Anyone Else Worried About The New Nfl Helmet Rule?

[royalshank]

The game is moving so fast, I can't see how the Refs will be able to tell if the hit is with a helmet or shoulder or if it was the offensive or defensive player that led with the helmet or both. I couldn't hardly tell in the slow motion videos.

Let alone know if someone lowered their head.

 

[finmann]

Mike Freeman wrote a good piece on this but I can’t find the link. This can be called on defenders and offensive players alike and is going to be extremely subjective. League can’t even tell you what a catch is - how are they going to ref this with consistency?

Absolutely correct.....I'm all for making the game safer....but damn.

 

[The Tannehills Have Eyes]

I gotta be honest, I'm fine with the rule itself. We should probably revisit this once we see how it is officiated, instant replay delay of this, impact on the outcome of games it has, etc. But headhunting does happen in the NFL.

We need to incentivize NOT-headhunting, and this seems like a reasonable attempt to do that. But it is trial and error, so we should keep tweaking it until we get it right. Otherwise, concussions and the non-fan impact that they rile up, are likely to have a very negative impact on the NFL, and possibly even the existence of football as a game for both the NFL and colleges. I can take an NFL without helmet-to-helmet contact. I can take a few bad ejections and a few changed games. But I really want to avoid the loss of football as a sport. Once we fall a certain way down that hole, there is no returning. So, find a way to deal with the problem. It will be healthier for the players, equal to the teams, and help the sport thrive. If this rule isn't the right one, we should change it. But, it seems worth a try to me.

The game will probably evolve into something Rugby/Australian rules Football. No gear or helmets but same rules. Obviously the game will be played/approached in a whole different way.

 

[BigNastyFish]

I say get rid of helmets or make them soft shell - the defenders certainly wont lead with their head anymore!!

I've been sayin" that for years!! Makes too much sense. But ya know why they won"t??? Because it will ruin the "look"

NFL is ruled by $$$ grubbers @the top.

Don't believe for a second that every player isn't just a commodity...

 

[Phishstix]

I've been sayin" that for years!! Makes too much sense. But ya know why they won"t??? Because it will ruin the "look"

NFL is ruled by $$$ grubbers @the top.

Don't believe for a second that every player isn't just a commodity...

Riddell and Schutt would fight going to a shell tooth & nail. Helmet sales and reconditioning are those company’s bread and butter.

 

[Fin Thirteen]

The helmet has been proven not to protect against CTE and or concussions. It gives players a weapon to use against opponents and a false sense of security in terms of their own safety.

In rugby, players cannot tackle an opponent without wrapping their arms around the tackled player, ie no human missile tackles. Rugby has a concussion issue like football but CTE is (so far) not reported to be a big issue for ex players.

While every sport should have it's identity and distinctive features, the health of the participants is not worth compromising for the sake of cosmetics. I think this is a good step on the route to cleaning up football from the health issues that an ill-advised introduction of hard helmets has brought.

There's nothing soft about rugby. The idea that football would be soft if helmets are banned and tackling technique is cleaned up is frankly laughable.

 

[pacresjt]

I absolutely agree with the new rule. I get angry watching players spearing with their helmets. It’s a cheap way to play. See what you hit. Simple teaching technique from pop warner on. Now how the refs handle it is another story. As long as it is called evenly against offense and defense I’m fine with it.

 

[Butterfrog 2.0]

I have a question for everybody that wants to make the game safer... So if the game is made that much safer but implementing more rules, having better, or less equipment as some suggest etc. Then are players going to get paid less money due to there not being as big of a risk? The answer is obviously no, but they should. This is in part why the rules wont change too much and why they wont get rid of pads, helmets etc. People love football due to its violent nature. Take that away completely and some people will stop watching, the NFL will stop making so much money, and the players wont be able to get paid as much.

I know I'll get blasted for this but I really dont see why we should go overboard to change the game and protect players. Yes they are providing all of America with a high level of entertainment and taking serious health risks while doing so, but they are also getting paid millions of dollars to do it. They also know the risks now and what they can do themselves to minimize those risks. If they dont want to take these risks they can simply choose another profession. If you dont want to get shot at then dont be a cop or join the military, if you dont want a crane to fall on you or fall off a high building then dont be a construction worker, if you dont want concussions and risk of brain damage then dont play football or any contact sports.

Even knowing what we know now, and seeing how messed up some of the older players were if the rules were the same as they were in the 70's, 80's etc. With today's pay for NFL players would I take the risk? #### yes I would! And so will tons of other players. You're taking a serious health risk to become a millionaire and retire in your early 30's a very rich man.

With all of that being said however the NFL is a business and they are trying to protect their stars to keep people watching, but let's not be fooled by thinking they dont still want the game to be violent.

