Best rule change ever

Greg Wrubell tweeted this today:

gregwrubell New: if during play a player's helmet comes completely off (other than as direct result of opponent foul), he must sit out the next down.

I absolutely love this rule. There is no legitimate reason for a players helmet to come off without a seriously brutal facemask penalty going on. It's time for these players to learn how to strap up their helmets the right way.

Someone better clue RN in to this. He was possibly the worst offender of this last year in the nation. His helmet came off at least 2-3 times per game. Probably so he could show off his hair.(Edit: to be clear, the hair thing was a joke).

Lawboy wrote:
Someone better clue RN in to this. He was possibly the worst offender of this last year in the nation. His helmet came off at least 2-3 times per game. Probably so he could show off his hair.

Amen! THis is not a good rule change. It's over legislating football. Unless concussion incidents is driving this. I would like to see the incident rates of helmet off concussions. It's typical over-correction bc of all the lawsuits in the nfl.

The funny thing is that if the helmet does come off bc of a hard hit, the hard hit has already occurred and damage, if any, done.

If its a sportsmanship problem, then flag for that but this is nonsense.



They would be better off rule changing the hits below the waist that are blowing out knees.

Lawboy wrote:
Someone better clue RN in to this. He was possibly the worst offender of this last year in the nation. His helmet came off at least 2-3 times per game. Probably so he could show off his hair.(Edit: to be clear, the hair thing was a joke).

I agree with you. It drives me crazy that Riley, and most of the BYU offense will not strap their helmets on correctly. It's begging for a serious, preventable injury. And having to sit out a play is exactly the motivation these players will need to actually strap up.

I like this rule change. There is already a rule that you have to have your helmet on, this rule basically just makes sure you put it on correctly. I don't think this is any more over regulating that it was to require helmets in the first place.



If I were a coach I would have had this rule for my players already. Think of all of Pitta's catches and his helmet popping off. As cool as it looked on the highlight reals, imagine if he had been hurt without the helmet and you lost him for a game or two.

Isola wrote:
I like this rule change. There is already a rule that you have to have your helmet on, this rule basically just makes sure you put it on correctly. I don't think this is any more over regulating that it was to require helmets in the first place.



If I were a coach I would have had this rule for my players already. Think of all of Pitta's catches and his helmet popping off. As cool as it looked on the highlight reals, imagine if he had been hurt without the helmet and you lost him for a game or two.

I agree. I've always complained that this was one area where Bronco really let his players down by not requiring this already.

What's the over/under on RN losing his helmet now? I'm still going for 6.5. Well at least the backup will get some real time reps this way.

aren't helmets going to be a target now?



If I were a defense, I'd be tugging on each and every helmet I could to get the offensive weapons off the field for an entire down.

I just don't get it. Classic over regulation with unintended consequences such as Cougarclaw is mentioning.

The CSU players should have been flagged for their helmet hit on Pitta.

Now let's say the helmet comes off, your star player is not in and it's 4th down and 15 to the endzone for the winning score.....that's right NO Harline for beck to throw to. If you're hurt, you're hurt, get off the field. Coaches, get your players off the field.

I promise you are going to hate this rule. Especially if you have to see your Gamer Riley come off the field on a crucial 3rd and whatever.

What's next? Blowing the whiste when Reynolds is about to make the winning play on a winning TD throw? Are you guys democrats? Oh sorry, not supposed to call people bad names. :whistle:

Do something that makes a real difference like above the shoulder hits.

What are they going to flag the guy who tore off or shoved off the helmet everytime the helmet comes off? If not it will just be punishing the team with the loss of that player.

I just don't see the logic or rationale.

dmcougar wrote:
Are you guys democrats? .

I'd rather be a democrat than a sheep who follows blindly because I am told to by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh etc. like 98% of the people I know and work with.



As for the rule, it is a good rule. Having played college football you see the majority of the helmets coming off because of improper wear. Some guy's think it's cool that they have one chin-strap loose like Deion Sanders used to wear, or it's "more comfortable to have them loose".



My personal belief is one of the main reason's we so many of our helmets pop off is it appears that we use the plastic snaps. THOSE ARE GARBAGE!!!!! My coaches at all levels did not allow us to wear them because they don't stay snapped up.



I think this rule is long overdue and also believe that a rule should be instated that players knee pads must reach their knees, not 4 inches above their knees. Good rule, glad they instituted it!!!!

Dumb response about players tugging off helmets. That's a penalty. So is a helmet to helmet hit.



Anyone who has their helmet on correctly will not get their helmet taken off with a little tug, it will be an obvious effort and a clear and easy penalty.



