1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Crown of Helmet Rule

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by finyank13, Mar 20, 2013.

  1. finyank13

    finyank13 Reality Check

    30,718
    5,415
    113
    Jan 6, 2010
    So it is a 15 yarder if a running back lowers the boom, except on short yardage plays and goal-line plays...

    As well the Tuck Rule is eliminated (Brady cries)

    I wonder who the 1 team that voted against it was....probably Buffalo...
     
  2. finyank13

    finyank13 Reality Check

    30,718
    5,415
    113
    Jan 6, 2010
    DPlus47 likes this.
  3. Berezo

    Berezo Well-Known Member

    4,209
    1,772
    113
    Sep 9, 2012
    Atlanta, GA
    I absolutely hate that this rule got passed. It is a huge mistake...this puts a massive burden on officials to make a call on this. There are going to be so many times where the running back will lower is head based on instinct and the contact will be so minimal but a flag will be thrown. I always like that when you are a ball carrier out in the open field, it is your own responsibility to protect yourself and that should go for defenders as well.
     
  4. adamprez2003

    adamprez2003 Senior Member

    37,392
    14,745
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    new york ciity
    Well goodell has destroyed the defenses of the nfl. Now its time to destroy the offenses. Pretty soon ping pong will be considered a more violent game
     
    MikeHoncho and pumpdogs like this.
  5. DolfanTom

    DolfanTom Livin' and Dyin' w/ Ryan!

    3,169
    979
    0
    Apr 26, 2008
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    The thing I'm curious about is, will it simply be a penalty because they lower their head, or do they - specifically as the rule would seem to imply - have to strike w/ the crown of their helmet to be called. Meaning, if they lower their shoulder into a guy in an attempt to go by him, is that legal? Would seem so. If it's as I describe here, I don't think it's that big of a deal. If it's simply the lowering of the head that draws the flag, then I'm concerned.

    Also, as a high school football official, I'm wondering how quickly this will come down to us. A lot of these safety rules the NFL or NCAA put in are adopted by us right after.
     
  6. DolfanTom

    DolfanTom Livin' and Dyin' w/ Ryan!

    3,169
    979
    0
    Apr 26, 2008
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    That said, I'm completely against this rule, but I'm hoping it isn't as severe as it's being advertised.
     
  7. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    53,148
    31,935
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    I don't mind the rule personally, as I don't think it is really as bad as people are thinking it will be.
     
    MrClean, toto and Fin D like this.
  8. finyank13

    finyank13 Reality Check

    30,718
    5,415
    113
    Jan 6, 2010
    The elimination of Tuck Rule passed 29-1....2 teams abstained.....one of them??
































































    New England........:pity:
     
    MikeHoncho likes this.
  9. jw3102

    jw3102 season ticket holder

    7,760
    3,486
    113
    Sep 4, 2010
    Maui, Hawaii
    Why don't they just go ahead and put the flags on the player and outlaw tackling. That seems to be where these owners seem to be leading the NFL. I have no problem with the owners trying to make the game safer, but this rule is ridiculous.

    Eventually the game of football these owners are trying to create will be a game that true football fans no longer will want to watch. Every time these owners get together, they make changes which continues to dilute the real game of football. I hate this new rule.
     
  10. Perfectville_USA

    Perfectville_USA Mr Perfect

    607
    302
    0
    Dec 27, 2012
    Syracuse NY
    NFL trying to do as many things possible, to ensure player safety. Refs are going to hard time calling this new rule.
     
  11. Frumundah Finnatic

    Frumundah Finnatic U Mad Miami?

    39,245
    10,681
    0
    Dec 2, 2007
    Miami FL
    Alot of chins are gonna get busted if this encourages RBs to run upright.
    Stupid, Stupid rule.
     
  12. emocomputerjock

    emocomputerjock Senior Member

    5,649
    1,853
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    DC
    They can take their pick - lose football due to lawsuits or lose it do to lack of interest. The latter will be slower, and that's what they went with.
     
  13. CANEPHINS

    CANEPHINS No Tats & Dreads Allowed

    2,593
    2,335
    113
    Jan 4, 2009
    Savannah, GA
    Kraft already had said going into the meeting he was voting against it.
     
