Title edited
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2293 ... act-helmet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“NFL owners passed an unexpected rule Tuesday that will expand penalties for helmet-to-helmet contact, one that is more significant and far-reaching than the NCAA's targeting rule.
Under the change, a player will be penalized 15 yards and potentially ejected any time he lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent. It will apply to tacklers, ball carriers and even linemen, and it will take the place of a previous rule that limited the penalty to contact with the crown of the helmet.”
I have to see how it will actually be enforced. However, you cannot lower your shoulders without lowering your head. It's one thing to attack guys leading with the crown or hitting to the head (I realize player safety is paramount)... but ANY lowering of the head is a 15 yard penalty and possible ejection? Not even just against the head/neck area either.
I think we MAY have finally reached that tipping point which a lot of us feared. Again... I understand player safety. However, this is bad for football man. You're REALLY trying so hard to micro-manage a game which is chaotic in nature. In the midst of a ratings crisis... this will create more tic-tac fouls. Change the course of entire games. Get guys ejected.
Ugh... Maybe it won't be as big of a deal as I imagine. However, I am really getting worried. The NFL's product cannot afford to fall off anymore than it has.
NFL Institutes Very Strict Rule on Lowering of Helmet
Moderator: wab
- Atkins&Rebel
- Head Coach
- Posts: 2177
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 3:56 pm
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 123 times
Nope. Lowering you head means that you're looking at the ground. You can bend 90 degrees and still look up, even with a helmet on. This rule will only impact those who are trying to lead with the crown of their helmet.
I will kill you if you cut me at the knees. You will drink with me when invited and stay til I say so. We only listen to American Music. I make men nervous with just my presence. I expect an apology if you hold. I throw linemen at QB's. Believe the Lore!
- LacertineForest
- MVP
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:39 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Has thanked: 1751 times
- Been thanked: 323 times
I agree. Players will have to adjust, but playing with your head down is generally not good technique anyway. We'll see how much this impacts penalties, but at least it applies to both offenses and defenses.Atkins&Rebel wrote:Nope. Lowering you head means that you're looking at the ground. You can bend 90 degrees and still look up, even with a helmet on. This rule will only impact those who are trying to lead with the crown of their helmet.
- UOK
- Site Admin
- Posts: 25147
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
- Location: Champaign, IL
- Has thanked: 108 times
- Been thanked: 926 times
Let me simply say that the title of this thread pisses me off. This is not the end of anything. It's not even the beginning of the end of anything.
All this "I watched football because it was a man's game, brutal and violent and people were tough! Now society's all soft and so is this pussified league! And now, NOW they're making goddamn rules saying you can't hit each other!? Rabble rabble rabble rabble, etc."
C'mon. I get it - football used to be a lot less of a mess, and the players were far less protected than they are now, but the sport isn't dead just because there are rules in place to sculpt the game into something that won't result in players having dementia when they're 35 and killing themselves at 45. They want players to be available for the fans to enjoy on TV and in person, but not at the expense of risking their bodily functions and quality of life.
The romance of football is partially the bodily sacrifice these guys make, sure, and the brute violence and physicality is special, but I don't want the NFL to devolve into a reckless game where every year or two a few guys drop dead on the field because it's a "man's game," and a week after a player's inducted into the Hall of Fame he blows his head off in his apartment.
All this "I watched football because it was a man's game, brutal and violent and people were tough! Now society's all soft and so is this pussified league! And now, NOW they're making goddamn rules saying you can't hit each other!? Rabble rabble rabble rabble, etc."
C'mon. I get it - football used to be a lot less of a mess, and the players were far less protected than they are now, but the sport isn't dead just because there are rules in place to sculpt the game into something that won't result in players having dementia when they're 35 and killing themselves at 45. They want players to be available for the fans to enjoy on TV and in person, but not at the expense of risking their bodily functions and quality of life.
The romance of football is partially the bodily sacrifice these guys make, sure, and the brute violence and physicality is special, but I don't want the NFL to devolve into a reckless game where every year or two a few guys drop dead on the field because it's a "man's game," and a week after a player's inducted into the Hall of Fame he blows his head off in his apartment.
- Rusty Trombagent
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 7336
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
- Location: Maine!
- Has thanked: 555 times
- Been thanked: 967 times
UOK is of course 100% right, but I am surprised at the people here who think the refs wont fuck this up. Like, atleast in part now football is defined by insane fuckups by the refs, and this is only going to make their jobs harder.
How can you honestly believe that there wont be, in the near future, instances where everyone is going "WTF HE DIDNT LEAD WITH THE CROWN OF HIS HELMET?!?!?!" These are still human missles flying around savagely contorting their bodies and helmets get knocked into each other all the time. Oh to have that kind of faith in the refs to not make some bone headed decisions.
