This rule change might be VERY problematic

[captain stone]

I don't think the refs screw the Pats...

I take it that you didn't watch the most recent super bowl then.

 

[LaterGator]

I take it that you didn't watch the most recent super bowl then.

Ya the one play that went against them. I'm a firm believer in the refs calls even themselves out.

My recollection was most people were crying about Butler (but it was mostly the porous run defense in the second half).

 

[captain stone]

The porous...Run defense?

 

[LaterGator]

Just putrid run defense particularly in the second half. Blount and Ajayi gouged them horribly 160 something yards several long runs.

 

[Kontradiction]

The porous...Run defense?

The run defense was awful. The secondary had been the strength of that squad... up until the Super Bowl, when it was designated a weakness by the coaching staff as well. But the run defense was not good in that game.

 

[neuronet]

Some facts.
1. There will be growing pains and people will point to them as proof that the rule is a complete failure. They will be wrong.
2. It has been negligent that they have not implemented this rule, or something very much like it, before. If they care about limiting brain damage, it is a no-brainer.
3. Everything will be fine, and running backs will be able to run with their heads down as long as they aren't using lowering it at the end of the play to use it as a weapon and smash someone.
4. This eliminates a great deal of subjectivity about whether the person getting speared in the head is a defenseless receiver or not. Now they don't have to decide: just throw the flag.

In the meantime, get out your popcorn and watch the macho spasms bemoaning what is happening to football. It is always entertaining with every rule change meant to protect people's brains.

 

[Tunescribe]

Some facts.
1. There will be growing pains and people will point to them as proof that the rule is a complete failure. They will be wrong.
2. It has been negligent that they have not implemented this rule, or something very much like it, before. If they care about limiting brain damage, it is a no-brainer.
3. Everything will be fine, and running backs will be able to run with their heads down as long as they aren't using lowering it at the end of the play to use it as a weapon and smash someone.
4. This eliminates a great deal of subjectivity about whether the person getting speared in the head is a defenseless receiver or not. Now they don't have to decide: just throw the flag.

In the meantime, get out your popcorn and watch the macho spasms bemoaning what is happening to football. It is always entertaining with every rule change meant to protect people's brains.

I disagree with much of this, Neuro. Interpreting this rule has inherent subjectivity built into it that not even replay can clarify. Sure, there might be a few obvious and blatant instances that appear clear-cut, but most of the time that won't be the case, especially at the speed with which the NFL game is played. Not much more can be done to protect brains and still have it be football. I've said this many times: the solution to concussions/CTE will come from medical science and equipment modifications, not rule changes.

 

[neuronet]

I disagree with much of this, Neuro. Interpreting this rule has inherent subjectivity built into it that not even replay can clarify. Sure, there might be a few obvious and blatant instances that appear clear-cut, but most of the time that won't be the case, especially at the speed with which the NFL game is played. Not much more can be done to protect brains and still have it be football. I've said this many times: the solution to concussions/CTE will come from medical science and equipment modifications, not rule changes.

All of the above. And frankly the only surefire bet is to not play. Football, like boxing with headgear, will never really be safe.