If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Dallas/Ft. Worth)   NFL institutes new consent rules. 1) May I run with the ball? 2) May I hit you at the shoulders? 3) May I hit you at the waist? 4) May I try to break a tackle? 5) I touched you with two hands, you're tackled   (dfw.cbslocal.com) divider line 87
    More: Asinine, Emmitt Smith, NFL, institutes, tackles, shoulder pads  
•       •       •

3075 clicks; posted to Sports » on 15 Mar 2013 at 9:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



87 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-15 09:08:59 AM  
Just give them articulating carbon fiber suits of armor and be done with it.
 
2013-03-15 09:14:08 AM  
So instead of running headlong into a defending player, compressing the spine, they want them to run heads-up into a defender and take a shoulder to the face, like a north-south hit in hockey.

I'll take the spinal compression, thanks.
 
2013-03-15 09:14:34 AM  
"It is the league's view that the crown of the helmet is dangerous for both the defender (who isn't allowed to use the technique against ball-carriers) and the player with the ball."

Did I miss something?  I think Pollard did too.
 
2013-03-15 09:15:53 AM  
Emmitt is right.  Subby is closer to the truth than he realizes.  Football is dead.
 
2013-03-15 09:18:43 AM  
Want to get rid of helmet to helmet hits? Get rid of the helmets.
 
2013-03-15 09:21:30 AM  
Old man complains that the kids these days have it too easy and are pussies. News at 11
 
2013-03-15 09:23:40 AM  

intotheabyss81: Want to get rid of helmet to helmet hits? Get rid of the helmets.


Yes, let's go back to the days when players died from skull fractures, and the sport was almost banned by law in the US.

Or are you really naieve enough to think that taking away helmets would make the sport magically safer?
 
2013-03-15 09:26:48 AM  
It will become much worse and will only change if viewership numbers go downhill.
 
2013-03-15 09:27:13 AM  
You know, when some Farkers were saying that this would happen a couple years ago I thought they were being stupidly reactionary and out of touch.  Now I see that I over-estimated the NFL.  So to those Farkers I offer my sincerest apologies.  You were right.  I was wrong.  The NFL is completely farked up, and is going to continue moving in this direction until decreased viewership approaches critical mass.

For me, that is today.  This is just stupid, and I am sick of watching 10 seconds of play followed by 10 minutes of dickery while they sort out and review penalties.  Fark this, it is no longer football.  I give up.  I am going to watch rugby or Ozball instead.
 
2013-03-15 09:28:47 AM  

intotheabyss81: Want to get rid of helmet to helmet hits? Get rid of the helmets.


They could just switch to rugby uniforms.

I think an NFL game played in rugby uniforms would be interesting to watch.
 
2013-03-15 09:30:55 AM  
'No' still means 'no', but roofies mean 'maybe'?
 
2013-03-15 09:31:26 AM  

Eligarf: For me, that is today.  This is just stupid, and I am sick of watching 10 seconds of play followed by 10 minutes of dickery while they sort out and review penalties.  Fark this, it is no longer football.  I give up.  I am going to watch rugby or Ozball instead.


The rule change hasn't happened yet, the owners have to vote.  calm down.
 
2013-03-15 09:32:53 AM  
This is an absolutely idiotic rule - how in the world are you supposed to run in short yardage?

You will HAVE to pass. Goal line stands got MUCH easier.

Also, in the AFCC, Ridley would have been knocked out, fumbled, AND penalized for lowering his head.
 
2013-03-15 09:37:23 AM  
its bad enough for the guys in the backfield besides the quarterback. are the qb and receivers included in this? i'm thinking if the quarterback has the ball and ducks as the pocket collapses during a sack is this a penalty? and receivers are going have their heads taken off.
 
2013-03-15 09:38:37 AM  

thecpt: Eligarf: For me, that is today.  This is just stupid, and I am sick of watching 10 seconds of play followed by 10 minutes of dickery while they sort out and review penalties.  Fark this, it is no longer football.  I give up.  I am going to watch rugby or Ozball instead.

