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

The Essential Online Seahawks Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. RATING: PG-13

  • I'm so happy for the Ray-Duhs.

    :lol:
    Image
    On to week two. Week one was not a fluke!
    User avatar
    The Radish
    * NET Radish *
     
    Posts: 18655
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:18 pm
    Location: Spokane, Wa.


  • I am a fan of the avatar change, Radish :3:
    User avatar
    The Outfield
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2247
    Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am


  • idiotic. This will cost teams games and hurt the game. They are going to regulate themselves into a shrinking fanbase...
    Image
    "God Bless Russell Wilson"
    User avatar
    Chukarhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1656
    Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:14 pm


  • The helmet rule will help ruin football.
    Image

    R.I.P. Brother Les
    User avatar
    Largent80
    NET Ring Of Honor
     
    Posts: 24378
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
    Location: Freddy's favorite song?....Dream On


  • The owners voted it in.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9737
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • This will hurt both our power running teams.

    Gore can no longer "Gore" people and Beast Mode has to turn on Prance Mode...

    Ugh fucking Goodell
    Young2Rice
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 147
    Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 10:16 pm


  • They should just get it over with and rename it to the National Friendship League.
    User avatar
    The Outfield
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2247
    Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am


  • well it all starts with the fans.. start putting a product on the field that is not exciting to watch.. the fans will go away, and we all know what S**t does on a nice slope. ask the Mariners, Tampa Bay Rays ownership..

    now that there's going to be even more flags to slow the games down....might as well add a few more Geico, or Farmers insurance commercials during the games to really keep the pace down.
    World Champs - Sounds good don't it
    User avatar
    hawker84
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4053
    Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:22 pm
    Location: Tri Cities, WA


  • Look, It wasn't even close, the OWNERS voted it in 31-1 That includes our best pal Paul.

    In the article it says its the crown of the helmet, think the top halo ring tha can't be used to hit another player. The facemask and "hair line" will not be called.

    Doesnt sound that bad, and it will keep guys healthy.
    Image
    User avatar
    5280Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 922
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:01 pm


  • Dark day for the NFL,just going to crap faster than I had ever imagined.Goodell needs to be replaced enough is enough.
    Wolf grey all day every day.
    User avatar
    VHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2524
    Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:44 am
    Location: Naples, FL


  • It sounds like to is just offensive spearing. Still I don't like it. I fear the refs "interpretation " will be anything leading with the helmet.
    User avatar
    Happypuppy
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1900
    Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:40 pm


  • 5280Hawk wrote:Look, It wasn't even close, the OWNERS voted it in 31-1 That includes our best pal Paul.

    In the article it says its the crown of the helmet, think the top halo ring tha can't be used to hit another player. The facemask and "hair line" will not be called.

    Doesnt sound that bad, and it will keep guys healthy.


    The problem is that the refs will invariably not be paying full attention, see some helmet contact, and then flag it as crown of the helmet, even if it's not. Time and time again the refs screw up calls like this. I can just see the Hawks getting to the Superb Owl and the refs making a bad call on this against beastmode.

    Penalties like this need to be automatically reviewed if they're going to exist at all.
    User avatar
    The Outfield
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2247
    Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am


  • 5280Hawk wrote:Look, It wasn't even close, the OWNERS voted it in 31-1 That includes our best pal Paul.

    In the article it says its the crown of the helmet, think the top halo ring tha can't be used to hit another player. The facemask and "hair line" will not be called.

    Doesnt sound that bad, and it will keep guys healthy.


    It doesn't sound that bad ON PAPER. In actual game situations there will be as many bogus penalties for leading with the helmet as there are bogus penalties for hitting defenseless receivers and roughing the passer.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1301
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • Happypuppy wrote:It sounds like to is just offensive spearing. Still I don't like it. I fear the refs "interpretation " will be anything leading with the helmet.


    THIS is going to be the problem. Goddell sucks. More BS penalties. First time a back breaks a 50 yarder that gets called back, it's gonna be ugly.
    User avatar
    PlinytheCenter
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2848
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:47 pm
    Location: In Bruges


  • At least Mike Brown stood up for the game.. ironically.
    Image
    User avatar
    Maelstrom787
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1390
    Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:38 pm
    Location: Delaware


  • The refs won't be able to accurately judge whether it is crown or not, legal or not in real time. So they'll just throw the flag if they're unsure.

    Kind of like the completely legal text book hit Kam gave VD last season.

