New Rule: 15 yard penalty for initiating contact with helmet.

[lancerman]

7 hours ago, cddolphin said:

Only reason people make that comparison is because it involves bonding through mental and physical hardship. Like you said, you can get the same feeling from pretty much any team sport.

I could see that of you played on the offensive or defensive line. But for the most part I couldn’t give damn about those those receivers who get hit 5 or 6 times a game and think they are warriors. 

[Woz]

On 3/29/2018 at 12:21 AM, Calvert28 said:

Except more then half of QB sneaks are at the goal line where every player on the field is at. There is no where there isn't contact.

What I meant was that there's a dive and there's a lowering of a helmet for contact.

Yeah, I know, it's vague, but the difference is going head first to get yardage versus going head first to drive into another player.

[Woz]

14 hours ago, BleedTheClock said:

Read an article not long ago that soccer is actually worse for concussions than football. Apparently "heading the ball" creates consistent subconcussive hits that over time, do more damage than large-scale concussions.

Except the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) looked at that very thing and decided to do something about it:

https://www.theringer.com/2017/4/25/16041684/us-soccer-header-ban-concussions-4805684f63ca

Quote

In late 2015, as part of its Recognize to Recover program, the United States Soccer Federation announced the U.S. Soccer Concussion Initiative 2016, which bans heading for children 10 and under (and limits heading for children aged 11 to 13 to 30 minutes per week). In England, the Professional Footballers’ Association wants the country’s youth leagues to adopt measures similar to those currently applied in the U.S. If it happens in England, experts think Western Europe will soon follow.

So, basically through 5th grade, there is supposed to be no training to use your head at all, and in middle school, you can only use it in practice for limited amounts of time. Furthermore:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/soccer/bs-bz-youth-soccer-headers-20170506-story.html

Quote

A trio of former U.S. women's soccer stars — Brandi Chastain, Joy Fawcett and Cindy Parlow Cone — are keeping the conversation going by lobbying to ban heading by players under 14.  [my note: from the Scientific American article below, the Sports Legacy Institute (a Boston non-profit) is also backing this]

So, the USSF said, "hmm, maybe we should prevent the most obvious way that concussions could occur for our youngest players." And parts of the community said, "that's such a great idea that let's push it to all non-high schoolers."

Unfortunately, the NFL hasn't really done the equivalent (for one: mandate the best damn helmets for all players and continually improve them).

Of course:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heading-bans-in-soccer-may-not-be-enough-to-stop-concussions/

Quote

Comstock and her colleagues report in JAMA Pediatrics July 13 that players are more likely to get concussions during heading than other soccer plays, but it's not the cause of the injuries.

"When you look more deeply in the data, it's not the act of athletes hitting the balls with their heads at all," Comstock said. "Rather, it's athlete-to-athlete contact that occurs during heading."
...
Heading was the most common soccer-related play associated with concussions, compared to other plays like passing or defending the ball. Heading accounted for about 31 percent of concussions among boys and about a quarter of concussions among girls.

But about 78 percent and about 62 percent of heading-relate concussions among boys and girls, respectively, were due to contact with another player.

Which gets back to the original problem: players crashing into each other.

[Iamcanadian]

I think the NFL knows the general public is fed up with rule changes and if a RB cannot lower his head, it is a very sad day!!!

[Woz]

On 3/31/2018 at 6:07 PM, Iamcanadian said:

I think the NFL knows the general public is fed up with rule changes and if a RB cannot lower his head, it is a very sad day!!!

General public being fed up <<<< getting sued by current and former players

[eagles101]

3 hours ago, Woz said:

General public being fed up <<<< getting sued by current and former players

They wouldnt have a lawsuit. Knowingly putting yourself at risk isnt going to get you a lawsuit. The original lawsuit was based on just straight lying to the players leading to life long injuries. 

[Woz]

Just now, eagles101 said:

They wouldnt have a lawsuit. Knowingly putting yourself at risk isnt going to get you a lawsuit. The original lawsuit was based on just straight lying to the players leading to life long injuries. 

Okay, then ongoing liability and minimizing long term compensation claims have no value to you then?

Basically, the NFL could care less about the "general public being fed up." They're making money hand over fist, but one of the biggest places where they could lose money is with the players. So, they're are trying to come up with ways of looking like they are trying, even if it changes the game.

[Broncofan]

Man, I understand the goal, but this rule is going to be a huge headache to enforce on who should be ejected. 

• Coaches couldn't agree when shown a play live.  5 vet coaches, 3-2.  It only took replay and discussion afterwards to get consensus.
• Anthony Lynn sent videos to Riverron, and was told one was a foul.  He then persuaded Riverron that it wasn't a foul after 15 mins of discussion
• Speaking on XM (not in the article linked below), Lynn pointed out that it would be really hard to do this breaking down film.   But it would be almost impossible to ask officials to do this consistently in real-time at game speed. 

I mean, the coaches can't even get consensus at first glance, and they needed replay.   And they're expecting officials to get it right in real time?   And before you say to use replay, with 8-10 games going on Sunday afternoon, are people thinking this is going to be reviewed with the same ability as when it's a prime time game?   This has major, major problems in feasibility and consistency of application.   And judging by the coaches' reaction - it's not even that transparent.

When a rule can't be transparently, consistently or feasibly applied...that's recipe for disaster.   I understand 100 percent why they are doing this, but man, this doesn't seem like it's going to fly, or that its implementation is going to be iffy at best.