BB's take on new "helmet rule"

[Observer]

I don’t know about the rest of you guys but I personally watch the NFL for the mystery of what the referee is about to do.

 

[maineman209]

Once a rule governing play is more than a proposed rule change, I cannot recall BB publicly trashing it. He accepts it, trains as best as he can to avoid crossing it, and attempts to gain competitive advantage by exploiting it when possible.

Coaches and players complaining won't help (see all the fines two or three years ago for unnecessary roughness). It would take major mistakes and fan revolt (ratings decline) to move the owners to change it. The problem with these safety rules is they probably cannot simply eliminate them because of the concussion issues. That means a series of annoying tweaks, much like the catch rule.

The thing is that BB stated on OMF yesterday, as he has for years, that he's always trained his players to make head-up, wrap-up tackles and to avoid head-down big hits - because the latter are ineffective as well as being dangerous. IOW, there's really no training adjustment necessary for him WRT this new league rule. It's always been BB's rule for his own players.

 

[Guts]

No doubt. But it will be more in how the rule is interpreted and enforced by different refs, rather than the rule itself.

And I suspect that the Pats will benefit from those calls more often than they're hurt by them.

I don't know man. I fear for Gronk's knees more than ever now.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

I don't know man. I fear for Gronk's knees more than ever now.

NFL i guess wants more torn ACLs because that's where this is headed. Only place you can hit now is knees. A perfect form tackle will now be called a penalty. Not on every play but it will and has already.

Why can't they have a control room to look over the hit for 30 sec like in hockey to see if it's legit or not?

This rule will cost teams games this year and the first time it happens..oh boy..especially in the playoffs and SB. Can't wait for the outcome of some games to come down to the refs once again

 

[long distance]

I guarantee you he thinks its a ridiculous rule in private. Once the games start getting impacted by it and more people begin to tune out, the NFL will either have to stick with it and effectively ruin the game of football or walk it back.

Thanks for the guarantees but id guess he is ignoring the noise and preparing his team within rules as much as possible.

Those who can't stand the new rule (or officiating of it that will of course take new shape during the season) might just take 3 yrs off..



Or will they?
Every year there's howling people will tune out . yet despite the decline of TV NFL remains strong (Tramp's tampering incl.)

Despite Another Ratings Slump, the NFL Remains TV's Top Dog

“Despite losing 9 percent of its year-ago audience and coming under attack from both sides of the political spectrum, the NFL in 2017 continued to cast a long shadow over the media landscape .. According to Nielsen live-plus-same-day data, NFL games accounted for 37 of the year's top 50 broadcasts .. The NFL's own 9 percent decline is of a piece with the slump in overall TV viewership .. According to Standard Media Index estimates, overall in-game NFL ad sales revenues are up 2 percent year-over-year.“
___

People will enjoy expressing their frustrations for sure so booing volume might go up . but i doubt they will stop coming. Like BB said - there were so many rule changes during the course of his football journey (and the game will never be the same at any point in time as it was 10, 20 yrs from that point) and all just have to adjust: coaches, players, officials, fans. And mediots will always sell what they can..

 

[Guts]

NFL i guess wants more torn ACLs because that's where this is headed. Only place you can hit now is knees. A perfect form tackle will now be called a penalty. Not on every play but it will and has already.

Why can't they have a control room to look over the hit for 30 sec like in hockey to see if it's legit or not?

This rule will cost teams games this year and the first time it happens..oh boy..especially in the playoffs and SB. Can't wait for the outcome of some games to come down to the refs once again

I read somewhere that players rather would get hit anywhere above the waist than below because of what you stated of the ACLs. You can't blame the defensive players either if they take someone out tackling the knees since that's the only place where it will not be a penalty.

 

[maineman209]

I don't know man. I fear for Gronk's knees more than ever now.

I know.

I was only referring to the potential advantage in penalty yards from flags related to the new rule. Might be as much as 2:1 or even 3:1. And extra 15-30 yards from penalties never hurts, unless one of your players gets injured from a (now) illegal hit.

Under this new rule, Jenkins' hit in Q2 that took Cooks out of the game would have almost certainly been flagged, and Jenkins might even have been ejected. The penalty yardage would've put the Pats on the Philly 25 instead of the Philly 37. As it happened, Jenkins broke up the next play - a pass intended for White - and the Pats turned the ball over on downs at the Philly 35 with the score still Philly-9/Pats-3.

Jenkins' hit may have helped turn the game in Philly's favor. A penalty there may have helped the Pats to come away with points on that possession.

 

[Kontradiction]

Thanks for the guarantees but id guess he is ignoring the noise and preparing his team within rules.

Those who can't stand the new rule (or officiating of it that will of course take new shape during the season) might just take 3 yrs off..



Or will they?
Every year there's howling people will tune out . yet despite the decline of TV NFL remains strong (Tramp's tampering incl.)