    IMHO this is what this will lead too. In doubt throw the flag. Let the league decide later whether to fine or not.
    So you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil?
    User avatar
    twisted_steel2
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5454
    Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:41 am
    Location: Ballard


  • o look they pass it :pukeface: :pukeface: :13:
    Darrenv17
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 193
    Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:51 pm
    Location: new york,ny


  • I'm so disappointed with this ruling. This and the other new rules will hurt us (Niners and a few others) more than other teams. Just feeling disgusted right now that we wont be able to operate on all cylinders coming into what possibly could have been our strongest season of ALL time. Ref's will have the final interpretation which completely sickens me. Close games will swing momentum and some will be lost on these interpretations. Complete BS. It seems that Fisher is all for this ruling and why shouldn't he be? It gives the Rams something to complain about when they get abused by us and the Niners running games four times a year. This just sucks all the way around, I see NO upside to this!!! Now I'm even more pissed as I write. I hope it doesn't have the impact I think it will.
    travlinhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 438
    Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:46 pm


  • the game moves way too fast for the refs to differentiate. but the owners are obviously for it; so, go figure...
    mrblitz
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1110
    Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 10:34 pm


  • 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!
    travlinhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 438
    Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:46 pm


  • I bet you all will still watch anyways. Even after this doomsday announcement.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9737
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • Tech Worlds wrote:I bet you all will still watch anyways. Even after this doomsday announcement.


    Watch while hoping it doesn't have the impact I think it will. We'll see...
    travlinhawk
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 438
    Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 5:46 pm


  • Tech Worlds wrote:I bet you all will still watch anyways. Even after this doomsday announcement.



    True,still dont like it.
    Wolf grey all day every day.
    User avatar
    VHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2524
    Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:44 am
    Location: Naples, FL


  • Tech Worlds wrote:I bet you all will still watch anyways. Even after this doomsday announcement.


    Of course we will, but it doesn't mean we're not aggravated. We will watch but will enjoy the game slightly less.
    User avatar
    The Outfield
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2247
    Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am


  • 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.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9737
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • 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.
    User avatar
    The Outfield
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2247
    Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am


  • 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.
    "God Bless the Seattle Seahawks" Cortez Kennedy
    User avatar
    ivotuk
    * NET Nobody *
     
    Posts: 8754
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:29 pm
    Location: North Pole, Alaska


  • ivotuk wrote: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.


    Or, if you don't like something, have it banned (made illegal). *cough* large sodas *cough*
    User avatar
    The Outfield
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2247
    Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am


  • The Outfield wrote: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.


    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
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9737
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • 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.
    Image
    User avatar
    JSeahawks
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 18619
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
    Location: Milwaukie, Oregon


  • Tech Worlds wrote:
    The Outfield wrote: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.


    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



    You didn't say leather helmets. You said no facemasks.
    User avatar
    The Outfield
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2247
    Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am


  • Whatever. Same thing holds true. People arnt going to stuff thier face, or even the crown without facemasks on.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9737
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • JSeahawks wrote: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.


    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.
    User avatar
    The Outfield
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2247
    Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:11 am


  • JSeahawks wrote: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.


    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.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11276
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • JSeahawks wrote: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.


    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.
    Last edited by Shadowhawk on Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1301
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • 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.
    User avatar
    kearly
    * Mr Random Thought *
     
    Posts: 11276
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 am


  • 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.
    Image
    User avatar
    Tech Worlds
    * Capt'n Dom *
    * Capt'n Dom *
     
    Posts: 9737
    Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
    Location: Granite Falls, WA


  • 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?
    User avatar
    el capitan
    NET Starter
     
    Posts: 393
    Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:48 am


  • kearly wrote:
    JSeahawks wrote:
    People hate on the officials. I hate on Roger Goodell for making their job flipping impossible to do.


    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.
    User avatar
    bellingerga
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5313
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:28 pm
    Location: Beaverton, Oregon


  • Shadowhawk wrote:
    JSeahawks wrote: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.


    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.


    So we should just have no rules because officials make mistakes? This rule seems much easier and obvious to call/or not call then holding or pass interference.
    Image
    User avatar
    JSeahawks
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 18619
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
    Location: Milwaukie, Oregon


  • el capitan wrote: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?


    I think it's the magnitude of the impact. Would you rather tackle a helmet coming at you with a 3-yard head start or a 30-yard head start? It seems the injuries could go up if a player is allowed to build momentum and speed, then collide with the defender like a missile.

    In the open field the ball carrier has many choices, in a crammed space with multiple 300-pound linemen all around, the choices are limited. They aren't saying concussions won't happen, but that the rule will penalize the ball carrier who has many choices and still chooses the most potentially harmful one.
    Image
    User avatar
    HawkAroundTheClock
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1569
    Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:30 pm
    Location: Olympia


  • About fricking time. I can't believe it took this long to ban offensive spearing. It is the one thing I could never understand is why the ball carrier could lead with his head. My personal opinion is that there is an outrage because most people don't understand the rule and are ignorant on the subject. If it where me I would ban all forms of offensive spearing especially inside the tackles. Keep your head up, forward body lean and run hard.
    "If we lose ... this place will be a Carnival of Stupidity." FlyingGreg
    Fudwamper
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 823
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:06 am


  • JSeahawks wrote:So we should just have no rules because officials make mistakes? This rule seems much easier and obvious to call/or not call then holding or pass interference.