The rule change hasn't happened yet, the owners have to vote.  calm down.


Oh please...90% of the owners are powerless anymore, and the ones who aren't are in the pocket of the League.  That is like saying you haven't been shot even after the trigger has been pulled simply because the bullet hasn't entered your chest yet.  Technically true, but inevitable nonetheless.
 
2013-03-15 09:39:06 AM  
I think this is a good rule. After seeing Ridley last year get turned off by Pollard, I had a feeling this might change. I thought I had seen a fatality.
 
2013-03-15 09:40:38 AM  

Publikwerks: I think this is a good rule. After seeing Ridley last year get turned off by Pollard, I had a feeling this might change. I thought I had seen a fatality.


Ridley would have been penalized for leading with his helmet...
 
2013-03-15 09:42:33 AM  

Deneb81: Publikwerks: I think this is a good rule. After seeing Ridley last year get turned off by Pollard, I had a feeling this might change. I thought I had seen a fatality.

Ridley would have been penalized for leading with his helmet...


I know. I don't want RB's leading with their helmet. It may make them less effective, but that hit scared me. I don't need to have players risk death for an extra yard.
 
2013-03-15 09:45:11 AM  

MikeSass: Oh please...90% of the owners are powerless anymore


I think you have that backwards, or opposite, or just plain wrong.  Goodell is their tool and he has clearly done whatever they want.  Other than the weird Cowboys Redskins cap thing.  I have no clue what the hell is going on there.

It's the owner's league.  The only thing that could make them approve this is that class action lawsuit from older players, IMO.
 
2013-03-15 09:50:34 AM  
Sarcastaball?
 
2013-03-15 09:51:53 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Sarcastaball?


This.
 
2013-03-15 10:00:43 AM  

thecpt: "It is the league's view that the crown of the helmet is dangerous for both the defender (who isn't allowed to use the technique against ball-carriers) and the player with the ball."

Did I miss something?  I think Pollard did too.


You know what he didn't miss? Tom Brady.
 
2013-03-15 10:07:51 AM  
I love the NFL, but it's an incredibly violent sport. It's worse now, players are bigger and faster, and the advancements in medical technology means that what was a career-ending injury 20/30 years ago isn't anymore, so the good players can keep on playing and absorbing hits that do long-term damage.

Goodell knows this, and so do the owners, and they are doing their best to cover their asses from huge lawsuits down the road, because they will be coming. Duerson and Seau are just the tip of the iceberg. They can point at these rule changes, and say, "Hey, we did everything we could!"

It's ruining the game. The thing is, everyone knows that getting your bell rung repeatedly over years and years will fark you up in the long run, look what happened to Ali, for God's sake.  But these players absolutely know what they're signing up for, and they're willing to take that risk to make big money.
 
2013-03-15 10:08:43 AM  
All this does is force the ball carrier to decide on a foregone conclusion - and not try to put their heads down and drive for extra yards.  You're going to get tackled.  Hit the ground, Barry Sanders-style.  It'll help everyone's career longevity.  It does really complicate those 3rd or 4th and inches situations, but otherwise this is meaningless.
The best part is yet another rule that protects defensive players.  Can't wait to hear the Suggs/Lewis denial on this one.
 
2013-03-15 10:10:04 AM  
I think the uproar this will cause by offensive players will be hilarious. All these "safety" rules over the last couple years are aimed squarely at defenders. Now the first one that changes the way offensive players play comes along, and much whining is sure to follow.

Also, they aren't going to address the cut blocks like the one that knocked out Cushing this year? I guess those are still safe.
 
2013-03-15 10:17:18 AM  

Nana's Vibrator: All this does is force the ball carrier to decide on a foregone conclusion - and not try to put their heads down and drive for extra yards.  You're going to get tackled.  Hit the ground, Barry Sanders-style.  It'll help everyone's career longevity.  It does really complicate those 3rd or 4th and inches situations, but otherwise this is meaningless.
The best part is yet another rule that protects defensive players.  Can't wait to hear the Suggs/Lewis denial on this one.


