Changes to NFL rules coming?

[swordsman]

Goodell: NFL would consider ban on 3-point stance

 

Concerned about concussions, Goodell said the league will keep looking for ways to make the game safer. Speaking on CBS’s “Face the Nation” hours before the Super Bowl, he didn’t rule out the idea of banning the three-point stance for linemen to reduce the ferocity of collisions at the line of scrimmage.

 

“As you’ll see tonight, you’ll see a lot of players that never get down in a three-point stance,” Goodell said Sunday. “So it’s possible that would happen.”

 

This might be covered elsewhere but there it is.

[Sammys Boombox]

I heard from a friend, so hearsay, that Goodell said on the radio that they were thinking about penalizing defensive players who hit a player that is wrapped up. If that is true, then I don't think I'll be watching much more football. How many times do you see a player break a tackle and then go for a long run? You can't expect defenders to not touch him before he is ruled down. That's just ridiculous.

[jersey cubs fan]

I heard from a friend, so hearsay, that Goodell said on the radio that they were thinking about penalizing defensive players who hit a player that is wrapped up. If that is true, then I don't think I'll be watching much more football. How many times do you see a player break a tackle and then go for a long run? You can't expect defenders to not touch him before he is ruled down. That's just ridiculous.

 

You can expect the player to assist in making the tackle instead of just teeing off on a guy. If any and all contact is penalized, that's one thing, but if they are looking at penalties against the cheap shots I'd have no problem with it. If their only intention is to hit a guy really hard with a shoulder or helmet, they aren't really trying to make the tackle. Force them to spread their arms and make a tackle.

[Soul]

I heard from a friend, so hearsay, that Goodell said on the radio that they were thinking about penalizing defensive players who hit a player that is wrapped up. If that is true, then I don't think I'll be watching much more football. How many times do you see a player break a tackle and then go for a long run? You can't expect defenders to not touch him before he is ruled down. That's just ridiculous.

 

You can expect the player to assist in making the tackle instead of just teeing off on a guy. If any and all contact is penalized, that's one thing, but if they are looking at penalties against the cheap shots I'd have no problem with it. If their only intention is to hit a guy really hard with a shoulder or helmet, they aren't really trying to make the tackle. Force them to spread their arms and make a tackle.

 

They should start enforcing the rule against leading with your head, which doesn't even get called many times. Right now, players weigh the chances of getting a flag/fine vs. getting away with it and producing a Sportscenter highlight they can crow about with their friends. Make that a consistently called penalty, all the time. Make fines for doing it automatic, and escalating if you continue to do it up to and including lengthy suspensions.

[Old Style]

Let's just move to two-hand touch rules.

[SpongeWorthy]

I'm highly doubtful that you can significantly curb leading with your head without basically basically destroying the defenses ability to tackle. You're taught to lead with your shoulder and wrap up from pee wee football...it's inevitable that your head is going to contact the ball carrier a lot.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm highly doubtful that you can significantly curb leading with your head without basically basically destroying the defenses ability to tackle. You're taught to lead with your shoulder and wrap up from pee wee football...it's inevitable that your head is going to contact the ball carrier a lot.

 

Actually proper enforcement should make tackling better, as the style now is to not even try to wrap up, but rather hit as hard as possible.

[CubbieBum]

I heard from a friend, so hearsay, that Goodell said on the radio that they were thinking about penalizing defensive players who hit a player that is wrapped up. If that is true, then I don't think I'll be watching much more football. How many times do you see a player break a tackle and then go for a long run? You can't expect defenders to not touch him before he is ruled down. That's just ridiculous.

 

You can expect the player to assist in making the tackle instead of just teeing off on a guy. If any and all contact is penalized, that's one thing, but if they are looking at penalties against the cheap shots I'd have no problem with it. If their only intention is to hit a guy really hard with a shoulder or helmet, they aren't really trying to make the tackle. Force them to spread their arms and make a tackle.

 

It's called forcing a fumble. This is not two hand touch football. Injuries happen. I tend to support Goodell because I like his crack down on off the field stuff but if he continues with all these rules he will ruin the sport. People (players included) are already speaking out against the QB crap.

[SpongeWorthy]

I really don't think killshotting DBs are any more in style now than they've ever been. Guys like Tatum, Lott, Carrier, Atwater, etc. did things on the field that would routinely be called as penalties nowadays.

