NFL Football, we hardy knew ye

[A-Husker-4-Life]

CANOE -- SLAM! Sports - NFL - New NFL rule would bar helmet hits by the rusher

This could signal the end of the NFL. Grab the flags boys.

[Marc Vaughan]

oh ffs - seriously, contact and risk are staple parts of any sport .... half of the fun for me playing soccer is the physical side of things, take that away and a lot of the challenge and enjoyment goes with it.

Not only that but with soccer it'd make it a 'fast people only' game, one of reasons I love soccer is that anyone young or old, fast or slow can play it to a reasonable standard because a lot is down to positioning and using your body to force people where you want them.

Only matter of time until actual 'running' is outlawed after all you could trip and hurt yourself - cue people sitting around playing Madden 'competitively'

[larrymcg421]

The rule is only outside the tackle box, so doesn't limit a runner plowing into the line on goal line plays. And it applies to both runners and tacklers.

[molson]

Ya, I don't think this is that big a deal. Emmett Smith is complaining a lot, but I just watched a highlight video of his and never saw him do this. He'd lower his shoulder into guys in the open field, or try to spin around them. It's nice to have a rule actually target the offense. I mean, entering into a collision with the crown of the helmet - you really don't see that too often in the open field, and there's no need for it.

[stevew]

Emmett should stick to doing mock drafts.

[RedKingGold]

A bunch of hullaballoo about nothing.

[Flasch186]

Actually the way the rule is written I think its a good rule. Ive seen lots of runners turn into a tackler and at the very end lower their head to expose the point of their helmet. This only stops that very last move. I think that that would be fine.

[Dutch]

Worthless rule. I'd vote no just to keep the most people happy.

[revrew]

I think more people would be willing to concede the rule change if the rules committee called it "spearing." Exact same rule, but marketing it that way would grease the wheels for passage.

[MacroGuru]

A RB lowers his head as he is going in to finish a run, this rule limits that effectiveness, I understand where Emmit is coming from.

I think it's a dumb rule, you are going to take away a back effectiveness on this, and when one doesn't think and drops his head to mow over the defender and get that first down, you are taking it away from them....

[molson]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

A RB lowers his head as he is going in to finish a run, this rule limits that effectiveness

A RB does this as he's going through the line of scrimmage, but I think it's pretty rare for an RB to lower his head to initiate a collision in the open field outside the tackle box. In all the coverage of this I haven't seen a video example of a player actually doing it in a real game.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by molson

A RB does this as he's going through the line of scrimmage, but I think it's pretty rare for an RB to lower his head to initiate a collision in the open field outside the tackle box. In all the coverage of this I haven't seen a video example of a player actually doing it in a real game.

The reason all the RB's are complaining about this rule is because it is exactly what they do. It's called finishing the run, and to take that away from a RB to me, limits their effectiveness of a runner.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by MacroGuru

The reason all the RB's are complaining about this rule is because it is exactly what they do. It's called finishing the run, and to take that away from a RB to me, limits their effectiveness of a runner.

This, we teach RB's to finish runs when contact is inevitable by dropping their center of gravity and exploding through the tackler with their shoulder. I constantly harp on backs for running too high and this is going to force that, which is poor technique IMO and opens runners up to other injuries.

I just really don't get this, without even looking for studies I can't imagine that RB's get anywhere near the amount of concussions you see receivers get from being straight up and exposed, of the QB's get from blindside hits. You rarely see a RB that takes a shot he cannot prepare for. (Michigan running backs playing South Carolina excluded)

I just don't like the rule because your head will follow where you place your shoulders and even with 'eye up' they could possibly call a penalty.

[Logan]

I was under the impression that RBs could be receiving more frequent, but much less severe, concussions when they lower their head for tackles, which add up over time. These are similar to how offensive and defensive linemen are thought to be doing significant long term damage to their brains without any of the extremely violent hits you see guys take in open space.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

This, we teach RB's to finish runs when contact is inevitable by dropping their center of gravity and exploding through the tackler with their shoulder. I constantly harp on backs for running too high and this is going to force that, which is poor technique IMO and opens runners up to other injuries.

That's the thing, contact typically isn't as inevitable in the open field where there's space to the left and to the right. Again, watch an Emmett Smith highlight video on youtube, he din't initiate crown-of-the-helmet contact in the open field, he tried to spin around guys or change his running angle.