And what if they're consistent and think its as ridiculous as the rules against defenders? What if they say its silly but at least more fair?

Seems like that'd be consistent to me.
 
2013-03-15 10:17:30 AM  

js34603: I think the uproar this will cause by offensive players will be hilarious. All these "safety" rules over the last couple years are aimed squarely at defenders. Now the first one that changes the way offensive players play comes along, and much whining is sure to follow.

Also, they aren't going to address the cut blocks like the one that knocked out Cushing this year? I guess those are still safe.


I believe it's literally the sentence after the one about leading with the crown of your head, that says cut blocks moving away from the line of scrimmage would also be banned.
 
2013-03-15 10:18:35 AM  

Nana's Vibrator: All this does is force the ball carrier to decide on a foregone conclusion - and not try to put their heads down and drive for extra yards.  You're going to get tackled.  Hit the ground, Barry Sanders-style.  It'll help everyone's career longevity.  It does really complicate those 3rd or 4th and inches situations, but otherwise this is meaningless.
The best part is yet another rule that protects defensive players.  Can't wait to hear the Suggs/Lewis denial on this one.


And what other rules protect defenders? No crack-back/blindside blocks is about all I can think of. And that's been the rule for a while.
 
2013-03-15 10:22:31 AM  
Well, bye.   HIgh school and college armored wankball will still be awesome
 
2013-03-15 10:22:41 AM  

bubbaprog: js34603: I think the uproar this will cause by offensive players will be hilarious. All these "safety" rules over the last couple years are aimed squarely at defenders. Now the first one that changes the way offensive players play comes along, and much whining is sure to follow.

Also, they aren't going to address the cut blocks like the one that knocked out Cushing this year? I guess those are still safe.

I believe it's literally the sentence after the one about leading with the crown of your head, that says cut blocks moving away from the line of scrimmage would also be banned.


The Texans should be careful what they wish for - it may have taken Cushing out, but they're also one of the teams that popularized the zone blocking techniques that utilize the move. It played a big role in Foster being as good as he is - it helps runners with strong lateral movement skills. That rule may hurt their offense as much as it helps defenders.

All in all, both of those moves would cripple run games and promote more passing even in short yardage situations.
 
2013-03-15 10:22:48 AM  
Screw all of you.  The only reason I couldn't play in the NFL was because all of those dudes were so big they would murder me in one or two hits.  Given the current trajectory of the NFL rule makers, I'll be able to try out for running back in just a few years, and run from the line to the end zone with impunity.  No one is going to grab my flag and get me down!   I will be trying out as soon as they make it illegal for the defense to approach the running back.
 
2013-03-15 10:23:06 AM  
I think Smith is overreacting here.  Neither party should be leading with their helmet and the focus should be on wrapping the guy up, not taking his head off, be it the running back lowering his shoulders to put a blow on the LB or the LB coming into the hole.  The LB needs to enter with the intent to wrap up the RB, the RB needs to enter with the intent to pull some kind of spin move or stiff arm to escape the tackle.

If the LBs start popping guys under the chin, flag them and institute new rules punish that or other techniques if needed.  Really what the league is moving towards, and should be doing, is making it so "trucking" isn't something ball carriers do anymore, while also making the defense focus less on the big hit.  many NFL players dislike this idea since it means they'd actually have to get better at spin moves, juke moves, stiff arms, raking the ball out, etc as opposed to just being some gorilla who doesn't care if he can walk at age 50 and uses his body like a wrecking ball.  Forcing players to be more technique driven is only going to make the league be better.

/and we'll still get our big hit highlights, because with 32 teams each playing 16 games, you'll still get the poor little scat back who gets wrapped up and body slammed by a DT and things of that nature
 
2013-03-15 10:26:03 AM  

Deneb81:
And what if they're consistent and think its as ridiculous as the rules against defenders? What if they say its silly but at least more fair?

