So the tuck rule is gone and now RBs aren’t allowed to lower their head when they are running into defenders.
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
So the tuck rule is gone and now RBs aren’t allowed to lower their head when they are running into defenders. [/quote]
The future of the NFL
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
So the tuck rule is gone and now RBs aren’t allowed to lower their head when they are running into defenders. [/quote]
Good on the tuck rule. Now they should take away the Pats’ first ring. (EDIT: I’m kidding here)
The RB thing (I think it also applies to defenders) isn’t going to be that big of a deal after a year or two. Guys will just keep their faces up now.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
So the tuck rule is gone and now RBs aren’t allowed to lower their head when they are running into defenders. [/quote]
Good on the tuck rule. Now they should take away the Pats’ first ring. (EDIT: I’m kidding here)
The RB thing (I think it also applies to defenders) isn’t going to be that big of a deal after a year or two. Guys will just keep their faces up now.[/quote]
This was the impression I was under as well.
They could still go low, but had to lead with their nose/shoulder rather than the crown of their helmet. Correct?
Never thought it was fair that a defender could not lead with a helmet but a guy like Danny Woodhead could go through a defender like a torpedo. Whats good for the goose…
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Never thought it was fair that a defender could not lead with a helmet but a guy like Danny Woodhead could go through a defender like a torpedo. Whats good for the goose…[/quote]
True… but I really wonder how the fuck refs are going to enforce this and how many shitty calls will be made.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Never thought it was fair that a defender could not lead with a helmet but a guy like Danny Woodhead could go through a defender like a torpedo. Whats good for the goose…[/quote]
True… but I really wonder how the fuck refs are going to enforce this and how many shitty calls will be made.[/quote]
And how many more fumbles will this cause.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Never thought it was fair that a defender could not lead with a helmet but a guy like Danny Woodhead could go through a defender like a torpedo. Whats good for the goose…[/quote]
True… but I really wonder how the fuck refs are going to enforce this and how many shitty calls will be made.[/quote]
And how many more fumbles will this cause.[/quote]
That’s a great point, hadn’t thought about that.
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Never thought it was fair that a defender could not lead with a helmet but a guy like Danny Woodhead could go through a defender like a torpedo. Whats good for the goose…[/quote]
True… but I really wonder how the fuck refs are going to enforce this and how many shitty calls will be made.[/quote]
And how many more fumbles will this cause.[/quote]
That’s a great point, hadn’t thought about that.[/quote]
Question though is will it prolong the shelf life of a RB?
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Never thought it was fair that a defender could not lead with a helmet but a guy like Danny Woodhead could go through a defender like a torpedo. Whats good for the goose…[/quote]
True… but I really wonder how the fuck refs are going to enforce this and how many shitty calls will be made.[/quote]
I don’t know if it’s legit, but a quote being thrown around ESPN today is that there would have been 5 incidences of this new penalty last season.
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
So the tuck rule is gone and now RBs aren’t allowed to lower their head when they are running into defenders. [/quote]
Good on the tuck rule. Now they should take away the Pats’ first ring. (EDIT: I’m kidding here)
The RB thing (I think it also applies to defenders) isn’t going to be that big of a deal after a year or two. Guys will just keep their faces up now.[/quote]
Considering this was pre-Spygate – and thus they were taping their SB XXXVI opponent’s practices all week along – I still see ample reason to at least asterisk that first ring.
source - Marshall Faulk: Patriots cheated the Rams out of a Super Bowl - ProFootballTalk
(edited - added source)
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
So the tuck rule is gone and now RBs aren’t allowed to lower their head when they are running into defenders. [/quote]
The future of the NFL
http://www.besportier.com/archives/nerf-vortex-ultra-lite-football.jpg[/quote]
Haha. I know they also wanted to widen the fields too. It’s like every year the NFL is turning more and more into a passing league.
