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

Shinigami

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Shadowhawk":2ts97mvx said:
jkitsune":2ts97mvx said:
Not necessarily, if a greater need outweighs the need to minimize erroneous penalties. The particular contact prohibited in this rule is particularly dangerous and potentially catastrophic, and is a good way to become quadriplegic. If you don't buy the safety angle, then think in terms of money : failing to ban it leaves the nfl open to lawsuits on the subject when someone gets hurt.

I know the physics of what happens when you take a hard enough blow straight down from the crown of your head, but I would argue that this rule actually has a detrimental effect on player safety. How many football players have been paralyzed due to hitting someone with the crown of his helmet? I can think of three: Dennis Byrd in 1992, Curtis Williams in 2000, and Eric LeGrand in 2010. (Mike Utley broke his neck in 1991 but that was due to an awkward fall after a missed block, not hitting someone with the crown of his helmet.) I don't minimize or make light of those incidents, but that is three cases in years, decades worth of seasons, games and hits.

On the other hand, this rule negatively impacts player safety in regards to the lower body. First, if backs are focusing on keeping their heads up, they are going to run higher as a result. That leaves their lower bodies more vulnerable. Since defenders are going to try to go low on ball carriers for reasons of leverage, if the ball carrier is running higher that means defenders are going to have a clear shot at their legs. Knee injuries are already frighteningly common and if running backs can't go low to protect themselves, we're going to see more knee injuries as a result. (And I know that Jeff Fisher and others came out and said that backs would be able to go low to protect themselves without a penalty, but it's going to get called.)

Dennis Byrd's example as mentioned above is illustrative because he did not intend to lead with the crown of his helmet on the play when he was paralyzed. In his autobiography, he says that he held his head up until the last second, but when he saw teammate Scott Mersereau coming at him he instinctively ducked. Even if backs focus on keeping their heads up, there are situations when they will duck their heads because of pure instinct. So there is no way this rule change will eliminate hits with the crown of the helmet.

This is a rule that looks good on paper but is going to prove to be very bad in real life. It's not going to keep players from leading with the crown of their helmets and it's going to lead to an increase in knee and other lower body injuries.


Well, it will also get rid of that other thing the NFL is being sued for and people have killed themselves over and that's some weird thing called a concussion. I'd sure hate to see Lynch get a concussion because he led with the crown of his head. Granted it was another game back in the day, but Herman Edwards did state that Jim Brown rarely if ever led with his head. Not to mention there were practically no rules in the game around that time I mean the horse collar was still in effect, but good luck doing that to Jim Brown and see if it works lol. I don't like the rule either, but I'd rather have a healthy Marshawn Lynch get hurt with a knee injury than a Head injury which I don't mean to be rude but it seems that's what you'd prefer over a Knee other lower body injury?

Even if Lynch suffers a horrible ACL, MCL or LCL injury Adrian Peterson showed you can come back from that; although I'm not foolish to think that everyone's comeback would be like his.
 

Reaneypark

Active member
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
2,127
Reaction score
23
Easy solution: Make all personal foul calls reviewable and give coaches an extra challenge for personal foul calls.
 

Navyhawkfan187

New member
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
605
Reaction score
0
It's all going to come down to how the league tells the refs to emphasize the call. With the defenseless receiver rule the refs are told to err on the side of throwing the flag. Now if you believe Jeff Fisher, which I'm fairly inclined to do personally, this rule will be emphasized the opposite. The refs will be told to err on the side of letting the players play. I tend to go with what Sando surmised and say that this is a penalty that is called more often in the film room by the league than it is on game day by the officials. I forsee some fines being handed down but relatively few yellow flags on the ground.
 

Swedishhawkfan

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
0
The scary part about this rule is the PENALTY for it. Now if it was just a basic 15 yd i would not be that scared. But do you guys realize, that if on 3rd and 10 from the 20 Lynch makes a 40 yd run all the way to the opposing 40 and gets flagged for this at the end EVERYTHING is ERASED and on top of that there is 15 yd from the line of scrimmage. so we eould end up having 3rd and 25 from our own 5yd line instead. The potential for us (or yeah okay other teams to) to get absolutley SCREWED by this rule is ENORMOUS. cant you easily se the hawks getting into field goal range at on a beautiful play at the end of a playoff game, and then a laaaate flag comes up.... if it was just 15 yd from ther spot and you still get a first down i would be fine with it, but this becomes like an extra "holding" but waaaay down the field.. meaning we as fans can never feel safe EVER cause there are so many ticky tack ways that we COULD get screwed
 

KARAVARUS

Active member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
3,513
Reaction score
1
Location
Omaha, NE
Swedishhawkfan":2joxhvcg said:
The scary part about this rule is the PENALTY for it. Now if it was just a basic 15 yd i would not be that scared. But do you guys realize, that if on 3rd and 10 from the 20 Lynch makes a 40 yd run all the way to the opposing 40 and gets flagged for this at the end EVERYTHING is ERASED and on top of that there is 15 yd from the line of scrimmage. so we eould end up having 3rd and 25 from our own 5yd line instead. The potential for us (or yeah okay other teams to) to get absolutley SCREWED by this rule is ENORMOUS. cant you easily se the hawks getting into field goal range at on a beautiful play at the end of a playoff game, and then a laaaate flag comes up.... if it was just 15 yd from ther spot and you still get a first down i would be fine with it, but this becomes like an extra "holding" but waaaay down the field.. meaning we as fans can never feel safe EVER cause there are so many ticky tack ways that we COULD get screwed

Wouldn't it be half the distance???
 

