@MattForte22: "Wow so they really passed that rule...last time I checked football was a contact sport. Calling bank now to set up my lowering the boom fund."
This will end up being a serious consideration, but it is very hard to assess the risk of playing without a helmet at all.
Believe me, there is enough violence in the game of football when it is played as it is supposed to be played. The last two decades of men trying to turn themselves into missiles is not football - at least not the way I was taught it. You see what you hit - not just lower your head and plow into the person to try to injure them. These guys today are not playing football, they are trying to slobber-knock someone to make a highlight reel, and it is that which is leading to more problems with head injuries, concussions, etc. Those things are what will destroy the game, not legislation to play the game as it should have been taught all along!
I agree. They need to play as if they aren't. I think there is a logical argument for modern helmets making the game more dangerous. Maybe going back to leather helmets could be an option.
Right, make players aware of the risks. Come out and tell the world how likely a football player is to get degenerative brain disease or dementia or whatever else could happen. It would kill the sport.
To many would still have the mentality of "it won't happen to me" I think. You may be able to protect from litigation via a waiver, but not the images of 50 something or younger ex NFLers with dementia, alzheimers, shooting themselves, etc. All these people up in arms over rule changes every year kill me. Seriously, this will not destroy the game, get real. We have eliminated MANY things over the course of the game and it is doing just fine. Head slaps, horsecollers, spearing, straight arm, facemask, etc. Football will still be football, will still be contact. The emphasis is on preventing brain trauma, which as Stringer points out, CAN kill the game far more effectively than these ultimately minor rule changes. This is about removing the helmet as a weapon.
Helmet rule going by NFL network had the Bengals as the ones who voted against it. Tuck rule had the Pats obviously and Steelers cause they wanted to protect their hard to tackle QB.
Not to mention that the NFLPA has no business allowing their members to sign such a silly waiver. Players cannot even waive their rights on their own.
I'm all for the rule. Players can't and shouldn't lower the crown of the helmet in the open field. Think about Eddie George, he used his shoulders so well. Really doubt this will get call more than 7 times all year
Seems to me that most of these helmet-to-helmet shots come on passing plays, and the rules making passing the ball much easier seem to only aid in increasing the number of concussions from receivers to quarterbacks.
Good rule. I don't see this hurting the NFL in popularity at all. Most fans love to see the pass a lot more than the run. This rule change probably just increases the likelihood teams will try to throw the ball inside of the 5 yard line more than they already do.
