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

Sorry if this belongs in another sub-forum, but Football 101 was the one I thought most logical.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000152387/article/trent-richardson-crownofhelmet-hit-rule-my-fault
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/90...ew-helmet-rule

The best thing I can say about this rule is it's not exclusive to RBs, like the rules against hitting QBs or receivers above the shoulders or below the knees (indeed, many feel runners will get hit below the knees more often BECAUSE of this rule.) Nor is it like the rule against hitting a "defenseless player," which mandates WRs be allowed to make receptions and start running before contact, while hitting a RB as he takes a handoff is still just a great fumble-causing play. Since passers and receivers get hit so much more and harder than runners, they need extra protection.

I'm SO glad the NFL is taking further action to reduce the advantages of runners over passers and receivers in a league so increasingly dominated by running passing might otherwise have disappeared altogether. It's deplorable the physical punishment QBs and WRs endure makes it impossible for the bodies of guys like Favre, Peyton Manning and Elway to sustain the decade or more of Pro Bowl level play guys like Grange, Thorpe, Sayers and Terrell Davis enjoyed. Speaking of enjoyment, it's also good to know the NFL is fixing the rules to avert the risk of one-dimensional offense. Kudoes to Goodell on another typically good job.

Perhaps the best news is for Jake Plummer: Having left football for handball because he felt it a game that can be played all ones life, he could return to the NFL once it completes gradual transition to that sport.

This rule is pure garbage.

I must say, that I disagree. I'm on Goodell's side on this one. I think there may be legitimate concerns about how this rule will be implemented, but I agree with the overall ambition, and with the attempt at stopping the helmet being used as a weapon.

The defenseless player rule mentioned above does not 'allow the receiver to start running before contact'. Defenders can still hit receivers with as much force as they want while they are classed as 'defenseless', so long as they do not strike the head or neck and do not lead with the crown of their helmet.

This rule will only apply in the open field, in instances where a player purposfully leads with the crown of the helmet (i.e. using the helmet as a weapon). RB's who rely on power can lead with the shoulder instead. This is not about removing physicality from the game or hampering RB's, its about preventing the kind of injuries that ruin lives.

I was generally against these kind of rules too, until around the time of the sad passing of Junior Seau last year. I realised the kind of damage that can be done. To me, its important that we try and reduce that as far as possible.

If you're dead against any player safety rules then I'm afraid you will continue to be disappointed over the next few years. The consensus is that this is the direction we need to go in.

I don't care about player safety, never did, and neither does the NFL aulaza. The NFL is in full-on C.Y.O.A Mode, these new rules are reactionary and pretentious, aimed only at the appearance of caring about player safety in light of all the bullshit lawsuits they're facing. So when y'all are dolling out blame don't forget the pathetic former players that'r just out for one last paycheck.

What I do care about is the game of football, which is quickly devolving into a glorified pansy-ass 7-on-7 passing drill. Soak it up, people, this new age crock of shit, but soon it won't be any closer to football than a tickle fight is to boxing.

Gimme a ******* break.

Forgive me, having trouble working out if that was sarcastic or not?

Originally Posted by aulaza

Forgive me, having trouble working out if that was sarcastic or not?

No you're not.

Originally Posted by Jaded

I don't care about player safety, never did, and neither does the NFL aulaza. The NFL is in full-on C.Y.O.A Mode, these new rules are reactionary and pretentious, aimed only at the appearance of caring about player safety in light of all the bullshit lawsuits they're facing. So when y'all are dolling out blame don't forget the pathetic former players that'r just out for one last paycheck.

What I do care about is the game of football, which is quickly devolving into a glorified pansy-ass 7-on-7 passing drill. Soak it up, people, this new age crock of shit, but soon it won't be any closer to football than a tickle fight is to boxing.

Gimme a ******* break.

I don't wanna see guys get hurt. However, I couldn't have said this better Jaded.

In that case, not really sure you can 'not care about player safety'.

I really think this is for the good of the sport in the long run.

Originally Posted by aulaza

I must say, that I disagree. I'm on Goodell's side on this one. I think there may be legitimate concerns about how this rule will be implemented, but I agree with the overall ambition, and with the attempt at stopping the helmet being used as a weapon.

