BB's take on new "helmet rule"

[Kontradiction]

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.

Yeah, I don't. I don't see how they could possibly adjust due to the previously discussed physiological issues coupled with the speed the game is played at.

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.

I think the league's actions make it pretty clear that they couldn't care less about long-term profitability and are only looking to maximize short-term profits before hitting the eject button.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

This is a matter of physiology and physics. You cannot safely bend at the waist for contact to any real degree and not drop your head.

 

[mcmurtry86]

Yeah, I don't. I don't see how they could possibly adjust due to the previously discussed physiological issues coupled with the speed the game is played at.



I think the league's actions make it pretty clear that they couldn't care less about long-term profitability and are only looking to maximize short-term profits before hitting the eject button.

Long term profitability means having the best possible players to put on the field. With all the scrutiny nationwide on CTE, many parents are dissuading or outright preventing their kids from playing the game

The NFL has clearly decided that losing talented players and having to deal with CTE related bad PR/lawsuits is less profitable than just softening the contact on D. And they're almost certainly correct in that assessment

People have whined about the "wussification" of the NFL every year for 25+ years. Yet the only things that hurt the NFL ratings are political statements and changes in consumption habits (i.e. cord cutting)

The NFL has seen plenty of proof that they can be profitable, indeed even increase profitability, by making the game "softer". The prognostications of the league's doom are outright laughable and an exercise in wishcasting by those who feel betrayed by the changes or those who especially enjoy violence in sports

 

[Deus Irae]

Long term profitability means having the best possible players to put on the field. With all the scrutiny nationwide on CTE, many parents are dissuading or outright preventing their kids from playing the game

The NFL has clearly decided that losing talented players and having to deal with CTE related bad PR/lawsuits is less profitable than just softening the contact on D. And they're almost certainly correct in that assessment

People have whined about the "wussification" of the NFL every year for 25+ years. Yet the only things that hurt the NFL ratings are political statements and changes in consumption habits (i.e. cord cutting)

The NFL has seen plenty of proof that they can be profitable, indeed even increase profitability, by making the game "softer". The prognostications of the league's doom are outright laughable and an exercise in wishcasting by those who feel betrayed by the changes or those who especially enjoy violence in sports

This rule is a response to Shazier's injury, and it was a needless rule that went way too far. Shazier's injury could have been covered under under already existing rules.

The reality is that the rule was written so broadly that even the slightest lean with the head is a penalty, which means:

Form tackle - Illegal
QB dive in traffic where a bit of contact takes place- Illegal
QB sneak - Illegal
Diving tackle at the feet/lower legs - Illegal
OL/DL upward thrust with incidental helmet contact - Illegal
RB getting small and bracing for contact - Illegal
Defender just trying to get low (low man wins) - Illegal


In short, this is now all that's legal, by the book

 

[Kontradiction]

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.

Gun to his head, I highly doubt he's going to be okay with a rule that is so subjective in nature that it's up to the interpretation of middle-aged men. We've seen rules like that implemented throughout the last 10 years in the NFL and they've all been nothing short of disastrous.

“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).

Except there's still no way to form tackle without leading with the helmet. Thus, every tackle should be flagged. Furthermore, O-Line play should be flagged since they lead with their helmet on every run-blocking down. So should a RB that lowers his shoulder. The difference here is that the penalties called will be a landslide in favor of the defense.

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..

So, it should be asked - are you of the opinion that people generally like to see constant stoppages in play over a rule change that is subjective (open to interpretation) in nature? Yes or no? Because if it's no, there is no way that viewership won't continue to decline because of rules like this one and others like it.

 

[Kontradiction]

Long term profitability means having the best possible players to put on the field. With all the scrutiny nationwide on CTE, many parents are dissuading or outright preventing their kids from playing the game

The NFL has clearly decided that losing talented players and having to deal with CTE related bad PR/lawsuits is less profitable than just softening the contact on D. And they're almost certainly correct in that assessment

People have whined about the "wussification" of the NFL every year for 25+ years. Yet the only things that hurt the NFL ratings are political statements and changes in consumption habits (i.e. cord cutting)

The NFL has seen plenty of proof that they can be profitable, indeed even increase profitability, by making the game "softer". The prognostications of the league's doom are outright laughable and an exercise in wishcasting by those who feel betrayed by the changes or those who especially enjoy violence in sports

You're making a very poor assumption here that inner-city families and kids and poorer, rural families and kids will stop playing football. The jury is still out, of course, but I don't see any way you can safely make that assumption.

 

[Tony2046]

Long term profitability means having the best possible players to put on the field. With all the scrutiny nationwide on CTE, many parents are dissuading or outright preventing their kids from playing the game

The NFL has clearly decided that losing talented players and having to deal with CTE related bad PR/lawsuits is less profitable than just softening the contact on D. And they're almost certainly correct in that assessment

People have whined about the "wussification" of the NFL every year for 25+ years. Yet the only things that hurt the NFL ratings are political statements and changes in consumption habits (i.e. cord cutting)

The NFL has seen plenty of proof that they can be profitable, indeed even increase profitability, by making the game "softer". The prognostications of the league's doom are outright laughable and an exercise in wishcasting by those who feel betrayed by the changes or those who especially enjoy violence in sports

This rule does little if anything to combat CTE.

If the league was truly concerned with CTE they'd have impact sensors in the helmets and monitor a players collective career hit totals.

They'd be able to monitor a players impact live. Concussion protocol standards etc..

But if they did that it would open up a can of CTE worms.

If they want to get rid of spearing then get rid of spearing but this rule gets rid of text book tackling as well or at least the way it's being called it is.

Purposeful or not it's a red CTE herring.

 

[Tunescribe]

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

Why is it foolish on a coach's behalf to expect rules to be properly officiated? (In other words, innocent until proven guilty.)

 

[Deus Irae]

Why is it foolish on a coach's behalf to expect rules to be properly officiated? (In other words, innocent until proven guilty.)

Because they already know that doesn't happen, which is why instant replay exists and coaches (including BB himself) have argued for including penalties in the list of things which can be challenged by replay.

 

[WaterfallJumper]

Seems relevant here:

https://deadspin.com/heres-every-hit-thats-been-penalized-under-the-nfls-hel-1828494909

 

[Tunescribe]

Because they already know that doesn't happen, which is why instant replay exists and coaches (including BB himself) have argued for including penalties in the list of things which can be challenged by replay.

Yes, but that (penalty challenge) hasn't happened yet. Since he has no control over it, the coach has little choice but to approach the game with a general assumption that rules will be officiated as designed -- that's how he must coach his players.

 

[1960Pats]

The public personna of BB is much different than the private one.. he is smarter than to speak out against the NFL as Goodell is looking for any opportunity to mess with him and the Pats... Goodell tried to get rid of him in Deflategate and when that backfired he went after the next best thing.

In private there are probably much different conversations..

I'm not sure that BB is treating this differently in private. He seems like the type of HC who does his best to understand rule changes and then teach them to his players. It seems to be working because they haven't had issues with any of the new rules so far, including this one.

On the other side of the spectrum we have the Pittsburgh Steelers. When the NYFL first tried to stop defensive players from going for head hits, they (players and HC) were the loudest opposition. They also continued to play that way in spite of the attempts to stop the dirty hits and eventually the calls stopped going against them. I'm sure that Ryan Shazier now wishes he and his team had taken the same approach as BB.

 

[Joker]

Actually, IIRC, the "not media friendly" thing may have come up in a meeting between Kraft and a bunch of TV execs after the 1996 season, back when Goodell was still assistant to Lamar Hunt (president of the AFC at the time). Apparently, Kraft had been considering, perhaps briefly, promoting BB to HC (before he hired Pete Carroll) in the wake of Parcells jumping ship for the Jete. It may also have come up after BB resigned as HC of the Jete.

The point is that Goodell had disliked Belichick for awhile before Kraft finally made BB his HC, although Goodell didn't have the power to do anything about it until he was voted in as Commish in 2006. Issues between them that ultimately led to "Spygate" began to happen almost immediately thereafter.

at the behest of WHOM? Now THAT is the ten trillion dollar question and I think everyone KNOWS it was Mara and Rooney pulling the strings.

