Helmet rule and the no huddle offense

flatwaterfan, I love your suggestions. Only problem is they'll never review for penalties even in special circumstances. Penalties are an 'as-they-happen' type of thing. If you start reviewing when a helmet comes off, you open up a monstrous can of worms. That's what everyone will say, at least.

As far as what OP is saying, IIRC, a player can't intentionally take his helmet off on the field of play . It's an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. The only excuse is equipment malfunction or it being knocked off. Referees will probably be keeping an eye out for this, even though that probably won't matter much.

 
Enhance89 said:
flatwaterfan, I love your suggestions. Only problem is they'll never review for penalties even in special circumstances. Penalties are an 'as-they-happen' type of thing. If you start reviewing when a helmet comes off, you open up a monstrous can of worms. That's what everyone will say, at least.

As far as what OP is saying, IIRC, a player can't intentionally take his helmet off on the field of play . It's an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. The only excuse is equipment malfunction or it being knocked off. Referees will probably be keeping an eye out for this, even though that probably won't matter much.
Click to expand...

You have a good point. I'll have to think about it some more. Maybe the league can issue warnings when doing game reviews. Accumulate more than 2 and boom your out for a game. Kind of like post game suspensions for personal fouls.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
flatwaterfan said:
Enhance89 said:
flatwaterfan, I love your suggestions. Only problem is they'll never review for penalties even in special circumstances. Penalties are an 'as-they-happen' type of thing. If you start reviewing when a helmet comes off, you open up a monstrous can of worms. That's what everyone will say, at least.

As far as what OP is saying, IIRC, a player can't intentionally take his helmet off on the field of play . It's an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. The only excuse is equipment malfunction or it being knocked off. Referees will probably be keeping an eye out for this, even though that probably won't matter much.
Click to expand...

You have a good point. I'll have to think about it some more. Maybe the league can issue warnings when doing game reviews. Accumulate more than 2 and boom your out for a game. Kind of like post game suspensions for personal fouls.
Click to expand...
Now, that's pretty reasonable.

I don't rightly know how referees penalize the helmet rule in today's game. One of the original rules were enacted in 1995 to stop players from removing their helmets after big plays or touchdowns. I think players are required to keep them on at all times now, excepting malfunctions. I wonder if we will see a rise in these equipment "malfunctions".

 
Here is the thing that absolutely doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If a player loses their helmet, why do they have to go to the sideline for a play? Has their been any statistically proven study ran that indicates that said player has a higher chance of getting a concussion ONE play after they lose their helmet?

I understand that the rule is for player safety, but I don't understand how sitting out for one play after your helmet comes off decreases the likelihood of receiving a concussion.

 
Bye Bye Big XII said:
Here is the thing that absolutely doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If a player loses their helmet, why do they have to go to the sideline for a play? Has their been any statistically proven study ran that indicates that said player has a higher chance of getting a concussion ONE play after they lose their helmet?

I understand that the rule is for player safety, but I don't understand how sitting out for one play after your helmet comes off decreases the likelihood of receiving a concussion.
Click to expand...
I don't know, but my assumption was that it's to try to get them to secure the helmet better always. So missing a play is a punishment to prevent it from happening. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.

 
Moiraine said:
Bye Bye Big XII said:
Here is the thing that absolutely doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If a player loses their helmet, why do they have to go to the sideline for a play? Has their been any statistically proven study ran that indicates that said player has a higher chance of getting a concussion ONE play after they lose their helmet?

I understand that the rule is for player safety, but I don't understand how sitting out for one play after your helmet comes off decreases the likelihood of receiving a concussion.
Click to expand...
I don't know, but my assumption was that it's to try to get them to secure the helmet better always. So missing a play is a punishment to prevent it from happening. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
Then

2) Do the officials really think that it's going to lead to players making sure their helmet doesn't fall off again? I mean, is one play enough of a deterrence to stop them from "not securing their helmets". They should have to be taken out for the rest of the current drive. I think that would be enough of a deterrence.