We have a rule against using helmets as a weapon: It's called "spearing," it's been illegal a looong time and the NFL need do nothing more than enforce that rule, IF that's all it wants to prevent. According to Goodell back in 2010 that's all the NFL ever WOULD do: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ear...ates_that.html We've since seen that was just a load of empty rhetoric; the League's annually cited long-illegal spearing to justify multiply rules against a great deal more than JUST spearing. In this case, they've decided to ban ball carriers reflexively ducking, not just to inflict blows, but absorb and withstand them.

Enforced uniformly, consistently and otherwise as written (i.e. against more than RBs) the new rule might offset the tremendous advantage new rules have increasingly given offense over defense in recent years (and maybe that was the idea: Blow one down there, blow one down here, in classic NFL fashion.) Unfortunately, the NFL DOESN'T enforce rules uniformly and consistently, else it wouldn't have "re-banned" something that's been illegal since 1979, let alone done so THREE YEARS RUNNING. Case in point:

Originally Posted by aulaza

The defenseless player rule mentioned above does not 'allow the receiver to start running before contact'. Defenders can still hit receivers with as much force as they want while they are classed as 'defenseless', so long as they do not strike the head or neck and do not lead with the crown of their helmet.

I'll believe that when it happens, or rather, when just the opposite STOPS. Remember Dunta Robinsons infamous hit on DeSean Jackson that gave them BOTH concussions? Here's a nice article noting that was a player legally ramming his SHOULDER (i.e. not helmet) into a defenseless players SHOULDER (i.e. not head or neck:) http://nflspearhead.blogspot.no/

The NFL fined him $50,000 anyway, as it does whenever—and WHEREVER—a defenseless receiver's hit. The rule's the same for running backs in a defenders grasp (but evidently not when taking a handoff) but defenders still do it routinely and with impunity. Indeed, the linked article starts by noting a spear by James Harrison (whose name always comes up in spearing discussions for SOME reason...) that drew NO fine, nor even penalty, because, according to the NFL VP of football operations (wait for it...) anything goes when hitting RBs. That's not what the rules say, but so what?

The link does note the NFL made it right by fining Harrison $75,000 for another illegal hit a week later: On a WR (naturally, since only hits on QBs or WRs draw fines/suspensions.) The NFL really getting the word out this is unacceptable; even as they charged Harrison $75,000 for MAKING the hit, NFL.com was charging fans $16-250 to own PICTURES of it: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...s-illegal-hit/

Originally Posted by aulaza

This rule will only apply in the open field, in instances where a player purposfully leads with the crown of the helmet (i.e. using the helmet as a weapon). RB's who rely on power can lead with the shoulder instead. This is not about removing physicality from the game or hampering RB's, its about preventing the kind of injuries that ruin lives.

It should be clear from the above, if it wasn't before, the new rule will apply just like quarter century old rule against spearing and all the addititional rules against spearing imposed each of the last two seasons. That is, the rules will apply wtf the NFL wants them to, and be ignored the rest of the time.

Originally Posted by aulaza

I was generally against these kind of rules too, until around the time of the sad passing of Junior Seau last year. I realised the kind of damage that can be done. To me, its important that we try and reduce that as far as possible.

If you're dead against any player safety rules then I'm afraid you will continue to be disappointed over the next few years. The consensus is that this is the direction we need to go in.

We don't know CTE prompted Seaus suicide (it's certainly a likely culprit,) but the sad ends of Mike Webster had already brought CTE attention the NFL didn't want. I don't wish even guys like Harrison to end up in the condition of all the retired boxers who are walking vegetables, and support LEGITIMATE efforts to improve player safety. Efforts to simply protect the NFL from litigation over brain trauma doctors have been warning it about since the early '50s and/or make the passing game more explosive for ratings, are another hypocritical matter. If the NFL's sincere about improving player safety it should do two things:

1) Consistently enforce DECADES old rules against spearing and similar infractions, rather than annually duplicating them for selective enforcement. That means NFL execs don't go on ESPN to say the league ignores the rules when RBs are hit, or reserve fines for only cases involving high profile/scoring WRs and QBs.

