The New NFL Helmet Rule Is Strictly Enforced
I guess it’s time we discuss this thing now! Nobody likes the new NFL helmet rule. Do you? Of course you don’t. It’s case file #3957 of the NFL screwing it up.
(As a quick aside, I find it interesting how we talk about the NFL now compared to roughly a decade ago. The Ray Rice fiasco, the anthem stuff, deflategate, the teams moving to LA…we used to think the NFL was evil but competent. Now we don’t. If there is anything signifying that we saw peak football and are watching the beginning of the decline, it’s conversations like this – about how the NFL just screwed it up again)
I like the new helmet targeting rule in theory. The spirit behind the rule is good. First off, we should call this rule what it is: The Ryan Shazier rule. Ryan Shazier almost paralyzed himself on the field and it was horrible and nobody wants to see that again, even if the probability is low. But thanks to decades of glorifying big hits and such, the game needs to pull back on the violence a bit and try to actually encourage good tackling. Tackling has gone down the tubes in the age of instant replay. Tacking doesn’t get you paid. Hits do, but hits are bad for you and the opponent. This is a rule change that needs to happen. This is a change the NFL needs to make in order to survive down the road.
So of course they’d write a vague, garbage rule that has no chance of being enforced right.
Let’s be real. This rule is being over-enforced right now to try and set a precedent before it means anything. I do not expect this rule to get called basically ever during a game unless we see a really violent hit, which we already see calls for when it happens. This rule will get called a few times to help the Patriots (probably against the Ravens so that Harbaugh can complain some more) and it will directly cost the Lions a game against the Packers. That’ll be about it. Remember when they made a rule about RBs lowering their helmets during open field runs? Remember how mad people got? Remember how often that rule is called? It never is. If they call this rule as frequently as they are doing right now in preseason we’ll have a riot, because the rule is terribly written and poorly defined.
There’s no way this rule can be enforced well. With the speed that tackles happen, sometimes things just look illegal when they aren’t. Sometimes they are and don’t get called. Refs have a hard enough job as it is, but now they have to make split second decisions based on physics. You can look at roughly 40% of pass interference calls or like 60% of roughing the passer calls to see evidence of how hard it is to actually call it right. So many roughing the passer calls are just a defender being unable to defy physics and stop in mid-air, and it is infuriating when it happens. This rule is basically roughing the passer on every defender in the open field. If a defender so much as lowers just a bit, there is a pretty good chance it’ll look slightly illegal because the line between legal and not is too narrow to observe at that speed with quality accuracy.
I’m not a “MAY AS WELL PUT ‘EM IN DRESSES” guy but this rule is crap and has a chance to become a major issue if strictly enforced. Flags are bad and nobody likes them. Reducing the flags and simplifying rules needs to be a priority to making the sport watchable again. Every good play ends with me looking for a flag before I celebrate now. Every bad play ends with me hoping for a BS flag in our favor. It’s a trash way to watch a sport.
I’m sure if we’re unlucky the NFL will enforce a “looking funny at the ref funny rule” any player seen giving a weird look too the referee will be ejected and suspended 8 games
The reaction to this rule is ludicrous. No other contact sport needs a “dont hit your opponent with your head” rule because they don’t have bloody helmets. No reason nfl players cant adjust and also not hit opponents with their head – unless the helmet and shoulderpads are so bulky that you can’t actually tackle without also contacting with the head. But the rule itself is fine. Players need to adjust.
Personally Id just want to take away helmets and pads and let the concussion issue sort itself out as hitting people with your head becomes unviable (not to say rugby doesn’t have concussion related issues, but they’re WAY less significant than those in the nfl)
i cant find long-term stats going back to the days of leather helmets so my counterpoint is going to be hand-wavy at best
but my understanding is that helmets are there for incidental contact, because good luck not getting your head knocked around if youre on the line
also the comparison to rugby isnt fair because theres not much in the way of “wind-up” in rugby–the players are basically always grouped around one another so two huge dudes slamming into each other moving at high speed in opposite directions doesnt happen nearly as often
Look up rugby league biggest hits and you might be surprised.
In fact Ill do it for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNFPoi4WAjw&feature=share
Note that about 50% of these are illegal or borderline illegal – contact with head/neck of a ball carrier with your shoulder/arm as a tackler is a penalty. But when you have players line up 15m away from eachother and basically just charge at eachother – theres a lot of impact.
And if you look at rugby union, the ruck is very similiar to being on the line in American football. Again rugby players dont need helmets to avoid clashing heads all the time – though head clashes do happen – line players would just need to realise they actually need to be aware of where their head is when they play unlike currently…
fair enough i stand corrected
admittedly theres a connection between the presence/absence of a helmet and how much effort you consciously/unconsciously devote to avoiding head collisions
dont know the answer my leaning would be helmets > no helmets for the same reason as biking with a helmet vs without: better to have it and not need it
Football is not a contact sport. Basketball and rugby are contact sports. American football is a COLLISION sport.
You know, what? This whole problem would be solved if the helmet had a soft layer on the outside. The whole reason people lead with their helmet is because it’s a hard surface. This would’ve saved that crown of the helmet running back rule too. Apparently would also reduce the chance of serious concussion, as a company has already tried to manufacture and sell these but so far only a punter is using one. The players know about them but they look silly so they don’t use them.