Maybe I'm wrong but I get the sense that the RBs and some of the posters here are saying that under this rule, there would be flags on most running plays that occurred in previous seasons. But I think Jeff Fischer and others on this committee have tried to emphasize that they're really going after blatant, open field examples of this. If it's something that only targets a tiny number of running plays, it's not going to kill the NFL. Two guys running from opposite directions in the open field, where they both have some forward momentum, and then colliding helmet to helmet is the kind of play someone can get killed on (which is why the NFL is freaked out out kickoffs). I know people love the football they grew up with but the NFL has to change to continue to exist.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I know people love the football they grew up with but the NFL has to change to continue to exist.

Better that it cease to exist than continue down the flag football route it's going.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Better that it cease to exist than continue down the flag football route it's going.

I think they'll manage to make more revenue as a league after this rule change then they would if the league didn't exist at all. We have a little ways to go before it's "flag football", though I'm sure there was similar hysterical opposition to face masks on helmets. We'll have to see though, if the league dies next year I'll admit you guys were right.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by molson

That's the thing, contact typically isn't as inevitable in the open field where there's space to the left and to the right. Again, watch an Emmett Smith highlight video on youtube, he din't initiate crown-of-the-helmet contact in the open field, he tried to spin around guys or change his running angle.

Maybe I'm wrong but I get the sense that the RBs and some of the posters here are saying that under this rule, there would be flags on most running plays that occurred in previous seasons. But I think Jeff Fischer and others on this committee have tried to emphasize that they're really going after blatant, open field examples of this. If it's something that only targets a tiny number of running plays, it's not going to kill the NFL. Two guys running from opposite directions in the open field, where they both have some forward momentum, and then colliding helmet to helmet is the kind of play someone can get killed on (which is why the NFL is freaked out out kickoffs). I know people love the football they grew up with but the NFL has to change to continue to exist.

My issue isn't with the intent of the rule as it relates to helmet to helmet contact, but there is absolutely no way to gauge where the point of impact will occur at the speed the game is played, even at the high school level.

I don't like rule because you are going to have calls made on plays where backs lower the shoulder and the defender comes across there body and unintentional helmet to helmet contact occurs. Once this happens and you get runners finishing runs more tentatively you open up the possibility of other injuries.

As indicated above, if they are only targeting a tiny number of running plays, why penalize the guys that are in the league because they run physically, with the chance that on occasion unintentional helmet to helmet contact will occur. I also have a hard time believing that there are many, if any running backs that intentionally finish a run with the crown of the helmet, knowing it is not safe, risking both concussions and neck injuries.

Look, I am all for keeping players brains safe and the stuff we have started doing in last two seasons in AZ high school football is making big strides in this area, including baseline concussion testing, concussion awareness courses for players and upgraded helmets. Not to mention that our trainers always err on the side of caution. I had players held out last season because they mentioned they were dizzy and because they failed their baseline test based on symptoms. Why was this player dizzy? He had a sinus infection and was weak from a cold. I knew he didn't have a concussion because he took no contact and it was his first practice back after a missing a week with a sprained ankle. But I would rather have him sit knowing he was OK, than practice and taking the extremely minimal chance that is was more than a sinus infection.

Lets look at continuing to evolve helmet technology, including sensors, education and establishing more strict testing protocol without compromising the fundamental aspects of the game.

[Julio Riddols]

They need to force players to wear heavy gear that slows them down and makes it harder for them to build up the kind of speed it takes to make some of these collisions happen. Also, force them to wear ALL their pads (Especially in the knee area) and have someone on the sideline ensure that each players helmet is fitted properly. Do that and simply eliminate all these weak ass rules that complicate the game and force the refs to make even more judgement calls that have a major effect on the outcome of the game. If I was a player I would be more inclined to quit playing football with these hitting rule changes than I would with forced equipment rules.

[RendeR]

Or we could all just sit back, watch the games, enjoy ourselves and not get our panties in a bunch over something none of us can effect in any way shape or form.

Whining about rules changes is about as useful as screaming at the moon for shining too brightly at night and keeping you awake. Get over it, the game won't go away, the quality won't suffer any measurable loss. The games will still be decided by the players on the field. Even if I find a call hysterically stupid or outright wrong, if my team is doing its job that won't make a damned bit of difference.