 

The focus/fear of concussions comes from bigger/faster players, better diagnosis, and a better understanding of the long term impact of them.

[imb]

i LOVE it when people complain about making the nfl softer or whatever

 

there's a radio host here who complains constantly about "sissifying" all the major sports. Cant throw at a batter anymore? SISSY SPORT. Can't hit the QB in his knees? SISSY SPORT.

 

this guy is also 400 pounds and couldn't walk 15 yards without taking a break.

[fiver]

Sissification is a normal progression; otherwise, we'd still be watching men fight each other, lions, gorillas, etc. to the death. Personally, I enjoy watching defensive backs torpedo the ball carrier and perhaps even man vs. lion.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's called forcing a fumble. This is not two hand touch football. Injuries happen. I tend to support Goodell because I like his crack down on off the field stuff but if he continues with all these rules he will ruin the sport. People (players included) are already speaking out against the QB crap.

 

Stripping the ball with your hands is a much better way to force a fumble. And this has nothing to do with 2 hand touch. Contact will still be ridiculously violent.

[Sammy Sofa]

Love the opinions that this is just moving the game a step away from having no tackling as opposed to being a serious addressing of the debilitating injuries and conditions and diseases more and more guys are ended up with because the game has gotten so much more violent over the years. "Injuries just happen?" Get the [expletive] out of here with that [expletive]. Look at the skyrocketing stats of what's happening to player's [expletive] brains earlier and earlier in life and with ever increasing numbers. Pointing out how this type of tackling occurs as low down as peewee football isn't a justification for it continuing; it's a condemnation of how fucked up this mentality is from top to bottom and it needs to be changed ASAP.

 

Nobody is talking about getting rid of violence in football with these arguments. It's attempting to lessen the mentality that convinces players and coaches that it's OK to get people to lay out their lives on every play without any regard to their own or anyone else's safety.

[Soul]

How many times do we hear about a team that isn't tackling well? More often than not, I see players flying at players without wrapping up, leading with the head, going for the knees to cut a guy down. And it isn't always when that's the only way to make a play, either.

 

Players are being rewarded for laying out players in any way they can. Often, that means the helmet goes right at a guy's head, or right at his knees. If you want to cut down injuries in football, then IMO the best way to do that is to reward solid tackling technique and penalizing leading with the head and blatantly going for the knees.

 

Football will still be plenty violent. We're talking about people not being able to remember the room they were just in, increased alzheimer's, even early death.

[Sammy Sofa]

How many times do we hear about a team that isn't tackling well? More often than not, I see players flying at players without wrapping up, leading with the head, going for the knees to cut a guy down. And it isn't always when that's the only way to make a play, either.

 

Players are being rewarded for laying out players in any way they can. Often, that means the helmet goes right at a guy's head, or right at his knees. If you want to cut down injuries in football, then IMO the best way to do that is to reward solid tackling technique and penalizing leading with the head and blatantly going for the knees.

 

Football will still be plenty violent. We're talking about people not being able to remember the room they were just in, increased alzheimer's, even early death.

 

Exactly.

[SpongeWorthy]

Saying concussions are surely coming from a lack of proper tackling form is the sort of specious logic nutbags use to say vaccinations are causing autism in children. Our scientific understanding of the brain is in is infancy but it's worlds better than what it was just 10 years ago. I mean how often were concussions being quickly diagnosed on the sidelines in the 60s? Or the days of leather helmets?

 

We're seeing more concussions because we can diagnose them better and it's considered more of a problem because we understand the linkages between brain injuries and dementia, Parkinsons, etc. Also the players are just bigger and faster: F = ma and all that.

[jersey cubs fan]

Saying concussions are surely coming from a lack of proper tackling form is the sort of specious logic nutbags use to say vaccinations are causing autism in children. Our scientific understanding of the brain is in is infancy but it's worlds better than what it was just 10 years ago. I mean how often were concussions being quickly diagnosed on the sidelines in the 60s? Or the days of leather helmets?

 

We're seeing more concussions because we can diagnose them better and it's considered more of a problem because we understand the linkages between brain injuries and dementia, Parkinsons, etc. Also the players are just bigger and faster: F = ma and all that.

