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

Illegal to lower crown of helmets
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
reckless123


Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 11282
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

People are ignoring one issue. The refs are going to wrongfully flag people in some situations thats why this rule just doesnt work. And what is penalty for the hit? 15 yards? 10 yards?
_________________


"Champagne"..."Mountain Range"..."Hugs".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kramxel


Joined: 14 Nov 2007
Posts: 3843
Location: Portugal
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Until they actually explain the rule, and not just talk abou it, there will always be confusion.

Right now, I'm not a fan of it, because if a runner is facing a defender head on, and lowers his helmet, there's a good chance he'll hit with the crown....

And I don't think that's what it was meant to be.
_________________


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FirstDownFaulk


Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 4946
Location: New York
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tylerdouglass wrote:
FirstDownFaulk wrote:
There's no point debating with someone who can't even read...have a good day Laughing


This is the second time in just about as many pages you've resorted to a jab at a poster rather than continuing good discussion. If you can't stay on topic and continue the type of discussion we're looking for maybe you should just avoid arguments altogether?

This jab is warranted given his BLATANT misquotation of a post I made in a previous thread.

Either way...its a ridiculous rule.
_________________
jrry32 wrote:
Tom Brady hasn't left NE and proven himself not to be a system QB...so he is one.

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


Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Posts: 4946
Location: New York
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jrry32 wrote:
FirstDownFaulk wrote:

There's no point debating with someone who can't even read...have a good day Laughing


What this says to me is that you realize that you're completely outclassed in this specific argument and rather than prattle on with ignorance and continue to be proven wrong...you'd rather concede.

I accept your concession.

Now...back to the rule...which I have no issue with.

As for my concession....absolutely not. No amount of explanation on the case itself will change the fact that I simply believe, if you're dumb enough to play with hot coffee, you deserve to get burned. The justice system shouldn't award stupidity at all.
_________________
jrry32 wrote:
Tom Brady hasn't left NE and proven himself not to be a system QB...so he is one.

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


Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Posts: 366
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MNPackfan32 wrote:
My problem is how will it ever be enforced on a consistent basis? I am all for it being a safe game, I just don't want this costing a team a win.


I think this is going to be the biggest problem they will have. I understand the rule. But how do you enforce it? Where do you draw the line?

If you go through the rules in the NFL that are the most often scrutinized, the ones that stand out are those judgment calls. This is going to be one of the biggest judgment calls ever on the field.

You're asking these refs to judge whether a player was forcibly trying to use the helmet as a weapon? If you have MJD running near full speed as he gets past the LOS, and he sees a DB coming at him and he lowers his head and shoulder down to "truck" him, is that a penalty?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eagles101


Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 8693
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tylerdouglass wrote:
eagles101 wrote:
tylerdouglass wrote:
eagles101 wrote:
minutemancl wrote:
Seriously: take away facemasks and none of these new rules will be necessary for offense or defense.


besides how the whole concept doesnt make one bit of sense.....lets say team is playing the vikings in the super bowl (hypothetical) peterson is just tearing it up. what stops a player from just smashing him the face with his helmet so he cant play anymore?


What stops that same player from stomping on his knee when he's down?


Well since that would be against the rules.


So would using his helmet to smash the face. I don't see a way to purposefully hit someone in the face with your helmet without leading with the crown, assuming neither have facemasks.

That's just the way I see it. Intentional dirty shots will always happen, I don't think removing the facemask would increase them very much, if at all.


i was assuming your taking out the rule......there would be no reason to take the facemask off if your keeping the rules that people complain about?

but ya dirty plays happen all the time....except those dont end in someones face getting smashed to the back of there head.

but the whole thing is ridiculous....what would it accomplish?
_________________

props to deadpulse
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eagles101


Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 8693
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

titanrick wrote:
So it's now official: this will remain the greatest running play in NFL history.



Very Happy


i actual hate that run....i cant stand those hits.
_________________

props to deadpulse
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jetsman82


Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 19858
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

eagles101 wrote:
titanrick wrote:
So it's now official: this will remain the greatest running play in NFL history.



Very Happy


i actual hate that run....i cant stand those hits.

Confused

One thing I missed initially is this only applies once the runner leaves the tackle box. Like I've said, if its enforced correctly, this isn't that bad.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Superman(DH23)


Joined: 03 Jan 2008
Posts: 18602
Location: Abdi on the sick sig
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FirstDownFaulk wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
FirstDownFaulk wrote:

There's no point debating with someone who can't even read...have a good day Laughing


What this says to me is that you realize that you're completely outclassed in this specific argument and rather than prattle on with ignorance and continue to be proven wrong...you'd rather concede.

I accept your concession.

Now...back to the rule...which I have no issue with.

As for my concession....absolutely not. No amount of explanation on the case itself will change the fact that I simply believe, if you're dumb enough to play with hot coffee, you deserve to get burned. The justice system shouldn't award stupidity at all.
Its sad, b/c you clearly have no idea what happened either w/ the incident itself or w/ the court system. I probably shouldn't bother but I will, for the others who don't.

First you need to know the difference between "actual" damages and "punitive" damages. Actual damages is the amount you are seeking to be made whole. What the woman in this case was awarded in actual damages equates her medical costs, court costs, and legal expenses.

Punitive damages are awarded by the jury to punish the defendant for negligent or irresponsible behavior. In this case the jury ordered punitive damages in the amount that it cost McDonald's their coffee revenue for 2 days totaling $2.7M. The trial judge then reduced the amount to $480,000, both sides appealed and later settled for an amount less than $600K.

