Jarvis Basnight 119 Posted March 20, 2013 Just read this on Rotoworld.... The NFL has passed a rule that makes it a penalty for a running back to strike defenders with the crown of their helmet. I should have started a seperate thread days ago but have been b!tch!ng about my newfound dislike for the NFL in other threads. This is just more of the same. We aren't watching football anymore....you all do realize that correct? I'm still a fan of FF and will continue that but I'm no fan of the NFL. Yippee, another flag to slow down the game even more! Do you consider football a sport or entertainment? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted March 20, 2013 Just read this on Rotoworld.... I should have started a seperate thread days ago but have been b!tch!ng about my newfound dislike for the NFL in other threads. This is just more of the same. We aren't watching football anymore....you all do realize that correct? I'm still a fan of FF and will continue that but I'm no fan of the NFL. Yippee, another flag to slow down the game even more! Do you consider football a sport or entertainment? Actually, we are watching football...just a sport that is getting sued and if they want to go on they need to change things...or go the way of Boxing...real popular sport that is right? I doubt this rule slows down much of anything. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CapnJB 0 Posted March 20, 2013 Can I have your stuff? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike FF Today 608 Posted March 20, 2013 Helmet rule In votes Wednesday, the NFL's owners eliminated the tuck rule and agreed to the rule change that would ban offensive players from using the crown of their helmets against defenders in the open field. The votes were 29-1 on the tuck rule and 31-1 on the helmet rule. On Tuesday, owners outlawed peel-back blocks anywhere on the field; previously, they were illegal only inside the tackle box. A player makes a peel-back block when he is moving toward his goal line, approaches an opponent from behind or the side, and makes contact below the waist. The penalty will be 15 yards. It's all under the umbrella of player safety. You can tell defensive players are more cautious now but I don't think any of the rule changes have affected my enjoyment of the game except maybe for the over-protection of the QB but I will say their pushing the line. These guys move at such high speeds its impossible for them to avoid helmet-to-helmet hits. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jarvis Basnight 119 Posted March 20, 2013 Actually, we are watching football...just a sport that is getting sued and if they want to go on they need to change things...or go the way of Boxing...real popular sport that is right? I doubt this rule slows down much of anything. Boxing was run by dolts, it wasn't the violence. Bad example. How is MMA doing? The NFL is getting sued by ex-players who want money because they didn't realize their sport was so violent. NFL is changing to add as many possible viewers as possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,315 Posted March 20, 2013 Jarvis is like the Phurfur of the main board. Calm down old timer. We know the game has changed since the 70s. It was inevitable that it would. It's not even worth arguing whether the NFL is "better off" for it because it had to happen one way or the other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jarvis Basnight 119 Posted March 20, 2013 It's all under the umbrella of player safety. You can tell defensive players are more cautious now but I don't think any of the rule changes have affected my enjoyment of the game except maybe for the over-protection of the QB but I will say their pushing the line. These guys move at such high speeds its impossible for them to avoid helmet-to-helmet hits. It's a reaction to public opinion. Player safety only became important after the outcry. Just wait until it gets leaked about the massive amounts of steroid use that runs roughshod in the NFL. That will open up another can and "suddenly" the NFL will be very concerned and firm on drugs. Oh yeah and they'll be sued by explayers who will say the NFL didn't teach them more about the dangers of roids. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted March 20, 2013 Boxing was run by dolts, it wasn't the violence. Bad example. How is MMA doing? The NFL is getting sued by ex-players who want money because they didn't realize their sport was so violent. NFL is changing to add as many possible viewers as possible. Yeah...massive head injuries have nothing to do with boxing's downfall right? And they are getting sued because they stuck their heads in the sand and did not understand concussions and kept sticking people back out there who had no business playing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jarvis Basnight 119 Posted March 20, 2013 Mayock said he believes the NFL’s owners dramatically altered the sport of football today. “I’m not a fan of this rule at all. I think it crosses a line. We all love safety, but at some point, football’s got to be football,” Mayock said. “If a running back can’t drop his pad level, I don’t think it’s football anymore.” Analyst on the NFL Network? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted March 20, 2013 Analyst on the NFL Network? And? Just wondering when Mayock became the poster boy for being right. Same guy that the people now using him will whine and complain about his draft analysis. Other RBs and people have said its fine...including a guy who lived off of physical running style in Eddie George...once he actually realized what the rule was...which Mayock, by his analysis, still does not seem to grasp the rule at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FlaHawker 24 Posted March 20, 2013 Flag football right around the corner! