There are 251 users in the forums

New rule banning lowering of the helmet

Originally posted by susweel:
Originally posted by post_primitive:
Originally posted by Furlow:
This. The fake toughness of rugby players is so irritating.

Maybe the dumbest statement I've ever read on the Internet.

This

Sus agrees with you lol

Look, rugby is a physical sport, I'm not denying that. But it's not even close to the level of speed and violence of tackle football. The sheer number of injuries, particularly to the head, is clear evidence of that. And the rules of rugby are such that full speed collisions aren't as commonplace, especially away from the ball.

Rugby players who make fun of football players for "having to wear all that protective gear" or "not being tough" are morons. Fake tough guys.
Originally posted by Furlow:
Sus agrees with you lol

Look, rugby is a physical sport, I'm not denying that. But it's not even close to the level of speed and violence of tackle football. The sheer number of injuries, particularly to the head, is clear evidence of that. And the rules of rugby are such that full speed collisions aren't as commonplace, especially away from the ball.

Rugby players who make fun of football players for "having to wear all that protective gear" or "not being tough" are morons. Fake tough guys.

No one is making fun of football players. You turned this into a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument.

I am saying football equipment promotes spinal and traumatic brain injury. Rules aren't going to solve CTE.

There are huge collisions is rugby, but players hit differently because they aren't in a cage. Scaling back the cage to some extent will change the game—maybe not for the better—but in a way that will absolutely reduce head and spine trauma and mitigate CTE.

As I keep saying, I don't think it will happen. But the NFL is going to have to figure this issue out somehow.
Originally posted by post_primitive:
Originally posted by Furlow:
Sus agrees with you lol

Look, rugby is a physical sport, I'm not denying that. But it's not even close to the level of speed and violence of tackle football. The sheer number of injuries, particularly to the head, is clear evidence of that. And the rules of rugby are such that full speed collisions aren't as commonplace, especially away from the ball.

Rugby players who make fun of football players for "having to wear all that protective gear" or "not being tough" are morons. Fake tough guys.

No one is making fun of football players. You turned this into a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument.

I am saying football equipment promotes spinal and traumatic brain injury. Rules aren't going to solve CTE.

There are huge collisions is rugby, but players hit differently because they aren't in a cage. Scaling back the cage to some extent will change the game—maybe not for the better—but in a way that will absolutely reduce head and spine trauma and mitigate CTE.

As I keep saying, I don't think it will happen. But the NFL is going to have to figure this issue out somehow.

Interjecting rugby into this discussion is the "my dad vs your dad" argument. Rugby not having as many injuries is irrelevant because it's not a comparable sport.
Originally posted by Furlow:
Interjecting rugby into this discussion is the "my dad vs your dad" argument. Rugby not having as many injuries is irrelevant because it's not a comparable sport.

ok dude.
Originally posted by post_primitive:
No one is making fun of football players. You turned this into a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument.

I am saying football equipment promotes spinal and traumatic brain injury. Rules aren't going to solve CTE.

There are huge collisions is rugby, but players hit differently because they aren't in a cage. Scaling back the cage to some extent will change the game—maybe not for the better—but in a way that will absolutely reduce head and spine trauma and mitigate CTE.

As I keep saying, I don't think it will happen. But the NFL is going to have to figure this issue out somehow.

Originally posted by post_primitive:
A number of those hits were illegal, so I'm not sure it's the best example.

But I guess there are no WRs running dig routes, so rugby is a sport for wimps—so sayeth all the chubby Internet tough guys who have never stepped foot on the pitch.

Watch a World Cup sevens match. 14 minutes of dead sprinting with no break—everyone is built like an NFL linebacker and fast as hell. Tons of contact. Very few concussions by comparison.

Scale back the protective equipment, and there will be fewer spinals and TBI in football because players will play the game differently. Period.

I doubt that'll happen, but the league is going to have to figure something out. Almost every player eventually develops CTE. That isn't some minor concern a couple rule changes will fix.

Omg no one is saying rugby isnt tough, of course it is.

Its a different game though, getting rid of the helmet and pads would completely change the physicality and strategy of the sport. In rugby there is no forward pass, you wanna get rid of that? A head injury will damn sure occur if a player runs over the middle and gets his clock cleaned by a linebacker, i dont care how he tackles. The guys head could bounce off the turf ir knock into another player.
Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
Omg no one is saying rugby isnt tough, of course it is.

Its a different game though, getting rid of the helmet and pads would completely change the physicality and strategy of the sport. In rugby there is no forward pass, you wanna get rid of that? A head injury will damn sure occur if a player runs over the middle and gets his clock cleaned by a linebacker, i dont care how he tackles. The guys head could bounce off the turf ir knock into another player.