 
Bye Bye Big XII said:
Here is the thing that absolutely doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If a player loses their helmet, why do they have to go to the sideline for a play? Has their been any statistically proven study ran that indicates that said player has a higher chance of getting a concussion ONE play after they lose their helmet?

I understand that the rule is for player safety, but I don't understand how sitting out for one play after your helmet comes off decreases the likelihood of receiving a concussion.
Click to expand...
If I may be so bold to explain what I believe they're thinking...

They've essentially clustered every instance of a helmet coming off into one category - removal by extreme force. Rewind back to 1995 against Kansas State - there's a famous punt return in that game where one of our players absolutely leveled a KState player, removing his helmet due to the blow. The NCAA probably feels, in this situation, the player now has a higher chance of brain injury due to the blow being so heavy his helmet came off. I have no evidence off hand to support this, but it makes sense - people who get one concussion are usually more susceptible to future ones. It makes sense that a player getting hit really hard in the head, so hard that his helmet comes off, is at a higher chance for brain injury shortly after.

The problem, obviously, is helmets don't always come off in this fashion. Dozens of cases pop up every year of an offensive/defensive linemen losing his helmet because their opponent was a bit too physical with their hands, pushing the helmet off. This is a penalty but it's not always caught. Furthermore, a strap could come loose in a tussle, and then a simple tackle could jar the helmet loose.

They've put a blanket over this entire issue believing that it will solve the problem, but every instance isn't the same or an indication of brain susceptibility. Chances are it's going to bite them in the a$$ when it's abused.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance89 said:
Bye Bye Big XII said:
Here is the thing that absolutely doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If a player loses their helmet, why do they have to go to the sideline for a play? Has their been any statistically proven study ran that indicates that said player has a higher chance of getting a concussion ONE play after they lose their helmet?

I understand that the rule is for player safety, but I don't understand how sitting out for one play after your helmet comes off decreases the likelihood of receiving a concussion.
Click to expand...
If I may be so bold to explain what I believe they're thinking...

They've essentially clustered every instance of a helmet coming off into one category - removal by extreme force. Rewind back to 1995 against Kansas State - there's a famous punt return in that game where one of our players absolutely leveled a KState player, removing his helmet due to the blow. The NCAA probably feels, in this situation, the player now has a higher chance of brain injury due to the blow being so heavy his helmet came off. I have no evidence off hand to support this, but it makes sense - people who get one concussion are usually more susceptible to future ones. It makes sense that a player getting hit really hard in the head, so hard that his helmet comes off, is at a higher chance for brain injury shortly after.

The problem, obviously, is helmets don't always come off in this fashion. Dozens of cases pop up every year of an offensive/defensive linemen losing his helmet because their opponent was a bit too physical with their hands, pushing the helmet off. This is a penalty but it's not always caught. Furthermore, a strap could come loose in a tussle, and then a simple tackle could jar the helmet loose.

They've put a blanket over this entire issue believing that it will solve the problem, but every instance isn't the same or an indication of brain susceptibility. Chances are it's going to bite them in the a$$ when it's abused.
Click to expand...
I understand what they're trying to accomplish. But my point is, is ONE play enough?

Why not two plays, or three, or four, or for the rest of the drive?

The rule and the reason for the rule makes perfect "common" sense. And when it comes down to things as serious as brain injuries, you can't take your chances of trying to run tests, and doing a test where they look at what has happened in the past would be incredibly difficult and unreliable. So you have to make it based off common sense.

But the "penalty" just doesn't make a lot of sense.

 
Enhance89 said:
Bye Bye Big XII said:
Here is the thing that absolutely doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If a player loses their helmet, why do they have to go to the sideline for a play? Has their been any statistically proven study ran that indicates that said player has a higher chance of getting a concussion ONE play after they lose their helmet?

I understand that the rule is for player safety, but I don't understand how sitting out for one play after your helmet comes off decreases the likelihood of receiving a concussion.
Click to expand...
If I may be so bold to explain what I believe they're thinking...

