SouthernJet Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I am sure he will figure out some way Competition Committee will propose killing plays when ball carrier loses helmet Posted by Mike Florio on March 17, 2010 10:50 AM ET During a conference call with reporters in advance of next week's league meetings in Dallas, Falcons president Rich McKay said that one of the safety-related rules to be proposed by the Competition Committee will, if adopted, call for the play to be ended if the ball carrier loses his helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Hate to say it but it's a stupid rule. The plays where it might help the player usually happen so quickly by the time the ref blows the whistle the player is already engaged in the play more or less. I can see 60 yeard runs being brought back due the CB on the other side of the fields helmet be tossed by a WRs block etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted March 17, 2010 Author Share Posted March 17, 2010 Hate to say it but it's a stupid rule. The plays where it might help the player usually happen so quickly by the time the ref blows the whistle the player is already engaged in the play more or less. I can see 60 yeard runs being brought back due the CB on the other side of the fields helmet be tossed by a WRs block etc. i think it only applies to ball carrier.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackout Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 so basically you just want to wear your chinstrap losely so your helmet will fall off after a 10 yard run? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 i think it only applies to ball carrier.. that makes more sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Meh. If the ball carrier gets hit hard enough to dislodge his helmet, the play's probably pretty close to over, anyway. This rule is more designed to help the league pretend that they're actually doing something about head injuries than anything else. I'd guess that about 99% of the concussions that occur in the NFL happen to heads in helmets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jet Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I am sure he will figure out some way Competition Committee will propose killing plays when ball carrier loses helmet Posted by Mike Florio on March 17, 2010 10:50 AM ET During a conference call with reporters in advance of next week's league meetings in Dallas, Falcons president Rich McKay said that one of the safety-related rules to be proposed by the Competition Committee will, if adopted, call for the play to be ended if the ball carrier loses his helmet. Pretty soon this league is gonna be the NFFL-National Flag Football League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Pretty soon this league is gonna be the NFFL-National Flag Football League. From someone who watched the league 35 years ago, this league is more violent, the collisions are harder and players are flying around faster than they ever have been. While many of teh "dirty" practices have been cleaned up, ths sport is as dangerous as it ever was. Thankfully there are not more spinal compressions being wheeled off on a weekly basis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodWearsAGrayHoodie Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 While every intelligent coach views takes a careful look at each rule to see how it might benefit the team or where it could hurt the team, I don't see how there is much of an angle on this one. The ball carrier is not going to purposefully lose his helmet to end the play as presumably keeping his helmet on would allow for more yards. A defender attempting to rip the helmet off a player instead of tackling him would likely result in a 15 yard unsportsmanship penalty, plus a fine and a possible ejection and suspension. Not really worth it. The only theoretical angle I could see if they choose to leave a loophole (but I doubt they would) is if losing your helmet stopped the clock...conceivably a WR who could not get out of bounds during a "2 min drill" might purposefully lose his helmet to stop the clock. The league could easily close such a loophole by either making doing so on purpose a penalty requiring redoing the down....or by not stopping the clock and treating the loss of a helmet on purpose as the same as being tackled inbounds. The rule make sense... a guy without a helmet who has the ball is going to be tackled and is at great risk of being seriously injured. If you can't keep your chin strapped snapped on then you are considered tackled. It will have a minimal impact as this sitution is rare...but it is a smart step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guido Monzino Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 While every intelligent coach views takes a careful look at each rule to see how it might benefit the team or where it could hurt the team, I don't see how there is much of an angle on this one. The ball carrier is not going to purposefully lose his helmet to end the play as presumably keeping his helmet on would allow for more yards. A defender attempting to rip the helmet off a player instead of tackling him would likely result in a 15 yard unsportsmanship penalty, plus a fine and a possible ejection and suspension. Not really worth it. The only theoretical angle I could see if they choose to leave a loophole (but I doubt they would) is if losing your helmet stopped the clock...conceivably a WR who could not get out of bounds during a "2 min drill" might purposefully lose his helmet to stop the clock. The league could easily close such a loophole by either making doing so on purpose a penalty requiring redoing the down....or by not stopping the clock and treating the loss of a helmet on purpose as the same as being tackled inbounds. The rule make sense... a guy without a helmet who has the ball is going to be tackled and is at great risk of being seriously injured. If you can't keep your chin strapped snapped on then you are considered tackled. It will have a minimal impact as this sitution is rare...but it is a smart step. None of this makes Belichick any less of a douche Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenerdaze Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 The only theoretical angle I could see if they choose to leave a loophole (but I doubt they would) is if losing your helmet stopped the clock...conceivably a WR who could not get out of bounds during a "2 min drill" might purposefully lose his helmet to stop the clock. . All the rule says is if the ball carrier loses his helmet the play is blown dead (to prevent dangerous hits, pile-ons, gang tackles, etc.). Has nothing to do with stopping the clock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMC Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 This rule is dumb. They should have waited until a helmet-less player's head exploded like a grape before they tried to pass this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I don't see why they need to change the rules each year. There should really only be rule changes every 5 years at most. This isn't like your wife redecorating the house. Its more like ... adding a deck to the backyard. Your not supposed to do it every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachTsurfing Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Pretty soon this league is gonna be the NFFL-National Flag Football League. a lot less concussions in rugby then american football, with rugby wearing hardly any pads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Pretty soon this league is gonna be the NFFL-National Flag Football League. There ya go ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HessStation Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I don't see why they need to change the rules each year. There should really only be rule changes every 5 years at most. This isn't like your wife redecorating the house. Its more like ... adding a deck to the backyard. Your not supposed to do it every year. Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.