NFL outlaws RBs lowering their heads (1 Viewer)

[Andy Dufresne]

No, but it feels like it's the option the NFL is moving towards.

Ultimately, this comes down to choices. The NFL has a choice to run their league any way they want. The Players have choice to play football or use their free degree to find other employment. And, I as s fan, have the choice to accept it, or spend my time and money on another sport. Until enough people do the latter, the NFL will do as it pleases.

And since not many people will do the latter because of this, it's easy to see that it's not that big of a deal.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

If it's bad, stop producing the product or accept the risks.

Or you could, you know, adjust the product.

Correct me if I'm wrong...I got the impression a couple of pages ago that you were on the same page as others with this rule change being politically motivated, was I incorrect?

Sure. So?

I just wanted to make sure. It seems like this was done for the wrong reason (political) and as fans there's nothing that effected us. In fact, I dont think we've seen a shead of evidence that shows how this rule will effect player safety or not. We know it will add more flags though.The horsecollar rule, defensless reciever, kick-off stuff I understood. This rule just bothers me because of whats driving it.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I just wanted to make sure. It seems like this was done for the wrong reason (political) and as fans there's nothing that effected us. In fact, I dont think we've seen a shead of evidence that shows how this rule will effect player safety or not. We know it will add more flags though.The horsecollar rule, defensless reciever, kick-off stuff I understood. This rule just bothers me because of whats driving it.

Whatever the ultimate motivation, be it altruistic or financial, the net effect is an attempt at increased player safety. Which we should all be for, I'd think.

 

[KCitons]

No, but it feels like it's the option the NFL is moving towards.

Ultimately, this comes down to choices. The NFL has a choice to run their league any way they want. The Players have choice to play football or use their free degree to find other employment. And, I as s fan, have the choice to accept it, or spend my time and money on another sport. Until enough people do the latter, the NFL will do as it pleases.

And since not many people will do the latter because of this, it's easy to see that it's not that big of a deal.

That's your opinion. I see it as another drop in the bucket. It's not so much the rule, it't the interpretation of too many rules that effect the outcomes of games. Even though have been an NFL fan for 35 years, I have stopped paying for NFL Sunday ticket and this year I purchased the NHL Game Center. I also started playing Fantasy Hockey again. It may not happen overnight, but I have the feeling I am not alone.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

No, but it feels like it's the option the NFL is moving towards.

Ultimately, this comes down to choices. The NFL has a choice to run their league any way they want. The Players have choice to play football or use their free degree to find other employment. And, I as s fan, have the choice to accept it, or spend my time and money on another sport. Until enough people do the latter, the NFL will do as it pleases.

And since not many people will do the latter because of this, it's easy to see that it's not that big of a deal.

That's your opinion. I see it as another drop in the bucket. It's not so much the rule, it't the interpretation of too many rules that effect the outcomes of games. Even though have been an NFL fan for 35 years, I have stopped paying for NFL Sunday ticket and this year I purchased the NHL Game Center. I also started playing Fantasy Hockey again. It may not happen overnight, but I have the feeling I am not alone.

You could be right. But I personally doubt it.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

I just wanted to make sure. It seems like this was done for the wrong reason (political) and as fans there's nothing that effected us. In fact, I dont think we've seen a shead of evidence that shows how this rule will effect player safety or not. We know it will add more flags though.The horsecollar rule, defensless reciever, kick-off stuff I understood. This rule just bothers me because of whats driving it.

Whatever the ultimate motivation, be it altruistic or financial, the net effect is an attempt at increased player safety. Which we should all be for, I'd think.

I'd like to see how compared to other positions and issues as well. I'd like to see how this compares to offensive linemen getting hit in the head, or LBers smashing into the pile, FB's, etc. The other issues approved in the past seemed pretty cut-and-dry, this one doesnt to me. I think that's why I have the problem with it.

 

[Pipes]

As others have said, this has nothing to do with taking care of players. This has to do with the NFL (owners) taking steps to limit their liability going forward. If the NFL could make more money by taping chainsaws to players arms without lawsuit, they would do it.

If it makes the game safer, why do we care? What does our biased assumption of their intentions do to lessen the effect?

If the NFL truly cared about player safety they'd crack down on PED's. This is about protecting their ### from future litigation.

 

[sho nuff]

And did the changes that the tobacco companies make correct the problem? do people no longer get cancer from cigarettes? Still dangerous, just like the NFL. If it's bad, stop producing the product or accept the risks.

