Thread: "Trent Richardson Rule" Instated: Runners May No Longer Lead with Their Heads

Originally Posted by spikerman

Folks, the game of football is under attack. Parents are starting to find other, "safer" sports for their kids to play because they see the damage that can be caused. If football doesn't try to make itself safer we won't have the game in a few years. If tackling is done correctly most of these fouls would never be called anyway.

Btw, when you're ready for your heads to explode I'll tell you about the change in the targeting rule in college for next year.

Do you or Goodell really think paying lip service to safety without actually improving it will change that? We've talked about this before in the context of the previous rules changes, and the "targeting" rule you mention is a MUCH more positive step, IMHO. Go after motive, not means, and things will change; otherwise, dirty players will just find new ways to inflict injury within the rules. Shooting around the problem won't eliminate it or provide lawsuit cover; it just gives unsportsmanlike players an excrutiatingly well defined way to inflict excrutiating LEGAL injuries.

That covers the crap that is James Harrisons pro career, but not all of it: Fining him $75,000 for a LEGAL hit that injured a receiver while ignoring an ILLEGAL spear on a running back—publicly (but falsely) declaring the latter legal—isn't about safety: It's about revenue. Not only is that confusingly inconsistent (not a good way to reform players,) it's laughable the NFLs idea of "improving safety" is to ban players at the most beat up shortest lived position ducking to avoid and shield themselves from blows. Why stop at half measures, Goodell; if running back helmets are so dangerous, why not ban them altogether? The poor SOBs only have about five good years in them as it is; if we ban helmets for them (and ONLY them) they won't make it past their first training camp, and we can officially call it the National Handball League.

Originally Posted by spikerman

Everybody is going for the "woo" hits now. If anybody was actually coached to tackle the way a lot of these guys attempt to do it, they had really crappy coaches. Wait until next year in college when if the officials determine that a player is targeting another player then it results in not only a 15 yard penalty, but also an ejection.

The NFL LIKES the "woo" hits—it just doesn't want to publicly admit that, for legal reasons. You can, and evidently should, "woo" hit runners all you like; according to the League office you can even spear them, despite that being illegal since 1979, even in the head while a teammate holds them defenseless, despite THAT being legal since 2010. You just can't "woo" hit receivers or QBs, because they make "woo" TD passes. You also can't cut block DEs, because they make "woo" sacks (which are totally awesome as long as they're between the QBs knees and shoulders; QB>DE on the "woo" scale. ))

Originally Posted by spikerman

I can't speak for the NFL or for Pop Warner, but i can tell you that at the levels I officiate (HS and college) there is still plenty of hard (legal) hitting going on. I'm pretty sure I only threw one flag for targeting last year and there was plenty of popping going on. I think there has been a serious overreaction to some of these rule changes/enforcements. If these guys play fundamentally sound football, there won't be much of an issue. I guess I just don't understand the outrage - and I hate soccer.

Maybe we'll all understand the outrage when any team gets a TD stricken because a RB went all Earl Campbell on some poor, poor unsuspecting millionaire CB. Again, I'm all for teaching kids the fundamentals and if I could believe the motivation for these NFL player safety measures were legit I might look at it differenly.

Hitting defenseless receivers was one thing but this rule change is utterly pathetic.

Originally Posted by Jaded

Hitting defenseless receivers was one thing but this rule change is utterly pathetic.

Jim Brown disagrees with you. I think the greatest RB ever to lace up cleats might have a little credibility in the matter.

Originally Posted by BaileyTheBest

Jim Brown disagrees with you. I think the greatest RB ever to lace up cleats might have a little credibility in the matter.

And?

Originally Posted by Jaded

I know fisherman take huge risk putting crab on my plate yet I eat without a single thought about their risks whatsoever. If I cared about player safety I wouldn't watch football the same way I choose not to watch things ranging from seals getting clubbed to rodeo ******** who tie a bulls balls in a knot and climbimg on their back. A lot of things involve risk of injury, where's your bleeding heart for the less popular?

How's the view from the soapbox, Nancy Grace? Is it everything you thought it'd be?