How can you honestly believe that there wont be, in the near future, instances where everyone is going "WTF HE DIDNT LEAD WITH THE CROWN OF HIS HELMET?!?!?!" These are still human missles flying around savagely contorting their bodies and helmets get knocked into each other all the time. Oh to have that kind of faith in the refs to not make some bone headed decisions.
- LacertineForest
- MVP
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:39 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Has thanked: 1751 times
- Been thanked: 323 times
I'm sure there will be mistakes, and probably some pretty big ones that alter games. From what I have read, they aren't completely done with the language and I'm sure there will be another change next year. I am in favor of that. They need to nail this one down, and I'm okay with them trying something out and getting it right over time. The transition period might be pretty rough, but I do think it will be better in the end.
- Bears Whiskey Nut
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 11017
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
- Location: Oak Park, IL
- Has thanked: 77 times
- Been thanked: 516 times
It's leading with the crown of the helmet. That's it. If you lower your shoulder, with your head up, no issue. Essentially if the ref can see your facemask, it shouldn't be a penalty.
- wab
- Mod
- Posts: 29805
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
- Has thanked: 127 times
- Been thanked: 1956 times
I don't like this thread.
- Boris13c
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 15958
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
- Location: The Bear Nebula
- Has thanked: 38 times
- Been thanked: 103 times
nothing in that rule indicates the end of anything other than cheap shots with the crown of the helmet and even then it won't 100% end themRichie wrote:I think this ACTUALLY could be the end of the NFL ... as we know it.
www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/22935229/nfl-institutes-rule-lowering-head-initiate-contact-helmet
exactlyAtkins&Rebel wrote:Nope. Lowering you head means that you're looking at the ground. You can bend 90 degrees and still look up, even with a helmet on. This rule will only impact those who are trying to lead with the crown of their helmet.
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
George Carlin
- Boris13c
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 15958
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
- Location: The Bear Nebula
- Has thanked: 38 times
- Been thanked: 103 times
UOK wrote:Let me simply say that the title of this thread pisses me off. This is not the end of anything. It's not even the beginning of the end of anything.
All this "I watched football because it was a man's game, brutal and violent and people were tough! Now society's all soft and so is this pussified league! And now, NOW they're making goddamn rules saying you can't hit each other!? Rabble rabble rabble rabble, etc."
C'mon. I get it - football used to be a lot less of a mess, and the players were far less protected than they are now, but the sport isn't dead just because there are rules in place to sculpt the game into something that won't result in players having dementia when they're 35 and killing themselves at 45. They want players to be available for the fans to enjoy on TV and in person, but not at the expense of risking their bodily functions and quality of life.
The romance of football is partially the bodily sacrifice these guys make, sure, and the brute violence and physicality is special, but I don't want the NFL to devolve into a reckless game where every year or two a few guys drop dead on the field because it's a "man's game," and a week after a player's inducted into the Hall of Fame he blows his head off in his apartment.
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
George Carlin
- thunderspirit
- Head Coach
- Posts: 3829
- Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 12:51 pm
- Location: Greater Chicagoland, IL
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 603 times
Buying beers for both of ya.Boris13c wrote:UOK wrote:Let me simply say that the title of this thread pisses me off. This is not the end of anything. It's not even the beginning of the end of anything.
All this "I watched football because it was a man's game, brutal and violent and people were tough! Now society's all soft and so is this pussified league! And now, NOW they're making goddamn rules saying you can't hit each other!? Rabble rabble rabble rabble, etc."
C'mon. I get it - football used to be a lot less of a mess, and the players were far less protected than they are now, but the sport isn't dead just because there are rules in place to sculpt the game into something that won't result in players having dementia when they're 35 and killing themselves at 45. They want players to be available for the fans to enjoy on TV and in person, but not at the expense of risking their bodily functions and quality of life.
The romance of football is partially the bodily sacrifice these guys make, sure, and the brute violence and physicality is special, but I don't want the NFL to devolve into a reckless game where every year or two a few guys drop dead on the field because it's a "man's game," and a week after a player's inducted into the Hall of Fame he blows his head off in his apartment.
KFFL refugee.
dplank wrote:I agree with Rich here
RichH55 wrote: Dplank is correct
I disagree. Guys getting ejected for potentially lowering their heads incidentally... A RB lowering himself to absorb or break a tackle.UOK wrote:Let me simply say that the title of this thread pisses me off. This is not the end of anything. It's not even the beginning of the end of anything.