Seems like that'd be consistent to me.


js34603: I think the uproar this will cause by offensive players will be hilarious. All these "safety" rules over the last couple years are aimed squarely at defenders. Now the first one that changes the way offensive players play comes along, and much whining is sure to follow.

Also, they aren't going to address the cut blocks like the one that knocked out Cushing this year? I guess those are still safe.


I'm all for protection and consistency, but let's not be ridiculous here.  The NFL has been protecting defensive players since long before any QB/WR protection rule went into place.  Otherwise, we'd be seeing de-cleating crackback blocks, open field clipping, double engagement chop blocks and the likes.  It would be as enjoyable as seeing someone launch at any defenseless receiver.  But you don't see it, becaue it's been illegal for 30 years.
Incidentally, the NFL committee is reviewing the block that set Cushing out this week.
 
2013-03-15 10:31:34 AM  

ha-ha-guy: you'll still get the poor little scat back who gets wrapped up and body slammed by a DT and things of that nature



love this hit.  completely legal.  I think he was fine afterwards, or at least I hope so.

fark's gif limits suck.
 
2013-03-15 10:37:39 AM  
thecpt:
love this hit.  completely legal.  I think he was fine afterwards, or at least I hope so.


That's just not fair.  Wilfork is easily 400 lbs against what? 180?
 
2013-03-15 10:39:33 AM  

thecpt: ha-ha-guy: you'll still get the poor little scat back who gets wrapped up and body slammed by a DT and things of that nature


love this hit.  completely legal.  I think he was fine afterwards, or at least I hope so.

fark's gif limits suck.


That is beautiful.  I figure if we cut out the stuff like the Sean Taylor hit on Moorman in the Pro Bowl (I can't find a decent Youtube clip of it, they're all pixelated as hell) where Taylor just drives that shoulder under Moorman's chin, the occasional fat man damn near murders someone hit will be fine since they won't add up quickly on the players.  Unless you're the worst player in the world at avoiding large defensive tackles.

If you look at the career of some of the great RBs or even just many of the good ones from the 1990s, it seemed like you could get roughly a decade of performance out of them (Sanders was drafted in '89 and considered to have retired "early" when he left in 1998).  Now you start thinking about drafting a replacement after three to five years or so due to the number of the carries taking a toll on the RB's health.  Something is definitely changing in terms of what the players bodies are subjected to.
 
2013-03-15 10:40:48 AM  

Nana's Vibrator: That's just not fair.  Wilfork is easily 400 lbs against what? 180?


speed is armor.  At least it should be when your quarterback is supposed to be wicked smaht.  That ball should have thrown right to his feet, but I can't remember the down and distance on that play.  IIRC the Bills blew the lead and played the worst football they could that half.
 
2013-03-15 10:57:57 AM  

Deneb81: intotheabyss81: Want to get rid of helmet to helmet hits? Get rid of the helmets.

Yes, let's go back to the days when players died from skull fractures, and the sport was almost banned by law in the US.

Or are you really naieve enough to think that taking away helmets would make the sport magically safer?


If the players that lead with their heads die from skull fractures, then they can no longer play dangerously.  Less dangerous players playing = the sport is safer, almost as if by magic.

/This is a self correcting problem
//Darwin and all of that
 
2013-03-15 11:05:03 AM  

ha-ha-guy: thecpt: ha-ha-guy: you'll still get the poor little scat back who gets wrapped up and body slammed by a DT and things of that nature


love this hit.  completely legal.  I think he was fine afterwards, or at least I hope so.

fark's gif limits suck.

That is beautiful.  I figure if we cut out the stuff like the Sean Taylor hit on Moorman in the Pro Bowl (I can't find a decent Youtube clip of it, they're all pixelated as hell) where Taylor just drives that shoulder under Moorman's chin, the occasional fat man damn near murders someone hit will be fine since they won't add up quickly on the players.  Unless you're the worst player in the world at avoiding large defensive tackles.

