Possible Major NFL Rule Change

[Reddawn36]

Goodell has admitted a possible banning of the 3 point stance, to lessen the chances of concussions.

[quote]
Concerned about concussions, Goodell said the league will keep looking for ways to make the game safer. Speaking on CBS’s “Face the Nation” hours before the Super Bowl, he didn’t rule out the idea of banning the three-point stance for linemen to reduce the ferocity of collisions at the line of scrimmage.[/quote]

Personally I think this is going way too far.... Next year they'll be saying no blitzing the QB

This really affects us being one of the defensive football teams out there, and struggling with pressure on the QB already

Can they for once put a penalty that will make it harder on the Offense?

[url="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-superbowl-goodell&prov=ap&type=lgns"]My link[/url]

[theFRANCHISE]

It may lessen the chances of concussion, but the difference will probably be negligible. It's an inherently violent game, and though I'm all for any precautions to protect the players, this is an unnecessary step. Helmet-to-helmet contact will still be made by linemen and this still won't account for the freak collisions that occur, which happen to make up the majority of these concussion cases that everyone's concerned about.

If the Commish wants to reduce concussions, look into improving the helmets and the rest of the equipment. Don't worry about changing portions of the game that don't need to be changed.

[Reddawn36]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='07 February 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1265600600' post='357050']
It may lessen the chances of concussion, but the difference will probably be negligible. It's an inherently violent game, and though I'm all for any precautions to protect the players, this is an unnecessary step. Helmet-to-helmet contact will still be made by linemen and this still won't account for the freak collisions that occur, which happen to make up the majority of these concussion cases that everyone's concerned about.

If the Commish wants to reduce concussions, look into improving the helmets and the rest of the equipment. Don't worry about changing portions of the game that don't need to be changed.
[/quote]

But Linemen are usually the least likely to get a concussion... its more likely the RB's/LB's or WR's/DB's

so how does banning the 3 point stance help exactly?

besides having QB's throw for over 5000 yards average in a season

[Ed_Reed20]

[quote name='Reddawn36' date='07 February 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1265600800' post='357055']
But Linemen are usually the least likely to get a concussion... its more likely the RB's/LB's or WR's/DB's

so how does banning the 3 point stance help exactly?

besides having QB's throw for over 5000 yards average in a season
[/quote]

Actually, lineman get a lot of concussions and other head injuries.

[McBurks]

Why don't we change it to the FFL (Flag Football League),that way no one gets hurt.

[Wacko4Zacko]

i dont understand what he is trying to ban. Someone please clarify.

[kagejb]

Would definitely ruin the game's ferocity it used to brag. I used to criticize Brady about his lack of toughness, but Commissioner, take off the skirt. Injuries are going to happen, and some of these are just freak accidents that could not be reversed. That's just doing too much with something. Might as well make these million dollar athletes play flag football, or even that might be too violent. Improve our equipment, and let the guys play. Don't ruin the game.

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='Reddawn36' date='07 February 2010 - 10:46 PM' timestamp='1265600800' post='357055']
But Linemen are usually the least likely to get a concussion... its more likely the RB's/LB's or WR's/DB's
[/quote]
Not necessarily the case; many linemen suffer concussions without realizing it or acknowledging it. There was the story of one lineman who played with a concussion and didn't realize it until later because of all the adrenaline. And of course there's also the sad story of former Steelers Hall of Fame center Mike Webster, who suffered from dementia due to brain damage likely occuring from a long history of concussions; he died of a heart attack, but there's speculation that the brain damage may have played a significant role in his declining health and eventual death as he had various neurological ailments.

The NFL is doing everything it can to avoid another Mike Webster story, and though I commend their efforts, this is a case of taking it in the wrong direction.

[Reddawn36]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='07 February 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1265601486' post='357069']
Not necessarily the case; many linemen suffer concussions without realizing it or acknowledging it. There was the story of one lineman who played with a concussion and didn't realize it until later because of all the adrenaline. And of course there's also the sad story of former Steelers Hall of Fame center Mike Webster, who suffered from dementia due to brain damage likely occuring from a long history of concussions; he died of a heart attack, but there's speculation that the brain damage may have played a significant role in his declining health and eventual death as he had various neurological ailments.