It will always have some danger...turning a blind eye to the tobacco companies and dangers of smoking would have been dumb.Just as turning a blind eye to this and not trying to make it even the smallest bit safer in order to appease a small amount of fans who seem to be ready to whine and complain about anything would also be dumb.

 

[sho nuff]

I just wanted to make sure. It seems like this was done for the wrong reason (political) and as fans there's nothing that effected us. In fact, I dont think we've seen a shead of evidence that shows how this rule will effect player safety or not. We know it will add more flags though.The horsecollar rule, defensless reciever, kick-off stuff I understood. This rule just bothers me because of whats driving it.

What does it matter if they truely "care" about the player, or they are trying to cover their own behind?I don't think you would accept any evidence they put out...but if you can't see how leading with the crown of the helmet leads to dangerous hits...then there may be no hope for you.

 

[sho nuff]

As others have said, this has nothing to do with taking care of players. This has to do with the NFL (owners) taking steps to limit their liability going forward. If the NFL could make more money by taping chainsaws to players arms without lawsuit, they would do it.

If it makes the game safer, why do we care? What does our biased assumption of their intentions do to lessen the effect?

If the NFL truly cared about player safety they'd crack down on PED's. This is about protecting their ### from future litigation.

Or they know they can get this past the NFLPA and increased and intrusive testing will be fought much harder by the players.

 

[GregR]

As others have said, this has nothing to do with taking care of players. This has to do with the NFL (owners) taking steps to limit their liability going forward. If the NFL could make more money by taping chainsaws to players arms without lawsuit, they would do it.

If it makes the game safer, why do we care? What does our biased assumption of their intentions do to lessen the effect?

If the NFL truly cared about player safety they'd crack down on PED's. This is about protecting their ### from future litigation.

Yeah. Like they'd implement HGH testing. Anyone who would work to keep HGH testing out of the NFL clearly does not care about player safety.

 

[sho nuff]

Anyone who would work to keep HGH testing out of the NFL clearly does not care about player safety.

You mean like...the players who would fight it?

 

[Sabertooth]

Candy ### rules.

 

[KCitons]

Anyone who would work to keep HGH testing out of the NFL clearly does not care about player safety.

You mean like...the players who would fight it?

Exactly. Just like the players today saying they don't agree with this new rule. They know the risks and are willing to accept them.....for a price. What we have now, are former players wanting compensation for a dangerous job. A job that they knew had risk of injury. Are those players seeing the big contracts of current players and feeling left out? After all, the current players don't seem to agree with a lot of these new rules.Why stop at concussions? There are quite a few players that have bad knees and bad hips from playing in the NFL. Are these rule changes put to a vote by the NFLPA?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

I just wanted to make sure. It seems like this was done for the wrong reason (political) and as fans there's nothing that effected us. In fact, I dont think we've seen a shead of evidence that shows how this rule will effect player safety or not. We know it will add more flags though.The horsecollar rule, defensless reciever, kick-off stuff I understood. This rule just bothers me because of whats driving it.

What does it matter if they truely "care" about the player, or they are trying to cover their own behind?I don't think you would accept any evidence they put out...but if you can't see how leading with the crown of the helmet leads to dangerous hits...then there may be no hope for you.

I'm going to treat the question as rhetorical and move on. I'm done feeding you, troll. Get back under your bridge.

 

[sho nuff]

Anyone who would work to keep HGH testing out of the NFL clearly does not care about player safety.

You mean like...the players who would fight it?

Exactly. Just like the players today saying they don't agree with this new rule. They know the risks and are willing to accept them.....for a price. What we have now, are former players wanting compensation for a dangerous job. A job that they knew had risk of injury. Are those players seeing the big contracts of current players and feeling left out? After all, the current players don't seem to agree with a lot of these new rules.Why stop at concussions? There are quite a few players that have bad knees and bad hips from playing in the NFL. Are these rule changes put to a vote by the NFLPA?

Yeah, some players don't agree...and many of them keep quoting foolish things (like Mayock) and the title of the thread as if they can't lower their heads at all.Yet, the NFLPA negotiated where the competition committee can make such rules...and I doubt you see the NFLPA ever fight such a thing.As for concussions...if you really don't know, then you have been living in a cave in the last few years about what has been coming out about concussions and how the NFL and all sports pretty much put their head in the sand about them...and we learn more about the effects later in life.And its not just concussions that have led to rules...hence the horsecollar rule.