I think I made it pretty clear that I understand player safety as being paramount. This isn't some meat head "bunch of pansy asses!" argument.
I just think this is going to make players hesitant, create more stoppages, game changing flags, controversy... Not what the NFL needs.
I realize that the title could be perceived as extreme hyperbole... I apologize if it pissed you off. However, I think this is going to create a noticeable drop in the product. Which could further hurt the league.
Last edited by Richie on Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think you underestimate the amount of times this happens in a game. Very often it cannot be helped. Most times when a RB lowers himself to break a tackle, the head goes down. It's natural.Atkins&Rebel wrote:Nope. Lowering you head means that you're looking at the ground. You can bend 90 degrees and still look up, even with a helmet on. This rule will only impact those who are trying to lead with the crown of their helmet.
- Rusty Trombagent
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 7336
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
- Location: Maine!
- Has thanked: 555 times
- Been thanked: 967 times
i bookmarked this thread for the first time a 3rd and short rb dive or qb sneak or goalline dive gets called back inexplicably.
- Boris13c
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 15958
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
- Location: The Bear Nebula
- Has thanked: 38 times
- Been thanked: 103 times
Richie wrote:I think you underestimate the amount of times this happens in a game. Very often it cannot be helped. Most times when a RB lowers himself to break a tackle, the head goes down. It's natural.Atkins&Rebel wrote:Nope. Lowering you head means that you're looking at the ground. You can bend 90 degrees and still look up, even with a helmet on. This rule will only impact those who are trying to lead with the crown of their helmet.
but I don't think this rule clarification is meant for that ... I believe it is meant for those lowering their head intentionally to deliver a blow with the crown of the helmet which is not the same as a guy's head lowering during the natural course of a play
I don't think guys diving forward counts in that regard ... or on the goal line plays Rusty referenced
maybe I'm the one who will be wrong and the zebras will go nuts in the wrong direction with this, but I certainly hope not
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
George Carlin
Yeah. Maybe I am wrong. I certainly hope so.Boris13c wrote:Richie wrote:I think you underestimate the amount of times this happens in a game. Very often it cannot be helped. Most times when a RB lowers himself to break a tackle, the head goes down. It's natural.Atkins&Rebel wrote:Nope. Lowering you head means that you're looking at the ground. You can bend 90 degrees and still look up, even with a helmet on. This rule will only impact those who are trying to lead with the crown of their helmet.
but I don't think this rule clarification is meant for that ... I believe it is meant for those lowering their head intentionally to deliver a blow with the crown of the helmet which is not the same as a guy's head lowering during the natural course of a play
I don't think guys diving forward counts in that regard ... or on the goal line plays Rusty referenced
maybe I'm the one who will be wrong and the zebras will go nuts in the wrong direction with this, but I certainly hope not
If I could go back - I wouldn't make such a hyperbolic title. lol. Sorry... I just love this league and I get worried sometimes.
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6806
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 384 times
- Been thanked: 688 times
UOK wrote:but I don't want the NFL to devolve into a reckless game where every year or two a few guys drop dead on the field because it's a "man's game,"
You think this is what's going to happen, if a new rule wasn't made to cover situations that have been occurring constantly for 100 yrs (60 with helmets) and hasn't been resulting in any tackling deaths?
I don't have time to do the leg work, but I'd like to see a couple random games worth of tackles and see how many times someone lowers their head while tackling. I'm going to set the over/under at 15 per game.
If this rule is enforced as written, Super Colossal Train Wreck.
Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8.
Here it is, in its entirety: “It is a foul if a player lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent.
“Penalty: Loss of 15 yards. If the foul is by the defense, it is also an automatic first down. The player may be disqualified.”
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
- mmmc_35
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6113
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:25 am
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 98 times
What sucks about this rule is it takes natural reaction and penalizes it.
Even with a helmet off your natural reaction is to tuck your chin and slump your shoulders forward when expecting to be hit. Its a self defense mechanism to protect your brain and neck.
Boxers tuck their chin. A study in combat showed on patrol when enemy fire hit close, soldiers tucked there chins, pushed shoulders forward, bent knees, pushed hands out.
Its kind of built into our DNA. Helmets are the actual problem.
Even with a helmet off your natural reaction is to tuck your chin and slump your shoulders forward when expecting to be hit. Its a self defense mechanism to protect your brain and neck.
Boxers tuck their chin. A study in combat showed on patrol when enemy fire hit close, soldiers tucked there chins, pushed shoulders forward, bent knees, pushed hands out.
Its kind of built into our DNA. Helmets are the actual problem.