  14. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    No options. NFL's existence is reliant upon eliminating brain trauma. Even at this point, it may be too little too late.
     
    texanphinatic and Vengeful Odin like this.
  15. Rouk

    Rouk Well-Known Member

    1,801
    857
    113
    Jul 31, 2011
    Hollywood, Florida
    defensive players can't hit rbs with there crown either now
     
  16. finyank13

    finyank13 Reality Check

    30,718
    5,415
    113
    Jan 6, 2010
    So NE was the ONE team that voted against it?? Come on...
     
  17. Fishweiser

    Fishweiser New Member

    864
    347
    0
    Apr 24, 2009
    I dont know how many of you pay attention to NASCAR, but every year they are doing things to make the racing safer. By doing so, they are taking away from the actual racing. I watched the Bristol race last week and the stands were half empty. It was shocking actually, Bristol is always packed. I guess the point here is that too much meddling, and it starts to kill the sport. The people involved in these sports know the risk, and they make the decisions to take the risks or not. They always have and they always will.
     
  18. Rouk

    Rouk Well-Known Member

    1,801
    857
    113
    Jul 31, 2011
    Hollywood, Florida
    nfl should of just paid out medical to the disabled players honestly if it ever gets to the point were lineman are just standing I'm done with football
     
  19. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    53,148
    31,935
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    This doesn't say a RB can't lower his head to protect himself, it says he can't lead with the crown of his head. It's something I've seen AP do a lot and I'm honestly scared he'll hurt his neck when I see him do it.
     
  20. DolfanTom

    DolfanTom Livin' and Dyin' w/ Ryan!

    3,169
    979
    0
    Apr 26, 2008
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Sounds like - from what I'm reading on Twitter - that this is simply an extension of the spearing rule, which generally applies to defenders. If that's all there is to this, I think it's actually a good idea, and the whole outrage will blow over quickly. RBs/WRs can still lower their heads, they just need to lead w/ their shoulders, or face mask. In reality, not that big of a deal.

    Plus, they made an exception for goal-line and short-yardage where this might come into play in a pile, so that helps.

    I really think this will be a non-story by very early in the year.
     
    MikeHoncho and toto like this.
  21. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'm sure the NFL and the rules committee never thought up the concerns you guys are talking about at all.

    Every year, I hear how X new rule change is going to destroy the game and every it doesn't. This one is no different.
     
  22. DolfanTom

    DolfanTom Livin' and Dyin' w/ Ryan!

    3,169
    979
    0
    Apr 26, 2008
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    If you want to paralyze yourself, that's one way to do it, keep tempting fate like that. I think that's simply what they are trying to avoid w/ this rule. Will be interesting to see how AP adjusts.
     
  23. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    This simply isn't true. Nobody at this point can say what the exact risk of CTE or dementia or any other type of debilitating brain trauma is. There is only rudimentary information available that brain trauma occurs, but there is nothing that quantifies the exact risk. You're essentially suggesting that players can take on an unknown risk, which is not feasible from a legal standpoint.

    EDIT: and if the NFL were ever stupid enough to accurately quantify the risks involved with football, you would see the sport die a quick death. Most parents aren't going to allow their children to play a sport that provides a 50% risk of dementia by age 60.
     
  24. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    This. Not to mention that the teams this does affect are pretty constant. How many times have you seen the Dolphins get penalized for leading with the crown? It falls on the feet of the coaches.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  25. Stitches

    Stitches ThePhin's Biggest Killjoy Luxury Box

    53,148
    31,935
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Katy, TX
    I mean they said there was only 5 instances where this penalty would have been called in week 16 last year. You know how many carries there were in week 16 last year?
    840






    Yea, I'm sure this will totally stop RBs from protecting themselves. :rolleyes:
     
    MrClean likes this.
  26. Rouk

    Rouk Well-Known Member

    1,801
    857
    113
    Jul 31, 2011
    Hollywood, Florida
    yes because refs don't make mistakes they call everything perfect
     
  27. DrAstroZoom

    DrAstroZoom Canary in a Coal Mine Luxury Box

    9,033
    9,005
    113
    Jan 8, 2008
    Springfield, Ill.
    A couple of things I've gleaned from Twitter:

    • The one team to oppose the RB crown rule was Cincy.
    • The Vikings were prepared to vote against it as recently as one hour before the vote (Adrian Peterson is known for using the technique) but stated the evidence given in favor of the rule was overwhelming.
    • The competition committee examined all 16 Week One games from last year and determined the penalty would've been enforced five times.

