Does New NFL "Safety" Rule Eliminate Brady's QB Sneak?

[ChessToCheckers]

I hadn't thought about the new "penalty if you lower your helmet" rule as it might apply to Brady's most effective play. Does anybody on this board know if the NFL* clarified this? Is this great play now essentially eliminated from the Pat's arsenal? If so, I will hate the NFL* even more, (if that's possible!) This was mentioned today in a Mike Reiss article.

 

[neuronet]

No. It is meant for defenders attacking the ball carrier. [Edit: a couple of people have pointed out this is false, so I stand corrected. however, I think my sentence starting 'Even if it is more general...' still applies though]. Running backs can still run with their heads down, is my understanding. Even if it is more general, clearly the intent of the rule is to eliminate people getting attacked by helmets, not to stop players running with their heads down. Though never underestimate the power of NFL to implement a reasonable rule incorrectly.

 

[Kontradiction]

It should. But like most of the rule changes under Goodell's inept leadership, whether or not it gets called depends entirely on the crew, the circumstance, the team, and the player.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

No. It is meant for defenders attacking the ball carrier. Running backs can still run with their heads down, is my understanding.

Not correct. Though it probably won't be called much. From a WaPo piece on the rule change:

The rule potentially applies not only to a defender hitting an offensive player, but also to a ball carrier initiating contact with a defender and also to a blocker. But much depends on how the rule is enforced. A previous restriction disallowing hits delivered with the crown of the helmet seldom was called in games. Some of those familiar with the deliberations behind this rule said they expect it to be applied mostly in open-field situations in which the lowering of the head is obvious and blatant. They said they expect penalties to be relatively infrequent and ejections to be extremely rare.

 

[Gwedd]

Was Jim Irsay, or Bill Polian on the committee that drafted this? Asking for a friend

 

[SHOWTIME15]

No. It is meant for defenders attacking the ball carrier. Running backs can still run with their heads down, is my understanding. Even if it is more general, clearly the intent of the rule is to eliminate people getting attacked by helmets, not to stop players running with their heads down. Though never underestimate the power of NFL to implement a reasonable rule incorrectly.

No, the rule applies to BOTH offensive and defensive players. It’s so stupid.

 

[signbabybrady]

I think there is going to be a fine line for offensive players. If you lower just for leverage or to dive you will be good so sneaks will be ok. But if you lower it to initiate contact in an attempt to shed a tackle or something similar you will be flagged.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Report: NFL tweaking ejection language in new helmet rule

 

[tasmlab]

Either Brady is flagged or the world at large complains that the refs are giving him special treatment.

 

[mgteich]

Final language has NOT been approved. There was a meeting to discuss these issues yesterday, and the 2 alternative proposals will be presented tot he wonders later this month.

I hadn't thought about the new "penalty if you lower your helmet" rule as it might apply to Brady's most effective play. Does anybody on this board know if the NFL* clarified this? Is this great play now essentially eliminated from the Pat's arsenal? If so, I will hate the NFL* even more, (if that's possible!) This was mentioned today in a Mike Reiss article.

 

[Sciz]

If common sense is involved, then it actually helps Brady. The wording used so far talks about “initiating contact” when lowering the helmet. Brady’s sneaks almost always go between defenders, because that’s generally more efficient than head butting a 320 pound dude. Meanwhile, he gets added protection since linebackers and safeties won’t be able to use their helmets against him in that situation.

But this is the NFL so we can’t assume that common sense will be used.

 

[Steve102]

The NFL will screw this up, guaranteed.

 

[n6249c]

Either Brady is flagged or the world at large complains that the refs are giving him special treatment.

The NFL will screw this up, guaranteed.

Both of these. SNAFU. as usual.

 

[mgteich]

The NFL will screw this up, guaranteed.

Sure, for many of you the NFL is failure. There is one, and only one, issue that threatens the future business success of the league. That one issue is player safety.

Many here would love a more pure game, perhaps with leather helmets. If the game is more pure, it would be OK if only half the fans watched, and the teams were in financial trouble.

For me, the NFL is the sport I have watched since most of us rooted for the Giants and the old Browns. It is great. it develops. It changes. And, the REQUIREMENTS for continued success is teams that make money, a union that helps protect the players, and a system that has parents WANTING their children to play football.

 

[neuronet]

Not correct. Though it probably won't be called much. From a WaPo piece on the rule change:

The rule potentially applies not only to a defender hitting an offensive player, but also to a ball carrier initiating contact with a defender and also to a blocker. But much depends on how the rule is enforced. A previous restriction disallowing hits delivered with the crown of the helmet seldom was called in games. Some of those familiar with the deliberations behind this rule said they expect it to be applied mostly in open-field situations in which the lowering of the head is obvious and blatant. They said they expect penalties to be relatively infrequent and ejections to be extremely rare.

Well damn I stand corrected. I still think as long as someone with the ball is already running with his head down, and doesn't do that move where he drops his head to intentionally attack someone, it should be fine. Of course, that introduces an element of subjectivity which sucks. Hopefully they will clarify in the next couple of days.

I've been saying for a while that the rules on this need to be tightened up, that just because someone is not a defenseless receiver or whatver doesn't mean you shoudl be able to spear them in the head (like happened with Gronk). What is stupid is that there is already a rule about spearing with your helmet and they enforce it so inconsistently that it is largely meaningless.

 

[mgteich]

Agreed..

However, there will always be subjectivity, as long as there are fans for both teams.

Of course, that introduces an element of subjectivity which sucks. Hopefully they will clarify in the next couple of days.

 

[Patstopia]

It will be allowed all season, and then in the Super Bowl the rule will secretly be changed and it will be a penalty. So normal NFL procedures apply.

 

[Steve102]

Sure, for many of you the NFL is failure. There is one, and only one, issue that threatens the future business success of the league. That one issue is player safety.

Many here would love a more pure game, perhaps with leather helmets. If the game is more pure, it would be OK if only half the fans watched, and the teams were in financial trouble.

For me, the NFL is the sport I have watched since most of us rooted for the Giants and the old Browns. It is great. it develops. It changes. And, the REQUIREMENTS for continued success is teams that make money, a union that helps protect the players, and a system that has parents WANTING their children to play football.

Don't infer that I want leather helmets and throwback style of football. I coach high school football, and I am well aware of the toll on the body the game takes, and the pressure from parents to have their sons not play the game.

The NFL will take a rule such as this and twist it around so players don't have any idea what they can and can't do. Do we need to revisit the "what is a catch" scenario we saw play out last year? The rule is designed to protect players from lowering their head to make a tackle, as well as to protect ball carriers from lowering their heads to deliver a blow to defenders. I have no issue with it, in the spirit it is given. But, as I stated, I guarantee you the NFL will screw this up and flag a QB for a sneak, or a ball carrier diving to a goal line, or a line to gain. Somehow, someway, they will foul this up. They have a proven track record of doing so.

 

[Sfpat]

The NFL is now saying out of 40,000 plays reviewed over the past several season, only 4 would have been penalized. If this is the case, then why make the rule.

 

[Deus Irae]

I hadn't thought about the new "penalty if you lower your helmet" rule as it might apply to Brady's most effective play. Does anybody on this board know if the NFL* clarified this? Is this great play now essentially eliminated from the Pat's arsenal? If so, I will hate the NFL* even more, (if that's possible!) This was mentioned today in a Mike Reiss article.

Absolutely. The new rule definitely outlaws Brady's QB sneak, if enforced as written back at the time when they published the original language.