If you look at the career of some of the great RBs or even just many of the good ones from the 1990s, it seemed like you could get roughly a decade of performance out of them (Sanders was drafted in '89 and considered to have retired "early" when he left in 1998).  Now you start thinking about drafting a replacement after three to five years or so due to the number of the carries taking a toll on the RB's health.  Something is definitely changing in terms of what the players bodies are subjected to.


Go back and take a look at the clips.  Taylor'shiat was perfectly legal.  If his helmet collided with Moorman's chin, that was from the impact.  Taylor led with the shoulder and hit Moorman in the chest.  Moorman, too, got back up again immediately.  Most legal hits where the player leads with the shoulder look devastating, but have little impact.  All you have to do is see Browner'shiat on Welker and Chancellor'shiat on Davis.  They were legal, looked awful, and everyone got up.

\I know, they said Davis had a concussion
\\a year earlier, he would have been in on the next play
 
2013-03-15 11:06:54 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Go back and take a look at the clips.


Go back and read what I typed again.  I never said it was illegal.  I've been talking about removing that still of style and instead making it so Taylor would have come in for the wrap up or hit much lower to ensure no contact between his shoulder pad and Moorman's head or incident helmet to helmet contact.
 
2013-03-15 11:10:45 AM  
Just make the ball round and dont let them touch it with their hands. Put dresses on them too.
 
2013-03-15 11:15:00 AM  

mikaloyd: Just make the ball round and dont let them touch it with their hands. Put dresses on them too.


fashionable dresses?
 
2013-03-15 11:15:26 AM  

Cybernetic: intotheabyss81: Want to get rid of helmet to helmet hits? Get rid of the helmets.

They could just switch to rugby uniforms.

I think an NFL game played in rugby uniforms would be interesting to watch.



If they played using rugby padding then they would have to use rugby tackling rules was well. So no shoulder charges but actual wrap tackles, no tackling while the player is in the air (wait until both feet are on the ground) and no chop shots.

I would also be interested in it as well. I think it would turn the game into much more of an athletic endeavour and much more like the games from the 60's and 70's.
 
2013-03-15 11:22:40 AM  

ha-ha-guy: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Go back and take a look at the clips.

Go back and read what I typed again.  I never said it was illegal.  I've been talking about removing that still of style and instead making it so Taylor would have come in for the wrap up or hit much lower to ensure no contact between his shoulder pad and Moorman's head or incident helmet to helmet contact.


Damn, then.  If you endorse that, then you are truly changing football away.  That hit is legal precisely because any injuries are almost purely coincidental.  I'm not one to say that football is all "pussified" like the ITGs on here, but I think by removing textbook tackles, then the sport would no longer be football.
 
2013-03-15 11:25:31 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Damn, then.  If you endorse that, then you are truly changing football away.  That hit is legal precisely because any injuries are almost purely coincidental.  I'm not one to say that football is all "pussified" like the ITGs on here, but I think by removing textbook tackles, then the sport would no longer be football.


I recall the textbook tackle I was taught involved wrapping up.  My coach would have been foaming at the mouth if I lowered the shoulder and screaming  "What if he bounces off you, what then smart guy?".

/only he'd have used more expletives
//the NFL can either adapt or flirt with getting banned a second a time once the medical outrage gets serious enough
 
2013-03-15 11:29:55 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: ha-ha-guy: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Go back and take a look at the clips.

Go back and read what I typed again.  I never said it was illegal.  I've been talking about removing that still of style and instead making it so Taylor would have come in for the wrap up or hit much lower to ensure no contact between his shoulder pad and Moorman's head or incident helmet to helmet contact.

Damn, then.  If you endorse that, then you are truly changing football away.  That hit is legal precisely because any injuries are almost purely coincidental.  I'm not one to say that football is all "pussified" like the ITGs on here, but I think by removing textbook tackles, then the sport would no longer be football.


And greatly increase knee/leg injuries.

And allow for receivers to use their own heads as a an anti-tackle shield. Just duck as the defender comes in and you draw a flag.

I'm convinced some already do.
 