 

[sho nuff]

I just wanted to make sure. It seems like this was done for the wrong reason (political) and as fans there's nothing that effected us. In fact, I dont think we've seen a shead of evidence that shows how this rule will effect player safety or not. We know it will add more flags though.The horsecollar rule, defensless reciever, kick-off stuff I understood. This rule just bothers me because of whats driving it.

What does it matter if they truely "care" about the player, or they are trying to cover their own behind?I don't think you would accept any evidence they put out...but if you can't see how leading with the crown of the helmet leads to dangerous hits...then there may be no hope for you.

I'm going to treat the question as rhetorical and move on. I'm done feeding you, troll. Get back under your bridge.

So basically, you can't answer it.And its funny you slinging the troll insult given how you have been posting in this thread (which has led others to even guess you are just fishing).Go ahead and ask me about Richardson had the defender went at his feet again...funny how you abandoned that and the Bo commentary once the actual rule was posted for you to see how wrong you were about those examples.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

I just wanted to make sure. It seems like this was done for the wrong reason (political) and as fans there's nothing that effected us. In fact, I dont think we've seen a shead of evidence that shows how this rule will effect player safety or not. We know it will add more flags though.The horsecollar rule, defensless reciever, kick-off stuff I understood. This rule just bothers me because of whats driving it.

What does it matter if they truely "care" about the player, or they are trying to cover their own behind?I don't think you would accept any evidence they put out...but if you can't see how leading with the crown of the helmet leads to dangerous hits...then there may be no hope for you.

I'm going to treat the question as rhetorical and move on. I'm done feeding you, troll. Get back under your bridge.

So basically, you can't answer it.And its funny you slinging the troll insult given how you have been posting in this thread (which has led others to even guess you are just fishing).Go ahead and ask me about Richardson had the defender went at his feet again...funny how you abandoned that and the Bo commentary once the actual rule was posted for you to see how wrong you were about those examples.

I addressed it, even in your own formatting to help. Guess I should have went with the crayon Unreal

 

[mad sweeney]

Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

That hasn't stopped he refs from at least once a week, usually more, throwing a BS flag for defenseless receiver on a hit that doesn't make contact with or by a head.

 

[sho nuff]

Take the T-Rich and Coleman plays again...if Colemen comes in and just goes right at his ankles...is this a penalty? Why or why not?

Probably not because then he'd have gotten TR's cleats in his back. What does that have to do with anything?

Bigboy asking that question shows he has not read the actual rule or what anyone has actually said about what the rule really says.it requires forcible contact...if Coleman comes in and hits Richardson's ankles...there would be no forcible contact by Richardson with the crown of his helmet...thus no penalty.

“It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players are clearly outside of the tackle box. Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or tackler against an opponent shall not be a foul.”

I should have never deleted my post that time.

I understand the rule.

I dont like it.

Why?

Because it's going to cause more flags for no good reason other then someone trying to cover their ### for a lawsuit.

There are other measures.

The Bo play COULD have been flagged...I dont like that it COULD have happened.

T-Rich and Coleman example= Had Coleman adjusted to the player and not just stood there it was a non-issue...he also wasnt hurt...so again, it was a non-issue.

I changed the format in an effort to help you since you're too busy with yuor thousands of posts to go back a couple pages and refresh. If this format does not help, I can possible do something in crayon.

Sorry...missed this earlier.If you understand the rule...then why would you ask if Coleman went for his legs would there have been a flag?

Because, if COleman had gone at his legs, the crown of Richardson's helmet would not have made contact. No flag.

Bo's crown never touches the defender on the play...to continue to act as if it did, just shows you are incapable of having any intelligent conversation on the matter (as does your continued attempts at pitiful insults.

 

[sho nuff]

Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

Why do people continue on this strawman crap with refs missing calls.They do miss calls, nobody is arguing otherwise.

Should we eliminate all rules because the refs may get them wrong sometime...or because fans may disagree with calls that are made?

 

[Amused to Death]

NFL wants coaches to not complain about new helmet-use rule

Before Wednesday’s 31-1 vote that prevents players in the open field from using the tops of their helmets to ram opponents, plenty of coaches expressed concerns about the proposal.

Now that the rule has been passed, don’t count on any coaches popping off.

As we mentioned earlier in the day on Twitter, word around the league meetings in the aftermath of the vote is that the powers-that-be told coaches not to criticize the new rule.

It’s not uncommon for the NFL to direct its coaches to be discreet. On plenty of topics, the First Amendment rights crafted by the founding fathers get flung overboard once the coach applies his John Hancock to a seven-figure contract.