Lady Talon

New member
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
Messages
757
Reaction score
0
According to the new VP of Officiating's interview on NFL Network its spot of the foul - 15 yards not return to the line of scrimmage -15 yards. Basically as costly as a personal foul after a run. Not that I especially like the new rule.
 

themunn

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
463
Lady Talon":2v5x0dp0 said:
According to the new VP of Officiating's interview on NFL Network its spot of the foul - 15 yards not return to the line of scrimmage -15 yards. Basically as costly as a personal foul after a run. Not that I especially like the new rule.

15 yards from the spot of the foul?
I mean, if AP runs outside the tackles, spears a guy at the 40 yard line then has a free run to a TD they have to call it back surely?

Oh I just realised that's exactly what you said
 

jkitsune

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
3,339
Reaction score
0
Shadowhawk":2tkpyu9o said:
jkitsune":2tkpyu9o said:
Not necessarily, if a greater need outweighs the need to minimize erroneous penalties. The particular contact prohibited in this rule is particularly dangerous and potentially catastrophic, and is a good way to become quadriplegic. If you don't buy the safety angle, then think in terms of money : failing to ban it leaves the nfl open to lawsuits on the subject when someone gets hurt.

I know the physics of what happens when you take a hard enough blow straight down from the crown of your head, but I would argue that this rule actually has a detrimental effect on player safety. How many football players have been paralyzed due to hitting someone with the crown of his helmet? I can think of three: Dennis Byrd in 1992, Curtis Williams in 2000, and Eric LeGrand in 2010. (Mike Utley broke his neck in 1991 but that was due to an awkward fall after a missed block, not hitting someone with the crown of his helmet.) I don't minimize or make light of those incidents, but that is three cases in years, decades worth of seasons, games and hits.

On the other hand, this rule negatively impacts player safety in regards to the lower body. First, if backs are focusing on keeping their heads up, they are going to run higher as a result. That leaves their lower bodies more vulnerable. Since defenders are going to try to go low on ball carriers for reasons of leverage, if the ball carrier is running higher that means defenders are going to have a clear shot at their legs. Knee injuries are already frighteningly common and if running backs can't go low to protect themselves, we're going to see more knee injuries as a result. (And I know that Jeff Fisher and others came out and said that backs would be able to go low to protect themselves without a penalty, but it's going to get called.)

Dennis Byrd's example as mentioned above is illustrative because he did not intend to lead with the crown of his helmet on the play when he was paralyzed. In his autobiography, he says that he held his head up until the last second, but when he saw teammate Scott Mersereau coming at him he instinctively ducked. Even if backs focus on keeping their heads up, there are situations when they will duck their heads because of pure instinct. So there is no way this rule change will eliminate hits with the crown of the helmet.

This is a rule that looks good on paper but is going to prove to be very bad in real life. It's not going to keep players from leading with the crown of their helmets and it's going to lead to an increase in knee and other lower body injuries.
Very well-reasoned reply. I suppose we'll have to see how it plays out in real life. I suspect the impact of the rule is going to be less dramatic than you suggest, but I definitely see your reasoning.
 

benthebeerman

New member
Joined
Sep 2, 2010
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
This offensive spearing rule is actually already in place in high school (NFHS rules) and most youth leagues adopt it as well. As a referee and coach, I've seen many cases of running backs absolutely demolishing defenders - clearly using their helmets as weapons. There is a fine line between "ducking", "lowering the shoulder", "getting small", etc... and taking on a would-be tackler with nothing but your helmet.

I don't think refs, coaches, and players are going to have hard time with the new rule as long as they equally educated about legal moves at the same time. As far as fans go, you'll get the usual complaints of taking the toughness out of football but this is one rule that has the potential to save the health of all players. Personally, I dislike all of the "safety" rules that are tailored to certain positions (QB's come to mind). On the other hand, this is one that has both the runner and the defender's safety in mind.

One of the funniest coaching meltdowns I have ever seen on a football field was when a kid (10 yrs old) had two long touchdowns in a row called back for using helmet as a weapon. After the 2nd time, the coach went nuclear on the ref who called it and the situation didn't get much better when the ref told him he'd call it every time and if it happened it again he was going to be inclined to eject the kid from play if he continued. Most youth coaches are so used to Sunday football rules and most are very surprised when informed of the real HS rules.

It is nice to see more consistency across all levels of play, especially when it comes to safety issues. We all know that kids see the pros play a certain way and try to emulate those actions.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
I hate this rule, a lot.

We need to take these type of subjective ref calls OUT of the game, not put more in. Why not just fine the running backs for leading with their head plays after the fact? Why are we creating scenarios where the refs are making judgement calls that will cost penalty yards and decide game outcomes?

This is awful.
 

The Radish

New member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Messages
18,469
Reaction score
3
Location
Spokane, Wa.
Those of you that saw Brown play know probably the reason he didn't use his helmet much was because he was so much bigger than the other players.

Trust me if he needed to Brown would never have given it a seconds thought before blasting someone with his helmet if it helped him. Just like now he is mostly concerned with what "he" wants.

:les:
 

General Manager

New member
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
2,260
Reaction score
0
It seems those pending lawsuits are the root cause the Owners are willing to do almost anything to avoid these potential multimillion dollar payouts . To bad because there ruining the game in the process. Goodell is the worst thing to happen to profootball ever.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
25,560
Reaction score
7,610
SE174":1jawpq2g said:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/seattle-seahawks/0ap2000000152451/Robinson-dislikes-new-crown-of-the-helmet-hit-rule?continuous=true

Beast Mode better be kidding about not wanting to play anymore.

Lynch has 17 million of guaranteed reasons to keep playing.
 

Latest posts

Top