Really, whats the point? The NFL has its fans by the short hairs, there is no other substitute, there is no replacement sport to fil in our NFL time slots. You'll watch the product they put on the field, and if anyone one of you in particular does stop watching there are going to be a dozen new fans to replace you.

We as fans, are rather meaningless in the overall scheme of things because we still watch and we still spend ridiculous amounts of money for tickets and merchandise.

There will always be the "back when I was younger the game was better" stories, and frankly its all BS, the games are what the games are. Arguments can be made in any direction as to what is better or worse.

Bleh.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

We'll have to see though, if the league dies next year I'll admit you guys were right.

Lives or dies, I was talking more in terms of what should happen, not what would happen.

Hell, look how many records William Hung sold.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RendeR

There will always be the "back when I was younger the game was better" stories, and frankly its all BS, the games are what the games are. Arguments can be made in any direction as to what is better or worse.

Bleh.

I'll admit I rarely agree with you RendeR, but I think you knocked it out of the park with your post.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

did anybody catch that simmons podcast w/ the si guy who wrote the goodell article? iirc, the league wants to grow revenue by 15 billion by 2025.

so here you have a strategy of massive growth while fundamentally changing the way the game is played. i'm no business expert but assuming your customers will rapaciously devour an altered version of your product takes some serious brass ones

[Logan]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

did anybody catch that simmons podcast w/ the si guy who wrote the goodell article? iirc, the league wants to grow revenue by 15 billion by 2025.

so here you have a strategy of massive growth while fundamentally changing the way the game is played. i'm no business expert but assuming your customers will rapaciously devour an altered version of your product takes some serious brass ones

There's zero evidence that football's popularity will decrease. They've been implementing what you could describe as "fundamental changes" for a number of years and it has only increased. You can make the argument that it will continue to increase as one of the few pieces of programming that people keep on watching live.

The expected revenue growth isn't dependent on more eyeballs in the US suddenly watching games - it's going to come from re-negotiations of the television contracts, creating different packages for different networks, possible international expansion, and of course, the anti-keep the game safer measure, additional regular season games.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

did anybody catch that simmons podcast w/ the si guy who wrote the goodell article? iirc, the league wants to grow revenue by 15 billion by 2025.

so here you have a strategy of massive growth while fundamentally changing the way the game is played. i'm no business expert but assuming your customers will rapaciously devour an altered version of your product takes some serious brass ones

It would take even brassier balls to change nothing about a game style that a good portion of the public (and more importantly, perhaps soon the courts as well) believe is responsible for suicides, murders, dementia, debilitating physical ailments, and inevitably at the NFL level and already at some lower levels, on-field deaths as well. People care about this stuff. And they have real legal exposure here. They only thing that can bring them down is lawsuits, that's such a bigger risk than fans fleeing en mass because they tighten up the rules some. This is only a huge deal for the NFL because of that public opinion and because of that legal exposure. I assure you, they have their long term best interests in mind first and foremost every second of the way on this stuff. If there was ever a time they dropped in popularity because of a rule change, they'd re-evaluate the benefits and risks. But this rule ain't gonna do that, and the gradual way these rules have been implemented has helped keep that from happening. People were freaking out for a while over the helmet-to-helmet defenseless receiver calls, but everybody became accustomed to them, and now fans react to those calls and non-calls just like they do every other penalty - including getting pissed when the call isn't made against an opposing team.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by molson

A RB does this as he's going through the line of scrimmage, but I think it's pretty rare for an RB to lower his head to initiate a collision in the open field outside the tackle box. In all the coverage of this I haven't seen a video example of a player actually doing it in a real game.

I'm not sure if it would be blatant enough, but the run where Ridley got concussed and fumbled vs. the Ravens seems to fall into that category.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Logan

There's zero evidence that football's popularity will decrease. They've been implementing what you could describe as "fundamental changes" for a number of years and it has only increased. You can make the argument that it will continue to increase as one of the few pieces of programming that people keep on watching live.

The expected revenue growth isn't dependent on more eyeballs in the US suddenly watching games - it's going to come from re-negotiations of the television contracts, creating different packages for different networks, possible international expansion, and of course, the anti-keep the game safer measure, additional regular season games.

but there's no end to it. rules changes are a dog in a bath tub.