 

[Deus Irae]

Yes, but that (penalty challenge) hasn't happened yet. Since he has no control over it, the coach has little choice but to approach the game with a general assumption that rules will be officiated as designed -- that's how he must coach his players.

That's simply not correct. There are many rules that are not officiated as designed, and they are coached accordingly. Holding is one where fans of pretty much every team see that discrepancy every game.

 

[long distance]

Except there's still no way to form tackle without leading with the helmet.

“We’ve never taught tackling with the crown of our helmet, putting our head down, leaning our body forward in that type of position. I don’t think fundamentally that’s a good position to be in. It’s not effective.
There’s a lot of things that can go wrong besides getting hurt, and that’s an important one. We’ve always tackled and blocked with our head up, and our eyes open, and our head back, so we can see what we hit. That’s the only way I’ve ever coached it. If we do it that way, then we’ll be within the rules. That’s what we’ve tried to teach.“
- BB

 

[Deus Irae]

“We’ve never taught tackling with the crown of our helmet, putting our head down, leaning our body forward in that type of position. I don’t think fundamentally that’s a good position to be in. It’s not effective.
There’s a lot of things that can go wrong besides getting hurt, and that’s an important one. We’ve always tackled and blocked with our head up, and our eyes open, and our head back, so we can see what we hit. That’s the only way I’ve ever coached it. If we do it that way, then we’ll be within the rules. That’s what we’ve tried to teach.“
- BB

Even with NFL form tackles, and even with perfect rugby tackles, heads get lowered. I'm not sure why people here keep insisting on arguing against physiology and physics.

 

[maineman209]

at the behest of WHOM? Now THAT is the ten trillion dollar question and I think everyone KNOWS it was Mara and Rooney pulling the strings.

No doubt they had their hands in it. The telling thing for me is that this was TV network execs (read: BSPN) attempting to dictate to a team owner who he should or shouldn't hire as his HC.

Honestly, I think it's the TV networks who are calling the shots. Their parent corporations have a sh itload more money than the NFL could ever dream of having, and they're also the source of maybe 75% of all the team owners' revenues from football.

For us, the game itself is the thing. To the networks, it's just "programming" - a regular event that they can build a "show" around, and something that they feel entitled to customize in order to appeal to the broadest advertising base possible.

For BB, the game itself is the thing. And he doesn't hide his disdain for "The Show". "Not media friendly." It's no mystery why BSPN, et al, have persistently cast him as the "cheating villain" in their juvenile soap opera called "The NFL."

 

[Fixit]

I know I've said this (and been ignored) before, but anyone who thinks that leading with the head is good tackling technique needs to be strapped into a chair and watch a pro rugby match. There are like three times as many tackles, and leading with the head will get you thrown into the sin bin. They keep their heads up and wrap up.

 

[Sicilian]

Even with NFL form tackles, and even with perfect rugby tackles, heads get lowered. I'm not sure why people here keep insisting on arguing against physiology and physics.

I can't speak for everyone here, but for me it just doesn't feel as cut and dry "impossible" as many are making it out to be. I think they're currently calling it really ticky tacky to A) Send the message that this is going to be enforced and B) The refs are going to need some time to train themselves on what to look for and how to call it as well. They're not robots, that we can just program the new rules into and they're going to call it perfectly every time. We're going to see an adjustment period with any new rule, especially one that's happening in split second plays.

I also think that the just because a type of hit is unavoidable in certain circumstances, doesn't mean that disqualifies it from being legislated. My guess is Belichick agrees that on some plays from some angles, the only way to hit someone would be in a way that violates this rule. I think the coaching point there would be to minimize the number of situations where a player is in that position. The extent to which that is possible remains to be seen.

I'll freely concede that I could be totally wrong on this, I just prefer to see how things play out over the season before I form a final opinion. My early prediction is that well-coached teams are going to be called for noticeably fewer penalties than others, which to me would indicate the rule has the possibility of working (with some ongoing tweaks). I'm sure someone will compile that data, and I'm even more sure that if it proves me wrong it will be brought very prominently to my attention. Maybe I'll even get quoted in someone's signature if I'm lucky!

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

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.

More star players will now be out of the year in coming years...ACLs are going like hot cakes now