NFL rule changes: tuck rule eliminated; leading with head prohibited

[QuantumMechanic]

Still haven't seen the actual text of the rule yet, but I did find this on NFL.com:

The new rule will draw a 15-yard penalty if a runner or a tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players clearly are outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle-to-tackle and from three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or a tackler against an opponent would not be deemed a foul.

 

[signbabybrady]

I am very good when it comes to the rules and I think I am a good biased judge of the rules too as with anything I am good at seeing things from all perspectives and often will take a devils advocate stance just for the sake of it.

Tuck Rule:

My opinion has always remained the same on this. The Brady call was the right call by the letter of the law. And if your goal is to make the rule black and white this rule makes sense. However I feel that the refs are more than qualified to use judgement in these cases and do not need a a clear line of demarcation to determine if it was still a pass or if he infact pump faked.

Basically I would perfer human error to a simpler but in certain cases clearly not right black and white definition.

Using the Brady play as an example. Clearly the nose of the ball was pointing down just prior to contact from the defender and if he was still throwing it would have been straight down and intential grounding. However because the line of demarcation was the ball needed to be tucked away this was the right call even though the whole world knows he was no longer trying to throw. So by taking the judgement out it is easier for the refs to make a call but doesnt neccessarily mean the proper outcome was applied.

On the flip side if you make it judgement you might lose a little consistancey as not every ref will judge things the same but you wont have such a clear fumble called a imcompletion due to some assinine line of demarcation in the rule it will be due to human error at the moment.

Problem here and I will need to see how the new rule is written is it seems like the NFL wants to have its cake and eat it too. Everything that I have seen so far does not have this rule changing to judgement but rather staying the same black and white rule just removing the part about the ball needing to be completely tucked. Which to me means they still want it black and white just they are changing the line of demarcation to some unknown spot in a throwing motion.

Lowering your Helmet:
At first glance the rule to stop ball carriers from lowering their head seemed aweful to me. But after hearing how it should be be implied I am perfectly fine with the rule and really only think it will be called 10-20 times through out the year through out the league.

Let me say this too and I will sound like a jerk for it but I dont really care about player safety and I am not clamoring for these changes that obviously soften the game. But player safety is a top issue in the NFL right now and under the assumption that are going to do what is neccessary to protect the players I think this one makes perfect sense. I think it will put some stress on the officials to call it in some instances like when a player was in the tackle box and is just coming out to the second level he may still be low and smack a DB in space and its not intentional opposed to already being in open space and lowering your helmet but we need to see how this is written up to really get to the nitty gritty. I see it has the inverse of the defenseless player in that once the receiver is heading up field he is not defenseless A player in the tackle box knows the runner will get low or is already low where is in open space the runner does it in an instance with the defender having no chance to defend themselves.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Florio quoting McKay:

Rich McKay says NFL studied Week 10 and Week 16 from 2012; there would have been 11 flags under the new helmet rule during those two weeks.

 

[signbabybrady]

This might sound like a crazy idea and might make you question my previous statement about being knowlidgable with the current rules. It needs way more thought still but I think something drastic needs to be done regarding player safety penalties.

The sport is meant a physical sport and I think it is unfair to the players, refs, and the sport itself to punish the whole team for player safety rules. Instead I think these things should be spot fouls and that the player should be put in a penalty box for a determined amount of time. 2:00 minutes like hockey comes to mind but maybe its a set number of plays or something else.

So the idea being that the play will stand pretty much as is but the player will be removed from action.
So lets say AP breaks off a 40 yard run and then lowers his head on a safety knocking him down and then runs another 5 yards into the endzone. Well in this case the ball would spotted at the point of contact and the play stands however AP will be put in the box.
this should apply to defense as well. Safety nails a defenselss receiver the play stands but the player will be taken off the field.

This alone would seem to be a small penalty and might not deter people from taking these actions. But you can then use time in the penalty box on a tiered system as a way of punishing the players for their action. I think players would like this because it would mean that there doesnt have to be 25,000 dollar fine for every hit to the head. The number instead could be small but grows with every 10 min or so of penalty time so that we are only truly taking money from the repeat offenders. Suspensions could also be handed out on a tiered system too.