- The Marshall Plan
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8411
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
- Location: Parts Unknown
- Has thanked: 909 times
- Been thanked: 1277 times
I think that if people are going to get paid millions of dollars to play a violent game and effectively really work for only ten years out of their lives then they need to accept the risks that come with that.
Playing professional football causes CTE and all other sorts of physical and mental ailments. OK fine, reform the game within reason, but if they don't like it they can always retire or don't get into the game in the first place. Play another sport.
What exactly did these people think would happen if they use their head as a battering ram for ten years?
Go ahead and make rules that try to make the game safer, but at the same time don't give people like Aaron Rodgers an even bigger unfair competitive advantage by taking the risk of him getting clobbered away.
Playing professional football causes CTE and all other sorts of physical and mental ailments. OK fine, reform the game within reason, but if they don't like it they can always retire or don't get into the game in the first place. Play another sport.
What exactly did these people think would happen if they use their head as a battering ram for ten years?
Go ahead and make rules that try to make the game safer, but at the same time don't give people like Aaron Rodgers an even bigger unfair competitive advantage by taking the risk of him getting clobbered away.
- southdakbearfan
- Head Coach
- Posts: 4600
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:23 pm
- Location: South Dakota
- Has thanked: 763 times
- Been thanked: 328 times
I think it will be ok. It is to make them shoulder tackle vs use the helmet as a weapon tackle.
It's both a CYA by the league and a future of the game issue.
It's both a CYA by the league and a future of the game issue.
- malk
- Head Coach
- Posts: 3625
- Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
- Has thanked: 133 times
- Been thanked: 204 times
I don't think those are comparable situations. In combat sports, and presumably military situations, there's more opportunity for surprise. I can't think of a situation in football where you'd flinch into this defensive post? Or at least it'd be rare enough that it won't be a problem. I mean, if an offensive player flinches and lowers their head before getting creamed, I don't see them getting penalised or ejected. I hope.mmmc_35 wrote:What sucks about this rule is it takes natural reaction and penalizes it.
Even with a helmet off your natural reaction is to tuck your chin and slump your shoulders forward when expecting to be hit. Its a self defense mechanism to protect your brain and neck.
Boxers tuck their chin. A study in combat showed on patrol when enemy fire hit close, soldiers tucked there chins, pushed shoulders forward, bent knees, pushed hands out.
Its kind of built into our DNA. Helmets are the actual problem.
Overall it is down to the coaches. I hate tackles with a lowered head, it's bad form, more likely to miss, and no more likely to be a big hit. Head up, arms ready, drive with the shoulder and snap them in half. You can roll your shoulder a little for a bit of extra oomph if necessary but this 35 year old thinks that's courting injury.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".
Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.
(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.
(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
- LacertineForest
- MVP
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:39 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Has thanked: 1751 times
- Been thanked: 323 times
Lowering your head in anticipation of receiving a hit doesn't sound like initiating contact to me. My understanding is this rule is aimed at the aggressor, not the player on the receiving end.
- southdakbearfan
- Head Coach
- Posts: 4600
- Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:23 pm
- Location: South Dakota
- Has thanked: 763 times
- Been thanked: 328 times
Knowing the NFL, they will mess this up. It has potential to both help and hurt, depending how it is applied.
- mmmc_35
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6113
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:25 am
- Has thanked: 105 times
- Been thanked: 98 times
I don't think of it as a flinch as much as a reaction. Like your about to hit a tree. Your pulling your chin in and rolling your shoulders forward. Like hot stove plus hand equals pull hand off and help.malk wrote:
I don't think those are comparable situations. In combat sports, and presumably military situations, there's more opportunity for surprise. I can't think of a situation in football where you'd flinch into this defensive post? Or at least it'd be rare enough that it won't be a problem. I mean, if an offensive player flinches and lowers their head before getting creamed, I don't see them getting penalised or ejected. I hope.
You and Malk maybe correct. But a runners reaction to a monster about to tackle him is the same in my opinion as by post before. Now is that initiating contact? I guess we will see.BearButtseks wrote:Lowering your head in anticipation of receiving a hit doesn't sound like initiating contact to me. My understanding is this rule is aimed at the aggressor, not the player on the receiving end.
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6806
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 384 times
- Been thanked: 688 times
I don't think so.BearButtseks wrote:Lowering your head in anticipation of receiving a hit doesn't sound like initiating contact to me. My understanding is this rule is aimed at the aggressor, not the player on the receiving end.
The way it's written, it clearly applies to any contact initiation, both offensive players and defensive players.
http://www.bearsfansonline.com/forum/vi ... 07#p200007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If a ballcarrier running forward, lowering their head before the collision occurs isn't something they intend to be called, what offensive situation would be?