    Um, no, what I am saying is that just because the league only found 30 instances in which the rule could have legitimately been called last year, that doesn't mean that it would have only been flagged 30 times and probably would have been called many more times than that.

    And what's the basis of your assertion that this is an easier call to make than others? Considering how badly officials have blown roughing and defenseless receiver calls, I don't believe that they'll do any better with this call. They will see the runner's head and shoulders drop, they'll see his helmet hit the defender trying to stop him, and it's my opinion that they will likely throw the flag at this point even if the runner didn't hit the defender with the crown of his helmet. When you combine the speed of the game with the fact that the official likely wont get a perfect look at the hit, I think they could easily jump to the wrong conclusion.

    Let me ask you a question: what if this rule had been in effect last year and a flag had been thrown on Lynch's TD run against the 49ers because he knocked helmets with Goldson on the way into the end zone? How would you feel about the rule then?

    This is a bad rule IMHO because it's another judgement call. The NFL is putting more of the game in the officials' hands instead of the players' hands.
    Last edited by Shadowhawk on Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1301
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • Pete Carroll on the rule change:

    “It’s a challenging proposal in that it’s for the officials to determine whether there was intent,” Carroll said. “We feel as coaches that it’s going to be very challenging for those guys to call. But it’s a good move to teach football players of all levels how to not lead with their helmets.”

    Carroll also said that he’s not worried about the rule change altering the game of Marshawn Lynch, who rushed for a career-high 1,590 yards last season.

    “He’s a mixture, a very unique talent in the way he plays,” Carroll said. “But he is not a guy that definitely leads with his helmet all the time.”
    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3955
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


  • Fudwamper wrote:My personal opinion is that there is an outrage because most people don't understand the rule and are ignorant on the subject.


    Actually, I think most people understand the subject and the rule very clearly. They just don't think this is something that officials will be able to call effectively and anticipate a lot of penalties called incorrectly on plays that are still legal, just like we see every week with roughing the passer penalties and hits on defenseless receivers.
    User avatar
    Shadowhawk
    * NET Staff Alumni *
    * NET Staff Alumni *
     
    Posts: 1301
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:05 am


  • Meanwhile, Marshawn just retweeted this video:

    User avatar
    DavidSeven
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3955
    Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:15 am


  • 5280Hawk wrote:Look, It wasn't even close, the OWNERS voted it in 31-1 That includes our best pal Paul.

    In the article it says its the crown of the helmet, think the top halo ring tha can't be used to hit another player. The facemask and "hair line" will not be called.

    Doesnt sound that bad, and it will keep guys healthy.

    You mean a series of minor rule changes isn't going to catastrophically alter the nature of the most popular and profitable sport in America?
    User avatar
    jkitsune
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2214
    Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:12 pm


  • Shadowhawk wrote:
    Fudwamper wrote:My personal opinion is that there is an outrage because most people don't understand the rule and are ignorant on the subject.


    Actually, I think most people understand the subject and the rule very clearly. They just don't think this is something that officials will be able to call effectively and anticipate a lot of penalties called incorrectly on plays that are still legal, just like we see every week with roughing the passer penalties and hits on defenseless receivers.


    THIS is the take I can get behind. Well said. Whether it's the "most" people or just the loudest, I think Fud might be referring to the ones who say "ruining the game" without any elaboration, or the ones with the "two-hand touch" snippy comments and that's it. I don't get that argument, because that's the way I was taught to play – to keep your crown clean and learn how to use everything else (shoulders, forearms, hands, even facemask) to get it done.

    But officials' subjectivity is probably the only thing I don't like about the game, so I can see the ire for bringing in a new subjective rule. It's all going to be in the application. IF, like some people say, this is all because of lawsuits and PR, then maybe it will be enough just to have the rule on the books and refs will be told to use that ruling very sparingly. On the other hand, they might try to make an example out of some guys early and get carried away with it. The behind-the-scenes emphasis that the league delivers to the officials will determine how prevalent it is.
    Image
    User avatar
    HawkAroundTheClock
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1569
    Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:30 pm
    Location: Olympia


  • Shadowhawk wrote:
    JSeahawks wrote:So we should just have no rules because officials make mistakes? This rule seems much easier and obvious to call/or not call then holding or pass interference.



    Let me ask you a question: what if this rule had been in effect last year and a flag had been thrown on Lynch's TD run against the 49ers because he knocked helmets with Goldson on the way into the end zone? How would you feel about the rule then?
    .


    I'd be fine with it. Bad calls happen. Move on to the next play. I've never been one to complain about officiating.
    Image
    User avatar
    JSeahawks
    * NET Moderator *
     
    Posts: 18619
    Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:35 pm
    Location: Milwaukie, Oregon


Next


It is currently Thu Oct 30, 2014 4:59 am

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information
  • Who is online