Tuck Rule Gone, Helmet Rule Approved

[r8rh8rmike]

Tuck rule gone, helmet rule approved

Updated: March 20, 2013, 3:14 PM ET
By John Clayton and Adam Schefter | ESPN.com

PHOENIX -- NFL owners went into a speed voting mode before concluding their winter meeting in Phoenix on Wednesday, voting to eliminate the tuck rule, penalize crown of the helmet hits by players who are outside of the tackle box or at least three yards downfield and change the replay challenge rule so that a bad coaches' challenge doesn't prevent officials from reviewing the play.

The tuck rule change had only one dissenting vote, the Pittsburgh Steelers. The New England Patriots and Washington Redskins abstained, but the remaining 29 teams, including the Oakland Raiders, voted to end the rule, a call that cost the Raiders a chance to go to the Super Bowl in 2001.

Tom Brady was the famous beneficiary of the rule in that 2001 playoff game between the Patriots and the Raiders. A ball that appeared to be a Brady fumble was ruled an incomplete pass, and the Patriots went on to win the game.

Now, if a quarterback starts to bring the football back toward his body while trying to throw, it will be ruled a fumble instead of an incomplete pass.

"We didn't think it was necessary to make that change," Steelers president Art Rooney said. "We were happy with the way it's been called."

The Raiders celebrated the tuck rule's demise with a three-word tweet: "Adios, Tuck Rule."

The most debate came with the crown of the helmet hits rule, which will affect running backs the most. As of Tuesday, the competition committee felt as though it was only one vote away from passing. After further discussion, the vote was 31-1 with the Cincinnati Bengals voting against.

It will now be a 15-yard penalty if a player who is more than three yards downfield or outside of the tackle box delivers a blow with the crown of his helmet. If the offensive and defensive player each lowers his head and uses the crown of the helmet to make contact, each will be penalized.

"It'll certainly make our runners aware of what we expect relative to use of the helmet," Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said. "One of the questions I ask a lot is who gains from this, offense or defense? And it's a toss-up as to which side of the ball has the advantage on this rule, if any. The main thing is it's pro-health and safety, and that's the big thing."

The owners discussed simply using fines on ball carriers to eliminate the tactic but instead voted to make the rule change.

"Jim Brown never lowered his head," Rooney said with a smile. "It can be done."

Chicago Bears running back Matt Forte, who called rule proposal "absurd" Sunday on Twitter, reacted to the rule's adoption with similar disdain in a series of tweets Wednesday.

"Wow so they really passed that rule...last time I checked football was a contact sport. Calling bank now to set up my lowering the boom fund," he wrote.

He followed that up with: "Next year they'll probably be a no jumping over defenders rule... #loweringtheboomfund" and "Guess I'll get my fine money ready."

St. Louis Rams coach Jeff Fisher, co-chairman of the league's competition committee, said the rule doesn't prohibit a runner from using his facemask or hairline part of his helmet.

Commissioner Roger Goodell was eager to get the helmet rule approved, and there was talk the vote would be tabled until May if the rule change didn't have enough support.

But after watching videos of the play that clearly showed the differences in legal and illegal moves by ball carriers, the owners voted yes -- and then applauded the decision, something Fisher said is "rare."

"We had discussions with the players association and the players themselves, the coaches' subcommittee," Fisher said. "A lot of people talked to us about this rule and how to roll it out in our game."

Owners easily passed a change in the replay challenge rule that fixes a problem when coaches challenge a play that would be automatically reviewed in the replay booth. Under the new rule, a coach who challenges such a play is charged a timeout when he throws a challenge flag. If the play is overturned, the coach gets back the challenge. It remains a 15-yard penalty if a coach challenges a booth reviewable play.

Under the previous rule, if a coach challenged a reviewable play, there would be a 15-yard penalty and no review.

The only proposal that was tabled was whether to open the regular season as early as Wednesday. The NFL likes to open the regular season on the Thursday before the regular Sunday opener, and it likes to have the Super Bowl winner have a home game on that night.

The Baltimore Orioles have a home game Thursday, Sept. 5, and Major League Baseball appears to be unwilling to alter the time to a day game to allow the Baltimore Ravens to play that night.

On Tuesday, the NFL voted to prohibit teams from loading more than six defenders on one side of the snapper on extra points and field goals along with giving a 15-yard penalty if a blocker does a peel-back block inside the tackle box. The peel-back rule applies mostly to screen passes and rollouts.

[r8rh8rmike]

It will now be a 15-yard penalty if a player who is more than three yards downfield or outside of the tackle box delivers a blow with the crown of his helmet. If the offensive and defensive player each lowers his head and uses the crown of the helmet to make contact, each will be penalized.

What a mess this is going to be.

[jmk321]

Nobody will watch football 10 years from now if they keep doing what they are doing

[AvengerRam]

Nobody will watch football 10 years from now if they keep doing what they are doing

I will. Guess I'll have good seats.

[laram0]

No tuck rule, no Patriots Superbowl! Sickening!!!!!

[DE_Ramfan]

Completely reasonable changes imo.

The tuck rule sucked and needed to go.