Not sure I understand where you're coming from there. How do those examples relate exactly? Maybe I'm having a brain fart but I don't quite get it?

Are you saying you do watch all those things, or don't?

"Where's your bleeding heart for the less popular?" Didn't realise I had to provide a list of all things on this Earth that are also dangerous. I thought we were talking about football. There are plenty of other things for which my heart 'bleeds' as you put it.

Nancy Grace? You'll have to help me out there buddy! Not au fait with all parts of American culture!

For Joel and Jaded, as I understand the NFL rule, one thing to keep in mind is that it is not a foul simply because a running back lowers his head to protect himself. That is still legal. It is only a foul when he uses it as a weapon outside of the tackle box which means lowering his head going up the middle between the tackles would not even be looked at as a foul.

Originally Posted by Jaded

And?

He has a little more credibility on the matter than you. And to add to the list of people who have credibility on this matter...

"I'm in favor of it and I think it's a good rule that we need,'' said Super Bowl-winning Baltimore head coach John Harbaugh, of the league's decision to penalize the crown-of-the-helmet hit in the open field. "When you look at all the plays involved, what becomes apparent is what they're talking about calling is a dangerous position for any player to be. You never teach a running back to lead with the crown of the helmet and you never teach a tackler to lead with the crown of the helmet. No one's taught that from the beginning of football.
"We teach them just the opposite, to see what you hit, or if you go low, to use your shoulder. A back can still go low with his head, he just can't square up on a guy and lead with the crown of his helmet. That's something that's putting people in jeopardy. So I came out of the meetings feeling good about the rule.''


Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl...#ixzz2Q0tq4WeK

Originally Posted by BaileyTheBest

... And to add to the list of people who have credibility on this matter...

I don't want to address anyone's credibility, but I do think that Harbaugh said what I was trying to say much more eloquently.

Originally Posted by BaileyTheBest

Jim Brown disagrees with you. I think the greatest RB ever to lace up cleats might have a little credibility in the matter.

"Make sure when anyone tackles you he remembers how much it hurts."—Jim Brown. Browns point was that he always used his hand, arm or shoulder to ward off tackles; are we to believe whipping a forearm into someone face doesn't often cause concussions? I've already cited an example of a shoulder-to-shoulder hit doing just that. You may have misspelled "hypocrisy," man.

To be fair, there IS a distinction between "hurt" and "harm," but I'm not sure Jim Brown, widely recognized as one of the most punishing runners in history, is the best authority on it (Stephen R. Donaldson would be better. ) I'm not saying Brown set out to injure people either, but this is along the lines of what I referenced earlier: Ban specific means of, rather than intent to, injure people and dirty players just find legal ways to inflict the same injuries within the new rules—they already do: That's why we keep seeing new rules every freakin' year, treating the symptom rather than the disease.

Originally Posted by spikerman

For Joel and Jaded, as I understand the NFL rule, one thing to keep in mind is that it is not a foul simply because a running back lowers his head to protect himself. That is still legal. It is only a foul when he uses it as a weapon outside of the tackle box which means lowering his head going up the middle between the tackles would not even be looked at as a foul.

That's just more inconsistency, just like with the cut blocking rules: The same dangerous act magically becomes safe between the tackles, because... well, just because. Or, put another way, the same perfectly legal act suddenly becomes illegal if it happens in the open field. This rule's just more unconscionable because the act is DEFENSIVE, despite the suggestions it's offensive. Maybe if a concussed RB sues the NFL for CTE caused by too many un-duckable shoulderpads to the head things will change. The NFL will probably just ban running, but at least the game will be "safer."

Originally Posted by Joel

"Make sure when anyone tackles you he remembers how much it hurts."—Jim Brown. Browns point was that he always used his hand, arm or shoulder to ward off tackles; are we to believe whipping a forearm into someone face doesn't often cause concussions? I've already cited an example of a shoulder-to-shoulder hit doing just that. You may have misspelled "hypocrisy," man.

