| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Silver&Black88
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 24644
Location: Rochester, NY
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| The Third Rider wrote: | | I don't know, I kind of like the old tuck rule.... |
YOU SHUT YOUR FACE!
 
_________________
| husker_vikes3 wrote: | | What do you season your meatballs and sausage with? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
popie70
Joined: 18 Dec 2010
Posts: 983
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| tylerdouglass wrote: | | detfan782004 wrote: | | Most of them seem legit. Not sure about the snapper being defenseless player |
Agreed. I had to  at that one.
Love the tuck rule one.
Also, INB4 "Goodell is ruining the NFL" argument starts. |
Why do you role your eyes at that one? The guy is in a worse position than a center and has to have his head between his legs. By the time he snaps the ball and gets his head up he is being run over by a guy who gets a nice head start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrDrew
Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 14525
Location: Evil League of Evil
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| tylerdouglass wrote: | | detfan782004 wrote: | | Most of them seem legit. Not sure about the snapper being defenseless player |
Agreed. I had to at that one. |
Ever been a long snapper? After getting the ball back to a holder, there's no way to get your head up before getting hit. The DL is going the instant the ball moves, and you still have to get the ball back, and then get your hands up.
It's a good move for player safety.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steelcurtain29
Joined: 04 Oct 2007
Posts: 32627
Location: Monongahela, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Yeah, I have to say I agree with the Long Snapper one. Would imagine it's hard to defend yourself in that situation.
Still hating these rules with helmet hits. Many of them are not possible to avoid. I can't understand why there are so many rule changes with helmets, yet we're seeing no change to the helmets these players wear. It's mind-boggling.
_________________
Come Follow My Oakland Multi-Sport Franchise! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justo
Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 9085
Location: Hood River, Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| steelcurtain29 wrote: | | Still hating these rules with helmet hits. Many of them are not possible to avoid. I can't understand why there are so many rule changes with helmets, yet we're seeing no change to the helmets these players wear. It's mind-boggling. |
We can avoid more if we change the mentality of the players. Do that through penalties, fines, and suspensions.
What do we change the helmets to?
_________________
on Tretter:
| McThreadski wrote: | | I would just cut him. What is the point of keeping him? We took a flyer on him anyway and he has an Ivy League education. Just let the guy live his life |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steelcurtain29
Joined: 04 Oct 2007
Posts: 32627
Location: Monongahela, PA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| justo wrote: | | steelcurtain29 wrote: | | Still hating these rules with helmet hits. Many of them are not possible to avoid. I can't understand why there are so many rule changes with helmets, yet we're seeing no change to the helmets these players wear. It's mind-boggling. |
We can avoid more if we change the mentality of the players. Do that through penalties, fines, and suspensions.
What do we change the helmets to? |
More padding? Especially around the temple area. From what I've seen; it's pretty thin there.
And no, you can't just change. There are moments in time where sometimes you just can't avoid accidents that can occur helmet-to-helmet. However, designing a safer helmet can do that.
Professional hockey leagues have done this; why can't the NFL?
_________________
Come Follow My Oakland Multi-Sport Franchise! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Typical_Lions
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 1470
Location: Carpathia
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| steelcurtain29 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | steelcurtain29 wrote: | | Still hating these rules with helmet hits. Many of them are not possible to avoid. I can't understand why there are so many rule changes with helmets, yet we're seeing no change to the helmets these players wear. It's mind-boggling. |
We can avoid more if we change the mentality of the players. Do that through penalties, fines, and suspensions.
What do we change the helmets to? |
More padding? Especially around the temple area. From what I've seen; it's pretty thin there.
And no, you can't just change. There are moments in time where sometimes you just can't avoid accidents that can occur helmet-to-helmet. However, designing a safer helmet can do that.
Professional hockey leagues have done this; why can't the NFL? |
Isn't there already a safer helmet available to use but most players do not use it for whatever reason? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IDOG_det
Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 11733
Location: here
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:46 pm Post subject: Re: Competition Committee propsing 6 rule changes |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | First proposal: The red-flag rule would be revised. No-brainer. |
Obvious change needed
| Quote: | | Instant replay proposal: Ruling of incomplete pass would be reviewable through a fumble. |
I guess this would be good.
| Quote: | | Safety proposal from Competition Committee: Changes to PAT and field goal to reduce injuries in line. Snapper becomes defenseless player. |
Sure, why not. I mean, I haven't seen any LS get injured because of this, but I guess it could happen.
| Quote: | | New tuck rule would result in a fumble if the quarterback is in the process of moving the ball back to his body after pump. |
Should be passed, and would be a good change.
| Quote: | | Competition Committee proposes allowing tight ends to wear numbers 40-49. |
Whatever, some already do it.
| Quote: | | Competition Committee proposes complete ban on peel back blocks, even inside tackle box. |
Eh, whatever.
| Quote: | | Competition Committee proposes preventing players to use helmet outside of tackle box. No forcible blow with top of helmet. |
Hate it. Gets rid of any kind of power running, and makes the defenses job even more humanly impossible. I know it's for safety, but this would really change the game IMO (for the worse).
