I just heard that one of the proposed rule changes is that a RB can not lower his head and drive or hit with their helmet. Wow!! Riidiculous!! This game is changing forever. I used to play RB and LB, and as a RB, that was one of the funnest aspects of the game. There would be no Czonka. I understand that the players these days are just these super big and fast, HGH monsters and it is almost impossible to not get injured, so from that standpoint, I understand the need to find a way to protect the players, but it will just not be the same game. That's also going to be a very tough call for the refs to make. It's going to create a lot of turmoil and arguing with the refs, etc. Oh well. Thoughts?
Current game too dangerous. NFL can't maintain the status quo. They need to eliminate the helmet as a tool to hit people with.
How can you lower your shoulder on 3rd & 1 without your head coming with it? Lots of RB's will be taking shots on the chin. Not good.
This new rule only applies to plays in the open field RBs shouldn't be leading with the crown of their helmet when they're lowering their shoulder. This only applies to players that blatantly lead with the crown of their helmet.
I haven't read the rule, so between the tackle box they can lower their head? How do they define open field?
There's going to be a lot of subjective calls on that, especially when RB's try to bounce runs outside. They're not making anything more safe, they're just making the jobs for the refs harder. Football is inherently dangerous. Players know this. The NFL is only worried about being sued, and if they were being honest with themselves they should just put standard provisions in contracts acknowledging the potential for lifelong injury, with a nice check box if they understand the risks.
I think the thing I dislike about this is that it's another pea on the plate of the refs...with this rule, as I understand it, they'd have the autonomy to determine intent on the play... Perhaps if it were reviewable, although they don't want to do that either...I just think that any rule that puts the refs in a position to determine intent is wrong...
No, players do not know how dangerous the NFL is. It wasn't even until just recently that they had conclusive evidence of long-term brain damage. The players currently playing have no idea what is happening to their brains. A provision in a contract is not feasible for the sport. A provision that says "play at your own risk" is not going to stand up in court. A provision that spells out the probability of death would essentially kill the sport. The NFL's only option is to prevent the severe brain damage occurring as fast as possible.
I suspect it is true that many players don't fully understand how dangerous it is, but I don't agree that a contract provision isn't feasible. An appropriate "play at your own risk" provision may not be a cure-all for all circumstances, but it would help on certain types of claims. It certainly wouldn't hurt. A provision that acknowledges the possibility of death or long-term injury wouldn't kill the sport at all. The truth is that we use all kinds of products and do all kinds of activities that carry a risk of death or serious injury and when that is spelled out in contracts or on labels, the vast majority of people ignore it.
I agree. The game didn't really get any safer. They now have to look and determine who's at fault after head on collisions thought. And I do appreciate that they are at least trying to protect defenders a little bit.
Oh please..yes they do. Maybe players didn't know 5 or 10 years ago, but they sure as hell do know now. Players claiming ignorance to information provided today won't stand up in court either. How many times have we seen veterans say they'd do it all over again even with the amount of information given to them now. I know for a fact that the NFL personalities on ESPN have all said they would. The only REAL way to prevent it is to stop the NFL from being a collision sport. If you do that, then it's no longer football.
Plenty of safety changes have come down in history that have not destroyed the game. More are not always a bad thing. And while NFL players may have been shown a powerpoint or read a brochure on dangers, it is still not something that many will consider. They will say "it won't happen to me" or will just be too happy to live in the moment without really considering how it will affect them. While there are some people who say they would do it again, generally they are still in decent shape. Too many are not. Safety is not always a bad thing. Sometimes you need to protect people from themselves.
There were no direct studies done on football players but it has been common knowledge for years that repeated blows to the head cause long term damage. Here is a study from 1989 "Barth, Jeffrey T., et al. "Mild head injury in sports: neuropsychological sequelae and recovery of function." Mild head injury (1989): 257-275." Its been known in other sports, especially boxing. This is old news that people are just now realizing that they can cash in on and claiming ignorance. Edit: Found another one from 1980. Lindsay, Kenneth W., Greig McLatchie, and Bryan Jennett. "Serious head injury in sport." British medical journal 281.6243 (1980): 789. The information about repeated blows to the head has been available to all the players currently playing the the NFL.
What do they deem the probability of dementia for NFL players by the age of 50? I don't see any pertinent specifics.
They talked about this rule change recently and, though I forgot where I saw it, this penalty would have been called 5 times out of all the plays that happened last season. 2-3 out of these 5 "would-be penalties" would have been called on defenders, so it's not just for them to protect themselves against running backs. If anything, it's merely an addendum of spearing and helmet to helmet hits.
Just so that I understand, because the study does not specifically talk about NFL players and head trauma, studies about repeated head trauma in other sports are not applicable? That some how repeated head injuries in the NFL are completely different from repeated head injuries in other sports? I am truly trying to understand the point.
I'm saying that these studies are extremely inconclusive. There is not an accepted standard for how many concussions are too many. There has not been an established likelihood of certain conditions resulting from football. So until you can say what the risk is, you can't get someone to accept that risk. You can't say "there is risk of head trauma", because that is way too ambiguous. You can't get someone to accept the risk of something that is unknown. Not to mention that the NFL for years denied that any type of long-term brain trauma was caused by football, which is pretty damning in itself. The NFL absolutely does not want to realities of the sport to be known. A game that exposes its participants to such long-term dangers is not one that will remain as the dominant sport in this country. The NFL needs to make the game safer.
That's a pretty definitive statement. The only problem is that people have understood that football is potentially dangerous for a long time. I don't mind this rule because it forces players to use the correct technique for a head-on collision.