2) Suspend players for recklessly and/or deliberately endangering or injuring opponents. I usually cite two contrasting examples:

a) Lawrence Taylor breaking Joe Theismanns leg and ending his career. Pictures of Taylor desperately calling for trainers immediately afterward are almost as infamous as those of the injury itself. The injury was clearly unintentional and sorely regretted, so I wouldn't hand out a penalty, fine or suspension for it. Football's a full contact sport, so accidents and injuries can and should be reduced, but never removed.

b) Bill Romanowski publicly admitting that, at the bottom of a pile with Dave Meggett, where he knew no refs could see him, he intentionally seized the backs finger and "snapped it like a chicken bone." That injury was far less severe than Theismanns, but also deliberate, intentional and malicious. THOSE should draw penalties, ejections, fines and suspensions.

The point of that last observation is that the NFLs current efforts focus on eliminating the MEANS of serious injury while ignoring the MOTIVES. That simply won't work; as long as we condone head-hunting, simply banning specific forms when injuries proliferate, dirty players will just find new, legal, ways to inflict the same old injuries. Always a textbook example, James Harrison has said as much: During the pre-game for Denvers 2011 playoff game against Pitt, Phil Simms quoted Harrison saying he'd convinced his teammates they should go low on receivers to avoid more fines and suspensions for hitting them in the neck and head. Unsurprisingly, he "swept the leg" on Eric Decker as the WR was making a first down reception early in the second quarter, despite another Steeler already tackling Decker, who immediately went down and missed the rest of the game and season with a sprained MCL.

We can't stop dirty players by saying, "even though it's illegal to hit guys in the head, we never enforce that rule, so we're passing a new rule that says you can't hit them in the head with a bat either." If we want to ban dirty play, we ban dirty play, not nibble around the edges of it while the worst offenders find new ways to circumvent any new rules even on the rare occasions refs actually enforce them.

Meanwhile, when RBs know they're about to be hit, most will still duck to avoid, deflect or at least direct the blow to their well-shielded heads; that's just a human reflex. It's funny people keep citing Jim Browns statement this week that he never used his head against defenders, only his hand, shoulder and/or forearm.

"Make sure when anyone tackles you he remembers how much it hurts."—Jim Brown.

I actually agree with that statement; the problem is todays players have forgotten the difference between "hurt" and "harm." The annual rules tweaks exacerbate that oversight by ignoring it.

Players get hurt, it's part of the game. If players are willing to take that chance I'm willing to watch.

Originally Posted by Jaded

I don't care about player safety, never did, and neither does the NFL aulaza. The NFL is in full-on C.Y.O.A Mode, these new rules are reactionary and pretentious, aimed only at the appearance of caring about player safety in light of all the bullshit lawsuits they're facing. So when y'all are dolling out blame don't forget the pathetic former players that'r just out for one last paycheck.

What I do care about is the game of football, which is quickly devolving into a glorified pansy-ass 7-on-7 passing drill. Soak it up, people, this new age crock of shit, but soon it won't be any closer to football than a tickle fight is to boxing.

Gimme a ******* break.

My only disagreement is whether suits are just greedy millionaires seeking one last paycheck. I'm not even sure there have BEEN that many suits, considering how much cause there is. Doctors have been warning the NFL about the medical and legal risks since the early '50s, when they told the NFL players should be retired after their third concussion. Mike Webster, Junior Seau and Chris Henry never sued: They just died, all by age 50 (Henry was still on the Bengals roster when he died, but already suffering from degenerative brain damage.) They are but a few of many, and given the Leagues multi-decade effort to deny and discredit evidence I don't think we can simply say every player knows the risks of ending up a psychotic vegetable and factors it into his contract. So, yeah, I agree the League is just CYA crying crocodile tears.