It’ll be interesting to see whether the coaches continue to comply once their teams lose 15 yards after a long play.

 

[mad sweeney]

Case in point is the famous Bo vs. Boz hit

Where did you get this strawman crap that all rules should be eliminated? Or that the argument is that fans disagree? Unless you're talking about when fans disagree with the ref because they can see with irrefutable evidence that a head wasn't hit and it's backed up by the league with no fines? I doubt that's the kind of disagreement you're talking about. Don't throw up two useless strawmen when you're trying to make an incorrect point about strawmen.However, yes, they should eliminate the defenseless receiver rule or at least make it reviewable. Other than PI (also should be reviewable) it's the most damaging type of penalty and it's a high speed, impact area judgment call of the type that they've shown to consistently get wrong.

 

[Steeler]

I haven't followed this thread because I thought it was a stupid suggestion... but now to see that the rule passed 31-1 I'm shocked.

In my mind this fundamentally changes the way ball carriers are taught to run the ball. Aren't you supposed to "run behind your pads"? How can you do that without leading with your helmet? Stupid rule change.

 

[GregR]

Anyone who would work to keep HGH testing out of the NFL clearly does not care about player safety.

You mean like...the players who would fight it?

Shhhh. Ixnay.

 

[GregR]

Ok, I just saw an NFLN clip where they showed 4 plays that they say would have been flagged.

One of them is a defender launching into Gore as Gore is being dragged down at the end of a play and blowing up his head. That one I'm good on.

The Richardson hit... I mean if his helmet hadn't popped off I don't know that it would have even stood out to me unless pointed out.

A Marshawn Lynch hit, both Lynch and the Briggs lower their pad level and Lynch burrows though, helmet to his shoulder. Seems an unnecessary play for a flag.

The final one Charles is just finishing being a defenseless receiver, turning after making the catch and goes down as much to defend himself as to deliver a hit I think.

I'm not seeing plays that needed to be prevented to make the game safer other than blowing up Gore, and that was on the defensive player.

 

[lod01]

What is the rule for a kick off return. Is that guy allowed to lower his head?

 

[Steeler]

My link

Scroll down to see AP truck William Gay.... yeah, the NFL needs fewer plays like this

 

[Alkahsu]

For everyone saying "relax, it's only when they lead with the crown of their helmet", etc. you are assuming the refs will get the call right and we all know that isn't going to happen.

The refs had a hard enough time last year distinguishing between legal and illegal hits on a defenseless player, I don't see how they are going to distinguish between the crown of the helmet and the "hairline" of the helmet.

 

[lod01]

For everyone saying "relax, it's only when they lead with the crown of their helmet", etc. you are assuming the refs will get the call right and we all know that isn't going to happen.

The refs had a hard enough time last year distinguishing between legal and illegal hits on a defenseless player, I don't see how they are going to distinguish between the crown of the helmet and the "hairline" of the helmet.

That's one of the biggest problems with this. The screw up hits to the QB all the time. The game is too fast for them to make these calls and they never review it and say, 'that play is legal, no penalty' afterwards.

 

[Amused to Death]

My link

Scroll down to see AP truck William Gay.... yeah, the NFL needs fewer plays like this

That play will now be a 15 yd penalty. Let that sink in.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

My link

Scroll down to see AP truck William Gay.... yeah, the NFL needs fewer plays like this

That play will now be a 15 yd penalty. Let that sink in.

Unbelievable.

 

[Steeler]

My link

Scroll down to see AP truck William Gay.... [sarcasm]yeah, the NFL needs fewer plays like this[/sarcasm]

That play will now be a 15 yd penalty. Let that sink in.

Yep, this rule is crazy.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Aside from the BS rule, has anyone watched this video like 10x because of how sick it was? I did!

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Civil War

Exactly.

Goodell is a Manchurian Candidate.

He pretends to be Mr. Football, but reality is he is here to destroy it.

The effect of this is the run game becomes ineffectual and then it's pass pass pass pass pass.

And as usual, ahead of the curve and sentiment in the SP here. Eric Dickerson just blasted Goodell. I also want to make a point that NFL beat writers are actually calling into the radio shows at least here in Miami and vocally telling folks don't watch if you don't like the new rules. Almost as if the long time NFL fan is the one to blame because of their thirst for this bloody violent sport...you would think this is the MMA but no it's jus the NFL.