The reason for doing all this is so that the fans dont have to be as frustrated by the ****ification of the game and so that team and outcome of the game is not effected.

 

[signbabybrady]

Florio quoting McKay:

Wow I am surprised that number is so high.

But I think it will be a real easy thing for the players not to do and knowing its illegal I think would bring that number down closer to zero than what would have been.

 

[jmt57]

The new helmet-use rule is not reviewable by replay, according to NFL V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino. It's a judgment call.

 

[PatsDeb]

Phew! Good thing we won while the winning was good! Seriously, I cannot believe the league got rid of the tuck rule. Tweaking it may have been in order, but now a bunch of teams are going to end up with fumbles called instead of incomplete passes. That's what they want? For revenge against the Pats in a game over 10 years ago? Dummies. Good for Kraft for abstaining. He probably wanted to vote to keep it, but he'd get hammered if he did.

 

[everlong]

The funny thing about the tuck rule being eliminated is at some point this year a ball is going to get knocked loose and it's going to be very borderline as to if the QB was bring it down or attempting a pass and the controversy will be fun to watch. I can only hope the ruling on the field is a fumble and the QB is wearing silver and black.

The Raiders official twitter account posted "Adios tuck rule". Gone but never forgotten just like the roughing the passer against Sugar Bear you makeup wearing frauds. It took 25 years for revenge so I love the tuck rule being brought up so I can laugh at them. At least they "got screwed" by a correct call.

The NFL should have modified the rule to something like once the quarterbacks hand goes below being parallel with his shoulder its a fumble. As it is there's a bad call waiting to happen.

 

[TulanePats]

From a PR standpoint abstaining was the best move for the Pats.

If they voted to remove it, it would be seen as admitting we didn't deserve to win the game in 01.

If they voted to keep it, then it would be interpreted as upholding the rule only because we benefited from it.

Catch 22. Based on the voting results it wouldn't have mattered which side the Pats came down on anyway.

 

[captain stone]

Because running backs lean forward running all the time. How is a ref going to tell in every instance if he's leading with his shoulder into a defender or his head, especially when the defender is moving as well? I don't see how this is going to be enforced unless the runner obviously uses his head as a bettering ram, which you rarely see.

One need only play the tape of Mike Tolbert, SD @ NE, 09/18/2011.

Edit: And while they're at it, the league needs to start penalizing offensive players who stiff-arm
defenders on the helmet, especially the facemask. If Hands To The Face is good for the goose,
it should be good for the gander too.

 

[signbabybrady]

The funny thing about the tuck rule being eliminated is at some point this year a ball is going to get knocked loose and it's going to be very borderline as to if the QB was bring it down or attempting a pass and the controversy will be fun to watch. I can only hope the ruling on the field is a fumble and the QB is wearing silver and black.

Forget that. That way it would just cause angst on the silver and black. Better than that. Lets recover a fumble in the playoffs that help us win that would have previously been incomplete. This way the whole sports world would explode not just Raider Nation.

The NFL should have modified the rule to something like once the quarterbacks hand goes below being parallel with his shoulder its a fumble. As it is there's a bad call waiting to happen.

I think we need to find somewhere how it is truly written now because we each have a different take on the new rule right now. You seem to think that it is now a complete judgement call where I think there is a new line of demarcation I just dont know what it is defined as yet if at all and until you threw out an idea I has no idea how it would be defined. But to be honest I think what you propose makes some sense rather than the ball needing to be tucked it should have to cross some parrallel whether that be the shoulder or the top of the numbers or something like that. %90 or less makes some sense too.

 

[ralmat55]

Is it just me or does the Competition Committee sound like one of those corrupt cabals one would normally associate with the old USSR. Boy is that committee powerful, and they seem to have their paws in every aspect of the NFL. Given its power, committee members should have term limits.

I love how Rich Mckay says there would have been only 11 "helmet" penalties last year. Of course, that's after a review of film, and not having to call the penalty on the fly as game officials will actually have to do. I can't wait until the first time some RB trying to get into the endzone is flagged and first and goal at the one turns into 1st and goal at the 16.

