ugh every year they come up with new rules to continue ruining football. why don’t they just go ahead and make it two-hand touch
fuck the national football league
fuck roger goodell
fuck the greedy players who squandered their money and are now suing the league and ruining football for everyone else
i hope the owners are happy for ruining the lives of millions of sports fans
Can I have your jersies brah?
How about fuck the bloodthirsty sports fans who are perfectly happy condoning, even encouraging, behavior that we KNOW kills players just so they can whoop it up and act macho without actually getting off the fucking couch (or barstool as the case may be)?
I am a huge football fan, but this desire to ignore new facts about the long-term impacts of playing football on the players is completely foreign to me. Why don’t you just go back to dog-fighting and bear-baiting? If deaths must occur for your entertainment at least make it animal deaths. Or better yet, why not form your own football league and get out there and kill each other?
Same here. I’m not really impressed with what the league has done with dangerous hits so far - the penalties seem to be based on how bad the hits look more than anything else - but they do need to address these issues through rules and equipment changes and better testing. I don’t really want to watch people kill themselves on the football field.
I think it has a minor impact on the game action but could have a major impact on someone’s life. Every little hit on the head adds up, a few more yards on a play just isn’t worth it.
The more protective a helmet is to a wearer, the more it will get used a weapon against an opponent because the wearer is more reassured he can run his head into anything and not get hurt.
It reminds me of the centuries old arms race between armor and armor-piercing shells. It’s interesting though that the helmet is sometimes both.
Nor do I, but it is worth noting that these rules being passed to protect the safety of the players need not be passed if the people who have the most to lose, namely, the players, looked out for their own safety. There is zero requirement for any player to lead with their head. That they do means that they have total disregard for themselves or their fellow players, and if that’s the case, it’s hardly the fault of the non-players.
Leading with the helmet has been illegal for both sides for years in high school.
Glad the NFL is catching up.
Isn’t “total disregard for…their fellow players”–using the helmet as an “armor-piercing shell”–just the sort of thing rules should be written for?
Yes, everybody says this. The problem is that it doesn’t have much to do with the situation. Concussions are a problem and the NFL is right to take steps to cut down on the most dangerous plays. But the biggest problem seems to be the cumulative effect of countless large and small hits in games and practices over the course of a player’s entire career. They don’t have to be big hits to the head. If you eliminate helmets, that part gets much worse. It’s not a coincidence that in the old days, people died playing football without helmets.
I’m not blaming the non-players, but rules changes are one angle they need to take. Encouraging guys to tackle with their bodies instead of diving headfirst is another. And there may not be an actual requirement to lead with your head, but if the players believe they have to do it to get more yards, stay on the team and make more money, the incentives turn it into something similar to a requirement. When the players aren’t willing to go along with this kind of thing, they have to be made to do so. There’s been some success in changing the culture of the NFL with regard to head injuries, I think, so that needs to continue.
I didn’t think that remark was a suggestion to eliminate, or reduce the protective value of, helmets.
Seems like a good (if minor) step to me. And I completely agree with Zakalwe: screw the lardasses who find enjoyment in watching other people get hurt.
Folks may not like it, but the NFL pretty much has to do this stuff or face an big legal quagmire down the road (they are already in one, but it could be a lot worse if they do nothing).
The funny thinking is if this had been a rule put in place 40 years ago no one would think it is ruining football. Spearing has always (as far as I can remember) been a penalty. Now the problem will probably lie not in the intent of the rule, which i think is good, but in the ability to enforce it.
Upon further review (heh) I’m not sure if that’s what Boyo Jim meant. But I know someone says ‘get rid of the helmets’ almost every time we have a thread like this, so it’s worth deal with it anyway.
I’m all for just abolishing football entirely. 
How about they look at reviewing those plays where the ball carrier gets knocked out by a helmet-to-helmet hit and they pass out and fumble the ball? Shouldn’t that not be a fumble due to the illegal hit? They never seem to throw a flag on these plays, and I don’t think a fumble should be allowed to stand after a helmet-to-helmet hit.
NFL Football used to be my favorite sport, but the shitty officiating and rule changes are really starting to make me dislike it.
That exact thing happened to one of the Patriots in their last playoff game. Ball carrier got knocked out, hit the ground, and then fumbled, and the fumble stood. I always wondered why nobody pointed out he was flat on his ass before the fumble, but the announcers ignored it so I guess nothing was technically against the rules.
You spelled “baseball” wrong. 
They didn’t throw flags on those plays because those aren’t (well, weren’t) illegal hits. Up until now, helmet to helmet hits have only been illegal when the player being hit was defenseless. A defenseless player is a receiver in the act of catching a pass or a quarterback in the act of throwing the football. A running back on a running play is never a defenseless receiver, and those brutal hits that caused fumbles were legal according to last season’s rules.
Now that it’s brought up, I haven’t seen any changes to the defense’s helmet-helmet restrictions, and that seems a little off to me. If the runner isn’t allowed to lower his head and hit tacklers, it doesn’t seem right that the defenders are allowed to hit him. Did they change that rule and I just missed it?
Not so. Helmet to helmet hits have been illegal for defensive players for a while. This actually evens things out a little, since runners can do a lot of things defenders can’t.
Sometimes officials don’t notice. Also, sometimes a good, hard shoulder hit can create incidental, nearly simultaneous contact between helmets that only looks helmet-to-helmet.
The defenseless player rule is not actually just about helmet to helmet but also hitting the player to start a tackle. So, no forearm shots or shoulder hits or anything on defenseless players. There is an explicit explanation that using the top of the helmet counts as such a hit. Incidental contact is ok, though.
Nope. Check Article 7 of the NFL rules (page 6 of that pdf).
When tackling a defenseless player, (1) you can’t hit his head, (2) you can’t lead with your head, and (3) you can’t launch yourself at him. But you’re absolutely allowed to lower your should and initiate a tackle, as long as you don’t lead with your head or hit him in his head. And helmet to helmet hits against ballcarriers that aren’t defenseless are absolutely allowed.