SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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.
I don't know man. I fear for Gronk's knees more than ever now.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.
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.
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.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 don't know man. I fear for Gronk's knees more than ever now.
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..
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.
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.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.
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.
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 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.
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.
You are aware that he can prepare his team to play within the new rules while, at the same time, not liking them...
.. 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.
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.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.