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

Hawkfan77

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2011
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
0
MontanaHawk05":1ycfiogn said:
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?
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
9,798
Reaction score
1,742
Cartire":3megnpup said:
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.
 

SalishHawkFan

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
5,872
Reaction score
0
edogg23":29nsoxcm said:
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.
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
9,798
Reaction score
1,742
kidhawk":dnjw0bz2 said:
sa_seahawker":dnjw0bz2 said:
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.
 

grizbob

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
2,950
Reaction score
5
Location
Oregon
The NFL is covering their ass, because there are too many bleeding hearts that would like to see football banned. :thfight7:
 

hoxrox

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
1,972
This is about former player lawsuits, not about player safety or anything else.
 

el capitan

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
658
Reaction score
0
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.
 

themunn

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
463
Scottemojo":3d6bjdup said:
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.
 

Bigpumpkin

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
8,030
Reaction score
3
Location
Puyallup, WA USA
hoxrox":g1k8am2v said:
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!
 

JSeahawks

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
24,093
Reaction score
1
Location
Milwaukie, Oregon
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.
 

grizbob

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
2,950
Reaction score
5
Location
Oregon
JSeahawks":3rooxs99 said:
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:
 

MontanaHawk05

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
17,883
Reaction score
397
Hawkfan77":2e2pszqq said:
MontanaHawk05":2e2pszqq said:
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.
 

HawkAroundTheClock

New member
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
2,417
Reaction score
0
Location
Over There
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.
 

Bigpumpkin

Active member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
8,030
Reaction score
3
Location
Puyallup, WA USA
MontanaHawk05":3fgjipcw said:
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.
 

lukerguy

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
2,320
Reaction score
20
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-video...-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.
 

lukerguy

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
2,320
Reaction score
20
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.
 

Blitzer88

Active member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
12,820
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, WA
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.
 

sturg78

New member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,350
Reaction score
0
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:
[youtube]TsegJVLrmk8[/youtube]

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.
 

jlwaters1

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
2,986
Reaction score
86
sa_seahawker":1sa0a6uz said:
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.
 

Fuzzman55

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
1,604
Reaction score
0
HawkAroundTheClock":2972yc8y said:
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.
 

Latest posts

Top