 

[McMichael]

If you took away the helmets the game would look like a blood bath....broken noses, poked eyes, busted jaws, broken teeth, etc....they protect from a lot more than just concussions...

Also to the person who said helmets "don't help protect against concussions at all", you do realize that is physically impossible right? You're telling me you think if 2 players were running full speed and collided head to head there would be no difference in the injury whether they had a helmet on or not?

 

[McMichael]

The helmet has been proven not to protect against CTE and or concussions. It gives players a weapon to use against opponents and a false sense of security in terms of their own safety.

In rugby, players cannot tackle an opponent without wrapping their arms around the tackled player, ie no human missile tackles. Rugby has a concussion issue like football but CTE is (so far) not reported to be a big issue for ex players.

While every sport should have it's identity and distinctive features, the health of the participants is not worth compromising for the sake of cosmetics. I think this is a good step on the route to cleaning up football from the health issues that an ill-advised introduction of hard helmets has brought.

There's nothing soft about rugby. The idea that football would be soft if helmets are banned and tackling technique is cleaned up is frankly laughable.

Where are on earth are you getting the "proof" from in the first sentence of your post? There is no way you actually believe that...

 

[TraderJoe]

I think the fix is simpler, every tackler must at least attempt to wrap up. This would eliminate those knockout shoulder tackles where the defender comes flying in on another player. Those are the hits that cause the most injuries in my opinion. As a byproduct you would have much better tackling across the league, cough, cough Minnesota.

Theoretically this should be easier to enforce as well, did arms come around or not? First year in effect, 5 yard penalty, second year 10 yard penalty, after that 15.

 

[Kdawg954]

They better thank the heavens that fantasy football is such a huge draw for the sport with some of the piss poor matchups put together, rule changes and overall length/breaks of/in games. Also RedZone has been a solid addition to minimize the boredom of single games.

They had a huge lead over the NBA once MJ retired and Goodell has pretty much Atlanta Falconed that lead. Sure he milked it and help grow it to the highest heights but that means nothing if you cannot sustain it. The NBA is well on its way to being the top sport in the country and has the worldwide appeal in its corner, something football just doesn’t have.

The 2021 lockout will be very real and the NFLPA better get those negotiations right and take a page from the NBPA. Start preparing these athletes at a young age about financial planning, because the need to take a year away maybe the biggest ace in the deck for them . . . But not if these guys are splurging and can’t get away from the paycheck to paycheck life that a NFL contract should prevent them from having, therefore succumbing to a piss poor deal.

 

[BobDole]

We'll see how it's called but I'm cool with it in theory. Also not sure it has the desired effect.

I'm not at all a fan of skewing the game so much towards the offense, but real action must be taken to protect people from brain atrophy (I'd be interested to hear how many of the guys in the midst of losing their minds would still do it the same way. I know what the current players think.) ... since we all know the NFL won't when the time comes.

I'm thinking it's 2018 and helmet technology should be better ... although I base that on absolutely nothing.

 

[TrinidadDolfan]

The helmet has been proven not to protect against CTE and or concussions. It gives players a weapon to use against opponents and a false sense of security in terms of their own safety.

In rugby, players cannot tackle an opponent without wrapping their arms around the tackled player, ie no human missile tackles. Rugby has a concussion issue like football but CTE is (so far) not reported to be a big issue for ex players.

While every sport should have it's identity and distinctive features, the health of the participants is not worth compromising for the sake of cosmetics. I think this is a good step on the route to cleaning up football from the health issues that an ill-advised introduction of hard helmets has brought.

There's nothing soft about rugby. The idea that football would be soft if helmets are banned and tackling technique is cleaned up is frankly laughable.

I played rugby for many years and am happy to report that, it may not be soft in a general sense, but compared to football it is. The main difference is that football is “violent”, as opposed to much more grabbing etc in rugby. This is attributable to the SPEED of football. World class speedsters involved in head to head collisions, repeatedly. The brain reversed direction and/or comes to a stop in too short a distance...crashing against the inside of the skull. Rugby is completely different in the most brain-related regard

 

[John813]

1. I get the safety side of it. Prime example is Shazier. There has a been a growing trend of defenders just lowering their helmet and using their head in the POC. Idiotic. I remember Parcells telling Pat Watkins(Safety) he'll break his neck if he kept on doing that.
2. The real reason for this is $$$. Hits with the helmet=possible concussions=lawsuits=less money for owners

There needs to be some tweaks though.
Hit #3, Westbrook does a last second spin/dip. That LB(I assume) can not simply let up just in case the player with the ball dips last second. Even hit #2 becomes a helmet to helmet due to the WR dropping down right before the hit.