New helmet-to-helmet rule...

[alarson]

Generally I am okay with the rule - defenders should not be spearing.

The problem is it seems like half the time in what would ordinarily be a clean tackle for the defender (head up, trying to wrap, etc) it's the offensive player that leads with/drops his head right into the defender - and it's always flagged on the defender. I'm sorry, this needs to be called on offensive players equally because the offensive player is putting himself in a bad position allowing himself to be hit in the head.

Definitely this. If the offensive player drops into it, it shouldnt be a penalty on the defense.

[khardbored]

They probably could clean this up just as much by flagging offensive players who lower their head into a tackling player's helmet. That is just as dangerous but as far as I know has never been called.

In high school it is illegal (offensive spearing) and does get called occasionally.

[IcSyU]

Rules to implement:
1) Offensive spearing at the college level
2) Not contact to the facemask of defenders when stiff arming. I hate that damn rule. I can stiff arm the guy's facemask when I have the ball but if he accidentally touches mine it's 15 yards.

[WooClone15]

Rules to implement:
1) Offensive spearing at the college level
2) Not contact to the facemask of defenders when stiff arming. I hate that damn rule. I can stiff arm the guy's facemask when I have the ball but if he accidentally touches mine it's 15 yards.

while I think they should change the stiff arm rule, defenders don't get called for accidentally grabbing the facemask anymore

[tee1up]

Generally I am okay with the rule - defenders should not be spearing.

The problem is it seems like half the time in what would ordinarily be a clean tackle for the defender (head up, trying to wrap, etc) it's the offensive player that leads with/drops his head right into the defender - and it's always flagged on the defender. I'm sorry, this needs to be called on offensive players equally because the offensive player is putting himself in a bad position allowing himself to be hit in the head.

This is exactly right..a good % of the time, the offensive guy lowers his head at the last second, and the defender gets flagged.

[besserheimerphat]

This is exactly right..a good % of the time, the offensive guy lowers his head at the last second, and the defender gets flagged.

That's why it's a reviewable penalty. It's only reviewable if the flag is thrown. Once the flag is thrown, the booth will review to either confirm or overturn the call on the field. So, if the offensive player "ducks into" the defender the flag can be waived off and the defender will not be ejected. I don't have a problem with this.

[BigM]

That's why it's a reviewable penalty. It's only reviewable if the flag is thrown. Once the flag is thrown, the booth will review to either confirm or overturn the call on the field. So, if the offensive player "ducks into" the defender the flag can be waived off and the defender will not be ejected. I don't have a problem with this.

if the offensive player does that it should be a penalty on him

[besserheimerphat]

^^^ I don't know. I can see an offensive player lowering his head to prepare for the hit, but don't think an offensive player is going to throw his head in the way of a defender with the intent to draw a penalty. I don't think that deserves a penalty just an a defender who makes incidental contact deserves a penalty.

Remember, the penalty is mean to punish those who purposely target another player's head. The penalty is for targeting, not helmet-to-helmet contact.

[besserheimerphat]

From the official rulebook:

Targeting/Initiating Contact With the Crown of the Helmet—

ARTICLE 3

Approved Ruling 9-1-3

I. Passer A12 inside the tackle box is looking for an open receiver. Before

or just as he releases the ball, A12 is hit from the side at the ribs, thigh

or knee by B79, who leads with the crown (top) of his helmet.
RULING:

Foul by B79 for targeting his opponent and initiating contact with the top

of his helmet. Ejection for a flagrant foul.

Defenseless Player: Contact to Head or Neck Area—ARTICLE 4

Approved Ruling 9-1-4

I. Receiver A83 has just leaped and received a forward pass. As A83 is

about to regain his balance, B45 launches and drives into A83 above the

shoulder area with his helmet or shoulder.
RULING: Foul by B45 for

targeting and initiating contact with a defenseless opponent above the

shoulders. Ejection for a flagrant foul.

II. As ball carrier A20 sweeps around the end and heads upfield, he lowers
his head and contacts defensive end B89 who is trying to tackle him. The
players meet helmet to helmet.
RULING: No foul. Neither A20 nor B89
is a defenseless player and neither has targeted his opponent in the sense
of Rule 9-1-3.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/prod...loads/FR13.pdf

[tm3308]

I'd prefer this to be reviewable after the game than in-game. If a guy is judged guilty, he sits the first half of the next game. That reduces the chance of BS ejections.

One interesting idea I heard on the Dan Patrick show this week that I actually kind of liked: Instead of a 15 yard penalty for personal fouls, why not do it like hockey and make the guilty player sit out for a set amount of time or plays while his team plays a man down? To me, that sounds like a win-win from the NFL's perspective: You come up with a punishment that might actually serve as a deterrent, and you get a more wide-open game when guys get flagged for a PF.

[Rural]

We are seeing the end of the game of football.

We had two (earlier someone said 3) targeting calls last year that were absolutely clean football plays.
So we now get ejections to go along with it?
We better have a roster that is at least 50% defensive backs because we'll need it.

[ISUKyro]

Yeah I see ISU finishing a game next year with only 5 guys on the field.... everyone else will be ejected by half time.

[Mr Janny]

We are seeing the end of the game of football.

We had two (earlier someone said 3) targeting calls last year that were absolutely clean football plays.
So we now get ejections to go along with it?
We better have a roster that is at least 50% defensive backs because we'll need it.

seriously, RTFA. First, no, it's not the end of football, any more than banning the horsecollar tackle was the end of football. Second, ejections would be subject to booth review. Some people are making a way bigger deal out of this than it is.

[Rural]

seriously, RTFA. First, no, it's not the end of football, any more than banning the horsecollar tackle was the end of football. Second, ejections would be subject to booth review. Some people are making a way bigger deal out of this than it is.

You can chicken little this all you want but this fundamentally changes the game.

It will NOT be the same game at all.

Every change of the last fifty-odd years has favored offense and this will only make that even worse.

Might as well get rid of pads and play in shorts.
Flag football is exciting, isn't it?

[jbhtexas]

You can chicken little this all you want but this fundamentally changes the game.

The forward pass fundamentally changed the game of FB. Ejecting a player for leading with his helmet does not fundamentally change the game of FB.