BlueSky Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Here's an nfl.com video detailing the rule changes the league is looking at for next season. Proposed Rule ChangesThe ones regarding replay are good ones, but I'm torn on the player safety issues. Obviously nobody wants to see guys get hurt, but I have trouble understanding how players are supposed to 'unlearn' the way they've played the game their entire lives. At game speed, with victory or defeat in the balance, a player is going to say, "Oh yeah, I can't hit/block a guy like that any more"? Doesn't it seem just a bit overregulated? Rules on top of rules on top of rules. The other thing that bugs me on rulemaking in general is how one guy gets hurt and they change a rule, for example the horsecollar tackle. Does anyone remember anybody other than T.O. being hurt because he got horsecollared? Surely others have but I don't remember ever seeing it myself. If Roy Williams had broken the leg of some 6th round draft choice who was in the game because a starter got hurt, would the NFL have still implemented that rule?Sometimes the direction the league is taking troubles me. It's good to protect the players, but you can't form a wedge on a freakin' kickoff? Soon they'll be out of helmets and shoulder pads and into tutus. At least they ditched the old 'in the grasp' rule for QBs, remember that? Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 The competition committee considered kickoff and decided not to push the matter. I think in part its due to them not having a viable alternative they can agree on, and in part due to the committee being unwilling to make a change just for the sake of change.With the exception of those proposals involving head shots to opponents, these rule changes are stupid. This is football. There is contact. Everyone involved understands that, and that there's risk of injury. Stop being such pussies, NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy B Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 If these new safety rules pass, it will be terrible. Seriously, no wedges on kickoffs? And the onside kick rule last year was bad. It was hard to recover an onside kick with all but one player on the same side, this is just making it worse. I can see why they are making rules against the head shots, but the players are going so fast sometimes you will get a 15 yard penalty when you didn't even mean to go for their head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fkaKrock5cent Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 the peel back rule may be the stupidest rule ever proposed. It's football damn it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgundy Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 These players know what they're getting into when they sign the dotted line. They know that it's a physical game, and that's what they like about it. They know the risks that come along with the physicality aswell, and they don't need the league to keep on coming in and babying them. Let them play the :censored:in' game. It's basically becoming touch football with all these ridiculous rules. I really hope these safety rules don't pass, and if they do, I hope they don't trickle on down to college football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFoA Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Ok, these rule changes concerning safety are getting ridiculous now. They said that they're trying to remove concussions and neck injuries from the game...if you wanna remove concussions and neck injuries from the game, TEACH BETTER TACKLING!And another thing, they don't wanna change the most pressing things, but the committee wants to change stuff like this and continue to soften the game. Good job, NFL. When are they gonna realize that penalizing and sanctioning the controlled violence in the game and at the same time marketing that controlled violence is counterproductive?At least they're looking to fix the ones regarding replay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quantum Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 If the NFL had a better pool of reserve players, these rule changes aren't likely to be considered. "One of my concerns is shysters show up and take advantage of people's good will and generosity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddball Posted March 21, 2009 Share Posted March 21, 2009 Yeah, these are so ridiculous, um, tell that to the player that gets injured or paralyzed by it. Here's an idea if you think it's so ridiculous, go be a player who gets hit in the head and then the next day or next week tell me how ridiculous the rule would be on head shots. I understand it's football, but head shots are cheap shots. It's something that just should not be in the game. It's no different than in hockey when someone goes for the head. I don't see the issue with telling a guy that he has to lower his target on a peel back block or that a defender has to target a receiver's chest. If players can't make that adjustment, then they'll get cut. It's a simple adjustment. Will these proposals eliminate all shots to the head? No. You can never do that, but you can take unnecessary head shots out of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRenesis Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 The NFL gives me less and less reasons to watch each year with this constant dumbing down of the sport. Seriously, its football ffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElwoodCuse Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 dude Roy Williams and co. injured a ton of people, not just T.O.the blocking rule is dumb though and for once Hines Ward would be justified to complain about something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueSky Posted March 22, 2009 Author Share Posted March 22, 2009 dude Roy Williams and co. injured a ton of people, not just T.O.Who else has been injured by horsecollaring? It just seems odd that something that's been legal since the NFL began in the 1920s is suddenly too dangerous to allow.Also, I agree about taking intentional head shots out of the game, my point is that some are incidental and it's tough to tell the difference at game speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Also, I agree about taking intentional head shots out of the game, my point is that some are incidental and it's tough to tell the difference at game speed.EXACTLY. The reality is that these rule changes aren't going to solve the problems they're intended to fix. No one in the NFL wants helmet-to-helmet contact, as the "hitter" is just as likely to be injured as the "hittee." To legislate in an effort to mitigate it is pointless, because it's not going to matter how many guys are in this area or that area - it's going to happen accidentally, just as is the case now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB61 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I just think the NFL sucks.There. That settles it. Now, who wants pie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viper Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 These players know what they're getting into when they sign the dotted line. They know that it's a physical game, and that's what they like about it. They know the risks that come along with the physicality aswell, and they don't need the league to keep on coming in and babying them. Let them play the :censored:in' game. It's basically becoming touch football with all these ridiculous rules. I really hope these safety rules don't pass, and if they do, I hope they don't trickle on down to college football.Somehow I doubt these proposals are all about the safety of the players, or even mostly about that. More likely the team owners also want to protect their millions of dollars' worth of investment (in terms of both actual money and salary cap room) in their teams' players as well as they can. Even though it wasn't a head injury in his case, the Tom Brady injury in particular showed how vulnerable these massive investments can be to one (un)lucky shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 These players know what they're getting into when they sign the dotted line. They know that it's a physical game, and that's what they like about it. They know the risks that come along with the physicality aswell, and they don't need the league to keep on coming in and babying them. Let them play the :censored:in' game. It's basically becoming touch football with all these ridiculous rules. I really hope these safety rules don't pass, and if they do, I hope they don't trickle on down to college football.Somehow I doubt these proposals are all about the safety of the players, or even mostly about that. More likely the team owners also want to protect their millions of dollars' worth of investment (in terms of both actual money and salary cap room) in their teams' players as well as they can. Even though it wasn't a head injury in his case, the Tom Brady injury in particular showed how vulnerable these massive investments can be to one (un)lucky shot.Solution...quit spending so much GOTTDAMN $$$ on them!!! *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinMcD Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11540650NFL considering to go to 17 or 18 game schedule by 2011.I know it is not this year, but it is worth discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigga Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 So, there's a focus on "safety" in the proposed rule changes, but they want to increase likelihood of injuries by playing more games that count. Yep, makes sense to me. If it wasn't for the actual football games themselves and the new (shorter) draft telecast, I'd really dislike the NFL. I already dislike their commish. On January 16, 2013 at 3:49 PM, NJTank said: Btw this is old hat for Notre Dame. Knits Rockne made up George Tip's death bed speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I'm all in favor of the 18-game schedule IF they start the season in mid-August. Playing Super Bowls in February is ridiculous to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Sometimes the direction the league is taking troubles me. It's good to protect the players, but you can't form a wedge on a freakin' kickoff? Soon they'll be out of helmets and shoulder pads and into tutus. At least they ditched the old 'in the grasp' rule for QBs, remember that? After Carson Palmer was injured int he playoffs, the league either made, or at least proposed, a rule meant to address that. Something about lunging at a QB. Can anyone clarify whether that is a rule? If so, has there ever been a penalty called for it? I would think it would have to be called on almost every play.That's an example of a knee-jerk reaction to fix something not broken (see MLB All-Star game). Palmer's injury was freak. Too bad for him, his team and the NFL that it was the playoffs, but you can't go changing rules every time someone gets hurt. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFoA Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Playoff teams draft order changed.Under the new draft order, which will take effect in 2010, the order of teams not in the playoffs is still based on record -- i.e., the team with the worst record will receive the No. 1 draft pick.For the rest, there will be a reseeding based on how far the teams go in the playoffs. For example, the losers of the wild-card games will be seeded 21st through 24th based on their records.The losers in the divisional rounds will be seeded 25th through 28th. Teams eliminated in the conference championship games will be seeded 29th and 30th.The Super Bowl loser will be seeded 31st. The Super Bowl winner will receive the final pick in the draft.The competition committee recommended the change -- which the owners passed 32-0 -- after watching the San Diego Chargers go 8-8 as a division champion in 2008, then win a game in the playoffs. But the Chargers drafted ahead of teams that didn't make the playoffs, and well ahead of the Indianapolis Colts, whom they beat in the playoffs.I agree with this. I honestly thought that this was the way it was, but I guess it wasn't...until now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.