And thus here is the problem w/ how civil cases are reported in the media. The general public hears that woman was awarded $2.7M in a lawsuit b/c she spilled hot coffee on herself. They hear neither the facts of the case, nor the real disposition. They don't hear things like the defense presented (McDonald's claimed that their general consumer purchased coffee in the drive thru to be consumed later at home or work, not for immediate consumption), or that McDonald's knew that their coffee was served hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. Instead this case has been used as the model for those claiming a need for tort reform as a frivolous lawsuit.
_________________

2013 Bears Forum Mike Ditka Award Winner
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
BigMoneysProtege


Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 1590
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess I need to see this rule in action before I rush to judgement. Inside the tackle box is a very good percentage of runs, and plowing through the line is where this rule would get out of hand, so I'm very glad they made that distinction.

I can accept that the Trent Richardson and Earl Campbell runs will now be illegal, but I fear too much controversy. What about if a guy has started getting tackled and it looks like he puts the crown down? What about Adrian Peterson plowing over William Gay (which I feel should be 100% legal.

I will wait for the end of this season to a) review how many times it's called, b) the situations in which it is called, and c) the consistency of said calls.

Until we see these 3 things there's no reason to flip out.
_________________
Never looking back, or too far in front of me.

The present is a gift, and I just wanna be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Global Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19113
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Superman(DH23) wrote:
FirstDownFaulk wrote:
jrry32 wrote:
FirstDownFaulk wrote:

There's no point debating with someone who can't even read...have a good day Laughing
What this says to me is that you realize that you're completely outclassed in this specific argument and rather than prattle on with ignorance and continue to be proven wrong...you'd rather concede.

I accept your concession.

Now...back to the rule...which I have no issue with.
As for my concession....absolutely not. No amount of explanation on the case itself will change the fact that I simply believe, if you're dumb enough to play with hot coffee, you deserve to get burned. The justice system shouldn't award stupidity at all.
Its sad, b/c you clearly have no idea what happened either w/ the incident itself or w/ the court system. I probably shouldn't bother but I will, for the others who don't.

First you need to know the difference between "actual" damages and "punitive" damages. Actual damages is the amount you are seeking to be made whole. What the woman in this case was awarded in actual damages equates her medical costs, court costs, and legal expenses.

Punitive damages are awarded by the jury to punish the defendant for negligent or irresponsible behavior. In this case the jury ordered punitive damages in the amount that it cost McDonald's their coffee revenue for 2 days totaling $2.7M. The trial judge then reduced the amount to $480,000, both sides appealed and later settled for an amount less than $600K.

And thus here is the problem w/ how civil cases are reported in the media. The general public hears that woman was awarded $2.7M in a lawsuit b/c she spilled hot coffee on herself. They hear neither the facts of the case, nor the real disposition. They don't hear things like the defense presented (McDonald's claimed that their general consumer purchased coffee in the drive thru to be consumed later at home or work, not for immediate consumption), or that McDonald's knew that their coffee was served hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns. Instead this case has been used as the model for those claiming a need for tort reform as a frivolous lawsuit.
Most people also don't realize that she initially offered to settle the claim for $20,000 to cover medical expenses. It's not like it was a get rich quick scheme.
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Socraticsilence


Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 3627
Location: Missoula, MT
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For all the people talking about how this rule is impossible to deal with, I really have to ask did you ever play football, and if so did you skip the day where you were taught you should always see what you hit?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The LBC


Global Moderator
Joined: 12 Jan 2008
Posts: 22889
Location: Where We Can't Have Nice Things
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

reckless123 wrote:
People are ignoring one issue. The refs are going to wrongfully flag people in some situations thats why this rule just doesnt work. And what is penalty for the hit? 15 yards? 10 yards?

How is that different from any number of other rules currently in existence? Should we throw all those out too because there's an incidence of the wrong call being made?

Bad calls happen in every game... multiple times even. It's part of the game. If we start scrapping the rules because of the potential for referee error in enforcing said rules, we're not even going to have enough rules to fit on one side of a single sheet of paper.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
reckless123


Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 11282
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The LBC wrote:
reckless123 wrote:
People are ignoring one issue. The refs are going to wrongfully flag people in some situations thats why this rule just doesnt work. And what is penalty for the hit? 15 yards? 10 yards?

How is that different from any number of other rules currently in existence? Should we throw all those out too because there's an incidence of the wrong call being made?

Bad calls happen in every game... multiple times even. It's part of the game. If we start scrapping the rules because of the potential for referee error in enforcing said rules, we're not even going to have enough rules to fit on one side of a single sheet of paper.


thats the point, its a judgement call. We dont need to add another judgement call to the game.
_________________


"Champagne"..."Mountain Range"..."Hugs".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Global Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19113
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

reckless123 wrote:
The LBC wrote:
reckless123 wrote:
People are ignoring one issue. The refs are going to wrongfully flag people in some situations thats why this rule just doesnt work. And what is penalty for the hit? 15 yards? 10 yards?
How is that different from any number of other rules currently in existence? Should we throw all those out too because there's an incidence of the wrong call being made?

Bad calls happen in every game... multiple times even. It's part of the game. If we start scrapping the rules because of the potential for referee error in enforcing said rules, we're not even going to have enough rules to fit on one side of a single sheet of paper.
thats the point, its a judgement call. We dont need to add another judgement call to the game.
Isn't just about everything in the purview of the refs a judgment call?
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> NFL News All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 16, 17, 18  Next
Page 17 of 18

 
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