Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

-Elimination of the "tuck" rule. Vote 29-1, with 2 abstentions, to eliminate. Good, was a stupid rule. A fumble is a fumble.

"• Replay rules will now allow a review to take place when a coach challenges a play that is automatically reviewed by the replay official. Previously, if a coach threw a challenge flag on an automatically reviewable play, the team would be penalized 15 yards and no review would take place.
• "Peel back" blocks below the waist are now illegal in the tackle box. Penalties for this infraction will be a loss of 15 yards.
• During a field goal or extra point attempt, the defense may not have more than six players one the line of scrimmage on either side of the long-snapper. These illegal formation penalties will be a loss of five yards from the previous spot. Defensive teams cannot push their teammates into the offensive formation on field goal or extra point attempts. Violations of this "unnecessary roughness" penalty will incur a loss of 15 yards from the previous spot.
The measures essentially mean that, at the time of the snap, long-snappers are classified as "defenseless players".
• Tight ends and H-backs are now permitted to wear jersey numbers 40-49."

The 6th, and most controversial:

"....According to ESPN's Adam Schefter, owners voted 31-1 to approve the crown-of-the-helmet safety measure, which has drawn the ire of NFL running backs, who feel that the new rule will take away an instinctual defense mechanism.

"In order to lower your shoulder you obviously have to lower your head. It’s a way of protecting yourself from a tackler and a way to break tackles. You can’t change the instinctive nature of running the football," Chicago Bears running back Matt Forte wrote on Twitter earlier this week.

The new rule, which includes a loss of 15 yards (and an automatic first down if committed by the defense) reads as follows:
"It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top/crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players are clearly outside the tackle box (an area extending from tackle to tackle and from three yards beyond the line of scrimmage to the offensive team’s end line). Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or tackler against an opponent shall not be a foul."....."
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutd ... --nfl.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So basically if a RB in the open field lowers his shoulder to try to run over a defender its a penalty..

At the rate this is going from the last 8 years or so it won't be too long before we're looking at 2 hand touch...

And the pussification of the NFL continues. Just put flags on them already.

andy7171 wrote:And the pussification of the NFL continues. Just put flags on them already.

I was thinking put them in a bubble, but your idea works just as well. Maybe a bubble with flags on it.

andy7171 wrote:And the pussification of the NFL continues. Just put flags on them already.

And tutus.

andy7171 wrote:And the pussification of the NFL continues. Just put flags on them already.

Emmitt Smith and Jerome Bettis both ripped the new rule on Mike & Mike this week.

they already flagged defensive players if they initiated contact with the crown of the helmet, did they not?
i don't see why offensive players should be able to initiate such contact and not the defenders.

Ivytalk wrote:

andy7171 wrote:And the pussification of the NFL continues. Just put flags on them already.

Emmitt Smith and Jerome Bettis both ripped the new rule on Mike & Mike this week.

They're not the only ones. I heard that MANY retired players trashed that idiot Goodell over this bogus rule. The way I've heard it described, it's not so much leading with the crown of the helmet that will draw the flag (though it obviously will). The problem seems to be that you'll get a flag if you put your head down at all, even if your facemask is the point of contact, which is how legit blocks have been taught for 80 years or more.

BDKJMU wrote:So basically if a RB in the open field lowers his shoulder to try to run over a defender its a penalty..

At the rate this is going from the last 8 years or so it won't be too long before we're looking at 2 hand touch...

No. My understanding is that it is only a penalty if the RB makes contact with the crown of his helmet. Leading the with the shoulder and running a guy over is okay.

SuperHornet wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Emmitt Smith and Jerome Bettis both ripped the new rule on Mike & Mike this week.

They're not the only ones. I heard that MANY retired players trashed that idiot Goodell over this bogus rule. The way I've heard it described, it's not so much leading with the crown of the helmet that will draw the flag (though it obviously will). The problem seems to be that you'll get a flag if you put your head down at all, even if your facemask is the point of contact, which is how legit blocks have been taught for 80 years or more.

The key will be how this rule is enforced. It shouldn't be a penalty if you can see what you hit, whether the ref's call it that way is another story.

They should make this an experimental rule during the preseason, play some games and see how it works, and then make a final decision on whether or not to use it in the regular season.

BlueHen86 wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
They're not the only ones. I heard that MANY retired players trashed that idiot Goodell over this bogus rule. The way I've heard it described, it's not so much leading with the crown of the helmet that will draw the flag (though it obviously will). The problem seems to be that you'll get a flag if you put your head down at all, even if your facemask is the point of contact, which is how legit blocks have been taught for 80 years or more.

The key will be how this rule is enforced. It shouldn't be a penalty if you can see what you hit, whether the ref's call it that way is another story.

They should make this an experimental rule during the preseason, play some games and see how it works, and then make a final decision on whether or not to use it in the regular season.

This I could go with, IF there wre assurances that Goodell would chuck it if the officials interpret it incorrectly, if it doesn't work, or if it changes the game too much. Of course, he has a track record of not caring if the nature of the game changes. He's the most egotistical, incompetent, power-hungry, and corrupt commish we've ever had....

SuperHornet wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
The key will be how this rule is enforced. It shouldn't be a penalty if you can see what you hit, whether the ref's call it that way is another story.

They should make this an experimental rule during the preseason, play some games and see how it works, and then make a final decision on whether or not to use it in the regular season.

This I could go with, IF there wre assurances that Goodell would chuck it if the officials interpret it incorrectly, if it doesn't work, or if it changes the game too much. Of course, he has a track record of not caring if the nature of the game changes. He's the most egotistical, incompetent, power-hungry, and corrupt commish we've ever had....

I'd also make the penalty reviewable, so that if a ref does screw up the interpretation the call can be fixed.
But I know that will never happen.