Competition committee proposes 6 rule changes, 3 bylaw changes

[ChrisPozz]

Competition Committee proposes six rule changes, three bylaw changes | ProFootballTalk

6. Player safety: Initiating contact with the crown of the helmet is a foul if the runner or tackler delivers a forceable blow against his opponent when both players are outside the tackle box.

Adrian Peterson, Steven Jackson, and Marshawn Lynch take notice.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Competition Committee proposes scrapping the tuck rule | ProFootballTalk

 

[ChrisPozz]

NFL may prevent runners from lowering their heads into tacklers | ProFootballTalk

 

[Bemular]

Competition Committee proposes six rule changes, three bylaw changes | ProFootballTalk

6. Player safety: Initiating contact with the crown of the helmet is a foul if the runner or tackler delivers a forceable blow against his opponent when both players are outside the tackle box.

Adrian Peterson, Steven Jackson, and Marshawn Lynch take notice.

...And there is your "who do we want to win this game" subjective clause.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Emmitt Smith criticizes proposed helmet rule | ProFootballTalk

 

[threelittleturds]

NFL may prevent runners from lowering their heads into tacklers | ProFootballTalk

Guess we won't be seeing this anymore.. too bad, it is one of the most iconic runs in NFL history.

 

[BINGO]

NFL may prevent runners from lowering their heads into tacklers | ProFootballTalk

Matt Forte calls NFL's propsosed rule change 'absurd' - ESPN Chicago

 

[imac_21]

Matt Forte calls NFL's propsosed rule change 'absurd' - ESPN Chicago

He's right.

 

[Jikkle]

This is a rule that's going to pass but I don't think it's going to work.

Unlike the helmet to helmet hit where albeit difficult to do you can lower you target zone and hit someone lower.

This one is going to be tougher because a lot of RBs make their living on being physical pounding backs and them lowering their head is also them protecting themselves and it's also just plain instinct.

The NFL just needs to have these guys sign waivers that basically says "The NFL is going to make the game as safe as reasonable possible but these are the know and potential effects the game can have on short and long term health so either sign the waiver saying you won't sue or retire and do something else with your life."

 

[antone112]

In favor of this rule only because the onus of player safety has been primarily on the defense. If both ball carrier and tackler lower their heads and heads collide, you shouldn't just punish the defensive player. Both should be responsible for players safety. I'd probably be happier if the NFL just said if both players are guilty of it (imo this is the case on 75% of the penalties that have been called), then it's not a penalty on the D. But that's not going to happen.

Also, don't understand why Forte is commenting on this subject. Lowering of the shoulder is something he's not familiar with.

 

[imac_21]

In favor of this rule only because the onus of player safety has been primarily on the defense. If both ball carrier and tackler lower their heads and heads collide, you shouldn't just punish the defensive player. Both should be responsible for players safety. I'd probably be happier if the NFL just said if both players are guilty of it (imo this is the case on 75% of the penalties that have been called), then it's not a penalty on the D. But that's not going to happen.

Also, don't understand why Forte is commenting on this subject. Lowering of the shoulder is something he's not familiar with.

It isn't a penalty on the defense for lowering their head into a RB either though. The penalty last year was only to a defensive player hitting a defenseless receiver. Once the player has possession of the ball and can defend himself, it's not a penalty.

 

[antone112]

It isn't a penalty on the defense for lowering their head into a RB either though. The penalty last year was only to a defensive player hitting a defenseless receiver. Once the player has possession of the ball and can defend himself, it's not a penalty.

I know the difference between defenseless receiver penalties and helmet to helmet penalties. Both are called. And yes there were penalties called on defensive players for their helmets making contact with an offensive players helmet. All I'm saying is 75% of the time that penalty was called(imo) the offensive player was just as much at fault for the helmets colliding.

 

[imac_21]

I know the difference between defenseless receiver penalties and helmet to helmet penalties. Both are called. And yes there were penalties called on defensive players for their helmets making contact with an offensive players helmet. All I'm saying is 75% of the time that penalty was called(imo) the offensive player was just as much at fault for the helmets colliding.

I'm glad you know the difference. Because you know the difference, then you also know that defensive players were not penalized for helmet to helmet hits on RBs who took a hand-off, or on WRs after they had established possession. The penalty from the past few years is unrelated to this one. It's like comparing holding on the OL to holding on a DB.

 

[BINGO]

Latest buzz on helmet rule
March, 20, 2013 9:49AM ET
By Tom Carpenter | ESPN.com

The proposed NFL rule change that would penalize ball carriers who lower their heads to use the crown of their helmet to hit defensive players was tabled Tuesday until Wednesday. However, ProFootballTalk.com's Mike Florio thinks a final call on the matter may not be made until at least May.

"Since [Monday], multiple sources have indicated that the opposition is more widespread than expected, which could result in the league office delaying a vote pending an effort to ensure that at least 24 of the 32 owners will vote in favor of the proposed rule. And, if sufficient support can’t be mustered, the measure could suffer the same fate as plenty of others that have been tabled to May," he wrote.

"In other words, the proposal could be tabled indefinitely."

Minnesota Vikings coach Leslie Frazier may be one of the voices against the move. Per the Star Tribune's Dan Wiederer, Frazier thinks the rule could actually have an adverse effect on the health and safety of players.

“When those defenders are coming at your legs, if you don’t protect yourself and you don’t get your pads down, now you run the risk of lower body injuries,” Frazier said.

Of course, Frazier may be a tad biased, since he coaches Adrian Peterson, who has one of the more violent rushing styles in the NFL.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet 51s

The crown-of-the-helmet rule has also passed by a wide margin, I'm told.

 

[HammerDown]

 

[threelittleturds]

Man, it almost seems as if the NFL is now trying to punish a team for trying to have a running game. Both of these rule changes greatly affect the running game. The types of blocks that they made illegal probably occured about 90% of the time in the running game and the helmet crown one is obviously meant to harness aggressive and punishing RBs.

It is bad enough that they make the rules to favor passing games so that if you have a good QB you're an automatic contender, but now they are trying to make it so that the only way you can be a contender is to have a QB and that is just ridiculous.

So, does this eliminate Goalline Running? Those guys almost always lower their head and try to be a battering ram into the endzone... same for 4th and 1. Oh hey, does this make the QB sneak illegal since they drop their head and try to be a battering ram through the line to pick up those few inches???

 

[threelittleturds]

Oh nevermind, I just saw this...

The new rule will draw a 15-yard penalty if a runner or a tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players clearly are outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle-to-tackle and from three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or a tackler against an opponent would not be deemed a foul.

 

[HammerDown]

 

[Ray_Dogg]

They need to ban defenders from hitting offensive guys with the helmet now. Seems stupid at this point not to.