There would be fewer concussions and spinal injuries with less equipment. Not sure how to state my position more clearly than that.

It would still a collision sport (like rugby) and there would still be injuries, but devistating CNS injuries and CTE would be dramatically reduced.

Of course it would change the game. I've already said that, but thanks.

The game is changing whether you like it or not.

The league is looking at eliminating special teams and ruling out a three-point stance among other options. 99% of football players are found to have CTE post-mortem. No amount of money is worth early-onset dementia. I don't think you appreciate the league's situation here.
JEEee - Zuss
The willy waving going on here.

My View, being an Aussie from an AFL dominated region who likes to watch a good game of NRL/AFL/NFL, is that the codes should not be compared good/better/best because they are different.
NRL/AFL are speed/strength/endurance games, NFL is a speed/strength/power game.
All use tackling, all give injuries - deliberate or accidental - that each league is looking at mitigating.
NFL should look at tackling tecniques of NRL/AFL and adapt into the game - not necessarily outright copy.
If training/practice 1 on 1 (or similar configurations) at full speed was conducted without helmets - from high school thru college and after - even if helmets were game day only, players would be less habituated in going in direct with head when making tackles.

This rule change is looking only at initiating contact using the head.
Playing Rule Article 8: It is a foul if a player lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent.

For years player were taught to go in head first. Many possibly still are taught that methodology. NFL has been negligent in this area for decades.
Originally posted by post_primitive:
There would be fewer concussions and spinal injuries with less equipment. Not sure how to state my position more clearly than that.

It would still a collision sport (like rugby) and there would still be injuries, but devistating CNS injuries and CTE would be dramatically reduced.

Of course it would change the game. I've already said that, but thanks.

The game is changing whether you like it or not.

The league is looking at eliminating special teams and ruling out a three-point stance among other options. 99% of football players are found to have CTE post-mortem. No amount of money is worth early-onset dementia. I don't think you appreciate the league's situation here.

I dont think you even know what my stance is on the league lol
Originally posted by Who-is-Hayne:
JEEee - Zuss
The willy waving going on here.

My View, being an Aussie from an AFL dominated region who likes to watch a good game of NRL/AFL/NFL, is that the codes should not be compared good/better/best because they are different.
NRL/AFL are speed/strength/endurance games, NFL is a speed/strength/power game.
All use tackling, all give injuries - deliberate or accidental - that each league is looking at mitigating.
NFL should look at tackling tecniques of NRL/AFL and adapt into the game - not necessarily outright copy.
If training/practice 1 on 1 (or similar configurations) at full speed was conducted without helmets - from high school thru college and after - even if helmets were game day only, players would be less habituated in going in direct with head when making tackles.

This rule change is looking only at initiating contact using the head.
Playing Rule Article 8: It is a foul if a player lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent.

For years player were taught to go in head first. Many possibly still are taught that methodology. NFL has been negligent in this area for decades.


Yeah I agree, a lot of rbs go in head first still for some reason

Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by teylo31:
NFL needs to watch out. They are already on their way to tuning people out and every year it gets worse

Fox just paid 3.3 billion for Thursday Night Football. NFL doesn't need to watch out.

Ok. Thank you
What does the rule even mean? Define "lowering"?
Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
What does the rule even mean? Define "lowering"?

Let me try...
upright, head is at it's highest, bent over, head is lower.

therefore, "lowering" is the act of moving head from highest to a lower position.
Originally posted by Who-is-Hayne:
JEEee - Zuss
The willy waving going on here.

My View, being an Aussie from an AFL dominated region who likes to watch a good game of NRL/AFL/NFL, is that the codes should not be compared good/better/best because they are different.
NRL/AFL are speed/strength/endurance games, NFL is a speed/strength/power game.
All use tackling, all give injuries - deliberate or accidental - that each league is looking at mitigating.
NFL should look at tackling tecniques of NRL/AFL and adapt into the game - not necessarily outright copy.
If training/practice 1 on 1 (or similar configurations) at full speed was conducted without helmets - from high school thru college and after - even if helmets were game day only, players would be less habituated in going in direct with head when making tackles.

This rule change is looking only at initiating contact using the head.
Playing Rule Article 8: It is a foul if a player lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent.

For years player were taught to go in head first. Many possibly still are taught that methodology. NFL has been negligent in this area for decades.

Oh come on everyone in Australia knows AFL Players are girly men in their short shorts. NRL is where the real mean are. They have all the contact of the NFL but far more running around and no helmets or boofy pads.


Here are a few reasons why lowering the head should be banned
Share 49erswebzone