The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Two new rules coming out of the meetings:

1) elimination of the tuck rule by QB's.

2) Penalty for offensive ball carriers that lower their head and lead with the crown of their helmet, outside of the tackle box.

I'm for both these rules, good changes.

About time with the tuck rule. Unfortunately, it's removal is over a decade late...

I don't think I'm for the second rule change as it seems like a lot of players are upset about it.

Players are speaking out of both sides of their mouths on this. They want safety to be an issue but when moves are made to increase safety they complain. Using the crown of your helmet should be illegal as it is not a safe practice. Anyone who knows anything about player safety knows you are suppose to keep your eyes up while making contact. Hits to the head need to stop.

Regarding the helmet rule, it seems like I see repeated times where the offensive player lowers his body/helmet causing the defensive player to do likewise, which at the speeds they are moving causes helmet to helmet hits.  However it's always the defensive player getting the penalty.  So, I think with the change it evens the playing field.

Rule 2 is pansyfying the game even more.  Go back to the old days when hard hits were accepted and common and something fans looked forward to.

The multi million dollar NFL players have access to top medical treatment for their poor tackling techniques, the hundreds of thousands of kids who will never make it to that level but will copy their idols in making crown of the helmet hits won't. This is a good call, you can deliver standout hits without lowering your head and risking severe injuries.

Actually in the old days players hit with their bodies and arms.  Running backs ran people over with their bodies, linebackers put a hurtin on players using their arms and bodies.  Today's players that lead with their helmets are the pussies.

The crown of the helmet rule is a good rule change. Prevents players from turning into vegetables when they hit their 50's and 60's because of massive brain trauma!

It's only going to be called outside the tackle box and more than 3 yards down the field. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Off topic posts have been removed.  Stay on topic, please.

About time the shit canned the tuck rule...... ;D

They should never have randomly made it up on the sidelines while trying to protect the Patriots from losing in the playoffs.  What a shame it took this long to remove it.

As just about the only person in the world, I always thought the tuck rule made sense. Not that I liked it, but it was (I felt, and feel) consistent with the rules generally applied to possession and fumbling:

When a quarterback's arm moves forward, the ball is considered thrown and therefore a hit from a defender cannot cause a fumble. That's always been the case and everyone seems satisfied with that.

However, the tuck rule to me is the logical flip side to that. If the pass is defined as happening not when the quarterback releases the ball, but when the arm starts moving forward, he must be deemed to no longer be in possession of the football. Thus any attempt to abort the pass and tuck the ball MUST conform the the standard rules for obtaining possession of a ball: complete control + time / football move / whatever. When the ball falls to the ground during a tuck, possession has clearly not been re-established and the result of the play is an incomplete pass.

^^^ a QB's handling of the football is a unique situation, unlike the "standard rules for obtaining possession of a ball".  IMHO, the comparison you make, which has some technical merit, is not relevant.

My understanding is that the original purpose of the tuck rule was to take the interpretation of the QB's intention out of the hands of the officials.  Without the tuck rule, if the ball comes out of the QB's hand when his arm is moving forward, an official has to determine whether the QB intended to throw a pass, or whether he intended to tuck the ball and lost possession.

Low man wins. Period. If the rule penalized using the head as a battering ram, then there wouldn't be complaints. A running back lowers his head to reduce his tackling zone. Also to prevent injury. Get ready for lots of 1st & 22's.

I'm guessing this rule was enacted because of the licking that Pollard laid on Ridley in the AFC title game.

On the contrary. Riddley was the one who initiated contact. Pollard was trying to avoid his head altogether.

You're right, but it doesn't change the end result.  The NFL is trying to prevent future happenstances

And you're right. We're inching ever closer to professional flag football. Or what they had on the Jetsons.

^^^ I hate hearing that lame story. They are trying to take away the helmet being used as a weapon and it is turning the game into flag football? I just don't see the equation. I played hundreds of games of backyard, tackle football where we hit each other full speed without pads. No one used their head because we didn't use helmets. There is no pussification in this move at all. The pussification, if you want to hear it from me, happened when they put the pads on all these guys.

I would agree.  Get rid of the helmets and pads and play rugby style and the injuries will go down. 

I can't blame the NFL for the rule change, given the concussion lawsuit

If injuries are up with pads and helmets then by playing rugby where you remove pads and injuries go down, then wouldn't that be a pussification by removing pads? :)