Despite Another Ratings Slump, the NFL Remains TV's Top Dog

“Despite losing 9 percent of its year-ago audience and coming under attack from both sides of the political spectrum, the NFL in 2017 continued to cast a long shadow over the media landscape .. According to Nielsen live-plus-same-day data, NFL games accounted for 37 of the year's top 50 broadcasts .. The NFL's own 9 percent decline is of a piece with the slump in overall TV viewership .. According to Standard Media Index estimates, overall in-game NFL ad sales revenues are up 2 percent year-over-year.“
___

People will enjoy expressing their frustrations for sure so booing volume might go up . but i doubt they will stop coming. Like BB said - there were so many rule changes during the course of his football journey (and the game will never be the same at any point in time as it was 10, 20 yrs from that point) and all just have to adjust: coaches, players, officials, fans. And mediots will always sell what they can..

You are aware that he can prepare his team to play within the new rules while, at the same time, not liking them... correct? Kind of like how he's traditionally prepared his team to play within the rules while speaking out about other aspects of the game (such as the fact that he disagrees with the fact that there aren't pylon cameras, ST changes, etc.). I hate some of the metrics my teams are judged on at work, but I still prepare my team to score high in them. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

As for your comment about tuning out, the betas that are for this rule could have easily done that. Instead, they're talking themselves into believing that head injuries can be legislated out of a sport that, at its core, is inherently violent. Couple that with what Deus mentioned earlier and that lowering the head is impossible from a physiological standpoint, and you have a rule change that has already been and will be disastrous in the regular season. And it'll cost the NFL as their ratings continue to fall. The owners don't care, though. They're going to be looking to bail out in the next decade and sell their teams. They're just trying to maximize their short-term profitability while hoping to avoid a lawsuit. The sad thing is that the latter can actually be accomplished without destroying the game.

 

[maineman209]

I read somewhere that players rather would get hit anywhere above the waist than below because of what you stated of the ACLs. You can't blame the defensive players either if they take someone out tackling the knees since that's the only place where it will not be a penalty.

Actually, no. If a player initiates contact with his helmet lowered, it doesn't matter where on the object body that contact is made. IOW, if a defender dives at the ball-carriers knees with his head down, it's still a violation.

 

[Kontradiction]

Actually, no. If a player initiates contact with his helmet lowered, it doesn't matter where on the object body that contact is made. IOW, if a defender dives at the ball-carriers knees with his head down, it's still a violation.

Yeah so basically you can’t play defense anymore. That will be taking place while the most violent positions with specific regard to head trauma, the OL and DL, still absorb hundreds to thousands of blows to their heads during the courses of their careers. The rule is a joke. The reffing/enforcement of the rule will be an even bigger one. This thread, and ones like it, will be a fun one to pull back up (along with Brady’s OTA thread) when this crap costs the Pats a game.

 

[Soliel]

The rule is a real beauty! More jackassery from that stupid clown. Goodell is a horrible person, he looks fat and he is losing his hair.

 

[Sicilian]

Yeah so basically you can’t play defense anymore. That will be taking place while the most violent positions with specific regard to head trauma, the OL and DL, still absorb hundreds to thousands of blows to their heads during the courses of their careers. The rule is a joke. The reffing/enforcement of the rule will be an even bigger one. This thread, and ones like it, will be a fun one to pull back up (along with Brady’s OTA thread) when this crap costs the Pats a game.

You may ultimately be right about the rule, but the Patriots haven't seemed to have any trouble playing defense through the first two preseason games without getting called on this (except for one by Richards, unless I missed another). The usual disclaimers aside (preseason, small sample size, etc), but I don't feel like what I watched out of their play so far has been all that different from the football I know. I don't think it means you can't play defense anymore, it means you can't play defense a certain WAY anymore.

As for it costing the Pats a game, we'll see. My biggest skepticism on it has always been about consistency of enforcement, and can that clarification be adequate enough. A lot of players don't think so as of yet, but then again, a lot of players don't have the luxury of learning a new way to tackle because they risk becoming ineffective and losing their job while they figure it out. If the rule can be applied with some consistency (a big IF), you'll see the players adapt. If the rule is applied correctly and it costs the Pats a game, I'll put that on the player or coaches, not on the rule.

 

[Kontradiction]

You may ultimately be right about the rule, but the Patriots haven't seemed to have any trouble playing defense through the first two preseason games without getting called on this (except for one by Richards, unless I missed another). The usual disclaimers aside (preseason, small sample size, etc), but I don't feel like what I watched out of their play so far has been all that different from the football I know. I don't think it means you can't play defense anymore, it means you can't play defense a certain WAY anymore.

Considering the calls have gone against the defense (when the offense, and particularly skill position players, initiate contact by lowering their helmet all the time), the rule has and will essentially continue to neuter the defense. It'll eventually lead to more and more people tuning out unless anyone wants to argue that people tune in to watch middle-aged men throw flags in the air and excessive stoppages in play.