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
So the tuck rule is gone and now RBs aren’t allowed to lower their head when they are running into defenders. [/quote]
The future of the NFL
http://www.besportier.com/archives/nerf-vortex-ultra-lite-football.jpg[/quote]
Haha. I know they also wanted to widen the fields too. It’s like every year the NFL is turning more and more into a passing league. [/quote]
Yeah when they widen the field every offensive record will get blown away. I heard they wanted to increase it to CFL size, which is 65 yds wide. That’s like a 20% increase in area that needs to be defended.
The passing and scoring records will be set the first year, and the rushing and receiving records will fall within 5. It will be ridiculous. The only ways to counteract it would be to increase the distance for a first down to 15 yards or add a player to the field (12 on 12).
Spread offenses would be the norm. Any team running a “pro-style” I-formation offense will get blown the fuck off the field. It will also put even more of a premium on QB arm strength, since sideline throws will now have to travel an additional 6 yds to get there. I bet the average size of players would decrease too, especially big skill guys.
I actually kinda like that rule change the most, because it doesn’t take anything away from the defense, it just totally changes the game. That is really what they want to do anyhow, so I say go for it. I hope they widen the hashes 5 yds each way too, to make the kicking game harder and to exploit the field width to an even greater degree (like in NCAA).
EDIT: Also, decrease the width of the goal post by 10%. Field goals are way too easy.
[quote]chillain wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
So the tuck rule is gone and now RBs aren’t allowed to lower their head when they are running into defenders. [/quote]
Good on the tuck rule. Now they should take away the Pats’ first ring. (EDIT: I’m kidding here)
The RB thing (I think it also applies to defenders) isn’t going to be that big of a deal after a year or two. Guys will just keep their faces up now.[/quote]
Considering this was pre-Spygate – and thus they were taping their SB XXXVI opponent’s practices all week along – I still see ample reason to at least asterisk that first ring.
source - Marshall Faulk: Patriots cheated the Rams out of a Super Bowl - ProFootballTalk
(edited - added source)
[/quote]
Whatever helps you sleep at night…
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
EDIT: Also, decrease the width of the goal post by 10%. Field goals are way too easy.[/quote]
I would be on board with this, even 20%…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
EDIT: Also, decrease the width of the goal post by 10%. Field goals are way too easy.[/quote]
I would be on board with this, even 20%…[/quote]
What about adding a top crossbar so you have to kick the ball through a rectangle? Would make shorter kicks more difficult and make the FG block a much more common occurrence.
I don’t care about the sanctity of the game anymore, as you can probably tell…
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
EDIT: Also, decrease the width of the goal post by 10%. Field goals are way too easy.[/quote]
I would be on board with this, even 20%…[/quote]
What about adding a top crossbar so you have to kick the ball through a rectangle? Would make shorter kicks more difficult and make the FG block a much more common occurrence.
I don’t care about the sanctity of the game anymore, as you can probably tell…[/quote]
Starship Troopers version of football will be here sooner than we expected!
They could make the game safer and more challenging by preventing the players from carrying the ball or touching it with their hands, making the ball round, and allowing only field goals into a shorter, wider, rectangular goal.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]PB Andy wrote:
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
Never thought it was fair that a defender could not lead with a helmet but a guy like Danny Woodhead could go through a defender like a torpedo. Whats good for the goose…[/quote]
True… but I really wonder how the fuck refs are going to enforce this and how many shitty calls will be made.[/quote]
And how many more fumbles will this cause.[/quote]
12
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Steel Nation wrote:
EDIT: Also, decrease the width of the goal post by 10%. Field goals are way too easy.[/quote]
I would be on board with this, even 20%…[/quote]
What about adding a top crossbar so you have to kick the ball through a rectangle? Would make shorter kicks more difficult and make the FG block a much more common occurrence.
I don’t care about the sanctity of the game anymore, as you can probably tell…[/quote]
ahahha… I just want to see more “going for it” on 4th and short between the 45-25.