-rbs can't lower their head

what about the 300 pound guys that ram into each other every play?
-lineman have to initiate contact with their arms.

what about full speed collisions?
-no more full speed frontal collisions

etc etc -it will never be safe. but they will keep trying. is there a breaking point? idk

i agree with your point. the line graph predicts success. ff drives growth so just make the game all offensive stats and people won't notice the changes.

besides what's goodell supposed to say? winter is coming! pay me 30 mil a year and i'll guarantee nfl games on the moon in ten years

[Logan]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

but there's no end to it. rules changes are a dog in a bath tub.

-rbs can't lower their head

what about the 300 pound guys that ram into each other every play?
-lineman have to initiate contact with their arms.

what about full speed collisions?
-no more full speed frontal collisions

But this comes back to the complaints about "changing the game" and "flag football"...there didn't used to be full speed "collisions" because players didn't used to tackle another player by slamming their shoulder into another. They actually tackled by using their arms. It was this development that led to the game being less safe. Add in that players are bigger/stronger/faster than they used to be and there's your issue.

[Peregrine]

To me this is not the end of the world, it's just the next in a series of rules changes over the last 10 years that have gradually made the game less fun to watch for me.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Better that it cease to exist than continue down the flag football route it's going.

I personally feel that sports don't NEED to change, yes there are dangers inherant in any physical contact sport - thats part of what makes them fun to play and watch.

People admire the skill and bravery of the stars.

For Soccer it annoys the heck out of me where you see fouls given for a 50-50 challenge where someone gets the ball, at the end of the day its a fair ball to be won and if someone gets injured from the challenge that doesn't always mean its a foul or that someone should be punished ... just that sh*t does indeed happen ...

(says the chap who recovered from a torn cruciate ligament last year and who is currently in physio for another ligament injury currently - these knocks don't stop me enjoying the sport at all .. its part of why I enjoy it, playing gives me a huge high from the adrenalin and physical tussling ...)

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I personally feel that sports don't NEED to change, yes there are dangers inherant in any physical contact sport - thats part of what makes them fun to play and watch.

People admire the skill and bravery of the stars.

For Soccer it annoys the heck out of me where you see fouls given for a 50-50 challenge where someone gets the ball, at the end of the day its a fair ball to be won and if someone gets injured from the challenge that doesn't always mean its a foul or that someone should be punished ... just that sh*t does indeed happen ...

(says the chap who recovered from a torn cruciate ligament last year and who is currently in physio for another ligament injury currently - these knocks don't stop me enjoying the sport at all .. its part of why I enjoy it, playing gives me a huge high from the adrenalin and physical tussling ...)

I don't care either. I know what these players signed up for. But I'm not the guy who has a multi-billion dollar empire to protect, or one of 30 guys who have half to billion dollar franchises to protect.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

it's all so silly. maximize your strength and speed so you can go out there and be very, very careful.

not to mention there's a death star on the horizon in the form of a class action lawsuit that no one wants to look at.

[Blackadar]

Trying to make football this safe is like trying to create a swimming pool that prevents you from getting wet when you jump into it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

it's all so silly. maximize your strength and speed so you can go out there and be very, very careful.

Every sport is like that. Except no-holds-barred fighting to the death, which I don't think exists.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

It would take even brassier balls to change nothing about a game style that a good portion of the public (and more importantly, perhaps soon the courts as well) believe is responsible for suicides, murders, dementia, debilitating physical ailments, and inevitably at the NFL level and already at some lower levels, on-field deaths as well. People care about this stuff. And they have real legal exposure here. They only thing that can bring them down is lawsuits, that's such a bigger risk than fans fleeing en mass because they tighten up the rules some. This is only a huge deal for the NFL because of that public opinion and because of that legal exposure. I assure you, they have their long term best interests in mind first and foremost every second of the way on this stuff. If there was ever a time they dropped in popularity because of a rule change, they'd re-evaluate the benefits and risks. But this rule ain't gonna do that, and the gradual way these rules have been implemented has helped keep that from happening. People were freaking out for a while over the helmet-to-helmet defenseless receiver calls, but everybody became accustomed to them, and now fans react to those calls and non-calls just like they do every other penalty - including getting pissed when the call isn't made against an opposing team.

This.

What will really end the NFL is a ten billion class action judgment and court imposed rules on injuries.

[Blackadar]

Willie Gay will like the new rule.

Adrian Peterson Runs Over William Gay - YouTube

[albionmoonlight]

I go to the Saints message board, and I see lots of people saying that this will make the game less popular. But then I scroll down two threads, and see people having in-depth discussions about whether a certain linebacker's senior bowl performance helps or hurts his chances of being picked in the third round.