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
- Moriarty
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 6806
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
- Has thanked: 384 times
- Been thanked: 688 times
Interestingly, the gif from G08's sig is an example of where this rule would apply (to the defender, not talking offense this time).
http://www.bearsfansonline.com/forum/me ... ofile&u=59" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Unquestionably lowered head and initial contact with head.
15 yards, automatic first, possible ejection.
Was that hit cheap? dirty? Something that needs regulation?
No, no, and no.
http://www.bearsfansonline.com/forum/me ... ofile&u=59" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Unquestionably lowered head and initial contact with head.
15 yards, automatic first, possible ejection.
Was that hit cheap? dirty? Something that needs regulation?
No, no, and no.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)
Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
- Rusty Trombagent
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 7336
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
- Location: Maine!
- Has thanked: 555 times
- Been thanked: 967 times
Moriarty wrote:I don't think so.BearButtseks wrote:Lowering your head in anticipation of receiving a hit doesn't sound like initiating contact to me. My understanding is this rule is aimed at the aggressor, not the player on the receiving end.
The way it's written, it clearly applies to any contact initiation, both offensive players and defensive players.
http://www.bearsfansonline.com/forum/vi ... 07#p200007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If a ballcarrier running forward, lowering their head before the collision occurs isn't something they intend to be called, what offensive situation would be?
Yeah, I dont know how you can square this circle with short yardage dives and QB sneaks.
I am always 100% for player safety but the concern here is how the NFL, who has such a broad history of fucking these things up, is going to fuck it up.
- LacertineForest
- MVP
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:39 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Has thanked: 1751 times
- Been thanked: 323 times
The way I see it is that a QB sneak is lowering the head while running forward, but it's kind of aimless (going for a gap and yardage, not trying to actually initiate contact with anyone). A RB lowering his head, bracing before impact coming at him is protecting himself. However, a RB who sees a defender and lowers his head forward into that player would be violating the rule. I think the most practical application of the rule is when you have sort of 1 on 1 situations where a guy clearly uses his head to initiate contact with another player. If they do get into the muck of trying to call things like QB sneaks, then I agree this rule will cause a lot of problems.
- LacertineForest
- MVP
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:39 pm
- Location: Madison, WI
- Has thanked: 1751 times
- Been thanked: 323 times
While it seems that this is a subject that's been pretty well-discussed, there has been some new information about how the rule applies within the trenches as well as the open field. Considering it's a slow time of year, I'll resurrect for further discussion.
What prompted this is that PFT has been writing some really stupid shit in their articles lately:
Say farewell to the three-point stance
How much will the new helmet rule change football?
In the first one, regarding the three-point stance, I'm not sure where to begin. Anyone who has ever played offensive line should understand that the proper way to come out of a three-point stance is to immediately engage with your hands. At guard and center, I was always taught to immediately bring the hands up and get inside the shoulder pads of the defender, along with a hip thrust to bring power and move the defender. Even 20 years ago or however long it's been since I started pee-wee football (damn do I feel old now), we were always taught to keep our heads up - not slam the crown of the helmet into the defender.
The question about how much the rule changes football is a fair one, and one I am interested in finding out. I personally don't think a lot will change. However, in the article, they raise the question about the helmet rule impacting the running game to the point where the NFL becomes a glorified 7 on 7 league. Again, thinking back to my days of being a low-level football player, there were very few times I can recall helmet to helmet cracks where lineman were using the crown to initiate contact. The bad helmet-to-helmet hits I remember came on kickoffs, which I remember several times where I would "black out" for a split second after a hit.
What prompted this is that PFT has been writing some really stupid shit in their articles lately:
Say farewell to the three-point stance
How much will the new helmet rule change football?
In the first one, regarding the three-point stance, I'm not sure where to begin. Anyone who has ever played offensive line should understand that the proper way to come out of a three-point stance is to immediately engage with your hands. At guard and center, I was always taught to immediately bring the hands up and get inside the shoulder pads of the defender, along with a hip thrust to bring power and move the defender. Even 20 years ago or however long it's been since I started pee-wee football (damn do I feel old now), we were always taught to keep our heads up - not slam the crown of the helmet into the defender.
The question about how much the rule changes football is a fair one, and one I am interested in finding out. I personally don't think a lot will change. However, in the article, they raise the question about the helmet rule impacting the running game to the point where the NFL becomes a glorified 7 on 7 league. Again, thinking back to my days of being a low-level football player, there were very few times I can recall helmet to helmet cracks where lineman were using the crown to initiate contact. The bad helmet-to-helmet hits I remember came on kickoffs, which I remember several times where I would "black out" for a split second after a hit.