Per PFT 3/14/13: Competition Committee proposes 6 rule changes, 3 bylaw changes

[TD Riggo]

Did Emmitt say it like this?

I've been readening about these ruler and byway changes and one sticks out for me like a soaring thumb. How are you going to call a penal league whenever a player gets hit? Speaking for experiments, I know this isn't passable. They don't have this many rules in the lozenge ray league. It's propostasaurus. I love lamp.

Am I missing something on this post?

---------- Post added March-20th-2013 at 02:37 PM ----------

...Does anyone actually watch how Alfred Morris runs?

Alfred Morris runs through contact with his shoulder, not the crowd of his head. In pass pro and in the run game he always runs with the crowd of his helmet up, and the only time he doesn't is when he covers up the ball or in goal line sets.

You're not SUPPOSED to run with your head down, and you're not supposed to run through people with the crown of your helmet. You initiate contract with your shoulder and you run through contact with your legs. All you do if you run into people with the crown of your helmet is put yourself at risk for injury.

I sort of think the "OH THE NFL IS TRYING TO RUIN THE GAME!" aspect of this is kind of overplayed and tired. It seems like the rule isn't going to penalize a guy for protecting himself by lower his head to cover the football, but for guys who use their helmets as weapons to blast through defenders. It does leave a gray area and there will be bad calls, but I don't think it's going to ruin the game.

Certainly not gonna ruin Alfred's game.

The problem is that the idiot refs will constantly screw this up and call it when the crown of the helmet isn't used. These kind of rules are just ridiculous! The head is located just above the shoulders. When a runner runs forward and low, it is inevitable that the head will make some kind of contact, even if he is leading with his shoulder. And this is where I think the refs will constantly call this absurd penalty!

[Hitman21ST]

The problem is that the idiot refs will constantly screw this up and call it when the crown of the helmet isn't used. These kind of rules are just ridiculous! The head is located just above the shoulders. When a runner runs forward and low, it is inevitable that the head will make some kind of contact, even if he is leading with his shoulder. And this is where I think the refs will constantly call this absurd penalty!

Not that it would happen, but this would be a great candidate for a "challengable penalty"

[johnbent]

I wish they would just remove the hard shell helmet from the game. Go back to leather, tape the ears like in Rugby, or roll with none.

<snip>

The helmet just makes for a bigger target to get hit and concussed, and gives players a sense of invincibility. I suspect it causes more severe injuries than it prevents.

I agree that removing the helmet would drastically reduce the frequency of head injuries. But I fear it would drastically increase the severity. There's nothing analogous in rugby to a wide receiver looking back for the ball and a safety flying into him at full speed. Without helmets, the heads will still occasionally, accidentally, bang at huge velocity and skulls will fracture.

Now, a different rule from rugby that I think would be great in the NFL is "must attempt to wrap." This means that all tackles must be like we learned in Pop Warner. You're not allowed to just try to knock a guy down with your forearm, shoulder, or head. You must try to wrap your arms around the guy while tackling him. There are still big hits but the rules forces everyone to use the proper technique. It doesn't make rugby any less exciting and it makes it much safer.

[redskinss]

The intent of the rule was to stop coaches from throwing challenge flags and essentially using them as timeouts. They just didn't think it out all that well. There does need to be a rule but it obviously needed to be tweeked.

yeah but that was my point.
if the play is automatically reviewable then time is already out and the coaches aren't gaining anything.

[Zazzaro703]

I like how the Redskins abstained from voting on the Tuck rule.

[Larry]

I agree that removing the helmet would drastically reduce the frequency of head injuries. But I fear it would drastically increase the severity. There's nothing analogous in rugby to a wide receiver looking back for the ball and a safety flying into him at full speed. Without helmets, the heads will still occasionally, accidentally, bang at huge velocity and skulls will fracture.

Possibility: Pad the helmet? (The exterior?)

No doubt it would be an careful decision. I could see how too much or two soft, and there's another problem. You want the helmet to slide off of somebody, as opposed to putting torsion in the wearer's head.