Thread: Forte: Proposed rule is 'absurd'

Nah I disagree LB its becomming more like sarcastaball.

It is dumb. Problem with these proposed rule changes is, they can't tell the difference between the "rules" of the game and the "nature" of the game.

Forte seems to follow Emmit Smith in completely misunderstanding what the CROWN of the helmet is. Im not saying this rule is necessary but at least know what in the hell you are talking about first before dismissing it.

For example:

You can see in this pic that the RB has his head completely down, but even then, the crown does not come in contact with the defender at all. Im not quite sure why this rule came about, but it shouldnt be too difficult to run the ball without leading with your helmet. If defenders can not do this, then why should RBs?

I'm growing really weary of all this. I understand the risks of playing football are very real, and the long term effects can be devastating, but the players know it too. I think we all know that the league is doing all this to try to survive with the potential for law suits that could literally bankrupt the league and stop the game.

I know that legal waivers can be overcome by a good lawyer, but the time has come to develop a rock solid waiver that every player coming into the league must sign in order to be drafted. Hell, give the guys a mandatory week long seminar on the risks of physical and mental health and sign a waiver before they can be drafted. Make them sign the waiver again before every contract they sign through their career. These are grown men and they know the risks, but they do it anyway. I have never understood law suits where people voluntarily participate in risky behavior and only later, when the effects occur, do they file suit. They are grown ups and they have the ability to make grown up decisions.

Originally Posted by Jimmors

Forte seems to follow Emmit Smith in completely misunderstanding what the CROWN of the helmet is. Im not saying this rule is necessary but at least know what in the hell you are talking about first before dismissing it.

For example:

You can see in this pic that the RB has his head completely down, but even then, the crown does not come in contact with the defender at all. Im not quite sure why this rule came about, but it shouldnt be too difficult to run the ball without leading with your helmet. If defenders can not do this, then why should RBs?

But........in this case had the defender been approaching head on rather than laterally it may have been with the crown. This pic doesn't really do justice to it at all IMHO. This is only one instance where it's happening. We'd need to look at dozens more both where it is happening and not happening to get a real valid understanding of it.

I can't blame Forte or Smith for their initial reaction to it. As Baschnagelnator said there's a difference between trying to make a rule change and affecting the very nature of the game. Especially one that may be just as important to a runner protecting himself from an injury as trying to prevent one.

Defensive players often have the intent of inflicting punishment when they lead with the crown of their helmet and with a few inflicting injury isn't beyond question either. It's not the intent of a RB to do either IMHO. It's a by product of their running style and part of their defense. Something go too far and this is probably one of them.