Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

No Longer able to "Show their Horns" - Rule Change
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bodysuit Man


Joined: 08 Jan 2008
Posts: 741
Location: Virginia
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mod Edit/Removed
_________________
Confucius Say: To make a long story short, don't tell it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vikingsrule


Moderator
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 48542
Location: Land of 10,000 Lakes!
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bodysuit Man wrote:


And here is a WARNING for you.

This kind of derogatory language is not tolerated on the forum.

Quote:

Forum Rules

1. Do not post anything abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. This includes references in usernames, signatures, avatars, and PMs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rpmwr19


Moderator
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 26433
Location: Stillwater, MN
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Klomp wrote:
fishtanked wrote:
rpmwr19 wrote:
If they call it correctly that's a penalty; launching has nothing to do with it.


Not the way I interpret the rule, he doesn't have time to square up to deliver the hit.


My interpretation as well

What part of the rule says they have to square up?

Did I miss reading that? All I read was crown of the helmet as a weapon.
_________________
RPMs Viking Roster/Cap Tracker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kellerman


Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 3626
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anything that rule that gives the refs more decisions to make bothers me.

Since we're only dealing with runs in the open field, any such call is likely to be calling back a big play. What are the refs going to be looking for? If a RB dips his head and drives through a defensive player who goes high, is that going to get called? Even if he doesn't intentionally targets him with his helmet?

Putting more of the game into the fallible hands of the refs something we should get away from. Why not work with sensors? Apply sensors to the helmet-area of a player you do not want him to use. Set a minimum contact threshold, and if that helmet contacts the opposing player with enough force, buzz in the booth or the ref.

If you're going to go the hypocritical route of not making better safety equipment mandatory, and instead 'tone down' the game, at least go about it the right way. We should be using technology to take the refs out of the game more and more, and remove judgement calls.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishtanked


Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 807
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rpmwr19 wrote:
Klomp wrote:
fishtanked wrote:
rpmwr19 wrote:
If they call it correctly that's a penalty; launching has nothing to do with it.


Not the way I interpret the rule, he doesn't have time to square up to deliver the hit.


My interpretation as well

What part of the rule says they have to square up?

Did I miss reading that? All I read was crown of the helmet as a weapon.


When Jeff Fisher was explaining it on NFLN he said there were 3 parts to the motion, the player must square up, lower the head and use the crown of the helmet as a weapon. My interpretation of that is it needs to be a deliberate attempt to use the helmet as a weapon, in the AD/Gay example I don't think he had time to do anything deliberate. It was a bam/bam kind of play and AD was pretty much upright. I hope I'm right anyways, there is no way the above play should be illegal.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rpmwr19


Moderator
Joined: 23 Dec 2006
Posts: 26433
Location: Stillwater, MN
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think on a hit like that the refs would unfortunately see the force of the hit delivered, and Gay's reaction and call it a penalty. When he delivers the hit he is square to Gay and uses the crown instead of dropping the shoulder.

It was probably instinctual, but I see that refs blowing te whistle on that one.


I fully agree with Kellerman that there is too muh subjectivity in the rule and puts too much in the refs hands.
_________________
RPMs Viking Roster/Cap Tracker
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fishtanked


Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 807
Location: Canada
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rpmwr19 wrote:
I think on a hit like that the refs would unfortunately see the force of the hit delivered, and Gay's reaction and call it a penalty. When he delivers the hit he is square to Gay and uses the crown instead of dropping the shoulder.

It was probably instinctual, but I see that refs blowing te whistle on that one.


I fully agree with Kellerman that there is too muh subjectivity in the rule and puts too much in the refs hands.


It's probably a play that would be called by some crews and not by others.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kellerman


Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 3626
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fishtanked wrote:
rpmwr19 wrote:
I think on a hit like that the refs would unfortunately see the force of the hit delivered, and Gay's reaction and call it a penalty. When he delivers the hit he is square to Gay and uses the crown instead of dropping the shoulder.

It was probably instinctual, but I see that refs blowing te whistle on that one.


I fully agree with Kellerman that there is too muh subjectivity in the rule and puts too much in the refs hands.


It's probably a play that would be called by some crews and not by others.


And there we have, in a nutshell, one of the main problems with this rule

(apart from the slide towards 'finesse', aka moving towards the pussyfication of the league)
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
skywindO2


Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 14666
Location: Minneapolis, MN
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The William Gay hit is not illegal by the new rule, but would still probably be flagged because of the subjectivity of the rule. The rule still allows runners to lower their helmets in a defensive stance, which is clearly what happened here. A hit like this is incidental and not intended to be flagged.

The first hit in this video would be flagged: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O94DwdnHUpI

I can't find a video of it, but the best example in Adrian Peterson's career is actually in his rookie year in a pre-season game against the Jets, if anyone remembers that hit. That's the type of hit that this rule is targeting.
_________________

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つZIMMER༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marshpit23


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1480
Location: Baxter, MN
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who should be flagged on the first hit...Louis Delmas, AP, or both?? I seriously do not like the new rule; however, I am an advocate for safety. I just do not know how the refs will interpret this rule on the field at full speed.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SteelKing728


Joined: 23 Aug 2008
Posts: 15119
Location: Gibsonia, Pennsylvania
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a bad feeling we are going to get some horrible horrible calls this year, and quite a few great runs by Adrian will be totally wiped out because the ref thought he was using the crown of his helmet as a weapon.

That's what scares me the most.

now that I think about it, this move is totally backwards and might hurt football. Why not just make better equipment instead of watering the league down?

I hope this rule doesn't stand for very long.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
The Gnat


Moderator
Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 36517
Location: Minneapolis
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't mind this rule, I think that we'll see it enforced fairly hard in preseason and maybe the first week or two, but like flopping in the NBA, this isn't something that will stay around long in terms of getting called, and refs won't call it as often once players try more actively to avoid leading with the head.

This is a needed rule change, and something that the NFL can govern to make it safer. The reason that they don't with helmets is because of legal implications if they pick one, go with it for five years and turns out there was a better one available at the beginning of part way through. Players have an option to wear what is considered safer helmet, but NFL won't mandate.
_________________
Gnat's Movie Reviews

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Klomp


Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 7313
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Gnat wrote:
I don't mind this rule, I think that we'll see it enforced fairly hard in preseason and maybe the first week or two, but like flopping in the NBA, this isn't something that will stay around long in terms of getting called, and refs won't call it as often once players try more actively to avoid leading with the head..


That's what I'm thinking as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kellerman


Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 3626
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Gnat wrote:
The reason that they don't with helmets is because of legal implications if they pick one, go with it for five years and turns out there was a better one available at the beginning of part way through. Players have an option to wear what is considered safer helmet, but NFL won't mandate.


They could get the same result by simply banning the helmets that are 'known' to be significantly less safe. Addition by subtraction.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group