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...
Page 1 of 2
-
On another more humorous note.....
Why is Goodell considered a "54 yr old free agent center" :lol:
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/8369/roger-goodellDPlus47 likes this. -
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.
-
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. -
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. -
That said, I'm completely against this rule, but I'm hoping it isn't as severe as it's being advertised.
-
The elimination of Tuck Rule passed 29-1....2 teams abstained.....one of them??
New England........:pity:MikeHoncho likes this. -
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. -
NFL trying to do as many things possible, to ensure player safety. Refs are going to hard time calling this new rule.
-
Alot of chins are gonna get busted if this encourages RBs to run upright.
Stupid, Stupid rule. -
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.
-
-
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. -
defensive players can't hit rbs with there crown either now
-
-
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
-
-
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. -
-
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. -
Fin D likes this.
-
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. -
-
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. -
Vengeful Odin, DrAstroZoom, finyank13 and 2 others like this.
-
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?
-
the play stevan ridley got knocked out and fumbled on in the playoffs would of been a penalty on him lmao
bakedmatt likes this. -
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. -
-
-
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. -
-
You know it and it is not protestable. -
Page 1 of 2