Ban the three-point stance?

[DonBlackmon55]

My stance is that Goodell should do a one-point landing on his head from the top of the Empire State Building.

The Russian judge scores that a 9.1 !

 

[Kontradiction]

No, this is the textbook WRONG way to be in a 3 point stance. You want your weight on the balls of your feet with your hand just resting lightly on the ground.

When you get in a forward-leaning stance you are 1. telling the defense it is a running play. 2. Telling the defense that you will not be pulling. 3. Making it easy for a DL or LB to simply faceplant you by pushing on your back or pulling you forward.

I'll preface this by saying that when I played in pee wee and high school, I was a DE and a OLB (result of a weight loss, which sucked because I generally liked playing DE) and was a second string OT on offense. However, when I was playing, they taught us that you wanted to lean a good amount of (not all of) your weight onto your planting hand. Doing so would prevent you from coming off the LOS on your heels, which would leave you susceptible to a bull rush. On top of that, doing so would also decrease the chance of a false start by your hand coming off the ground.

As for telling the defense whether it is a run or a pass, a two point stance by the OT would usually indicate a passing down while a three point stance generally indicates a running down.

 

[Stokes]

I'll preface this by saying that when I played in pee wee and high school, I was a DE and a OLB (result of a weight loss, which sucked because I generally liked playing DE) and was a second string OT on offense. However, when I was playing, they taught us that you wanted to lean a good amount of (not all of) your weight onto your planting hand. Doing so would prevent you from coming off the LOS on your heels, which would leave you susceptible to a bull rush. On top of that, doing so would also decrease the chance of a false start by your hand coming off the ground.

As for telling the defense whether it is a run or a pass, a two point stance by the OT would usually indicate a passing down while a three point stance generally indicates a running down.

O linemen were always in 3 point for all plays, you'd never want to give away run/pass like that unless you're in 2 minute or something!

I guess different schools do it different ways, but I played guard in pee-wee and HS and was taught to stay balanced. We also were taught to key on OL and RB stances for run/pass tendencies, and a guy with weight forward indicated run, leaning to a side or changing foot position for pulling, or leaning back on his haunches for pass. On D our linemen were taught to swipe at the arm of any guy that was leaning forward and watch him fall face-first into the grass!

 

[TriplecHamp]

I'll preface this by saying that when I played in pee wee and high school, I was a DE and a OLB (result of a weight loss, which sucked because I generally liked playing DE) and was a second string OT on offense. However, when I was playing, they taught us that you wanted to lean a good amount of (not all of) your weight onto your planting hand. Doing so would prevent you from coming off the LOS on your heels, which would leave you susceptible to a bull rush. On top of that, doing so would also decrease the chance of a false start by your hand coming off the ground.

As for telling the defense whether it is a run or a pass, a two point stance by the OT would usually indicate a passing down while a three point stance generally indicates a running down.

Its the other way around, you want as little weight on your hand as possible. You put too much weight on your hands and its a give away to run but if you put little weight on you hand you can come off just as low and powerful and you can get back just as quickly. These days you see alot of lineman in a two point stance regardless of the play call because of the athleticism of DEs and OLBs. Teams will never switch between the two unless its on the Goaline or short distances.

 

[TennesseePatriot]

New York, 2020. Roger Goodell has decided to pass a rule change making tacking an illegal maneuver, to be penalized by unnecessary roughness. By 2025 Goodell is expected to announce his plan to rename the NFL into THTL or "two-hand touch" league.

 

[Fencer]

The last time I played football, you still had to keep your fists against your chest when you blocked.

Whatever the technique changes are, the game will adapt.

 

[363839]

New York, 2020. Roger Goodell has decided to pass a rule change making tacking an illegal maneuver, to be penalized by unnecessary roughness. By 2025 Goodell is expected to announce his plan to rename the NFL into THTL or "two-hand touch" league.

This will be preceded by announcements of record drop off in attendances and loss of sponsorships. :bricks:

 

[VJCPatriot]

This idea is idiotic. What benefit does it give to the game. *facepalms* If you want stricter safety rules, then enforce what types of hits are legal, not the 3 point stance.

The most dangerous hits are those in the area of the head and the facemask. I think head to heads are already a 15 yard penalty and so are facemasks. I'm not sure what else you can 'regulate' out of the game without turning the NFL into a pansy league that is completely offense driven.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Many players already don't go down in a 3-point stance ... what's the use of making a rule?

 

[Kontradiction]

O linemen were always in 3 point for all plays, you'd never want to give away run/pass like that unless you're in 2 minute or something!

I guess different schools do it different ways, but I played guard in pee-wee and HS and was taught to stay balanced. We also were taught to key on OL and RB stances for run/pass tendencies, and a guy with weight forward indicated run, leaning to a side or changing foot position for pulling, or leaning back on his haunches for pass. On D our linemen were taught to swipe at the arm of any guy that was leaning forward and watch him fall face-first into the grass!

I'll take your word on it then. You played guard full time and I did not. I actually hated playing O-Line. Defense was so much more fun.

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

 

[PatsChamp88]

Lets just ban contact all together and play some flag football..NFFL!

 

[IcyPatriot]

Lets just ban contact all together and play some flag football..NFFL!

Speaking of flag football ... what happened to the lingerie bowl?

Supposedly there was a bikini bowl also.