_________________
Kate Upton for sexy President!!!
Travi$ Scott is better than you
^^^^Kempes on the sig^^^^
"The original Ezekiel Ansah fan" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
-Hope-
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 16088
Location: The []_[]
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| steelcurtain29 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | steelcurtain29 wrote: | | Still hating these rules with helmet hits. Many of them are not possible to avoid. I can't understand why there are so many rule changes with helmets, yet we're seeing no change to the helmets these players wear. It's mind-boggling. |
We can avoid more if we change the mentality of the players. Do that through penalties, fines, and suspensions.
What do we change the helmets to? |
More padding? Especially around the temple area. From what I've seen; it's pretty thin there.
And no, you can't just change. There are moments in time where sometimes you just can't avoid accidents that can occur helmet-to-helmet. However, designing a safer helmet can do that.
Professional hockey leagues have done this; why can't the NFL? |
Simply adding more padding won't do much, if anything, to prevent concussions.
_________________
Sig by Kempes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Malik
Joined: 18 Dec 2011
Posts: 2822
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| There is no helmet safe enough to prevent concussions. You're getting hit in the head by some of the fastest and most physical human beings on earth, there are going to be concussions. Changing how people are allowed to tackle will reduce concussions far more than better helmets. Shame that there's an entire generation of football fans from High School to the NFL who never learned how to tackle outside of stick hit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LuckIsGOAT
Joined: 27 Feb 2013
Posts: 774
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
If the LS is "defenseless" then he should be ineligible to block also
_________________
Giants
Stanford
Colts
Trailblazers
Canucks
Luck & RG3 fan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lionslicer
Joined: 06 Nov 2010
Posts: 1758
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| tylerdouglass wrote: | | Abe56 wrote: | Dallas Clark has been #44 his whole career  |
I don't know when those rules changed, I have no idea. Is it possible he was grandfathered in?
Or is it possible that his paperwork with the NFL has him listed as a FB?
Also, if 80-89 are all taken, TEs can go down to 40-49 |
He can't be grandfathered in because tightends weren't allowed to wear 40-49 until the rule about 80-89 being taken.
I believe if a tight end originally gets 40-49 number on a team that 80-89 was taken, he is permitted to keep that number because that's how fans know him.
_________________
Kickers are people too |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HDsportsfan
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4148
Location: Between Richmond VA. and D.C.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| LuckIsGOAT wrote: | | If the LS is "defenseless" then he should be ineligible to block also |
Yeah that will work well. It's a good rule change. I was a long snapper. Easily get your head rocked back. As mentioned previously, cant remember the last time i recall a LS getting injured, but still a decent rule change.
_________________
I'm a Dallas Fan.
Always smell it first.
Last edited by HDsportsfan on Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:03 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JammerHammer21
Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Posts: 18068
Location: Anywhere
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| HDsportsfan wrote: | | LuckIsGOAT wrote: | | If the LS is "defenseless" then he should be ineligible to block also |
Yeah that will work well. It's a good rule change. I was a long snapper. Easily get your head rocled back. As mentioned previously, cant remember the last time i recall a LS getting injured, but still a decent rule change. |
Redskins LS broke his forearm last year. Raiders got hurt. It was marvelous.
_________________
| Bohlmann20 (On The 95 Cleveland Browns Staff) wrote: | | Lombardi - Isn't that the guy the trophy is named after? If so, top 3 coach of all time. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theJ
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 15889
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Superman(DH23) wrote: | | simonwayne wrote: | | theJ wrote: | | Typical_Lions wrote: | | simonwayne wrote: | | No peel back blocks? What are you supposed to do then, when the situation calls for it? |
Just have to block up above the waist |
When i read it, i was thinking it referred to any block that occurred the behind the play. Like when a WR is comes from the middle of the field to block some poor LB who's 15 yards behind the play and completely lays him out (ala the Hines Ward on Keith Rivers block). |
Yeah, that's what I first thought as well. If It's just above the waist then that's reasonable. They are asking a lot from these players though, to have to do every play at full game speed. |
A hit like this cost Lance Louis millions of dollars. |
There are tons more examples too. Most of the time on plays like that, the player being blocked is well behind the play, and the hitter just wants to hit someone. I'm all for hard hits in football, but only when they're relevant to the play. So i'm for this rule.
_________________
“Never let your persistence and passion turn into stubbornness and ignorance.”
~ Anthony J. D'Angelo
Why do fans care about fines? It's not their money, and it goes to charity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
