The Crusher Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 why don't they invest in better helmets? and i think the NFL makes too much money to be on the verge of not existing it's just a few extremist pussies out there who cry concussions Dude if that was possible they already would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsjetsjetss Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 for all the people who hate this rule (and I don't like it either), the other side is you'd crap if you saw the slate of litigation directed at the NFL right now. this league is honestly, no exaggeration, at risk of being sued out of existence. The league has to make moves now that the science is apparent. It's a risky activity and they have to either make it safer or close up shop. Continuing with status quo is not an option. Alot of this comes down as "oh screw that Goodell" but it's way bigger than 1 person. actually the litigation is supposedly a failure. The NFL has a sh*tload of lawyers and a sh*tload of money to settle. People close to the situation (my uncle) say there are so many people in the lawsuit once they get 1/4 or a half to settle (since so many people are just throwing there name in it not actively participating) the case will fall apart. biggest problem with the lawsuit is not losing its just public perception. Public perception can be altered just from small changes / saying new technology for equipment. Not changing the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsjetsjetss Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 ok so where are these better helmets? It's a hope but it's not clear that technology will save this game. I don't think we can say extremist pussies in the light of Junior Seau and Dave Duerson type tragedies. guys are literally dying. Due if that was possible they already would. actually they have 3rd party helmets used in high school that protect better then NFL helmets. They arnt the big players (nike addidas etc) tho so they arnt universally worn. I think youll definitely see new helmet made but it doesnt stop the fact that when someone sees a guy crash head to head even if theres no effect, itll still come off as too violent all about public perception Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 ok so where are these better helmets? It's a hope but it's not clear that technology will save this game. I don't think we can say extremist pussies in the light of Junior Seau and Dave Duerson type tragedies. guys are literally dying. Nobody put a gun to Junior's head and said he HAD TO play football for a living Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 nor did they tell Junior he had to play for 500 years 500 years of football would make anyone nutty. how many NFL players DON'T commit suicide? 99% or more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 What's the big deal? It sounds like you'd have to pretty flagrantly lower your head to draw the penalty. Face mask and hairline is ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 What's the big deal? It sounds like you'd have to pretty flagrantly lower your head to draw the penalty. Face mask and hairline is ok. also it's allowed in short yardage and goal line situations... to add to the arbitrary nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Nobody put a gun to Junior's head and said he HAD TO play football for a living maybe you misunderstand Im not endorsing this rule. Just trying to provide context. If you were a team owner it's a different equation than if you are violence loving fan. Even tho im sure the NFL has good lawyers, it's a ton of risk. Changing the rules is a way to try to keep this product viable for longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustInFudge Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 also it's allowed in short yardage and goal line situations... to add to the arbitrary nature. No sh*t...I was just about to go on a rant about this exact scenario. So, short yardage and goal line are cool...but what about say, 3rd and 10 draw play, the runners gets 9 yards needs to lower his head to cross the first down marker and there are 2 defenders sitting right there? Cant lower the head then? What about diving for the first down market all together? Most people lower their helmet. This rule is so ******* stupid. Flag Football. FTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeet Ulrich Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Forget about 30 years ago... comparing the NFL 10 years ago to now is mindboggling. I'll still watch, but my interest is really waning. The product they're selling really interests me less and less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn306 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 So this legendary run by Walter Payton would now be a 15 yard penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 If Landry's head came in higher would that be a penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 If Landry's head came in higher would that be a penalty? no. jacobs never struck with the crown of his helmet. that looks like a total shoulder hit actually. by the way you know who was really good at lowering his head? Shonn greene. And we all hated that dude. It's not really a move that creates points or highlights. We can cry about the death of the league or whatever but bottom line Shonn Greene's running style is not really a winning formula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted March 20, 2013 Author Share Posted March 20, 2013 What's the big deal? It sounds like you'd have to pretty flagrantly lower your head to draw the penalty. Face mask and hairline is ok. Just wait when bad calls are subjectively made that cost teams games and the plays aren't even reviewable. I can see it now...said player lowers shoulder to absorb hit, safety flies across and hits hemet. It's spearing! NO, it's crown of the helmet. NO. YES. NO. Actually nobody ******* knows, this sport is ghey etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 no. jacobs never struck