As for the helmet - isn't a weapon. It's to protect players from the concussions that they want to sue the NFL for. If the defense can't lead with the helmet then the offense shouldn't be allowed to either. Players say the NFL doesn't care about safety then gripe about rules changes. Use your shoulders like you're supposed to - like they've been doing since the game was created.

[r8rh8rmike]

As for the helmet - isn't a weapon. It's to protect players from the concussions that they want to sue the NFL for. If the defense can't lead with the helmet then the offense shouldn't be allowed to either. Players say the NFL doesn't care about safety then gripe about rules changes. Use your shoulders like you're supposed to - like they've been doing since the game was created.

The owners obviously agree with you, but getting players to stop doing what they have instinctively done to protect themselves from day one is going to be a long, difficult process. Where the shoulders go, the head goes. The officials are going to have a tough time as well trying to differentiate between using the "crown of the helmet", which is illegal, and using the "hairline of the helmet" (just below the crown) which is legal.

Like I said earlier, IMO it's going to be a mess.

[DE_Ramfan]

The owners obviously agree with you, but getting players to stop doing what they have instinctively done to protect themselves from day one is going to be a long, difficult process. Where the shoulders go, the head goes. The officials are going to have a tough time as well trying to differentiate between using the "crown of the helmet", which is illegal, and using the "hairline of the helmet" (just below the crown) which is legal.

Like I said earlier, IMO it's going to be a mess.

It will certainly be a mess until they establish some consistency in how they call the penalty. Seems like the problem is players are being taught to square their shoulders and charge ahead instead of turning their body to deliver a shot with their shoulder.

As far as differentiating between the crown and hairline I think we're going to see flags being thrown if the ball carriers face mask is parallel to the ground when contact is made. If they're looking forward the intent probably isn't to scramble someone's brain.

[citr92]

pain is a very important learning tool for the body, if an action causes pain, the body will try not to do that again
if this feeling is blocked, the body won't learn not to do it, which is where the spear heading is coming from, and bad tackling in general

you CAN'T stop the brain rattling around in the head from tackles in the nfl
not to mention that these helmets and pads cause more force to be applied anyway as opposed to something like rugby

nfl career: 3 years average
rugby: 13ish or so
australian football: about 18-20 years

the nfl uses a ton of pads, the other two do not, some use a small helmet, or don't at all and learn to tackle correctly and are able to take a hit naturally

if you tried spearing someone with your head without a helmet...well...don't know if you'd get a second shot

the last couple years of the leather helmets were perfect, guys playing during that transition phase will tell you that the plastic helmets sucked, air doesn't do crap either

point is, better tackling will come by a lesser amount of pads, and don't pull the "the NFL is too brutal man" argument
the pads don't really protect, they really don't

[MauiRam]

The owners obviously agree with you, but getting players to stop doing what they have instinctively done to protect themselves from day one is going to be a long, difficult process. Where the shoulders go, the head goes. The officials are going to have a tough time as well trying to differentiate between using the "crown of the helmet", which is illegal, and using the "hairline of the helmet" (just below the crown) which is legal.

Like I said earlier, IMO it's going to be a mess.

Therein lies the rub. "Instinctively". I couldn't agree more. Design better helmets, but the game is what it is - violent. Players accept that there is the possibility of injury from highschool all the way through. Hopefully this "new rule" goes the way of the "tuck" rule ..

[ZiaRam]

No tuck rule, no Patriots Superbowl! Sickening!!!!!

Hmmm a rule only used once in its history and never used since and is now discarded??! Cheatriots FTL!!!!!!

[HornyRam]

nfl career: 3 years average
rugby: 13ish or so
australian football: about 18-20 years

the nfl uses a ton of pads, the other two do not, some use a small helmet, or don't at all and learn to tackle correctly and are able to take a hit naturally

if you tried spearing someone with your head without a helmet...well...don't know if you'd get a second shot

the last couple years of the leather helmets were perfect, guys playing during that transition phase will tell you that the plastic helmets sucked, air doesn't do crap either

point is, better tackling will come by a lesser amount of pads, and don't pull the "the NFL is too brutal man" argument
the pads don't really protect, they really don't

Interesting points!

Leather helmets and less pads. I'd certainly like to see that with today's athletes.

[gap]

Hmmm a rule only used once in its history and never used since and is now discarded??! Cheatriots FTL!!!!!!

Actually, this rule has been used several times. In most that I have seen, they have been pretty legitimate rulings. Capt Kurt and the RAMS actually benefitted from it once, and I believe both Bulger and Bradford have also. The only one I saw that was blantantly incorrect was the cheatriots and Raiders, and it is probably why there is so much outrage against this ruling.


gap

[citr92]

Interesting points!

Leather helmets and less pads. I'd certainly like to see that with today's athletes.

also considering the price of leather i'm sure they'd have some cheaper alternative,

...
...
...
...

gosh dang it I came on here to say something else but i forgot :/

edit: it's not all what i wanted to say but i do remember that i wanted to add that the short time i played football...i could never get used to the rattling of the pads and helmets...yet i can play rugby all day