Refs really don't have a chance. As I've said before, personal foul penalties should be like penalties incurred on kick and punt returns where the yardage is marked off but down and distance aren't effected.

 

[signbabybrady]

One need only play the tape of Mike Tolbert, SD @ NE, 09/18/2011.

Edit: And while they're at it, the league needs to start penalizing offensive players who stiff-arm
defenders on the helmet, especially the facemask. If Hands To The Face is good for the goose,
it should be good for the gander too.

This seems like such a no brainer. I cant believe the NFL has not done this yet. To be honest if I were a defender and I got concussed on a stiff arm to the head I would sue the NFL and I think the lawsuits brought up now are very ludicris as these players new the risks and to say otherwise is lieing to yourself. What did people think made boxers punch drunk? Did they really think a blow to the head in one sport would not have the same effects as another. But in the stiff arms case the NFL for several years has been doing whatever it can to eliminate blows to the head but for whatever reason have decided to ignore the punch to the head that a stiff arm brings.

 

[signbabybrady]

Is it just me or does the Competition Committee sound like one of those corrupt cabals one would normally associate with the old USSR. Boy is that committee powerful, and they seem to have their paws in every aspect of the NFL. Given its power, committee members should have term limits.

I love how Rich Mckay says there would have been only 11 "helmet" penalties last year. Of course, that's after a review of film, and not having to call the penalty on the fly as game officials will actually have to do. I can't wait until the first time some RB trying to get into the endzone is flagged and first and goal at the one turns into 1st and goal at the 16.

Refs really don't have a chance. As I've said before, personal foul penalties should be like penalties incurred on kick and punt returns where the yardage is marked off but down and distance aren't effected.

I might be interpreting it wrong but I believe this has to be at least 3 yards past the LOS. The goaline moment you speak of can still happen if I am correct it just would have to be a play that started outside the 3 yl.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I love how Rich Mckay says there would have been only 11 "helmet" penalties last year.

He didn't say that. He said there would have been 11 penalties in the two weeks they studied.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

He didn't say that. He said there would have been 11 penalties in the two weeks they studied.

Right

But just to clarify, film is being sent to all coaches showing when the penalty would be called and when not called. And as always NFL refs visit each training camp to teach teams how plays will be called that season. So it's likely there will be considerable avoidance of such new penalties. Despite that, yes it is likely there will be more flags this fall as old habits come to the fore when hundreds of milliseconds are at stake.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

The tuck rule was a terrible rule all along. That's not to say that terrible rules should be arbitrarily ignored, though, lurking Raider fans.

There is no added "judgement" to be applied now. I presume that now a pass attempt is over when the arm stops going forward, rather than when the ball is "tucked" away. Which makes perfect sense.

As to ball carriers not being able to lead with their heads, I'm less comfortable with this decision.

 

[Joker]

again...I have to state it....who cares what the rules change is...in the post season the refs selected will just ignore the rules...just like they did PI/Illegal contact in the Super Bowl.

No problem eliminating the "tuck" rule...I've always been an "if it looks,walks, and quacks like a duck....guess what, it's a duck" fan...about time the QB's had this little dispensation for carelessness removed.

However...leading with the helmet?...this is one of those "works in theory,blows in reality" rules....what they've done is made a rule that's obviously prone to subjective interpretation. That is a recipe for chaos in this league with these refs.One ref's "crown" will be another's top of the face mask. In the end we'll get a slew of noncalls even as the rule is repeatedly broken, leading to the faux outrage on shows like PTI and NFLN sports desk.

Goodell, however, will run off another 20090 hours of face time across all the sports channels bragging about what HE is doing to make the game "safer". It's an all around joke and the only real reason for it is the liability the league faces from injured players....something you'll have to wait for Goodell to go to the dentist and get put under sodium pentathol before we ever get a straight answer and admission.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

The lowering of the head rule is ******* stupid

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

again...I have to state it....who cares what the rules change is...in the post season the refs selected will just ignore the rules...just like they did PI/Illegal contact in the Super Bowl.

It really frosts me that the league does suddenly change the way they call the game in the playoffs. This sudden change does not help the integrity of the game.