They've essentially clustered every instance of a helmet coming off into one category - removal by extreme force. Rewind back to 1995 against Kansas State - there's a famous punt return in that game where one of our players absolutely leveled a KState player, removing his helmet due to the blow. The NCAA probably feels, in this situation, the player now has a higher chance of brain injury due to the blow being so heavy his helmet came off. I have no evidence off hand to support this, but it makes sense - people who get one concussion are usually more susceptible to future ones. It makes sense that a player getting hit really hard in the head, so hard that his helmet comes off, is at a higher chance for brain injury shortly after.

The problem, obviously, is helmets don't always come off in this fashion. Dozens of cases pop up every year of an offensive/defensive linemen losing his helmet because their opponent was a bit too physical with their hands, pushing the helmet off. This is a penalty but it's not always caught. Furthermore, a strap could come loose in a tussle, and then a simple tackle could jar the helmet loose.

They've put a blanket over this entire issue believing that it will solve the problem, but every instance isn't the same or an indication of brain susceptibility. Chances are it's going to bite them in the a$$ when it's abused.
Click to expand...
The player was Mike Rucker and that was one of the best hits I have EVER seen in college football...probably get flagged for it today. Anyway I think you are correct from what I have heard. All instances of a helmet coming off will be treated the same. The point is, these kids are like prize fighters; even if they are truly hurt, they won't take themselves out of a game. So if there is a rule that when the helmet comes off, they have to go to the sideline to get checked out, perhaps they can prevent a kid from getting hit again right after they suffer a concussion (therefore adding to the negative effect of the first concussive hit). I don't know if it is a good rule or not...but whatever. I am still pissed that the NCAA makes all college teams tuck in their jerseys.

 
And there's the lost helmet and injury, in the Penn St game, that nobody has ever seen. Not a serious injury apparently, but he was definitely hurting and/or woozy.

 
Well, for those of you watching the Penn State game, the NCAA probably feels pretty awesome about their new rule implementation.

A Penn State player got hit directly direclty in his neck by an Ohio player's helmet, the PSU player's helmet flew off, and then another Ohio player came in and collided with the helmetless PSU player in his head. I only saw highlights, so I don't know what happened right after the play, whether the PSU player was down or not. But there wouldn't have been enough time to blow the play dead before the Ohio player came in. The PSU player was still sitting out a few minutes later.

 
Bye Bye Big XII said:
I understand what they're trying to accomplish. But my point is, is ONE play enough?

Why not two plays, or three, or four, or for the rest of the drive?

The rule and the reason for the rule makes perfect "common" sense. And when it comes down to things as serious as brain injuries, you can't take your chances of trying to run tests, and doing a test where they look at what has happened in the past would be incredibly difficult and unreliable. So you have to make it based off common sense.

But the "penalty" just doesn't make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
Well, the player has to come out for a MINIMUM of one play, but that doesn't mean he gets to come right back in. The medical staff may end up doing some tests if it looks like it was a serious hit and he'll probably sit out. I believe their point is the the player comes out for at least one play so his mental fortitude can be judged.

Again, for me, the larger problem is it's a blanket rule for a specific instance. It's like saying anytime a cop pulls you over from now on you lose your driving privileges for one day regardless of offense. It doesn't make sense.

 
Enhance89 said:
Well, for those of you watching the Penn State game, the NCAA probably feels pretty awesome about their new rule implementation.

A Penn State player got hit directly direclty in his neck by an Ohio player's helmet, the PSU player's helmet flew off, and then another Ohio player came in and collided with the helmetless PSU player in his head. I only saw highlights, so I don't know what happened right after the play, whether the PSU player was down or not. But there wouldn't have been enough time to blow the play dead before the Ohio player came in. The PSU player was still sitting out a few minutes later.
Click to expand...
What? How is that an argument in favor of this rule? The player still got whacked without a helmet, the rule didn't prevent anything. The player would have came out of the game even without the rule.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top