It's astonishing to me that fans just sit on their hands and act like this is good for the game. End the NFL then, rename it something else, put in all these rules, then in 10-20 years when folks forget about the old NFL days, a new league can then form for those of us that would prefer to keep the game in some sense like it was.

I can't even stomach or read when someone says something as pitiful as "don't watch", gotta be the most righteous and preposterous stance as if we can't even question King Goodell. This guy, it's unreal and then you add in the salary raise for him, the guy is running the league into the ground. When will they appoint a mandatory female player or open the league up to females? It's coming, you know it is.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

What about the WRs who lead with their crown causing the DBs to have to lower theirs and then creating 15 yd unnecessary roughness calls? Maybe the NFL should just 86 RBs from the rosters all together and then teams can just line up 5 wide and throw the ball every down. Make sure any hits on the QB are flagged, WRs have the opp to catch the ball then turn and make a football move before being touched, 86 the RBs, you are well on your way to flag football. Next they can eliminate some of these big fat lineman on both sides of the lines maybe go with 7 on 7. Save money, get all the really fat ones who are walking heart attacks in the making, eliminate those guys so they can't sue later on...

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

So will the rb/wr still get credit for the yards gained on the play regardless of the 15 yard penalty?

 

[Faust]

Trent Richardson: I feel like crown rule is my fault

 

[mad sweeney]

My link

Scroll down to see AP truck William Gay.... yeah, the NFL needs fewer plays like this

That play will now be a 15 yd penalty. Let that sink in.

Unbelievable.

Very unbelievable... that he can't have success without cheating.

 

[sho nuff]

Where did you get this strawman crap that all rules should be eliminated? Or that the argument is that fans disagree? Unless you're talking about when fans disagree with the ref because they can see with irrefutable evidence that a head wasn't hit and it's backed up by the league with no fines? I doubt that's the kind of disagreement you're talking about. Don't throw up two useless strawmen when you're trying to make an incorrect point about strawmen.However, yes, they should eliminate the defenseless receiver rule or at least make it reviewable. Other than PI (also should be reviewable) it's the most damaging type of penalty and it's a high speed, impact area judgment call of the type that they've shown to consistently get wrong.

The criticism of the rule that is not even being enforced yet...a lot of it has been about whether the refs will get it right.Its a ridiculous argument to say they should not put it in (as some have) and use that reasoning for it.And my point is dead on correct with the continued cry about how refs will call this.There is a concern with any rule that is judgement based that refs will get it wrong.And guess what...they will.They even miss things that are not judgement calls at times.

 

[sho nuff]

My link

Scroll down to see AP truck William Gay.... yeah, the NFL needs fewer plays like this

COnsidering plays like that are dangers to Peterson as much as they are to Gay...head, neck, spine...all put in danger by leading and making contact with the helmet like that.Of course we all like watching another player get trucked like that.

Still does not make it a safe play.

 

[mad sweeney]

Where did you get this strawman crap that all rules should be eliminated? Or that the argument is that fans disagree? Unless you're talking about when fans disagree with the ref because they can see with irrefutable evidence that a head wasn't hit and it's backed up by the league with no fines? I doubt that's the kind of disagreement you're talking about. Don't throw up two useless strawmen when you're trying to make an incorrect point about strawmen.

However, yes, they should eliminate the defenseless receiver rule or at least make it reviewable. Other than PI (also should be reviewable) it's the most damaging type of penalty and it's a high speed, impact area judgment call of the type that they've shown to consistently get wrong.

The criticism of the rule that is not even being enforced yet...a lot of it has been about whether the refs will get it right.Its a ridiculous argument to say they should not put it in (as some have) and use that reasoning for it.

And my point is dead on correct with the continued cry about how refs will call this.

There is a concern with any rule that is judgement based that refs will get it wrong.

And guess what...they will.

They even miss things that are not judgement calls at times.

You mean the comparison to a similar rule that's regularly botched? What point do you think you're making that's dead on? You've cut out the previous posts so I can't tell. That refs will get calls wrong? Of course they will, that's not some sort of insightful... revelation.

 

[ghostguy123]

I laughed when I heard this rule was being voted on. I almost SHAT myself when I heard it was passed.

I can't wait to see a team up by 3 on 3rd and 3 with a couple minutes left, running play, the RB bounces it outside for a first down, wraps both arms around the ball and tries to stay in bounds, lowers his head, and the refs make a ####### 15 yard penalty call..............punt.............team loses game over it.

At some point "rule changes for player safety" really need to stop, and this may be the first one that is utterly idiotic and ridiculous in every way.