The NFL certainly has to be careful about alienating fans too much. But it still astounds me how popular this game really is.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by molson

Every sport is like that. Except no-holds-barred fighting to the death, which I don't think exists.

Contact Sport:

A sport, such as football, hockey, or boxing, that involves physical contact between players as part of normal play.


2 paths:

a. admit it's sanctioned barbarism for adults who accept the long term health risks for substantial financial gain (this throws ncaa/youth football under the bus)

b. make it a non contact sport


there is no in between.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

Contact Sport:

A sport, such as football, hockey, or boxing, that involves physical contact between players as part of normal play.


2 paths:

a. admit it's sanctioned barbarism for adults who accept the long term health risks for substantial financial gain (this throws ncaa/youth football under the bus)

b. make it a non contact sport


there is no in between.

The NFL would LOVE it if there was no in between and they didn't have to worry about any of this. But there is, and they do. That's just the way it is. As JPhillips was saying, you'd much rather have Jeff Fischer changing these rules than a Federal district court judge. The paranoia over every single rule change has proven to be overblown. When the opposition has to rely on exaggerations like calling it "flag football" and the "NFL dying", it's telling. They need the exaggerations between the facts don't back up the point - the NFL is more popular than ever.

[Matthean]

It got voted in and the tuck rule is no more.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

that's short sighted and naive. not that i would do anything different if i was goodell. but this isn't going to end well.

[stevew]

I hate Jim Schwartz but thank god they fixed the challenge flag rule. That call was a travesty in the first place. Schwartz should not have thrown the flag, but it was an appropriate fuck you to referee professionals who had just badly botched a call.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

the NFL is more popular than ever.

And the threshold for what qualifies as "entertainment" is lower than ever.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And the threshold for what qualifies as "entertainment" is lower than ever.

And yet, it's *still* the most popular form of entertainment.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

And yet, it's *still* the most popular form of entertainment.

{shrug} Doesn't make it above criticism.

[LloydLungs]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I go to the Saints message board, and I see lots of people saying that this will make the game less popular. But then I scroll down two threads, and see people having in-depth discussions about whether a certain linebacker's senior bowl performance helps or hurts his chances of being picked in the third round.

The NFL certainly has to be careful about alienating fans too much. But it still astounds me how popular this game really is.

You're right. Personally I don't get it -- I mean, the NFL's popularity will never go away as long as there's gambling and fantasy football, but it isn't just that stuff driving what you're referencing.

I'm a Saints fan and I keep following the league because of the Saints, but NFL football has mostly lost its appeal to me. Basically I see a lot of the new player safety penalties as unavoidable due to the speed of the game, so we're not really going to change behavior. We're just going to have more drives cheaply extended because player X's helmet barely nicked player Y's helmet in a full speed collision where one guy changed his trajectory slightly in a split second. Oh, the intrigue.

I don't get the appeal anymore, but I am an anomaly and as RendeR correctly points out, easily replaced, as I am not part of any huge trend. So, whatever.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{shrug} Doesn't make it above criticism.

Criticize all you like. As molson points out, it's the thought of these moves killing the NFL's popularity that is the issue.

What do you think are the chances that the NFL actually becomes less popular than it is now?

What do you think are the chances that either something horrific happens on the field that would ultimately end up hurting the popularity of the NFL, or something happens in a courtroom that ultimately ends up hurting the popularity of the NFL?

I see the latter as being much higher than the former.

[BrianD]

I still think a good way to cut down on injuries is to reduce the roster size and make people play both ways. You would no longer get people trained to play only one aspect of the game and rest often. Training would require all-around talent and would slow the game back down. It would also up the endurance needs.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

What do you think are the chances that the NFL actually becomes less popular than it is now?

If the pussification of it continues, quite good.

What do you think are the chances that either something horrific happens on the field that would ultimately end up hurting the popularity of the NFL

Honestly? I don't think even a tiny fraction of the current fan population would particularly give a flying fuck beyond "oh how awful ... when's the next game start?"

[Logan]

Serious question, do you really feel more manly to type out the word "pussification" when describing a game being played by monstrous men running into each other at full speed only because they can no longer use their helmets to hit each other, or target shoulders into heads, or smack their hands down on QBs heads?