 

I don't believe anybody is saying we are seeing more concussions now because of a decline in tackling technique. But there are all sorts of rules out there that were considered the "sissification" of the sport in their time, and all this crying about "two hand touch" is just the same nonsense we've heard before. Football is incredibly violent. You can take away clothesline tackles, eye gouging and blows to the head, but it's still incredibly violent. Bigger stronger faster guys than ever before are running into each other with violent intentions, and that will remain the core of football forever.

[SpongeWorthy]

Well like I said, I'm skeptical that there are really more violent, dangerous, and unnecessary styles of tackles being done these days. People are seeing more portions of more games than ever before today. Every violent hit is diagnosed to death and put under the spotlight. So while that may encourage guys to go for the highlight tackle to end up on SportsCenter it's entirely possible that we just think there's more violent hits because we're able to see more of them because of the confluence of media and technology.

 

YouTube Jack Tatum and tell me that guy wasn't clotheslining people or leading with the helmet in ways that would get him automatically suspended nowadays. Mark Carrier did some freaking brutal helmet to helmet shots when he was a Bear (I believe he earned a suspension or two in his day).

[jersey cubs fan]

Well like I said, I'm skeptical that there are really more violent, dangerous, and unnecessary styles of tackles being done these days. People are seeing more portions of more games than ever before today. Every violent hit is diagnosed to death and put under the spotlight. So while that may encourage guys to go for the highlight tackle to end up on SportsCenter it's entirely possible that we just think there's more violent hits because we're able to see more of them because of the confluence of media and technology.

 

YouTube Jack Tatum and tell me that guy wasn't clotheslining people or leading with the helmet in ways that would get him automatically suspended nowadays. Mark Carrier did some freaking brutal helmet to helmet shots when he was a Bear (I believe he earned a suspension or two in his day).

 

Why are you talking about whether or not there are more violent hits today than before? That has nothing to do with the discussion.

[SpongeWorthy]

Um, I'm saying I find the claim that there are more unnecessary, cheap, and illegal hits today dubious and that the increase in concussions and their negative consequences has more to do with better diagnosis and a far better medical understanding of their long term implications.

[Sammy Sofa]

Well like I said, I'm skeptical that there are really more violent, dangerous, and unnecessary styles of tackles being done these days. People are seeing more portions of more games than ever before today. Every violent hit is diagnosed to death and put under the spotlight. So while that may encourage guys to go for the highlight tackle to end up on SportsCenter it's entirely possible that we just think there's more violent hits because we're able to see more of them because of the confluence of media and technology.

 

YouTube Jack Tatum and tell me that guy wasn't clotheslining people or leading with the helmet in ways that would get him automatically suspended nowadays. Mark Carrier did some freaking brutal helmet to helmet shots when he was a Bear (I believe he earned a suspension or two in his day).

 

Why are you talking about whether or not there are more violent hits today than before? That has nothing to do with the discussion.

 

Yeah, I don't know where that comparison is coming from. Nobody is arguing for some kind of football regression to the "good ol' days" with the idea that it was less damaging to the players. The issue is as we go forward and continue to gain a better understanding of the effects on the players for ultimately trivial thrills for the audience, not looking backwards at was going on in the past. That's irrelevant.

[Sammy Sofa]

Um, I'm saying I find the claim that there are more unnecessary, cheap, and illegal hits today dubious and that the increase in concussions and their negative consequences has more to do with better diagnosis and a far better medical understanding of their long term implications.

 

Which doesn't negate any of the points here at all. If it's simply as matter of better diagnosis and recognition that doesn't somehow make things better. Arguing that it's "not really getting worse" is moot because even if it's not it's a still a huge problem. All the better understanding is showing is how widespread this issue has been for so long and how it's gone unrecognized/ignored. Couple that with how the players are getting bigger and faster and wearing less protection and it's a recipe for a longstanding problem to potentially get worse, if it hasn't already, but it doesn't have to be an issue of it "getting worse" right now for it to be a big problem.

[jersey cubs fan]

and wearing less protection

 

I wouldn't say they are wearing less protection. Maybe fewer thigh pads or something, but the helmets are more advanced than ever before.

 

One thing that could be interesting is having them wear no pads at all. Rugby players try and talk tough by saying football players are pansies because of the pads, but all pads do is increase the violence. Those things don't protect as much as they provide false sense of security.

[Sammy Sofa]

I was saying less protection in terms of less hindering of mobility and speed and as such guys are potentially able to hit harder or more precise than before because of it.