I don’t understand why they don’t switch to the Mark Kelso outer-padded helmet.
I’m not a football fan and therefore ignorant. What does the subject mean exactly? Especially the “lower helmet outside tackle box” part.
Defenseless receivers - yes, hits below the head are allowed (but within reason). Sorry, that was a muff on my part.
You’re mostly right about this, actually, under the old rule.
The new rule bans it for ALL players. It just happens to affect runners more (or they complain more). Check the latest NFL news. The rule isn’t limited to ballcarriers but all players.
I forgot about the now infamous Colt McCoy/James Harrison fiasco where Harrison floored McCoy. Of course, he was still flagged for it under the unsportsmanlike conduct rule:
[QUOTE=NFL Unsportsmanlike Conduct Penalty]
using any part of a player’s helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily;
[/QUOTE]
There’s some leeway in determining what is “necessary”, which it is usually judged to be when tackling a runner.
“Outside the tackle box” refers to the location on the field where this rule is in force. Here is a typical pre-play alignment. The tackle box is the area behind the line of scrimmage and between the two offensive tackles (Ts). For the purposes of this rule, I think it extends 3 yards past the line of scrimmage.
“Lower [the] helmet” refers to a move some a ballcarrier might make when he’s about to be tackled, wherein he ducks his head (“lowers his helmet”) and hits the defender with the crown of his helmet. This is now illegal when the runner is outside the tackle box.
To expand a bit, this play is being “blamed” for the rule change. You can see how the ball carrier, Trent Richardson, uses the crown of his helmet to hit the guy who was trying to tackle him.
Ah, ok. I had only heard the new rule discussed in terms of offensive players, but it’s a pretty big change for the defense as well.
So your life is ruined if you don’t get to see people get their brains scrambled, ala Mike Webster? Okay. Yeah, how DARE players not want to end up with serious brain damage! :rolleyes: Jesus.
A proper response to something this ridiculous probably requires a pitting so I am just going to ask for an explanation. How does a rule change ruin your life?
This one seems innocent but it’s a series of small changes over time. In a few more years if they keep changing rules all the time eventually football will be gone or so differently changed it’s not the same game anymore. Then I will have nothing to enjoy in life.
Yeah these guys get head injuries but they also get to make a lot of money, and they are beloved sports idols and celerbities. It’s better to live the high life and then have brain damage rather than to live a long healthy life of middle class drudgery
Fucking despicable.
Mod Note
This thread was started as a rant and should properly have been placed in the BBQ Pit. That aside, it got some non-Pit answer. I’m still moving it to the Pit, but if someone wants to reboot the discussion with a less vitriolic OP in the Game Room, that’s fine by me.
- Gukumatz,
Game Room Moderator
Since this is in the Pit, I can now tell you I think you’re a fucking moron. I’m guessing you’ve been hit in the head one too many times?
Oh really? :dubious:
A lot of athletes disagree. Terry Bradshaw said that if had a son, he’d never let him play football, knowing what the consequences can be.
“High life” my ass.
Yeah but people are always overprotective of their children.
To be fair to that point of view, I’ve been injured with certain long-term consequences for much, much less than football players make. I’d trade a little more immobility for the league minimum over the average career length.
These guys make a choice and are handsomely remunerated for their choice. There are millions that get just as wrecked and don’t have a tenth of the players’ financial resources (if they’re smart enough to mind their money, which is a separate issue). It’s easy to see why they don’t draw too much sympathy, any more than you’d shed a tear for a smoker with lung cancer or a drunk with cirrhosis. Choices have consequences.
Some of you are reacting like these guys are slaves in the Colosseum.
Football players know they’re getting into a dangerous sport, now more than ever, and still choose to play
You’re a fucking idiot.
The game is already unrecognizable compared to the original 19th century version. Player deaths were not uncommon back then. Teddy Fucking “I’m going to take this fucking Cuban hill and hunt African animals and I can take you in a knife fight any day of the week” Roosevelt thought it was too violent and dangerous. He had to get football teams together and mandate changes for safety.
The forward pass. Roughing the kicker rules. Wearing safety gear at all. Facemask rules. Horse collar tackle rules.
The only constant in football has been making it steadily safer for the players. Otherwise, the way the game has been played has changed constantly. Each decade brings tons of changes.
And still, every single fucking time, you worms crawl out of the woodwork to complain about the emasculation of football. And you’re wrong every damned time. Well, the blood is already on your hands. And I have no fucking patience left for you maggots.
I think it is unreasonable to dangle a potential payoff in the millions of dollars over someone’s head and expect them to make responsible choices about risk.
I think most football players underestimate the odds of their being seriously hurt.
And there is increasing evidence that minor repeated trauma does bad things for the brain.
Well said.
Goddammit, that thread title is filthy. And HOT!
I haven’t seen much analysis, so my main question is how are the officials going to decide between leading with the helmet and diving for yardage?