what do yall think of the new proposed rule for running backs

Originally posted by DelCed2486:
It's ironic that the NFL was considering killing the Pro Bowl, yet is keeping it alive, thereby forcing players to RISK INJURY in a MEANINGLESS game. And with all the concerns over the "lack of intensity" players play with in the Pro Bowl, with this stupid new helmet rule they are on their way to ensuring that now we'll be treated to the same even in the regular season. I guess that's the goal, to make it a glorified touch football game with 50+ points scored by each team.

When players did not wear facemasks, they didn't lead with their head often and they definitely didn't play touch.

I think we will get back to true old school football minus the cheap shots. We are already seeing better wrapping up and shoulder tackles by defensive players due to a few years of penalties.

I'm actually shocked 24 coaches were in favor of this. Must be the ones whose running game sucks. Betcha both Harbaughs, Belicheat, even Carroll and maybe Frazier all opposed it. Maybe a couple more but thats it. The rest are no-sack wusses.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by DelCed2486:
It's ironic that the NFL was considering killing the Pro Bowl, yet is keeping it alive, thereby forcing players to RISK INJURY in a MEANINGLESS game. And with all the concerns over the "lack of intensity" players play with in the Pro Bowl, with this stupid new helmet rule they are on their way to ensuring that now we'll be treated to the same even in the regular season. I guess that's the goal, to make it a glorified touch football game with 50+ points scored by each team.

When players did not wear facemasks, they didn't lead with their head often and they definitely didn't play touch.

I think we will get back to true old school football minus the cheap shots. We are already seeing better wrapping up and shoulder tackles by defensive players due to a few years of penalties.

I do not share your optimism for the NFL to not completely F this up. I think you're underestimating just how sh***y of a rule this is...how subjective it is, how open to a ref's interpretation it will be, and just how illogical it is given the constructs of anatomy & physiology. But worse than that, it's yet one more step to water down the game.

It is possible to have player safety at the forefront without introducing stupid rules...for instance, I agree that QBs should be protected. To an extent. But how many times do we have to see a friggin PF-RTQB penalty all because a Def player's hand inadertently and barely brushes a QB's helmet? The NFL has just signed on for more of that. And I'm serious, if "player safety" is truly so paramount, then WTH are they continuing the stupid Pro Bowl, and why are they pushing so hard for an 18-game reg season? It's the $$. Same reason for idiotic rules like this...it's not player safety, it's to stem the tide of lawsuits. There's no bigger fan of capitalism than me, but not when they are ruining the game I love. And making me pay full-boat for 2 preseason games every year, but that's a whole 'nuther topic.

Originally posted by DelCed2486:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by DelCed2486:
It's ironic that the NFL was considering killing the Pro Bowl, yet is keeping it alive, thereby forcing players to RISK INJURY in a MEANINGLESS game. And with all the concerns over the "lack of intensity" players play with in the Pro Bowl, with this stupid new helmet rule they are on their way to ensuring that now we'll be treated to the same even in the regular season. I guess that's the goal, to make it a glorified touch football game with 50+ points scored by each team.

When players did not wear facemasks, they didn't lead with their head often and they definitely didn't play touch.

I think we will get back to true old school football minus the cheap shots. We are already seeing better wrapping up and shoulder tackles by defensive players due to a few years of penalties.

I do not share your optimism for the NFL to not completely F this up. I think you're underestimating just how sh***y of a rule this is...how subjective it is, how open to a ref's interpretation it will be, and just how illogical it is given the constructs of anatomy & physiology. But worse than that, it's yet one more step to water down the game.

It is possible to have player safety at the forefront without introducing stupid rules...for instance, I agree that QBs should be protected. To an extent. But how many times do we have to see a friggin PF-RTQB penalty all because a Def player's hand inadertently and barely brushes a QB's helmet? The NFL has just signed on for more of that. And I'm serious, if "player safety" is truly so paramount, then WTH are they continuing the stupid Pro Bowl, and why are they pushing so hard for an 18-game reg season? It's the $$. Same reason for idiotic rules like this...it's not player safety, it's to stem the tide of lawsuits. There's no bigger fan of capitalism than me, but not when they are ruining the game I love. And making me pay full-boat for 2 preseason games every year, but that's a whole 'nuther topic.

I do think it will cause for a few terrible calls each week throughout the NFL but will definitely benefit more in a few years after some scapegoat fines are dished out. There will always be occasions where a player will not pass up the opportunity for a heavy hit no different than some Safeties do now but it will clean up tackling and breaking tackles.