Politics has nothing to do with the conversation, and adds nothing of value. It's not a law, it's a rule in a game. Don't care for it, don't play the game.

I don't get what the big deal is. As Bronco mentioned on Media Day, this rule will end up with unintended consequences and is born from an overreaction to the concussion issue in the NFL. He went on to point out how much more likely it is to have life long problem due to hits below the waist, such as cut blocks, than it is for concussions.



Also, Hawkwing, your sig pic is classic Riley...All about him.

Sorry to all the Democrats. I should have used just politicians.

Why do rugby players not need helmets? Don't they play as tough or tougher relative to physicality?

dmcougar wrote:
Sorry to all the Democrats. I should have used just politicians.

Why do rugby players not need helmets? Don't they play as tough or tougher relative to physicality?

Because rugby is a different sport than football. If you want to watch rugby, by all means, go watch rugby.

hawkwing wrote:

Sorry to all the Democrats. I should have used just politicians.

Why do rugby players not need helmets? Don't they play as tough or tougher relative to physicality?

Because rugby is a different sport than football. If you want to watch rugby, by all means, go watch rugby.

Hawk, I now you are smarter than a fifth grader. So why do you sound like one?

Would you rather folks just say agree to Disagree?

dmcougar wrote:

dmcougar wrote:
Sorry to all the Democrats. I should have used just politicians.

Why do rugby players not need helmets? Don't they play as tough or tougher relative to physicality?

Because rugby is a different sport than football. If you want to watch rugby, by all means, go watch rugby.

Hawk, I now you are smarter than a fifth grader. So why do you sound like one?

Would you rather folks just say agree to Disagree?

I agree to disagree about "you're" spelling of "now". But agree with the gist of your post. Hawkwing, I suppose this means you agree with ALL of the rules of college football, otherwise you would have stopped watching, right? for example, that "intent to deceive" rule is such a good one.



This is a dumb rule. How many times has someone been injured because their helmet came off??? Overblown overreaction. And I'll continue to watch the sport in spite of my disagreeing.

Because rugby is about tackling. Football has become about hitting. Players go for the knockout hit. They go for the highlight. Stopping the ball carrier is a side benefit of laying down a big hit.



Football would be improved if they could return tackling to defense.

BroncoBot wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

Sorry to all the Democrats. I should have used just politicians.

Why do rugby players not need helmets? Don't they play as tough or tougher relative to physicality?

Because rugby is a different sport than football. If you want to watch rugby, by all means, go watch rugby.

Hawk, I now you are smarter than a fifth grader. So why do you sound like one?

Would you rather folks just say agree to Disagree?

I agree to disagree about "you're" spelling of "now". But agree with the gist of your post. Hawkwing, I suppose this means you agree with ALL of the rules of college football, otherwise you would have stopped watching, right? for example, that "intent to deceive" rule is such a good one.



This is a dumb rule. How many times has someone been injured because their helmet came off??? Overblown overreaction. And I'll continue to watch the sport in spite of my disagreeing.

Of course I don't agree with every rule in football. Some are great, some aren't. I didn't say that everyone who disliked this or any rule should stop watching football, but that football and rugby are dramatically different sports, arguing that this rule shouldn't exist because rugby players don't wear helmets is like arguing that we should have the rule because Lacrosse players do wear helmets.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Because rugby is about tackling. Football has become about hitting. Players go for the knockout hit. They go for the highlight. Stopping the ball carrier is a side benefit of laying down a big hit.



Football would be improved if they could return tackling to defense.

Speaking of this, if football decided to do away with face masks and hardshell helmets I'd be okay with that too, as it would mean an end of the hard, spear type hits lead by the helmet.

Show me the the statistics for head injuries resulting from helmets coming off. This is a bad rule based on a false assumption to act on a problem that does not exist. Helmets do come off but head injuries happen when helmets are on the head not when they are off. This appears to be an effort to look like they are being proactive to have an alibi if any lawsuits arise from head injuries so that they can say they were doing something.



Yes there will be unintended consequences and yes, Hawkwing, there will be more tugging on helmets because even though it is already a foul they won't all get caught. Just like holding or pass interference is also a penalty but the risk reward make it worth doing. The officials won't see the helmet tugging because they will be following the ball play but they will always see a missing helmet.



It is a bad rule on every level. Like so many bad laws it follows the thinking that if you can't catch the criminal then punish the victim mentality.



This will not prevent head injuries because helmets coming off is not the cause of head injuries. All it will do is cheapen the game. We are becoming Europe.