 

[Joker]

Goodell scarfed up all the sexy undies to outfit his closest friends, Eric the Rat and Paid-To-Choke, and himself for the post Super Bowl Gala over at Phillipe & Percy's Peeny Palace off Bourbon Street

 

[Urgent]

For all of the 'I hate the commissioner' responses, a valid question is how do you feel about the players.

The research on the long-term - or even near-term - affect of multiple collisions is pretty chilling. Symptoms show up in mid-thirties to early forties. The rate of dementia, memory loss, depression, and drug addiction is off the charts, and directly linked to collisions.

Yes, those that argue that restricting linemen to a two-point stance will not change the rate of concussions on linebackers or running backs. But the research has shown, apparently, that linemen suffer multiple lesions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy - brain death - based on repeated 'sub-concussive' collisions, not just knock-out concussions. So this change is one option to reduce the devastating health problems linemen suffer. Other changes would have to take place to reduce the problems other players face.

The NFL cannot turn a blind eye to the health of their veterans, anymore than tobacco companies, car companies, or airlines can ignore similar problems. Changes are coming.

 

[Joker]

well, gee...let's just make it the NFL Badminton league

 

[VJCPatriot]

For all of the 'I hate the commissioner' responses, a valid question is how do you feel about the players.

The research on the long-term - or even near-term - affect of multiple collisions is pretty chilling. Symptoms show up in mid-thirties to early forties. The rate of dementia, memory loss, depression, and drug addiction is off the charts, and directly linked to collisions.

Yes, those that argue that restricting linemen to a two-point stance will not change the rate of concussions on linebackers or running backs. But the research has shown, apparently, that linemen suffer multiple lesions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy - brain death - based on repeated 'sub-concussive' collisions, not just knock-out concussions. So this change is one option to reduce the devastating health problems linemen suffer. Other changes would have to take place to reduce the problems other players face.

The NFL cannot turn a blind eye to the health of their veterans, anymore than tobacco companies, car companies, or airlines can ignore similar problems. Changes are coming.

Concussions are bad sure. But what study conclusively shows that the 3 point stance causes an inordinate amount of concussions? There is a huge DISCONNECT between your safety concerns and any show of PROOF that banning the 3 point stance will make the game safer and reduce the risk of concussions signficantly.

There are a ton of 'safety' rules in the game that penalize any blows to the head, grabbing facemasks, head to head contact as well as spearing. And these rules make sense as damage to the head is unhealthy. Any rule change should be accompanied by common sense and based on empirical evidence. A vague fear of concussions and the 3 point stance doesn't cut it.

A direct causal effect must be shown. Show me a study that says - 75% of concussions and head traumas in the NFL would be eliminated if we got rid of the 3 point stance, and then I'd be a lot more inclined to agree with you. Otherwise it just seems like an overreaction and a continuing trend of the 'pansyfication' of the NFL.

 

[Urgent]

For evidence, you can review the research of Dr. Anne McKee of Boston University. One example:
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/McKee091028.pdf

She has personally disected 12 brains from former football players suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, of which 10 were linemen or linebackers. The patients exhibited all the symptoms of Alzheimers or dementia, but their brains are very different, showing no typical indications of Alzheimers brains but a buildup of 'tau protein,' also seen in the disection of boxers brains.

The rate of dementia diagnosis is currently 1 in 1,000 for men aged 30-49. For NFL veterans aged 30-49, that rate is 1 in 53. That's one on every team.

While you are probably right - it will be difficult to conclusively prove a direct linkage between a three-point stance and an individual case of dementia, just as it is similarly difficult to conclusively prove other issues of causation - it will be increasingly difficult for the NFL to ignore the correlation. And, as noted, the three-point stance change would be part of a broader approach to change.

 

[pork3]

For evidence, you can review the research of Dr. Anne McKee of Boston University. One example:
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/McKee091028.pdf

She has personally disected 12 brains from former football players suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, of which 10 were linemen or linebackers. The patients exhibited all the symptoms of Alzheimers or dementia, but their brains are very different, showing no typical indications of Alzheimers brains but a buildup of 'tau protein,' also seen in the disection of boxers brains.

The rate of dementia diagnosis is currently 1 in 1,000 for men aged 30-49. For NFL veterans aged 30-49, that rate is 1 in 53. That's one on every team.

While you are probably right - it will be difficult to conclusively prove a direct linkage between a three-point stance and an individual case of dementia, just as it is similarly difficult to conclusively prove other issues of causation - it will be increasingly difficult for the NFL to ignore the correlation. And, as noted, the three-point stance change would be part of a broader approach to change.

With all that said, I'm curious how the commissar is going to justify increasing the number of regular season games, which is most assuredly going to expose players to even more trauma (be it Encephalopathy etc.) throughout their careers.

-Jamman

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Speaking of flag football ... what happened to the lingerie bowl?

Supposedly there was a bikini bowl also.

I remember watching that one year and it was cool for the first few minutes, but then I started to get annoyed with the play-calling. Yes, I'm a moron.

As for banning the 3-point stance, it's really stupid. If they're serious about concussions (and they should be), why not make it mandatory that players wear anti-concussion helmets? They don't totally eliminate concussions, but reduce the likelihood of them. And they're a bit expensive, but the NFL can afford it. I also read about a mouthguard that helps reduce concussions which happens to be designed by the Patriots' dentist. Why not make that mandatory as well?

Both of those initiatives would do far more to reduce concussions than eliminating the 3-point stance.