The NFL is doing everything it can to avoid another Mike Webster story, and though I commend their efforts, this is a case of taking it in the wrong direction.
[/quote]


I don't mean to sound like they deserve it to happen to them....


but isn't it their choice to play this game...

aren't they payed the big bucks due to the risk of the injuries, and the short lived careers compared to other jobs?


Isn't that why the NFL is (somewhat jokingly) the Not For Long league?

[Bltravens]

Totally and utterly ridiculous, any running play will be an automatic 4 yards. How the hell can stop a lineman from pushing you backwards if you cant get underneath leverage on him? Goodell is total clown for thinking this. Yes you want to make a sport safe, but all these guys understand the risk that is playing football, the same as hockey players. You step on the field/ice theres a chance you can get hurt, you dont like it, you dont play. And to think Jim Brown thought this league was soft in the early 2000's, what he'll say now I can only imagine. Goodell, leave the damn game alone man, you got your high powered offenses running the league already what more do you need.

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='Wacko4Zacko' date='07 February 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1265601321' post='357066']
i dont understand what he is trying to ban. Someone please clarify.
[/quote]
The 3-point stance is a standard technique used by a player at the line of scrimmage (associated more with defensive linemen than offensive linemen, despite being employed on both sides of the ball) as a means of gaining leverage. The reason why the Commish wants to ban the technique is because that leverage gives the lineman an initial burst that, when colliding with another lineman using the same technique, creates a level of impact that is jarring and usually results in helmet-to-helmet contact because of how close the two players are to one another.

[Wacko4Zacko]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='07 February 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1265601750' post='357076']
The 3-point stance is a standard technique used by a player at the line of scrimmage (associated more with defensive linemen than offensive linemen, despite being employed on both sides of the ball) as a means of gaining leverage. The reason why the Commish wants to ban the technique is because that leverage gives the lineman an initial burst that, when colliding with another lineman using the same technique, creates a level of impact that is jarring and usually results in helmet-to-helmet contact because of how close the two players are to one another.
[/quote]
Oh wow! Screw that crap!!!! football is menat to be that way.

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='Reddawn36' date='07 February 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1265601727' post='357073']
I don't mean to sound like they deserve it to happen to them....

but isn't it their choice to play this game...

aren't they payed the big bucks due to the risk of the injuries, and the short lived careers compared to other jobs?

Isn't that why the NFL is (somewhat jokingly) the Not For Long league?
[/quote]
Though that's a valid argument, the issue is that the NFL has a moral obligation to keep the players reasonably safe while maintaining the integrity of the game. The shortened careers shouldn't necessarily translate to shortened lifespans. Again, the Mike Webster case and various other instances of dementia and early onset Alzheimer's are things that the NFL is obligated to prevent as both an employer and humanitarian organization at the same time. Though the players understand the risk they take, they shouldn't have their lives significantly shortened just for our entertainment. That's why the NFL is trying to protect the players.

That said, I don't agree with the banning of this technique. Other than the difficulty of getting players to stop using it (these are basic fundamentals taught even in Pop Warner!), it'll dilute the quality of the game more significantly than pass interference rules.

[Reddawn36]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='07 February 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1265601944' post='357080']
Though that's a valid argument, the issue is that the NFL has a moral obligation to keep the players reasonably safe while maintaining the integrity of the game. The shortened careers shouldn't necessarily translate to shortened lifespans. Again, the Mike Webster case and various other instances of dementia and early onset Alzheimer's are things that the NFL is obligated to prevent as both an employer and humanitarian organization at the same time. Though the players understand the risk they take, they shouldn't have their lives significantly shortened just for our entertainment. That's why the NFL is trying to protect the players.