In that and the passing drill comment I think you're right on target. It's no coincidence THREE different QBs all broke the decades old season yardage record in ONE year, just a couple years after Brady broke the single season TD record Peyton had broken a few years before that. It's also no coincidence League execs go on national TV to basically say 1979s spearing rule doesn't apply to RBs held by a tacklers teammates, yet hands out fines for hits on defenseless receivers that don't even violate the NEW rules. Ironically, that latter case is an example of the direction the NFL SHOULD go: Penalizing intent to injure rather than specific acts that MAY cause unintentional injury, since almost any act on a football field (or anywhere) carries SOME risk.

Yet QBs, WRs and DEs earn eight figure salaries and produce nine figure revenue from broadcast rights, merchandise, video games, and commercials. Weekend widows, HS kids and console gamers don't know or care who Thorpe, Grange, Brown, Sayers, Dorsett, Campbell or Payton were; they want Hail Marys. The NFL hasn't realized none of them buy season tickets, jerseys, mugs, bobbleheads or NFLNetwork subscriptions either; console gamers buy each years Madden, but that's about it. The Leagues accountants will explain it eventually, hopefully before all the REAL football fans turn to rugby instead.

Firstly, your points concerning application of rules I would agree with. I think it is a real problem, but for some reason the spearing rule is being disregarded, at least this new rule will remind people of the illegality of using the helmet as a weapon and we may see it called. I agree application of the spearing rule would be great but it hasn't happened for the last how many years. At least this means it will get called now.

Secondly, yes shoudler on shoulder contact can cause concussions. But this is not about eliminating all concussions because that is impossible. However, helmet to helmet (often avoidable) contact is far more likely to result in concussions than shoudler to shoulder. The example you state is not common, whilst I don't have stats in front of me I think we can agree that concussions from this type of contact would be far less common than from head to head contact. As for the application of fines, again I agree that it needs improvement, but I'm not sure why that means this rule is awful.

I'm not really sure what you mean about 'they apply when the NFL wants them to'. Are there directives to officials about what to call/not call?

As for the impact on suicides, I think its pretty clear that it is a factor. I'm glad to see you do care about player safety, as I think most normal fans do!

Overall, I agree with a lot of what you say about enforcement of existing rules and application of fines. However, for me, this new rule will actually make sure that guys get called where in previous years they wouldn't have. I hope they officiate it well, I guess we will have to wait and see on that. I think we would all like to see more consistency by officials.

What annoys me is fans sitting in their armchairs saying that they don't care about player safety, when we can see the consequences of it. If you disagree with this rule on grounds of how it will be applied then ok, we can have that debate. I have concerns over how it will be officiated. But if you think that player safety is a non issue then you need to wake up.

The core issue is that consistent uniform enforcement would make the spearing ban sufficient; without it, no amount of additional selectively/unenforced rules can help.

Originally Posted by aulaza

Firstly, your points concerning application of rules I would agree with. I think it is a real problem, but for some reason the spearing rule is being disregarded, at least this new rule will remind people of the illegality of using the helmet as a weapon and we may see it called. I agree application of the spearing rule would be great but it hasn't happened for the last how many years. At least this means it will get called now.

It means nothing of the sort. Again, the same season the NFL enacted the "defenseless player" rule it publicly said it didn't flag James Harrison spearing Joshua Cribbs in the head because anything goes with RBs. Never mind that one of Harrisons teammates already had Cribbs wrapped up in the act of tackling him (about as "defenseless" as it gets:) No flag for hitting a defenseless player in the head, no spearing flag.

Note also that wasn't just officials missing something on the field in real time, or an individual making the wrong judgement call: In the days following the hit the video was played over and over on national sports broadcasts until the NFL VP of Football Operations went on a syndicated radio show to say it was perfectly fine and no call was the RIGHT call. After further review and under scrutiny, the NFL stood by the non-call.

Originally Posted by aulaza

Secondly, yes shoudler on shoulder contact can cause concussions. But this is not about eliminating all concussions because that is impossible. However, helmet to helmet (often avoidable) contact is far more likely to result in concussions than shoudler to shoulder. The example you state is not common, whilst I don't have stats in front of me I think we can agree that concussions from this type of contact would be far less common than from head to head contact. As for the application of fines, again I agree that it needs improvement, but I'm not sure why that means this rule is awful.