The "defenseless player" stuff all seems to make sense..............but not something like this. This just makes it easier for some bad tackler to be able to tackle a tough runner.

It really only might take one or two more rule changes for this game to be unrecognizable to someone who woke up from a 10 year coma.

For anyone who askes this question: "shouldnt the league do whatever they can to make the game safer for the player???".............sorry, but the answer should be "NO, not if it is at the expense of making the game worse."

 

[Andy Dufresne]

For anyone who askes this question: "shouldnt the league do whatever they can to make the game safer for the player???".............sorry, but the answer should be "NO, not if it is at the expense of making the game worse."

For real? You really don't care what happens to these guys because you don't want your entertainment lessened?I'm sorry, but that's repulsive.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

My link

Scroll down to see AP truck William Gay.... yeah, the NFL needs fewer plays like this

That play will now be a 15 yd penalty. Let that sink in.

Doesn't have to sink in. I'm 100%, absolutely fine with that being a penalty.Yes it was the typical "bang/bang" play where it was instinct on AP's part to lower the head. But citing an outlier as an example of why the spirit of the rule is wrong is not reason enough to not implement it, IMO.

 

[Sabertooth]

NFL wants coaches to not complain about new helmet-use rule

Before Wednesday’s 31-1 vote that prevents players in the open field from using the tops of their helmets to ram opponents, plenty of coaches expressed concerns about the proposal.

Now that the rule has been passed, don’t count on any coaches popping off.

As we mentioned earlier in the day on Twitter, word around the league meetings in the aftermath of the vote is that the powers-that-be told coaches not to criticize the new rule.

It’s not uncommon for the NFL to direct its coaches to be discreet. On plenty of topics, the First Amendment rights crafted by the founding fathers get flung overboard once the coach applies his John Hancock to a seven-figure contract.

It’ll be interesting to see whether the coaches continue to comply once their teams lose 15 yards after a long play.

The Harbaughs alone will make this worth watching.

 

[irish eyes]

Goodell is the freakin worst commissioner ever in any sport, an absolute clown. If he continues to work hard he can completely run the league into the ground.It will be come about as interesting as the NBA, which is the worst sport by leaps & bounds to watch.

 

[sho nuff]

Goodell is the freakin worst commissioner ever in any sport, an absolute clown. If he continues to work hard he can completely run the league into the ground.It will be come about as interesting as the NBA, which is the worst sport by leaps & bounds to watch.

Yet, the league is at its all time high in popularity.Seems, he is doing just fine in growing the league and lining the pockets of the owners (the only opinion of him that really matters) despite the cry of some fans that don't like the guy.

 

[Hang 10]

For anyone who askes this question: "shouldnt the league do whatever they can to make the game safer for the player???".............sorry, but the answer should be "NO, not if it is at the expense of making the game worse."

For real? You really don't care what happens to these guys because you don't want your entertainment lessened?I'm sorry, but that's repulsive.

Don't be such a ninny. Some jobs/sports just aren't safe. And if making them "safer" (which I'd argue, this doesn't) fundmentally changes the sports, I say the juice ain't worth the squeeze. Should we outlaw punches to the face in boxing and MMA? Should we set a speed limit of 60 mph in autoracing? I mean, that would make both sports much safer, right?

 

[sho nuff]

For anyone who askes this question: "shouldnt the league do whatever they can to make the game safer for the player???".............sorry, but the answer should be "NO, not if it is at the expense of making the game worse."

For real? You really don't care what happens to these guys because you don't want your entertainment lessened?I'm sorry, but that's repulsive.

Don't be such a ninny. Some jobs/sports just aren't safe. And if making them "safer" (which I'd argue, this doesn't) fundmentally changes the sports, I say the juice ain't worth the squeeze. Should we outlaw punches to the face in boxing and MMA? Should we set a speed limit of 60 mph in autoracing? I mean, that would make both sports much safer, right?

You mean like when racers complained about the neck restraint after Dale E. died? That it would restrict their head motion too much and be bad?Has it changed that "sport"?Id argue this does help in some safety measures because of how dangers leading with the crown can be.Go back and watch Nick Collins get hurt a few years ago. I know he is not a RB...and obviously this rule will not stop someone tackling like that from getting hurt.The point is, contact made with the crown of his helmet against another player. It opens a player up for injury to the head, neck, and spine.Im not sure what some of you don't see that makes you think this won't help with safety?Do some of you think its a safe play to hit with that part of the helmet?