That said, I don't agree with the banning of this technique. Other than the difficulty of getting players to stop using it (these are basic fundamentals taught even in Pop Warner!), it'll dilute the quality of the game more significantly than pass interference rules.
[/quote]

I understand that, but if they are making all these damn rules... at least make it fair.... off set it with something the offense is limited to do...

again, I don't want anyone hurt for my entertainment purpose... but on the same token before I drop money on any form of memorabilia, I want it to be in something I like..... and I, like many others will probably lose interest in one sided matches fairly quickly

plus I think this year was a clear indicator that this game is too easy on offenses when you have like 10 QB's throw for over 4000 yards that its too easy on the offense

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='Reddawn36' date='07 February 2010 - 11:11 PM' timestamp='1265602260' post='357086']
I understand that, but if they are making all these damn rules... at least make it fair.... off set it with something the offense is limited to do...
[/quote]
Well, to be fair, the rule also applies to offensive linemen, as they also utilize the three-point stance.

But, in theory, offensive linemen are stronger than defensive linemen as they're meant to push the pile, so there's still somewhat of an advantage to the offense. Advantage for some teams, anyway.

[Reddawn36]

[quote name='theFRANCHISE' date='07 February 2010 - 11:15 PM' timestamp='1265602509' post='357089']
Well, to be fair, the rule also applies to offensive linemen, as they also utilize the three-point stance.

But, in theory, offensive linemen are stronger than defensive linemen as they're meant to push the pile, so there's still somewhat of an advantage to the offense. Advantage for some teams, anyway.
[/quote]

yeah, but in my little knowledge about the battle for the L.o.S

it would seem the D-Line relies more on leverage then the O-Line

and w/o the 3 point stance..... that leverage is more or less gone.....

leading to either no pressure, or the RB running for 4 yards a carry


plus it could end up killing the 4-3 all together, requiring less help up the middle against a defense like Minnesota's due to not being able to utilize leverage.... (maybe a bad example, but the more popular example that I could think of)

[theFRANCHISE]

For the record, here's the 3-point stance, as demonstrated by our very own Trevor Pryce, for those unfamiliar with the technique. Note the placement of the backfoot, similar to a sprinter's stance at the starting line. It's called a 3-point stance because of the two feet and the one hand placed down to maintain balance and to help push off for leverage once the ball is snapped. This is standard for all linemen on both sides of the ball, though not all linemen thrive in the 3-point stance. This technique is also referred to as being able to line up with one hand down, a quality that scouts look for in hybrid linebackers and defensive ends.

[img]http://i50.tinypic.com/23vcd4w.jpg[/img]

[ROH522155]

The game of football is going to be ruined pretty soon with all the new rules that are going to come out in the future.

[POE]

I feel that there is a lot of pressure on the league to fix these concussion issues and finding a solution to them quickly. For this reason, I think Roger Goodell could be just throwing ideas out there for the sake of showing growth in this matter. Taking this away from football will never happen.

[Reddawn36]

as much as concussions are an issue in this league, I think 100% of any and all efforts should be going into the CBA.... because if there is a lock out.... it doesn't matter if its football we've grown to love, or flag football..... neither could be on T.V.

and like I said before we really don't need any more rule changes that hurt defenses.... especially when QB Pressure seems like a rarity in this league now anyway.... or at least for our team

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='POE' date='08 February 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1265606249' post='357125']
I feel that there is a lot of pressure on the league to fix these concussion issues and finding a solution to them quickly. For this reason, I think Roger Goodell could be just throwing ideas out there for the sake of showing growth in this matter. Taking this away from football will never happen.
[/quote]
I also think he was just tossing out ideas just for the heck of it. I doubt he'd seriously pursue this, as most coaches and the Competition Committee would probably be against it.

As for the CBA talk and lockout, keep in mind that a lockout doesn't necessarily mean there won't be football; there is the chance that replacements could be brought in to continue football in the event of a lockout.

[Bazooka Joe]

The day of the dominant defense is coming to an end. This is becoming too one sided if it goes through.

This is a collision sport. Anytime two sides collide, a concussion is possible. It's like having a boxing match with no punching. When bodies are flying around, then sometimes the head hits.

Additionally, it is going to cheapen the 4,000 yard passing season. Pretty much, guys like Manning and Brees are going to pass for more than 5,000 yards.

