Helmet rule and the no huddle offense

[Enhance]

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.

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.

No, that's not true, actually. In the past, a player could lose his helmet and if he popped back up/didn't seem to have any problems, he'd throw his helmet on and go back to playing.

The very thing happened last year in a college game I watched. Player lost his helmet, bull dozed into an opponent head first, strapped his helmet back on, and played the next play.

 

[strigori]

There is also a 10 sec runoff that occurs with this rule in the last min or two of a half. That is going to lead to issues in a few games this year at some point.

 

[Mavric]

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.

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.

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.

Depends. I would think the players wouldn't want to come out of a game for something that's pretty easily preventable. After it happens in a couple critical situations - as it did tonight when Clemson's QB had to sit out a critical play late in the game - I'd be willing to bet it will have an effect.

At least they're trying to do something about it. If the helmet comes off that easily, it is NOT fitted properly - and thus not protecting properly. End of story.

 

[Animal_Mother]

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.

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.

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.

Depends. I would think the players wouldn't want to come out of a game for something that's pretty easily preventable. After it happens in a couple critical situations - as it did tonight when Clemson's QB had to sit out a critical play late in the game - I'd be willing to bet it will have an effect.

At least they're trying to do something about it. If the helmet comes off that easily, it is NOT fitted properly - and thus not protecting properly. End of story.

I am glad you mentioned Clemson. I was watching that game and the first time it happened I just thought it was another hard play in the game. Bad for Clemson in the middle of a drive, but another play nonetheless. The 2nd time it happened in that first quarter I was wondering if his helmet was ripped off on purpose at the bottom of that tackle/fumble pile. He seemed to be explaining that to his coaches while sitting out the next play on the sidelines. Certainly makes one wonder if that will become a tactic to slow down high speed offenses.

I'll echo earlier sentiments on the board...this is a stupid rule. Needs to be removed.

 

[shyndy]

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.

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.

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.

Depends. I would think the players wouldn't want to come out of a game for something that's pretty easily preventable. After it happens in a couple critical situations - as it did tonight when Clemson's QB had to sit out a critical play late in the game - I'd be willing to bet it will have an effect.

At least they're trying to do something about it. If the helmet comes off that easily, it is NOT fitted properly - and thus not protecting properly. End of story.

I am glad you mentioned Clemson. I was watching that game and the first time it happened I just thought it was another hard play in the game. Bad for Clemson in the middle of a drive, but another play nonetheless. The 2nd time it happened in that first quarter I was wondering if his helmet was ripped off on purpose at the bottom of that tackle/fumble pile. He seemed to be explaining that to his coaches while sitting out the next play on the sidelines. Certainly makes one wonder if that will become a tactic to slow down high speed offenses.

I'll echo earlier sentiments on the board...this is a stupid rule. Needs to be removed.

It could be one of those things where you just notice things more because you are focused on that specific thing already (can't remember what this is called something or other bias I think?) but I swear I'm seeing more and more helmets flying off this first weekend. Intent can often be difficult to prove, but it makes me wonder, seemed to be a rather rare thing before and I don't think I saw a game where someone didn't lose a helmet today