with the crown of his helmet. that looks like a total shoulder hit actually. by the way you know who was really good at lowering his head? Shonn greene. And we all hated that dude. It's not really a move that creates points or highlights. We can cry about the death of the league or whatever but bottom line Shonn Greene's running style is not really a winning formula. Greene lowered his head because he had zero sense as a back. He ran like he had a grocery bag over his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted March 20, 2013 Author Share Posted March 20, 2013 no. jacobs never struck with the crown of his helmet. that looks like a total shoulder hit actually. by the way you know who was really good at lowering his head? Shonn greene. And we all hated that dude. It's not really a move that creates points or highlights. We can cry about the death of the league or whatever but bottom line Shonn Greene's running style is not really a winning formula. I think his point is, if Landry comes in higher, it's a possible offensive penalty b/c the helmets collide...possibly close to the "crown" of the helmet. Even if it's not, a ref, at game speed and at the wrong angel, could very easily see it as such. These things are going to happen. How much is the big question for me. If at nauseam, I might just stop watching, pending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Forget about 30 years ago... comparing the NFL 10 years ago to now is mindboggling. I'll still watch, but my interest is really waning. The product they're selling really interests me less and less. agreed 100% just when you thought the replacement refs were bad lol (note: i actually liked the replacement refs cuz they let the teams play hardcore football since they weren't good at catching every small penalty) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I think his point is, if Landry comes in higher, it's a possible offensive penalty b/c the helmets collide...possibly close to the "crown" of the helmet. Even if it's not, a ref, at game speed and at the wrong angel, could very easily see it as such. These things are going to happen. How much is the big question for me. If at nauseam, I might just stop watching, pending. I don't think that's the case. This link from PFT explains it better. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/20/new-helmet-use-rule-is-more-narrow-limited-than-believed/ my understanding is it has to be intentional and forcible. if Landry hits Jacobs but Jacobs isn't lowering his head (and delivering a "forcible" hit) it's not a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted March 20, 2013 Author Share Posted March 20, 2013 I don't think that's the case. This link from PFT explains it better. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/20/new-helmet-use-rule-is-more-narrow-limited-than-believed/ my understanding is it has to be intentional and forcible. if Landry hits Jacobs but Jacobs isn't lowering his head (and delivering a "forcible" hit) it's not a penalty. On paper yes. But how that subjectively judged by a ref in the heat of the moment at full speed. The rules makes sense. How a ref interprets it might not be so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 the end result of this is gonna be less running. which is kinda what the league wants anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted March 20, 2013 Author Share Posted March 20, 2013 the end result of this is gonna be less running. which is kinda what the league wants anyway Yep. Just starting to think, give me Tavon Austin and Gio Bernard. You're not allowed to touch them anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Combine those two and we may have the next super sport. i'd love to watch people box a bull. they shoudl start with convicted child mollesters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyOB7 Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I'm surprised they didnt get rid of the kickoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barton Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Crown rule goes against the instinct of any human to lower their head (in this context). That being said, bitonti is right. All of this is due to the lawsuits being filed against the NFL by former players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JADEDGREEN Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Are you purposely antagonizing me? No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonehands Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 If Landry's head came in higher would that be a penalty? That's a great example of why all this commotion about the rule change is BS. There is an example of a back getting behind his pads and driving through a defender, however he does not lower his head so that the top of his helmet becomes a battering ram. If he made contact with his helmet, it would have been with the "hairline" part of the helmet which is 100% permissable under the new rules. Peter King gave an example on Twitter of two players coming together at the goal line and the back lowering his head to strike with the crown and the defender having to do the same or risk get plowed in the chest. Under the old rules, that is a defensive penalty for helmet to helmet and probably a fine for the defender and nothing on the offense. Meanwhile, the back is the one that created the whole potentially dangerous situation. Now, the back will be the one penalized in that scenario. The new rule evens out the inequity in the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 But no one wants a game to be called on a bad call like that. So it should be reviewable. To make it a reviewable call, they should paint circles at the top of everyone's helmets to represent the officially-outlined "crown" of the helmet. Every offensive player should have a big red spot on his helmet so we know which battering-ram runs were no-no's and which ones were 1/4" outside the line but still totally ok. This is going to be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.