Can't wait to get all excited about a big run, only to see it called back because...

[Warner2BruceTD]

...the runner lowered his head.

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter 17m
Running back rule passed, 31-1. Illegal to lower crown of helmets. Tuck rule also passed.

LOL @ this league.

All peel back blocks have also been deemed illegal and will result in 15-yard penalties.

Next up: Elimination of three point stance, tackling below the waist, and kickoffs. All have been discussed and are gaining traction.

Unrecognizable game within a decade.

 

[SuperKevin]

I can kind of understand the running back rule. If it's illegal for a defensive player to lead with his head then it should be illegal for offensive players to do the same.

 

[ThomasTomasz]

Just one more reason why I am beginning to care less about the NFL. First year in quite some time I did not follow FA outside of my own team, and even then, it was lukewarm at best.

 

[ThomasTomasz]

I can kind of understand the running back rule. If it's illegal for a defensive player to lead with his head then it should be illegal for offensive players to do the same.

You will see teams running less now. RBs lowered their heads to get an advantage and churn out some extra yards. I am actually looking forward to seeing how this is enforced, especially on short downs where it's a yard or less to go.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I can kind of understand the running back rule. If it's illegal for a defensive player to lead with his head then it should be illegal for offensive players to do the same.

Both rules are illogical. As we've talked about countless times, it's impossible to tackle properly without lowering your head, so the way the rule is applied ranges from inconsistent to retarded.

Now, RB's can not protect themselves to prepare for hits.

I have no problem with flags for players on either side of the ball who use the helmet as a weapon and project themselves into other players, but this is the NFL, where intent is never considered (see countless roughing the passer calls when there is grazing incidental helmet contact by the defensive player).

I have zero confidence in the officiating regarding this new rule, based on how it's applied to defensive players.

The bottom line, is the NFL is drifting towards eliminating contact, and counting on the game being so popular that nobody will care.

 

[ralaw]

This is all about the retired players, lawsuits, lawyers, judges, etc....the NFL has to have something to show how they're trying to "clean up" the game.


I am sort of surprised they haven't outlawed the RB/WR stiff arm/punch to defensive players.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

You will see teams running less now. RBs lowered their heads to get an advantage and churn out some extra yards. I am actually looking forward to seeing how this is enforced, especially on short downs where it's a yard or less to go.

Supposedly, you can still lower your head "in the tackle box". The rule will be enforced outside the tackle box, whatever that means, which I assume means between the tackles and behind the line of scrimmage.

Waiting patiently for that first hard fought first down run that is lost via penalty when the runner lowers his head gearing up for a hit from a LB on the second level.

 

[f16harm]

I am sitting here with my mind fucking blown. I already get pissed off at the bullshit "leading with the head" calls that every safety gets called on, even though there is no way to lead with your shoulder without your head going with it.

This particularly blows my fucking mind.

New senior director of officiating Alberto Riveron said if the offensive and defensive player are both committing the foul, it would be an offsetting penalty and the down replayed.

Really? really? This could happen on 50% of plays. We're going to replay the fucking down because both opposing players did the same thing during the run of play to each other? This isn't fighting or holding a player from movement.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I used to be in favor (or at least understand) of these safety driven rules changes, but i've done a 180.

Some things are violent and dangerous. Football is one of those things. You will never be able to change football from being inherently violent & dangerous. If you choose to play football, at any level, but especially the professional level, you accept that it's violent & dangerous. People are going to get hurt, sometimes badly.

It is going to reach a point, and that point is coming with rules like this, where these safety measures are going to make the game more dangerous. Any rule that removes instinctive reactions from players puts them in danger. The RB should not have to stop and think about lowering his head to prepare for contact to protect himself, based on whether he might induce a penalty.

Jeff Fisher says, "use your shoulder". Sounds familiar, it's what they've been telling defensive players to do. How has that worked out? You cant control the movement of the opposing players. Lowering the shoulder routinely ends up with crown of the helmet contact. Makes no sense.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

When the refs interpret this badly, Jeff (Fisher) will be the first one up in their face complaining about it. How many carries has Jeff had, to know how to protect himself when running the football?

 

[Goober]

Just put the Arizona Fall League and Caribbean League on tv so we can watch baseball all year.

 

[ThomasTomasz]

Supposedly, you can still lower your head "in the tackle box". The rule will be enforced outside the tackle box, whatever that means, which I assume means between the tackles and behind the line of scrimmage.

Waiting patiently for that first hard fought first down run that is lost via penalty when the runner lowers his head gearing up for a hit from a LB on the second level.

Still doesn't make sense. You can lower your helmet or you can't, we shouldn't have the rule split apart. With all of the bodies inside the "tackle box" you think it would be more dangerous for it to happen there.

 

[StealthShot]

In addition, the owners voted to amend the rule regarding the illegal throwing of a challenge flag. The so-called “Jim Schwartz Rule” will tie the challenging of plays to timeouts. Under the new rule, every time a coach initiates a replay, his team will be charged a timeout. If a play is challenged illegally, the team will lose a timeout — even if the challenge is successful. If a team is out of timeouts, it will be penalized 15 yards, but the play will still be reviewed.

 

[NAHSTE]

Nice sport you've created for yourself there, Rulebook Rodge.

 

[JimLeavy59]

I think I need to become a hockey fan because this league is killing itself.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

They went back and looked at every play, and found "only" five instances Week 17 where the penalty would have been called, and "only" 35 instances all season.

"Only" 35 times!

LOL.

Plus, is anybody confident the officials won't over call this, like they do with roughing the passer?

 

[JimLeavy59]

The refs are already incompetent this will just make things worse.

Also what about goal line plunges? Will those get called back?

 

[f16harm]

So in other words, teams with "no challenges left" actually have infinite challenges. You can basically take a 15 yard penalty to get a review. If the play calls back a winning TD, then the 15 yard penalty is worth it!

 

[NAHSTE]

I guess Earl Campbell's numbers are tainted now.

 

[JimLeavy59]