Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: This is a penalty in Roger Goodell's NFL

  1. #11
    I don't agree with the decision or with most of what Goodell does, but agree with Ovi that this was likely done out of liability concerns. At least some in the media agree:

    Bob Labriola@BobLabriola17m Re: crown-of-the-helmet rule, give the lawyers the win. This was about legal liability and lawsuits, more than the game of football

  2. #12
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by Oviedo View Post
    Quit trying to turn Goodell into the "boogeyman." All these changes you hate so much are the direct result of lawsuits by money grubbing ex-players who blew through all the money the made in the NFL and want to go back and play victim to get money from the cash cow.

    If Goodell and the NFL did nothing with these changes they would look like they didn't care in court and it would make the lawsuits stronger.

    All these changes are squarely on former players. Make the lawsuits go away and none of these changes happen.
    Well, definitely a lot of truth in what you posted. But at the same time, there are a lot of players vastly damaged in health from playing for the NFL, and the league has low balled former players for decades, not giving a rat's butt about helping out former players with severe health problems. It's not quite a black and white issue, with former players being greedy, lazy thieves looking for handouts and the owners being innocent lily white angels. The owners didn't want to give out a red dime for these former players suffering. They used them up, discarded them and didn't want to hear about any health care, even though they could have EASILY afforded it and still make billions. The owners acted callously and showed zero compassion or heart. Now they have to face it.

  3. #13
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by phillyesq View Post
    I don't agree with the decision or with most of what Goodell does, but agree with Ovi that this was likely done out of liability concerns. At least some in the media agree:
    A massive law suit is under way, and these rules are to prove the owners care about the effect of concussions. All they are doing is a "cover their @ss" move. That is what ALL these rules are about. If not for the law suits, you wouldn't see any of this. Goodell is a lawyer himself; he knows exactly what all of this is about. He gets paid by the owners; this is purely to serve their agenda. How obvious can it be?

  4. #14
    Pro Bowler skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,021
    This is not a penalty I hope. The new rule states you cannot use the crown of your helmet to make contact. He made contact with his shoulder and possibly with his helmet. The crown is the very apex of the helmet right? When I think of a penalty I think of the old Earl Campbell run where he buries the very apex of the helmet in a guys sternum.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsegJVLrmk8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r50gW8XRDW8

    If Jackson's run is a penalty it's pretty fu$cking stupid. AND, if it's illegal to touch helmets at all eventually, why have helmets at all??
    Last edited by skyhawk; 03-20-2013 at 07:30 PM.

  5. #15
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,905
    I have no clue how they are going to enforce this.

  6. #16
    Backup
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    452
    That's what I said. Just eliminate the helmet all together.

    Put them in hockey helmets.

  7. #17
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,026
    Quote Originally Posted by skyhawk View Post
    This is not a penalty I hope. The new rule states you cannot use the crown of your helmet to make contact. He made contact with his shoulder and possibly with his helmet. The crown is the very apex of the helmet right?

    If this is a penalty it's pretty fu$cking stupid. AND, if it's illegal to touch helmets at all eventually, why have helmets at all??
    The play with Richardson running over that Philly defender should no way be a penalty; that was an awesome football play. He looked like Earl Campbell on that play. The NFL is quickly becoming a sport not resembling football. A RB should absolutely be able to use his head to strike defenders. Not allowing them to do so makes them far more vulnerable. What, do you expect them to just absorb punishment without being able to dish any out?

  8. #18
    Pro Bowler skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Siggy00 View Post
    That's what I said. Just eliminate the helmet all together.

    Put them in hockey helmets.
    I added the Campbell vid's above.

  9. #19
    Pro Bowler skyhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    2,021
    And good point. Smaller helmets would be better. Perhaps the old leather ones. But I think Hockey helmets are a legitimate replacement.

  10. #20
    Backup
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    452
    Yep. Penalty.

    This is going to be just like halmet to helmets with safeties. Clean hits will be flagged simply because of how a play LOOKS.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •