“Lowering the head to initiate contact with the helmet is a foul."

On the brighter side, at least are cheaper investments than full pads and a helmet for the future of the NFFL. (National Flag Football League)

This is going to be such a shit show.....I am tired of it already. Slow games down. At least 3-4 players ejected a game.

Have the people making these rules ever stepped foot on a football field? How on earth are you supposed to not lower your head when getting, A. Lower than the defender, and B. Lower than the runner. I get the launching with the crown of your helmet, I get it....This...is abysmal

I think the key phrase here is "...to initiate contact with the head". Which is going to be rather tricky to prove. One might aim with the shoulder and then a change of direction leads to head to head contact.

Just what the NFL needs. More play stoppages and rules no one understands.

The players will adapt, and this is frankly how it should be taught in lower levels to begin with (and has been more recently with things like the Head's Up initiative). It's just emphasizing form tackling vs. full speed collisions. The biggest hitters are going to struggle, most will be fine.

They just really don't want to see more Ryan Shazier incidents out there.

Guess players will be ejected getting to Brady.

A lot of these calls, so far, seem to be poor calls. Could be horrible.

I'm 90% convinced the only way they're going to be able to remove the head entirely is by ditching helmets completely, and possibly even the pads.

Thoughts?

I think this should also be given to RBs who do exactly what defensive players can't do to them. It's a BS rule and yet another subjective and discretionary call that can have huge implications in a game, like PI.

And for that 5% conspiracy theorist in me, it will allow the NFL to *control* the games to an even greater degree. :)

"Galant wrote:

A lot of these calls, so far, seem to be poor calls. Could be horrible.

I'm 90% convinced the only way they're going to be able to remove the head entirely is by ditching helmets completely, and possibly even the pads.

Thoughts?

Honest thoughts? That's the stupidest suggestion possible.

Emphasis will continue to be on tackling, not hitting, with your eyes always fixed on your target.

Remove the helmet and pads, you might as well just put the flags on now.

Myself I think the problem is not with the rule but with the implementation.

I like the rule. The NFL players go for big hits and a lot of injuries are due to unnecessary hits. Plus it should make for better tackling.

My problem is the NFL reluctance to have video officials and 100% going with guys on the field. Watching a television I can see if the penalty was called correctly easily and wouldn't add time to the game. A lot of the time it is obvious.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Myself I think the problem is not with the rule but with the implementation.

I like the rule. The NFL players go for big hits and a lot of injuries are due to unnecessary hits. Plus it should make for better tackling.

My problem is the NFL reluctance to have video officials and 100% going with guys on the field. Watching a television I can see if the penalty was called correctly easily and wouldn't add time to the game. A lot of the time it is obvious.

Definitely. I don't think most people have an issue with not leading with the head, but more the poor calls that will ensue since the plays happen so quickly and line if sight will be an issue at times. That's the reality right now, so that's the problem I think most people have.

"Carmen Cygni wrote:

Honest thoughts? That's the stupidest suggestion possible.

Emphasis will continue to be on tackling, not hitting, with your eyes always fixed on your target.

Remove the helmet and pads, you might as well just put the flags on now.

If the aim is to prevent head trauma due to impacts when tackling this would undoubtedly work. It would essentially have the players kitted out like rugby players and force all players to be more careful and focused when tackling. Having the "protection" of a helmet and padding naturally leads players to be more careless. When your only protection is technique you pay more attention.

"Galant wrote:

If the aim is to prevent head trauma due to impacts when tackling this would undoubtedly work. It would essentially have the players kitted out like rugby players and force all players to be more careful and focused when tackling. Having the "protection" of a helmet and padding naturally leads players to be more careless. When your only protection is technique you pay more attention.

You're dismissing line play where the majority of helmet to helmet collisions occur. It's more than just the contact that happens during tackling. Lineman, and the line of scrimmage in general, is what greatly separates the two sports of rugby and football. LOS play, the explosion and power of offensive & defensive lineman in such a small space, is a primary reason for the need of helmet and body padding.

"Carmen Cygni wrote:

You're dismissing line play where the majority of helmet to helmet collisions occur. It's more than just the contact that happens during tackling. Lineman, and the line of scrimmage in general, is what greatly separates the two sports of rugby and football. LOS play, the explosion and power of offensive & defensive lineman in such a small space, is a primary reason for the need of helmet and body padding.

I'm not dismissing it, I'm just focusing on the tackling rule which doesn't really apply to line play.

In terms of removing helmets as a solution, which I'm not necessarily advocating so much as considering, perhaps they could be retained for linemen. Not sure it would be need though. Again, removing helmets would automatically lead to players taking care of their heads and how they position them.

As for rugby, they don't have line play in the same way but they do have the scrum, rucks and mauls, which all get pretty up close and personal and very rough.

I think conceptually the point is that helmets and padding tend to get used more as offensive weapons rather than protection, and might also make players a bit clumsier with the added bulk.

Quick search for full contact football with no pads and I found this:

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/04/06/helmetless-tackle-football-no-pads-full-contact-a7fl

https://www.thinkprogress.org/can-this-new-football-league-be-the-savior-the-sport-needs-10800c1f022/amp/

“If you want to prevent concussions, take the helmet off. Play old-school football with the leather helmets, no facemask,” former Pittsburgh Steeler Hines Ward said in 2012. “When you put a helmet on you’re going to use it as a weapon, just like you use shoulder pads as a weapon.”

"Nate Ebner, a safety on the New England Patriots, agreed with this due to his experience playing rugby without a helmet. “Everyone playing the game has an understanding that no one has a helmet on, so it’s kind of a group effort to keep your head out of the contact area,” he said. “As a tackler you have to use your shoulders, your body, and you can’t just dive in with your head.” (While rugby has had its own problems with concussion protocols, it is generally considered much safer for the head than American football.) Legendary coach Mike Ditka has suggested the same thing."