is "ruining the game" I have to wonder, were my high school coaches ruining the game also when they taught us to never initiate contact with the top of our helmet on either side of the ball?

    The way I see it, upset fans seem to have 2 different angles for their rage:

    1. The reduction of violent collisions (which includes the 'two-hand touch' and 'pussification' crowds)
    2. The in-game officials having too much subjective power

    I can see the 2nd, but anyone upset by #1 must also think that youngsters have been taught the wrong way to play football – as it pertains to the crown of the helmet – since at least the 1990s.
    Image
    User avatar
    HawkAroundTheClock
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1461
    Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:30 pm
    Location: Olympia


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Not there, but there might be a common belief that more passing = more points = more viewers = more revenue.


    As soon as this new rule is called twice a game, there will be an increase of pass plays by 10% or more. The demand for running backs will drop as they get fewer carrys as will their financial reimbursement. When this happens, the Player Association will see the folly of this lawsuit......and will drop it by mutual agreement.
    Bigpumpkin
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
    *GOLD SUPPORTER*
     
    Posts: 4789
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:13 pm
    Location: Puyallup, WA USA


  • What most of you don't realize is that the crown of your head is more towards the back of your head then the front of your head. The rule is being made a big deal, but truthfully it is best for all involved. This rule will not change much of the season- it's more to promote player safety and awareness as well as cover their butts.

    The player can still put their head down a bit, they just can lead drop their chin to their chest all the way.

    http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/0ap2000000152145/Crown-of-the-helmet-hit-rule-explained?campaign=Twitter_videos_crown

    Summary:
    -Jeff Fisher points to the crown of his head (back top portion) and state that is the only part that is involved in this rule change. The face mask and front top of the head (hairline) is legal.
    - They are going to send tape that is legal and a lot of it will be, there will only be a few instances in which it won't be legal.
    - In order for this play to even be illegal the player must "line up" the other player in the open field.
    - They will teach the on field officials the proper way. Before the penalty is called, the officials are encouraged to meet in a group to come to a consensus rather than calling it from just one view.

    Notes:
    -The Michael Robinson hit on the Bears CB was included, but I didn't see the Lynch play vs. the 49ers on there.


    Do you really think 31 out of 32 teams would agree on this rule if it meant players couldn't be aggresive? Of course not. They are trying to make it clear that when you go up against another guy, you shouldn't drop your head so that your face mask is parallel with the ground which could cause serious spinal cord issues.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1431
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • Also, on the Lynch hit vs. Goldson he hits his shoulder & head into him. I would be shocked if that is an illegal hit based upon what I've read and how to interpret it.
    Image

    "We all we got, we all we need"
    User avatar
    lukerguy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1431
    Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:00 pm


  • Just listening to John Clayton on 710 ESPN he said the NFL only looked through 2 weeks of games to make a judgement on this rule. So those 11 timea it would be called a penalty number people were throwing out there.......those 11 were in only a 2 week stretch, not the entire season. Meaning that this would be a call or penalty much more often than it should be. Again......horrible rule.
    Image
    User avatar
    Blitzer88
    * NET Eeyore *
     
    Posts: 10966
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:47 am
    Location: Pasco, WA


  • I don't think hitting with face mask is going to be illegal, which is mostly what lynch does.

    I think they are trying to stop this:


    and it should be illegal. Defensive players have been getting jobbed for rule changes that are good for both players, this is just the offensive side of the ball picking up on safety.
    User avatar
    sturg78
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1062
    Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 9:03 pm


  • sa_seahawker wrote:So much for the goal line fullback dive. That move leads with the crown of the helmet too.


    That wouldn't be affected. It's OUTSIDE the tackle box. It won't affect 3rd and short situations.
    jlwaters1
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2380
    Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:48 pm


  • HawkAroundTheClock wrote:For people who keep saying this is "ruining the game" I have to wonder, were my high school coaches ruining the game also when they taught us to never initiate contact with the top of our helmet on either side of the ball?

    The way I see it, upset fans seem to have 2 different angles for their rage:

    1. The reduction of violent collisions (which includes the 'two-hand touch' and 'pussification' crowds)
    2. The in-game officials having too much subjective power

    I can see the 2nd, but anyone upset by #1 must also think that youngsters have been taught the wrong way to play football – as it pertains to the crown of the helmet – since at least the 1990s.


    They are talking about abandoning kickoffs. They've already almost made return specialists irrelevant by moving up the kickoff spot. How is that not changing the game? What about laying WRs out across the middle? A staple of players like Sam Huff, Ronnie Lott, and Tatum. That's gone. Now the RB, a position that up until this point has been sacrosanct because he's carrying the ball, is being meddled with. Walter Payton would laugh at the absurdity. They are indeed trying to change the game and the way it's played. If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you.

    Rog is a lawyer and he's administering the league like a lawyer, with the approval of the owners. I have little patience anymore with their ridiculous fake crusade. It's probably why I get so irritated by the continuous stream of rules they insist on pushing through.
    Tall men come down to my height when I hit 'em in the body.

    Jack Dempsey
    User avatar
    Fuzzman55
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1572
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:10 pm


PreviousNext


It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:44 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information