2013-03-15 11:31:59 AM  

ha-ha-guy: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Damn, then.  If you endorse that, then you are truly changing football away.  That hit is legal precisely because any injuries are almost purely coincidental.  I'm not one to say that football is all "pussified" like the ITGs on here, but I think by removing textbook tackles, then the sport would no longer be football.

I recall the textbook tackle I was taught involved wrapping up.  My coach would have been foaming at the mouth if I lowered the shoulder and screaming  "What if he bounces off you, what then smart guy?".

/only he'd have used more expletives
//the NFL can either adapt or flirt with getting banned a second a time once the medical outrage gets serious enough


And how do you wrap tackle a short RB who's leading with a shoulder without incidental helmet contact? Sidestep, cede an additional 3 yards, and try to tackle from the side?
 
2013-03-15 11:35:30 AM  

RogermcAllen: Deneb81: intotheabyss81: Want to get rid of helmet to helmet hits? Get rid of the helmets.

Yes, let's go back to the days when players died from skull fractures, and the sport was almost banned by law in the US.

Or are you really naieve enough to think that taking away helmets would make the sport magically safer?

If the players that lead with their heads die from skull fractures, then they can no longer play dangerously.  Less dangerous players playing = the sport is safer, almost as if by magic.

/This is a self correcting problem
//Darwin and all of that


Right up until you realize players ALSO get hit in the head by: the ground, other players heads, other players shoulders, get sat on at the bottom of a pile, kicked accidentally after falling over (with cleats)...

It's not just the tackler that's at risk.
 
2013-03-15 11:36:57 AM  

ha-ha-guy: whizbangthedirtfarmer: Damn, then.  If you endorse that, then you are truly changing football away.  That hit is legal precisely because any injuries are almost purely coincidental.  I'm not one to say that football is all "pussified" like the ITGs on here, but I think by removing textbook tackles, then the sport would no longer be football.

I recall the textbook tackle I was taught involved wrapping up.  My coach would have been foaming at the mouth if I lowered the shoulder and screaming  "What if he bounces off you, what then smart guy?".

/only he'd have used more expletives
//the NFL can either adapt or flirt with getting banned a second a time once the medical outrage gets serious enough


Maybe in high school, but when you're a SS running down a PK, you have a pretty good shot at bringing him down without wrapping him up.  The emphasis in the NFL is now to jar the ball loose, and if the guy breaks a tackle, then it isn't a big deal ... unless you have open field behind you.

That said, your proposal would dramatically increase leg/knee/spinal injuries.  When the players go for the knees, you see stuff like Manningham's injury, or worse, like the one Johnny Knox suffered, which left him nearly paralyzed.  You may also remember James Harrison injuring Eric Decker's knee, precisely because he did hit low.  That's where he was aiming.

If we only allow players to go low for hits, the NFL had better expand the roster size by a full quarter.
 
2013-03-15 11:37:42 AM  

Norfolking Chance: If they played using rugby padding then they would have to use rugby tackling rules was well. So no shoulder charges but actual wrap tackles, no tackling while the player is in the air (wait until both feet are on the ground) and no chop shots.


Plus it leads to a demand for more skill.  Tackling and stripping the ball at the same time is actually hard since you have to master different techniques based on where you are coming from and where you want the ball to go (namely not out of bounds and away from any other offensive players).  When you come in for the tackle, if you grab with your non-stripping hand first, the ball carrier is likely to reflexively tighten up his grip on the ball and make it hard for you to strip.  On the other hand if you go for the ball first, you run the risk of the ball carrier stiff arming you away or otherwise avoiding you since you don't have a good grip on him.  The guys that can do this well are just amazing to watch.  Jason Taylor was an expert at coming in, hitting the QB and getting a hand on him so at the least he'd drag the QB down his body weight, and getting that other hand up to punch the ball out as the QB reflexively tucked it.  So much more enjoyable than just watching various linebackers lower the shoulder on people in hopes the ball pops out due to sheer application of force.
 
Displayed 50 of 87 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report