As for it costing the Pats a game, we'll see. My biggest skepticism on it has always been about consistency of enforcement, and can that clarification be adequate enough. A lot of players don't think so as of yet, but then again, a lot of players don't have the luxury of learning a new way to tackle because they risk becoming ineffective and losing their job while they figure it out. If the rule can be applied with some consistency (a big IF), you'll see the players adapt. If the rule is applied correctly and it costs the Pats a game, I'll put that on the player or coaches, not on the rule.

As has been mentioned, it's physiologically impossible to tackle correctly without leading with the helmet many times. Even when the defender is in pursuit and diving. With that in mind, I'm not sure why anyone would put that on the players and coaches when the rule is such a ridiculous one. It's only done in the name of trying to legislate head trauma out of an inherently violent game. The real reason for it is money.

 

[Sicilian]

Considering the calls have gone against the defense (when the offense, and particularly skill position players, initiate contact by lowering their helmet all the time), the rule has and will essentially continue to neuter the defense. It'll eventually lead to more and more people tuning out unless anyone wants to argue that people tune in to watch middle-aged men throw flags in the air and excessive stoppages in play.

I suppose I just have more faith that players will adjust and you'll see less of the flags over time. I understand that many don't share that optimism.

As has been mentioned, it's physiologically impossible to tackle correctly without leading with the helmet many times. Even when the defender is in pursuit and diving. With that in mind, I'm not sure why anyone would put that on the players and coaches when the rule is such a ridiculous one. It's only done in the name of trying to legislate head trauma out of an inherently violent game. The real reason for it is money.

And if people start tuning out, that money will shrivel and more adjustments will be made. If money is the only driving factor, that water will find its level.

 

[ChessToCheckers]

It's usually "advantage Pats" whenever there's a major rule change. Our coaches generally make better use of the limited NFL coaching time than the other 31 teams.

I'm sure several NFL statisticians will keep track of this penalty across the league. I'm betting that NE will be among the leaders in "fewest called".

 

[maineman209]

a lot of players don't have the luxury of learning a new way to tackle because they risk becoming ineffective and losing their job while they figure it out.

The biggest losers will likely be the guys who've heretofore made their paychecks by being big-hitters. Guys like Malcolm Jenkins. Probably several other safeties and LBs, too. The Pats don't have guys like that.

 

[long distance]

You are aware that he can prepare his team to play within the new rules while, at the same time, not liking them...

Of course he can, Kontra. But I wouldn't guarantee it. That's not to say he's liking it either. Id guess he has personal thoughts about it but nothing too strong. He's a grown man and lets everybody do their job best they can. This rule was always going to be a tough job. Some people like to jump the gun, i prefer to see how it goes.

.. lowering the head is impossible from a physiological standpoint, and you have a rule change that has already been and will be disastrous in the regular season. And it'll cost the NFL as their ratings continue to fall. The owners don't care, though. They're going to be looking to bail out in the next decade and sell their teams. They're just trying to maximize their short-term profitability while hoping to avoid a lawsuit. The sad thing is that the latter can actually be accomplished without destroying the game.

“Lowering the head to initiate contact“ is very unfortunate phrasing and i don't understand why they went with that (well i do, but it doesn't seem like the best idea). Leading with helmet might be a better way to start (and would allow to focus on big helmet first hits in the open field) and then gradually work towards inside of the field if necessary (although i don't like any helmet first hits that create advantage for players who don't know how to tackle).

As for the ratings, like previously posted, NFL so far is only dropping on account of TV dropping. And no rule (or anthem) change will ever affect their ratings as much as new reality of media landscape. American football is the ultimate TV sport and it remains to be seen how it translates to new media and new generation's minds & habits. There's the big game for the owners & co..

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

Lowering your head and hitting with your shoulder ought to be OK, and probably will be, at least in the way it's called. Otherwise it is unworkable.

The issue is prohibiting "lowering your head" rather than "striking a blow primarily with your helmet" aka targeting. Minimizing the latter is a good thing. How to do it may be hard.

 

[Tunescribe]

The rule is unworkable. BB knows that. He's seen it on film. The NFL comes down on coaches who speak out during implementations. We've seen this before. BB's true take? Good luck finding that right now.

I think what he said WAS his true take re., how he always has instructed his players being in line with the rule as written. The potential caveat is his view on how effectively the rule will be officiated. As a coach his position is to assume the rule will be implemented properly, which he has a right to expect. So my take from the article is he truly is OK with it -- for now.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think what he said WAS his true take re., how he always has instructed his players being in line with the rule as written. The potential caveat is his view on how effectively the rule will be officiated. As a coach his position is to assume the rule will be implemented properly, which he has a right to expect. So my take from the article is he truly is OK with it -- for now.

History proves the bolded portion to be both incorrect (thus replay) and a foolish assumption if made.