I'm not more concerned about the subjectivity of enforcing the rule more than I am of the coincidental "timing" of enforcing the rule.

the announcers last season kept saying that refs were instructed to "throw the flag when in doubt" when it comes to leading with your helmet when making a tackle...... now apply that instruction to this new rule? i can imagine all kinds of inconsistency with this.

i can see more fumbles happening if running backs start protecting themselves with their forearms. two hands on the ball?

Originally posted by ninerjok:
I'm actually shocked 24 coaches were in favor of this. Must be the ones whose running game sucks. Betcha both Harbaughs, Belicheat, even Carroll and maybe Frazier all opposed it. Maybe a couple more but thats it. The rest are no-sack wusses.

Coaches didn't vote for it. Only Owner who was against it was Mike Brown

Originally posted by hawker84:
what the NFL doesn't realize along with a lot of owners of differnent sports franchises is, it all starts with the Fans... you start pulling these kind of rules out of your hats and it starts effecting the excitment of the game, fans are going to stop watching and stop attending the games.. and once that happens you know what rolls down hill.... and guess who's at the bottom of that hill..

so keep it up Gooddell, keep thinking you have more power than the fans....

This.

You are now my friend... because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

f**k this rule.

There will be more injuries to running backs if they have to run straight up through contact. They are more exposed. When you start taking instinct out of the game it becomes a different game. How many of these owners and GMs on the rules committee actually played football. To begin with it's an arbitrary call, it's not black and white. Seattle's Lynch must be losing sleep after this was passed.

Originally posted by RishikeshA:

There will be more injuries to running backs if they have to run straight up through contact. They are more exposed. When you start taking instinct out of the game it becomes a different game. How many of these owners and GMs on the rules committee actually played football. To begin with it's an arbitrary call, it's not black and white. Seattle's Lynch must be losing sleep after this was passed.

Why do you think they will be running straight up? Is that how you played tackle football without pads? Rugby players don't play straight up.

Originally posted by Mike8016:

Originally posted by ninerjok:
I'm actually shocked 24 coaches were in favor of this. Must be the ones whose running game sucks. Betcha both Harbaughs, Belicheat, even Carroll and maybe Frazier all opposed it. Maybe a couple more but thats it. The rest are no-sack wusses.

Coaches didn't vote for it. Only Owner who was against it was Mike Brown

Pure PR campaign. Why would you introduce a rule that would've only been flagged 5 times all of last year? Completely unnecessary.

IDIOTIC!!!! Gooddick is ruining the game! Lame rule changes and stupid idea for playing games over-seas costing fans 1 home game that there not able to attend. Plus, if this idiot was really worried about concussions when are they gonna test for HGH!!! Once they start testing for this the concussions are gonna go way down!

Originally posted by SFTifoso:
Pure PR campaign. Why would you introduce a rule that would've only been flagged 5 times all of last year? Completely unnecessary.

No, it was 5 times from just Week 16. But here's the thing, that's "5 times" as this committee was studying all the Week 16 games...who knows how many times they had to rewind, freeze-frame, etc. to figure it out. But now they expect the 50+ yr old part-time ref to make that call at game-speed...and without the benefit of it being a reviewable call. And call it a hunch, but pretty sure the NFL will want them to "err on the side of player safety", so they'll throw the flag first and ask questions later.

Rumor is that by 2015 they'll have the players wear floral print skirts and just come out and sing Broadway show tunes.

Originally posted by Mike8016:

Originally posted by ninerjok:
I'm actually shocked 24 coaches were in favor of this. Must be the ones whose running game sucks. Betcha both Harbaughs, Belicheat, even Carroll and maybe Frazier all opposed it. Maybe a couple more but thats it. The rest are no-sack wusses.

Coaches didn't vote for it. Only Owner who was against it was Mike Brown

Thanks for the correction I realize I was mistaken on that. Obviously coaches don't have much say on rule changes unless they're part of competition committee. There's no way 24 of them would be in favor of this rule.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by RishikeshA:
There will be more injuries to running backs if they have to run straight up through contact. They are more exposed. When you start taking instinct out of the game it becomes a different game. How many of these owners and GMs on the rules committee actually played football. To begin with it's an arbitrary call, it's not black and white. Seattle's Lynch must be losing sleep after this was passed.

Why do you think they will be running straight up? Is that how you played tackle football without pads? Rugby players don't play straight up.

There will be more injuries to running backs. I think he was saying that RBs would be running straight up, because they will not be able to get low enough anymore. The lower and more compact you get, the more likely you are to lead with your head. There will be more knee injuries.