I am not liking the direction that Goodell is taking this game that I love.

[RedFire]

then line up in four point stance like a sprinter


and even if two point stance is only allowed...it doesn't stop a DB lined up in two point from getting around a WR to bust up a screen or jam a WR.


if anything if phases out over-weight/ questionable health linemen. Everyone is gonna be faster and quicker....buncha dwight freeney's

[Bazooka Joe]

[quote name='RedFire' date='08 February 2010 - 07:27 AM' timestamp='1265632029' post='357187']
then line up in four point stance like a sprinter


and even if two point stance is only allowed...it doesn't stop a DB lined up in two point from getting around a WR to bust up a screen or jam a WR.


if anything if phases out over-weight/ questionable health linemen. Everyone is gonna be faster and quicker....buncha dwight freeney's
[/quote]


The question I have is would a 2 point stance make it easier or more difficult to get sacks? It seems the DL would lose leverage and the ability to get under the pads to drive to the QB.

[BuckWilds]

The real issue here is in short-yardage situations. Imagine a goal-line stand in which the D-linemen have to be in two-point stances.

1st and 2nd down and long aren't really a major concern - there are ways around the 3-point stance (some of which are blitzing - which causes more violent collisions for RB's, DB's and QB's). But they're going to quickly do things like outlaw unbalanced lines if they do away with the 3-point stance, if only to balance the offense's inherent advantage...

At best, it's a slippery slope.

[BuckWilds]

[quote name='RedFire' date='08 February 2010 - 07:27 AM' timestamp='1265632029' post='357187']
then line up in four point stance like a sprinter


and even if two point stance is only allowed...it doesn't stop a DB lined up in two point from getting around a WR to bust up a screen or jam a WR.


if anything if phases out over-weight/ questionable health linemen. Everyone is gonna be faster and quicker....buncha dwight freeney's
[/quote]

Four point stances are used at lower levels, but it puts you at a disadvantage because you're telling everyone what direction you're going (sprinters are only ever going one direction out of the blocks) and you're opening yourself up to 'down' blocks from linemen to your left or right.

[RedFire]

[quote name='Zhamtao' date='08 February 2010 - 09:07 AM' timestamp='1265638030' post='357207']
Four point stances are used at lower levels, but it puts you at a disadvantage because you're telling everyone what direction you're going (sprinters are only ever going one direction out of the blocks) and you're opening yourself up to 'down' blocks from linemen to your left or right.
[/quote]



didn't we have a nose tackle back in the day lineup in 4point stance here and there? i remember the announcers making a big deal about it?....was it ngata or gregg?

[JEEPercreepermd]

IMO instead of changing rules to prevent concussions, they need to start understanding how to better TREAT players with concussions. Maybe a minimum amount of time where the player can't participate in contact drills during practice or play in a game for example

[theFRANCHISE]

[quote name='JEEPercreepermd' date='08 February 2010 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1265650963' post='357339']
IMO instead of changing rules to prevent concussions, they need to start understanding how to better TREAT players with concussions. Maybe a minimum amount of time where the player can't participate in contact drills during practice or play in a game for example
[/quote]
That's been actively discussed since at least midseason now, especially after the Ben Roethlisberger controversy towards the end of the season where it appeared as if Mike Tomlin was pressuring him back on the field with his public comments of "Oh, he's OK," and "I think he's good to go" and all that talk.

The Commish already sent out a memo that mandated all players and coaches be completely honest about concussions or face penalties for their impropriety, but I think he'll take things a step further and force players to miss practice [i]and[/i] at least a game to be safe. That seems to be the popular option and I'm all for it. Even if the game is the Super Bowl, there's no sense in risking long-term health and a player's quality of life even for a once-in-a-lifetime game, because at the end of the day, it's a [i]game[/i].

[MKdave]

I don't know why he doesn't ban the 4 point stance instead. You get a more powerful burst out of it, and it won't majorly affect the game like banning a 3 point stance. Suggs rushes best out of a 4 point in my opinion, though.
Advantage for the O-Line: Obviously, the rule about once you've got your hand on the ground you cannot move goes onto the scrap heap.