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jarvis Basnight 119 Posted March 20, 2013 Jarvis is like the Phurfur of the main board. Calm down old timer. We know the game has changed since the 70s. It was inevitable that it would. It's not even worth arguing whether the NFL is "better off" for it because it had to happen one way or the other. Defense gets flagged all the time for where/how they're hitting a QB or a "defenseless receiver". Running at full speed and coming off of blocks they still can only hit a small area a certain way.....and it's a judgement call by the refs. Now this leading with the crown rule opens itself to more judgement calls by refs. No wonder why the refs held out last year. Old timer? I guess if you're older than 22 years old you're considered an old timer. The game has changed a ton in just the last decade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shovelheadt 62 Posted March 21, 2013 It's a reaction to public opinion. Player safety only became important after the outcry. Just wait until it gets leaked about the massive amounts of steroid use that runs roughshod in the NFL. That will open up another can and "suddenly" the NFL will be very concerned and firm on drugs. Oh yeah and they'll be sued by explayers who will say the NFL didn't teach them more about the dangers of roids. You've said nothing that I believe is factual. There's never been a public outcry over a lack of player safety. It's all about the lawsuits, nothing more. The NFL just needs the ability to say 'we made an effort'. Your comment about 'implementing the rule to add viewers' makes no sense either. The more violent the game, the more people watch. The one thing I wonder about though, is will we see an increase of knee injuries in RBs due to them not being able protect themselves like they're used to? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted March 21, 2013 The one thing I wonder about though, is will we see an increase of knee injuries in RBs due to them not being able protect themselves like they're used to? So by not leading with the crown of their helmet...they will get hit in the knees? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arsenal 3 Posted March 21, 2013 So by not leading with the crown of their helmet...they will get hit in the knees? To be fair, when you are 40, would you rather have creaky knees or brain damage? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 4,562 Posted March 21, 2013 To be fair, when you are 40 :cry: I still have all my hair and none of it's gray, Dammit! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Voltaire 4,562 Posted March 21, 2013 The tuck rule sucks, I can't beleive it takes this long to change that. At least it happened though. What happened to the Raiders was awful. As for the other rules, nothing needs to change, just let the fellas play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grateful Parrot 0 Posted March 21, 2013 Yeah...massive head injuries have nothing to do with boxing's downfall right? And they are getting sued because they stuck their heads in the sand and did not understand concussions and kept sticking people back out there who had no business playing. Sorry Sho, but you are wrong. Head injuries have NOTHING to do with boxing downfall. It's the greed and PPV that has brought it down. Somewhat the same as NFL, but with the NFL, you have to add the PC factor to it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cara 0 Posted March 22, 2013 Sorry Sho, but you are wrong. Head injuries have NOTHING to do with boxing downfall. It's the greed and PPV that has brought it down. Somewhat the same as NFL, but with the NFL, you have to add the PC factor to it. Boxing fell after the great heavyweight fights of the 90's and early 2000's. People tend to forget boxing was dead in the heavyweight division during the Larry Holmes era. There wasn't a market for a flabby heavyweight champion with a viscious jab, but little power. Tyson brought it back to the level of the 60's and 70's. Bowe and Holyfield had three fights worthy of being considered for the best fight of the decade. Head injuries may, or may not, have played a role in the declining interest in boxing, but only from the boxers perspective. The fans want to see knockouts and heavyweights capable of hurting someone. Look at the PPV numbers. Neither Klitchko is a draw. Even Lennox Lewis wasn't a draw outside of his Tyson fight. Nobody had an issue with paying $50 to see Tyson knock someone senseless in 91 seconds. The boxing promoters ripped off so many of the fighters it was going to die at some point. Today, we have little to look forward to in boxing, but some of that is because a solid boxer is still wearing huge gloves and the blood and guts has been taken away. Reduce the glove size to 4 ounces like MMA and we will not be forced to watch two grown men tip-toe around each other for 12 rounds. Someone would likely get knocked out in each fight. That's what todays fans want to see. Why pay for that when you can watch the brutality of MMA? MMA is on the rise for various reasons... Look what the UFC is doing right now; They are dropping fighters who are boring to watch, regardless of their ability. Jon Fitch is a prime example, but there are many others. The fans WANT to see blood and knockouts. It is more than just about the sport, it is about entertainment value to the consumer. I hate paying for a lame MMA show where nobody is knocked out. If you follow MMA closely, you see the rate of knockouts/submissions over the last year has skyrocketed. The promoters know what the fans want to see and they are giving it to us. That is partially because we aren't seeing them sued over brain damage. Yet. The NFL is trying to keep from being sued out of existence. I don't think this rule, if it is enforced as written, will do any damage. My understanding is this only effects a RB in the open field and not when there is a pile-up or if he is headed out of bounds. I do think they have made the NFL a less violent sport, and that it will ultimately cause some fan backlash, but what other choice to they have? I think they should request each player to sign a waiver explicitly stating this is a TOUGH sport and you may possibly end up with brain damage. Let them sign the waiver and the lawsuits would end. If they don't sign, they can't play. Period. Certain MMA organizations make their fighters sign injury waivers for injuries resulting from things in the cage that may arise at a later date. Why can't the NFL do the same? There is a small Southern MMA group that does this. They recently had a show on cable. Seems like a good idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