Sure the rule is hard to enforce and has some dumb elements, but I’m hopeful it might encourage better tackling which is a good thing. Marcus “the whiffer” Williams would have never whiffed if he hadn’t been leading with his helmet (don’t diss me on this I really like Marcus and don’t blame him for that play as much as I blame the play calling).
it wouldnt be solved–simple physics dictates that inertia of the brain suspended in csf is still going to slam into the inner skull in the absence of a “crumple bumper”, like those on cars. you need an inelastic collision to essentially absorb the shock of contact so it isnt transferred to the skull and brain
an outside soft layer would help but wouldnt outright solve the problem unless one of two things happens
1, the outside layer is like four feet thick
2, we make some crazy quantum leap in material science where an extremely thin material can act like black panther’s vibranium suit and wholly absorb kinetic energy (i am not a physicist but im pretty sure that violates a few laws)
need that equal and opposing reaction to go somewhere unfortunately
The goal of the soft outer layer is to discourage players from leading with their helmet. Based on the studies performed on it, it also reduces the number of major concussions.
hate to be that guy but would love to see one of those studies
only one i could find was this http://thejns.org/doi/abs/10.3171/2018.1.JNS172733 and its focus was exclusively on force reduction at impact. which is certainly important but first i have no broader context but a 5-10 percent reduction in linear force doesnt seem like much when the absolute forces applied are pretty massive, and second the authors draw no conclusions at all about reduction in concussions
also the senior author is a consultant for the titans and the nfl sooooooooo
RIP untied shoes man
I haven’t watched any preseason yet, but I assume that’s the accurate hand gesture from the official for that penalty.
So what I’ve been hearing (granted, from commentators, so take it with the requisite mountain of salt it calls for) is that they’re deliberately over-enforcing in the preseason so that they have everything that might be considered an infraction highlighted on tape, so they can then take a look at all the instances of the foul being called to decide where they actually want to draw the line for practical purposes.
I hope that’s what they’re doing, because the rule is well-intentioned and I want to see it do what it’s meant to do, but it’s going to be a ridiculous failure if they enforce it even half as often in the regular season as they’re doing now.
Of course, we’re also hearing the usual round of complaints from the True Manly Men (TM) who screech inarticulately every time someone even *thinks* “hey, maybe we should alter the rules of this game to prevent some of the more egregious injuries that happen, if for no other reason than that people will still be willing to play it.”
I completely agree Dave. I’ve found over the last couple years I’m looking for a flag after every play where something happens. There are way too many vague rules. The whole rulebook needs to be simplified while still keeping egregious hits illegal. We just don’t need 20 specific and vague rules all preventing egregious hits.
“Every good play ends with me looking for a flag before I celebrate now. Every bad play ends with me hoping for a BS flag in our favor. It’s a trash way to watch a sport.”
THIS! It ruins the flow of the game. Anytime something cool happens, there’s enough of a chance of reffuckery that I’m actually kind of surprised when a team completes a drive without it.
The real reason why we have so many hard hits, so many injuries, so many people doping, and so many dumb, honestly unnecessary rules is because instead of just playing HONEST football, almost every player and every team out there does everything they can to get as close the line as possible without going over. They don’t want to be dirty or to be cheaters, they just want to be in that gray area so they can stay competitive.
One of my all time favorite players is Jerry Rice, and to hear that even he took shortcuts was an absolute shock to me. Essentially, the whole helmet thing, that’s what I think it is. When tackling, leading with the helmet leads to a bigger hit and bigger impact, which can result in 1) a more highlight worthy play and 2) a more effective stop. Who cares if injuries happen or what the long term reprecussions may be. As a runner, leading with the helmet could provide something akin to an extra block providing a few possible extra yards. Personally, I believe it’s something players are taught and coached to do by someone at some point in their career.
Sadly, football is and always has been a barbarians sport. Thanks to medicinal and technological advances, athletes are bigger, stronger, and faster than they have ever been. Which means the the results of the physical violence of the sport will only get worse. There is no way to balance safety in the game and keep it fun with some sort of compromise.
The Cardinal should have been Fitzgerald for the extra hilarity.
One of the many reasons the college game is better. There’s still plenty of corruption and incompetence, but the game isn’t as compromised by mysterious rules slowing it down.
Come join us and watch the NBA instead.
They should just have replays/challenges for penalties so when the refs make a bad call they can review the tape and pull it back. That’s the only bad part about this new rule: preventing the players from destroying each other’s or their own brains is not just good, but an absolute necessity for the sport to have a future.
If they reviewed penalties the game would last 5 hours.
nah, the coaches would still have to use their challenge flags, so it’d be the same number of reviews as usual. But it would give the refs the chance to actually correct their mistakes, which would go a long way to making the game more fair and give hard-hitting defenders in particular the ability to tackle safely & well with confidence.
To show just how insanely vague and inconsistent this rule is, the Eagles’ players *specifically* played the Malcolm Jenkins hit in the SB to the visiting rules crew. They then asked if it would be a penalty or not. The rules people actually couldn’t decide one way or the other.
“Every good play ends with me looking for a flag before I celebrate now”, the truest statement on modern football
Could be worse, what if they create a rule that forbids defenders from using more than one third of their full strength?
Really, if the NFL wants to reduce injuries due to big hits, they need to de-weaponize the players. Players won’t lead with the head if they aren’t wearing a helmet.
Sure, no helmets is a little extreme, but there must be some kind of common sense middle ground. The solution is not to protect the players with more rules and more equipment. It’s about forcing the players to protect themselves.
While we’re at it, let’s start overtime with a runner on second base.
i dunno if it’s a mistake or if you’re being brilliant, but calling extra innings “overtime” triggers me!
‘Tacking doesn’t get you paid’
But nailing does…