Because there's no reason to believe it will be applied any more consistently or uniformly than the defenseless player or spearing rules are, in which case it just handicaps RBs without improving safety one whit.

Originally Posted by aulaza

I'm not really sure what you mean about 'they apply when the NFL wants them to'. Are there directives to officials about what to call/not call?

See above, and yes, there are directives to officials about what to call and when: The "points of emphasis" we hear about annually. The "point" of those is that the Competition Committee feels things already illegal aren't called enough/correctly. The second article I linked even notes such an example in the defenseless player rule:

Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures.

The defenseless player rule itself is more "point of emphasis" than new rule; unfortunately, it's not "emphasized" uniformly or consistently, but exclusively on receptions and sacks. That improves passing, not safety.

Further illustrating how the Competition Committee muddies the waters for even itself, the "Richardson Rule" isn't confined to helmet-on-helmet hits, but covers ALL cases of RBs or defenders leading with the crown of their helmet: The NFL simply "re-banned" spearing. For, like, the third or fourth time; how many times must we enact unenforced rules against something illegal since 1979 before refs start calling it properly...?

Originally Posted by aulaza

As for the impact on suicides, I think its pretty clear that it is a factor. I'm glad to see you do care about player safety, as I think most normal fans do!

Of course I care about safety, too much to see it become a canard for turning the NFL into arena football without improving safety at all.

Originally Posted by aulaza

Overall, I agree with a lot of what you say about enforcement of existing rules and application of fines. However, for me, this new rule will actually make sure that guys get called where in previous years they wouldn't have. I hope they officiate it well, I guess we will have to wait and see on that. I think we would all like to see more consistency by officials.

Again, I expect no more consistency or uniformity in this rule than in pre-existing ones. We'll see RBs lose yardage for ducking to avoid/absorb/deflect hits, but no other changes. If the NFL were serious about consistently uniformly enforcing the spearing ban it wouldn't keep "re-banning" spearing, it'd just tell refs, "start flagging spears REGARDLESS of source," and fire those who didn't.

Originally Posted by aulaza

What annoys me is fans sitting in their armchairs saying that they don't care about player safety, when we can see the consequences of it. If you disagree with this rule on grounds of how it will be applied then ok, we can have that debate. I have concerns over how it will be officiated. But if you think that player safety is a non issue then you need to wake up.

If you ever listen to any ex-NFL player talk, they will generally LAUGH at the idea that the NFL "worries" about player safety. They don't. The NFL doesn't care about the safety of players, as they are purely putting on the shroud of "care" to show that they are "Doing all they can do" for the sake of future law suites.

As a fan of the GAME... I don't care about the safety of the player AS LONG AS its effecting the game. Give me something that has a REAL benefit. GIve me new helmets and not this BS crap about "hitting defensless player"... JUNK. That is what football is about.. HITTING. Hitting HARD. We became football fanatics BECAUSE the big, huge, fast, athlete humans are SMASHING into one another, and doing things we only wish we could do...but as a part of that sacrifice...these guys get paid a LOT of money! Its not like football is the only one, car racing became famous BECAUSE of the wrecks! They didn't change the sport of racing, they added REAL safety equipment.

Fans only "worry" about the injuries when the injuries become headlines. When the injury is so severe, that it becomes a "story." But those kind of injuries can happen in ANY line of work! Ask a lathe operator if his job is dangerous.

Also.. there is NO evidence that CTE (their new name) is a cause for suicides. NFL players aren't the largest "profession" associated with suicide. If the constant contact in the game was SUCh a reason for committing such actions, why don't we see a larger percentage than we do? Dentists and doctors have a higher "suicide" rate than anything we see in the NFL. Of course there is more than one reason for suicide, but it seems that there are reasons for suicide OTHER than CTE... and the % of suicide in the NFL doesn't even make the top list of professions (well, the top 21 anyway) http://www.businessinsider.com/most-...mit-suicide-15

ANYWAY.. going back to this topic.. I can honestly say that this rule is NOT one that is going to "help" the game of football nor the football players themselves, but is merely a reactionary rule that is made to purely give the "image" of care.