Video showing the new Kickoff rule changes

[Kontradiction]

I like the helmet rule it is long overdue. Surprised no exampkes of offensive players doing it?

This rule and its enforcement will be a total disaster. Book it.

 

[neuronet]

This rule and its enforcement will be a total disaster. Book it.

There will be growing pains, I'm sure, and people will jump all over it as if that's proof of what you are saying.

I don't know why people are acting like it's that hard to tell if someone speared someone else with their helmet. It's just not that complicated: they are basically doing what they did before, but taking away the subjective judgment of "Is he a defenseless receiver or not?" which simplifies things.

This is long overdue, I've been saying it for a couple of years now, and it's pretty much obligatory if you take head injury as a priority, and negligent that they haven't already done this. A few of the tough guys will cry about old football, and their cries will die off over time as always.

 

[Pats Fanatic]

Here it is and yes it looks like more td's.

 

[captain stone]

...Surprised no examples of offensive players doing it?

Stokoe doesn't give a flying feck about protecting defensive players, even while offensive players, especially RBs, most especially Mike Tolbert, continue to use their helmets as battering rams. Why do you suppose cut-blocking is still allowed?

 

[Kontradiction]

There will be growing pains, I'm sure, and people will jump all over it as if that's proof of what you are saying.

I don't know why people are acting like it's that hard to tell if someone speared someone else with their helmet. It's just not that complicated: they are basically doing what they did before, but taking away the subjective judgment of "Is he a defenseless receiver or not?" which simplifies things.

This is long overdue, I've been saying it for a couple of years now, and it's pretty much obligatory if you take head injury as a priority, and negligent that they haven't already done this. A few of the tough guys will cry about old football, and their cries will die off over time as always.

RB's lowering their helmets and QB sneaks like Brady's should now be illegal as well. But I'm guessing those won't get called nearly as much as they will on the defense. That's just one of the problems.

 

[neuronet]

RB's lowering their helmets and QB sneaks like Brady's should now be illegal as well. But I'm guessing those won't get called nearly as much as they will on the defense. That's just one of the problems.

Brady isn't spearing someone in the head, he is just running.

But I do think when a RB lowers their head just in order to bash someone's helmet, that should be called.

This really isn't that complicated. It is a new rule, so yes there will be annoying growing pains, but they have to do this. Anything else is negligent.

 

[neuronet]

Stokoe doesn't give a flying feck about protecting defensive players, even while offensive players, especially RBs, most especially Mike Tolbert, continue to use their helmets as battering rams. Why do you suppose cut-blocking is still allowed?

I will be disappointed if they still let RBs do that move when the are about to be tackled, when they lower their head and just bash the defender's head with their helmet. That is an egregious violation of this rule, it seems.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Ok, so they have outruled double-teams?

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

Want to feel even worse? Check out what hits are considered illegal now.

Amazing they were able to cobble those examples together without using any clips of Broncos defenders.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

It isn't that complicated. It's not like your brain suddenly becomes invincible when you aren't a defenseless receiver anymore.

Plus, it is actually a simplification: now they don't have to decide if the person speared a defenseless receiver: they just aren't allowed to spear anybody in the head. No more judgment calls about whether the person was a runner or still defenseless. Just throw the damned flag.

It has removed an element of subjective judgment from the penalty.

I don't believe I was arguing that the brain is invincible at any point in time. I have no idea where that came from.

It removes the subjective element for spearing calls, but not for whether a person lowered their head to initiate contact. A receiver gets the ball and ducks down to avoid a hit, is he leading with his helmet? Does that wipe out a 15-yard gain? A running back bursts through the line for a big gain and lowers his shoulder for the oncoming safety and his helmet lowers. There's a point where that's fine and a point where it's a penalty.

But penalties aren't reviewable, so we won't necessarily get the constant pain of the review process like catches. We will however have a handful of very questionable calls to add to the pile.

I understand and appreciate the need for improving player safety. But rule changes should be given appropriate consideration. The league has a habit of making knee-jerk reactions. The change to the defenseless receivers and head hitting was mid-season. They changed the catch rule for the last Super Bowl.

If they have thought it through, fine. But they announced this rule change a while ago, had nothing to really back it up, and have tried to come up with something now to explain it. There's nothing on the offensive side. There's a ton of questions. It's half-assed. As usual.

Why aren't anti-concussion helmets mandatory? Why are games still played on Thursday nights without bye weeks to help players recover? This isn't about player safety so much as self-preservation, the appearance of doing something when really not thinking it through.

If they want to protect players, I'm all for it. But all I see is a big cluster**** from this rule change.

 

[captain stone]

Donkeys enjoy Most-Favored-Nation status, along with Sh!tsdirt, duh Jete, Vagiants & Murderer-Worshippers.

 

[neuronet]

I don't believe I was arguing that the brain is invincible at any point in time. I have no idea where that came from.

I know you weren't arguing this, but this is effectively what the current rule says and a negligent loophole they are closing : as long as you aren't defenseless, it is ok if someone spears you in the head (note if you want to be picky this is actually false it has been in the rule book since 2013 and not enforced, so as usual the NFL just sort of sucks).

I think the concerns you bring up are going to be simple rule clarifications and won't lead to significant confusion. E.g., a RB running with his head down will not be penalized. A RB who is running vertically, and puts his head down to smash a defenders helmet, as he is about to be tackled, will be penalized.

So I agree you are right it will introduce some judgment, but my argument is that in a lot of cases (I argue the majority of cases in practice) it will remove judgment about whether someone is a defenseless receiver.

Now that judgment call is gone: if you spear someone in the head, you get a flag. Period. No more hand-wringing about whether that person is defenseless or not It really can't get much simpler than that, is my argument.

And that's the way it should be, if you really care about brain injury, because the brain doesn't know if you were defenseless or not. It's screwed either way.

 

[Clonamery]

Here it is and yes it looks like more td's.

Hey, wait a second...

 

[long distance]

acc. to insiders the helmet rule will focus on open-field “head“ “tackles“ . don't expect much ruling at LOS

the kickoff rule projects smaller, faster units in the kicking game affecting the bottom of the roster (DBs over LBs f.e.)

Pats should benefit from both.

 

[Galeb]

in a few years, this completely sub-moronic, misanthropic waste of DNA, Turdell will have reduced kickoffs to THIS----->

I call gunner!