To be fair, there IS a distinction between "hurt" and "harm," but I'm not sure Jim Brown, widely recognized as one of the most punishing runners in history, is the best authority on it (Stephen R. Donaldson would be better. ) I'm not saying Brown set out to injure people either, but this is along the lines of what I referenced earlier: Ban specific means of, rather than intent to, injure people and dirty players just find legal ways to inflict the same injuries within the new rules—they already do: That's why we keep seeing new rules every freakin' year, treating the symptom rather than the disease.

That's just more inconsistency, just like with the cut blocking rules: The same dangerous act magically becomes safe between the tackles, because... well, just because. Or, put another way, the same perfectly legal act suddenly becomes illegal if it happens in the open field. This rule's just more unconscionable because the act is DEFENSIVE, despite the suggestions it's offensive. Maybe if a concussed RB sues the NFL for CTE caused by too many un-duckable shoulderpads to the head things will change. The NFL will probably just ban running, but at least the game will be "safer."

There are a lot of things to address here and I will when I have more time. I think you're misunderstanding a few things within the rules, I'll try to address them later, but for now I'm curious as to what you would suggest.

Originally Posted by spikerman

There are a lot of things to address here and I will when I have more time. I think you're misunderstanding a few things within the rules, I'll try to address them later, but for now I'm curious as to what you would suggest.

I'll counter with curiosity about that "targeting" rule you mentioned, because it sounds like the sort of thing I have in mind: Suspend guys for recklessness and intentional attempts to injure. I realize that's a judgement call, but a much of officiating is inherently a judgement call, so why not apply it to something meaningful? It's not right to penalize, fine and suspend guys for hard but non-malicious hits that inadvertently cause injury, and it's not right to give guys a pass for trying to take a guy out of a game as long as they do it within the letter of the rules.

I believe we've long had a catchall rule for all the above that's always been very much a judgement call: Unnecessary roughness. Funny how rarely I see THAT one called these days no matter how much the NFL says it cares about emphasizing and improving safety. It's pretty much exclusively in the context of the defenseless player penalty, like that's the only kind of unnecessary roughness that exists.

That's what frustrates me about all this: We've had rules against spearing, unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct since before most current NFL players were born. Yet suddenly we need new rules to prevent already illegal but rarely penalized behavior, while "incidentally" handicapping defenders and aiding passing (and now handicapping running, too.) Current rules are sufficient IF consistently uniformly enforced; if they're not, no amount of additional selectively enforced ones will change that root problem: In either case, new rules are POINTLESS.

Originally Posted by BaileyTheBest

He has a little more credibility on the matter than you. And to add to the list of people who have credibility on this matter...

Certainly, but that's not what I meant. I meant what did he say, exactly? Is it fair to question his motives, ie, is he being a massive hypocrite or does he maybe got his fellow ex-players back on these lawsuit issues? You said he disagrees, I was just hoping there was more to your point than the painfully ******* obvious.

Originally Posted by aulaza

Not sure I understand where you're coming from there. How do those examples relate exactly? Maybe I'm having a brain fart but I don't quite get it?

Are you saying you do watch all those things, or don't?

"Where's your bleeding heart for the less popular?" Didn't realise I had to provide a list of all things on this Earth that are also dangerous. I thought we were talking about football. There are plenty of other things for which my heart 'bleeds' as you put it.

Nancy Grace? You'll have to help me out there buddy! Not au fait with all parts of American culture!

No, I don't watch things that I'm not comfortable with, that's the point. If I wasn't comfortable with the injuries that have been a part of American football since day 1 I wouldn't be watching it.

Nancy Grace is an over-the-top tv drama queen.

If running backs were allowed to carry pistols to shoot the CB's Id be all for that too. I want Football to be as violent, and entertaining as possible. I dont care about the players because I dont know them.

Originally Posted by claymore

If running backs were allowed to carry pistols to shoot the CB's Id be all for that too. I want Football to be as violent, and entertaining as possible. I dont care about the players because I dont know them.

What's your opinion on adding lions to the mix, not those faggots from Detroit, I mean actual live lions?