New rules

What I am saying is that how is what Peterson did any different than the hits James or Ryan have put on receivers and runners? I am just drawing a distinction, here. The NFL finally realized that it isn't any different. And if they are indeed going to promote player safety and demonstrate real concern over head injuries, then this type of play is not okay. Using the helmet as a "weapon" goes both ways, and it's about time it will be called as such.

 

This helmet rule is absolutely wrong, and I don't agree with it and the owners decision to pass it. Its ruining the game. But I also realize that a lot of these preposterous rule changes are being brought up and voted on because past players are suing the league for injuries to their heads that they have sustained in their football careers. I honestly think that the lawsuits the past players have against the NFL are partly to blame for this too. So as much as I hate this rule and Goodell and the owners for passing this, I also put this on the shoulders of the retiree's trying to get money out of the NFL for not "keeping them safe." Unfortunately as long as ex players keep trying to swindle money out of the league for head and other types of injuries, we will see more rules in place like this so in the future players can't come back on the NFL. Sad day for football....

 

I think it was a bad rule. It's just too much gray area for my liking. I can see why the Steelers would vote against it, because it probably does hurt our QB more than some but I like it passed regardless.

 

The thing that scares me about the helmet rule is relying on the refs interpretation. I have a feeling it will get called incorrectly more so than correctly, according to the way it's written. I also wouldn't doubt if the league told the refs not to call it during preseason so it looks like a non issue....then watch out come regular season. The fields will be covered in yellow I fear.

 

There have been something like 30 posts in this thread but no one has mentioned a key aspect about the rule related to RBs leading with their helmet::: it only applies outside the tackles. You can head first into the LOS, but once your outside or downfield you can't. That's a big difference, and if I understand things right, I don't have a big problem with it

 

This is better, but are you outside the tackle box once you cross the LOS?

What if you're 4 yards out from the endzone, you break through the trenches and you've got 2 safeties coming at you and meet them at the one yard line... Are you not allowed to lower your head to drive through to the endzone?

 

I agree. When I finally got a chance to read the entire rule, it doesn't seem nearly as bad. Still . . . all things considered . . . leave it alone.

 

if the safeties coming at you aren't allowed to lower their heads to take you down, why should the RB be allowed to lower his to gain yds?

 

You're right about it only applying outside the tackles, and I actually assumed everyone understood that, but I still fear this being called incorrectly, and that includes Rb's lowering their head while between the tackles. And actually the rule, as I understand it, only applies to leading with the crown of the helmet and not just lowering their head.

 

Whats the difference? It's borderline being too politically correct without actual regard to player safety. So, what they are saying is that it is OK for a player to smash his brains in on 3rd and a yard as opposed to 3rd and 10 fighting for that extra yard or goal line. The game is going to be a total bore sooner rather than later. It's controlled situational football that will ultimately be decided by little yellow flags instead of shear ability through talent..........Kinda like it already is but another stupid rule is just added. I'm telling ya, they ought to just be playing in a 100 yard waiste deep swimming pool.

 

Because there's different goals for an offensive and defensive player.

The safety's job is to stop the ball carrier. So he HAS to target the offensive player and take him down. He's allowed to lower his head, and he can make contact with the crown of his helmet... Just not on the ballcarrier's helmet/head.

The running back isn't targeting anyone. He's not trying to hit the safety, he's just trying to get low to gain leverage to get into the endzone.



The defender can hit with his shoulder, or wrap up around the waist/knees/etc. The running back really has no option other than to just run straight up with the ball which every RB coach will tell you is exactly the opposite of how they've been coached.

 

Football will turn into Hockey, running backs will have to learn on how to run down the field sideways, so they can lower their shoulders.

 

True, that!

 

HUH??? He is most definitely trying to hit the safety, or anyone else who's in his way.

 

This is how it's done. Notice that Jerome is more than capable of trucking guys without lowering his helmet and running with his eyes pointed to the ground.

[video=youtube;U3Wkg-uBjFc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3Wkg-uBjFc[/video]

 

Silverback is all for it:

https://www.facebook.com/JamesHarrison92/posts/552801308085339

 

Whether he is capable or not, the Bus doesn't agree with the rule, and also believes that it will render running backs indecisive when they hit the open field, and that indecisiveness will cause more injuries.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...tis-says-nfls-new-helmet-rule-makes-no-sense/

 

Well, Ben was tucking it in one game last year and they still ruled it a fumble, I watched the replay and it was clearly a tuck but not called correctly in my view, it was more of a tuck than the one brady got away with against the raiders. I'm really glad that stupid rule is gone...