NFL bans football?

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:29 am

Couldn't see another thread about this: did I really read a story yesterday that told me the NFL has outlawed running backs from "lowering the helmet" when going into contact? I mean, seriously?

How will the already mediocre officials cope with trying to determine whether a running back has lowered the helmet, or if he's simply ducked down, dipped his hips, bent his knees, or whatever?

What next? Ban the forward pass - in future, all quarterbacks must run forward with the ball and hand the ball off to the receiver, to avoid the receiver getting hit by the ball?

And will the NFL seek to punish the Redskins retrospectively for allowing John Riggins to run around hurting people for all those years? What about Gerald Riggs? Larry Brown?

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:06 am

I'm actually OK with this. If the NFL really wants to ban using the helmet as a weapon, this is the logical step. Defenders have been forced to obey this rule for several years now, but RBs have been able to use the helmet as a weapon with impugnity.

PARKER · Post by **PARKER** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:54 pm

I’m pretty sure this is referring to the open field which I don’t see anything wrong with the new rule.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:32 am

I agree. The rule is good but it should be specific to RB or Defensive players hitting"defenseless players" it should apply to every player outside of the tackle box. If you lower your head and hit someone with the crown of your helmet you should be penalized. This goes for defenseless receivers too. If they do their had and initiate contract with the defender they should get the flash, not the other way around. If two helmets collide and no one used the crown or dipped their helmet to initiate contract then their should be no fowl.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:27 pm

I have NEVER seen a fowl called in football...

... ever.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:39 pm

That picture makes a good point for why these guys should be made to wear helmets ... :twisted:

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:49 pm

SkinsJock wrote:That picture makes a good point for why these guys should be made to wear helmets ...

True that... it is a picture of an Aussie Rules player from the mid 80's... :twisted:

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:07 pm

Countertrey wrote:I have NEVER seen a fowl called in football...

... ever.

Hey look a spelling cop from the city Analopolis just made a funny.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 9:41 pm

I'm pretty sure I've never been to Analopolis...

I'm also a bit concerned regarding your grammar, btw...

UK Skins Fan · Post by **UK Skins Fan** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:39 am

Countertrey wrote:I'm pretty sure I've never been to Analopolis...

I'm also a bit concerned regarding your grammar, btw...

What's wrong with his grammar? Not broken her hip, I hope?

I've obviously entirely misjudged this whole issue regarding the ballcarrier lowering his helmet going into contact. Maybe it IS no different to the use of the helmet by a tackling player, but it seems to me that this change wasn't necessary. To be honest, I haven't actually worked out WHY I think that - maybe I'm just an old dinosaur.

:oops:

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 10:42 am

I think the league did a poor job of publicizing this rule, which appears to actually make some sense.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:09 pm

Countertrey wrote:I think the league did a poor job of publicizing this rule, which appears to actually make some sense.

+1 - After some of the 'opponents' see how the new rule is used on the field I think that they will understand the reasoning better

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:24 am

Countertrey wrote:I'm pretty sure I've never been to Analopolis...

I'm also a bit concerned regarding your grammar, btw...

It would be kind of hard to have gone to Analopolis, since it isn't a real place. It is more like a state of mind.

Don't worry about my grammar. If this was a class room on grammar than I could see a reason, since it is a football fan site there is no need.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:50 pm

So much material... so little time.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:33 pm

To be honest, I read it as Annapolis, and thought he had mistaken CT for IB.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:04 pm

Deadskins wrote:To be honest, I read it as Annapolis

I'm stalking SF33 for spelling and grammar. :-$

and thought he had mistaken CT for IB

I think he did, too... perhaps FFA is a closet spelling stalker. There's a lot we don't know about him.

:wink:

DarthMonk · Post by **DarthMonk** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:45 pm

skinsfan#33 wrote:
Countertrey wrote:I'm pretty sure I've never been to Analopolis...

I'm also a bit concerned regarding your grammar, btw...

It would be kind of hard to have gone to Analopolis, since it isn't a real place. It is more like a state of mind.

Don't worry about my grammar. If this was a class room on grammar than I could see a reason, since it is a football fan site there is no need.

This would be a place for the subjunctive. After all, if this was a class room it probably still would be. :twisted:

Anyway, Analopolis was hillhairyass.

As for the rule - I think we are starting to see many unintended consequences with many rule changes. Eliminating the bump-and-run may have led to loading up for big hits on what they now call defenseless receivers. Now guys are going low because going high draws a flag. I heard a DB yesterday (10 year vet) say he never had a concussion until last year. In trying to avoid flags he went lower and caught knees to his head twice for his first 2 concussions.

I do not like the new rule. RBs will be put in awkward situations when they approach tacklers.

Add Jerome Bettis to the list of current or former NFL running backs who don’t like the new rule against runners delivering forcible blows with the top of the helmet.

“It really makes no sense,” Bettis said today on Mike and Mike in the Morning. “The running back now is going to have some indecision with his helmet and his head. . . . Whenever a running back has indecision, there’s potential for injury.”

Bettis said that when he would lower his helmet during his playing career, it wasn’t his intent to hit an opponent with the top of his head. Instead, lowering the helmet was just a byproduct of lowering his shoulders.

“I don’t put my head down saying I’m trying to lead with the crown of my helmet, I put my head down because there’s trouble on the way,” he said. “I’m putting my head down because I want to get my shoulders lower.”

Bettis also said he worries that officials are going to have a hard time determining what constitutes delivering a forcible blow with the top of the helmet, and what is just an ordinary open-field collision.

“We’re creating so many plays that are subjective for the referee, that before you know it the referee controls the outcome of the game because these calls can go either way, and then the referees start taking too prominent of a role in deciding the outcome of the game,” Bettis said.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:49 pm