    I'm sorry, I can't remember on whose feed I saw these points, so I can't give proper attribution.

    The only thing that strikes me odd is this is the only personal foul I can think of that was enacted to protect the offender, not the recipient of the hit.
     
    Vengeful Odin, DPlus47 and finyank13 like this.
  28. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Its to protect everyone. Nobody should ever lower their head and lead with the crown. Thats pretty much a fundamental thats taught at the lowest levels.
     
  29. bigbucks24

    bigbucks24 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,356
    185
    63
    Nov 25, 2007
    I guess I'm a little confused. If a LB is running at top speed and throws himself into a WR leading with the crown of his helmet, most agree that that is a penalty. But when a RB is running at top speed and throws himself into a DB leading with the crown of his helmet, that should not be a penalty?
     
    toto and Laces Out like this.
  30. Rouk

    Rouk Well-Known Member

    1,801
    857
    113
    Jul 31, 2011
    Hollywood, Florida
    the play stevan ridley got knocked out and fumbled on in the playoffs would of been a penalty on him lmao
     
    bakedmatt likes this.
  31. Tin Indian

    Tin Indian Rockin' The Bottom End Club Member

    7,929
    4,404
    113
    Feb 10, 2010
    Palm Bay Florida
    The biggest problem I see with this is enforcement. From past experience, these type of subjective calls are blown at an alarming rate by officials. They have enough to deal with already.

    On a positive note, they won't have to worry about another subjective rule that was just tossed out. The Tuck Rule. BTW Robert Kraft didn't vote on that one. go figure.
     
  32. emocomputerjock

    emocomputerjock Senior Member

    5,649
    1,853
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    DC
    He had to abstain. It's a no-win situation for him.
     
  33. Laces Out

    Laces Out Well-Known Member

    3,428
    937
    113
    Aug 4, 2011
    Omaha, Ne
    No, it should go both ways.
     
    bigbucks24 likes this.
  34. mommabilly

    mommabilly No riders allowed

    2,033
    677
    0
    May 3, 2010
    New England did not vote on the tuck rule at all, they abstained, Washington also abstained. Cincy was the only one that voted against it.

    I like the new rule that teams are not allowed to stack one individual area on Field goal and extra point attempts. If anything risked a players health it was stacking two guys over a guard with two guys behind them pushing. That was assinine. Glad they stopped it.

    Also not more Chop or cut blocks anywhere on the field. True zone blocking schemes survive on the cut block at the LOS. Denver has been using it beautifully for years. Wonder how that is going to change some schemes.
     
  35. bigbucks24

    bigbucks24 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    1,356
    185
    63
    Nov 25, 2007
    I guess I'm confused at all the people that are saying that it is a dumb rule. I agree that it should go both ways.
     
  36. gilv13

    gilv13 Well-Known Member

    2,540
    1,327
    113
    Aug 23, 2009
    I am less concerned about the actual rule than another "gray" area rule for the refs to enforce. It will will be called in really borderline situations and ignored in others.
     
  37. mommabilly

    mommabilly No riders allowed

    2,033
    677
    0
    May 3, 2010
    \
    You know it and it is not protestable.
     
  38. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    I still don't understand the NFL's aversion to using video feeds to assit officiating.
     
  39. Laces Out

    Laces Out Well-Known Member

    3,428
    937
    113
    Aug 4, 2011
    Omaha, Ne
    Will the RBs now be subject to fines for these penalties as well?
     
  40. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I will say though that when you couple the Tuck Rule being gone with not being allowed to spy on other teams, New England shouldn't win another SB in Brady's time.
     
    finyank13 likes this.

Share This Page