I'm dumbfounded that this entire article was allowed to proceed without mentioning the NCAA's targeting rule (i.e., the same rule). This rule is not new, not unexpected, and certainly not as shocking as this article would have you believe. It is a reasonably rare and justifiable penalty when put into practice in college football - - although with the NFL's absurd, archaic approach to reviews, I can see how panic would ensue.
2
If they can’t do better than this on reducing head injuries, good luck sustaining the sport. I don’t know a single mom of a young boy who intends on letting him play football.
An obvious inconsistency here: helmets made safer to use as an offensive weapon but weapon made illegal to use. Get rid of the helmet. When I started playing high school football in 1942 I was issued a leather helmet that must have been in use in the 1920s. No way was I going to use my head as a battering ram. I shoulder tackled and saved my brain for higher education. So reduce the helmet in size, make it soft and minimally effective as a weapon. Remove the sense of security that today's helmets are meant to provide. The culture will change unless today's players have no sense of self-preservation
11
Proper tackling must be taught in youth football. It must continued to be practiced all through high school, college and the pros. And clear deviations i.e. spearing an opponent by leading a direct head to head blow must be severely penalized.
A 15 yard penalty has always been absurd. A repeat offender must be washed out for the season.
This wantonly stupid method of "tackling" really began in the 1970s when network television began to glorify those defensive players who practiced these vicious open field enforcer type hits.
5
It seems to me that the NFL has two options:
1) Require an instant replay review after every helmet-to-helmet hit, which slows the game down.
2) Go back to calling only obvious headgear fouls, once known as "spearing".
Or just ditch the pads and helmets and switch to flag football.
I'd still watch.
9
The problem is that the helmet is a weapon. And one of the answers is 'less padding' rather than more.
For example, tackling is used in rugby too. However without the excessive padding rugby players need to use proper tackling methods. So by more pads, the players have taken to using the pads as weapons, and to attempt moves that would result in self injury without the pads. Take the pads out some.
Look at the example of the 'tackle' of the WR in example one. The WR is already down. And the 'tackler' simply wants to punish the receiver. So: 1. If there is a knee down, the player should be down too (as in college). Then there would be no excuse for a defender to come up to assassinate a defenseless player. 2. The defender simply had to touch the player on the ground. That was a assault. Should have resulted in getting kicked out.
12
I am a big fan of the NFL. But as a Brit my first love is Rugby.
I totally understand the reluctance to any change - and that the physicality is a core part of football and so on. But tackling has undoubtedly become a major health issue in the NFL and so something must be done.
This is, in part, a recent phenomenon. As players have got fitter and bigger and the margins of success narrower it is inevitable that the game becomes more violent.
I think rugby has done a good job of mitigating these changes - though it is certainly not perfect. They have introduced 3 changes to tackles: i) you can’t shoulder charge or lead with your head; ii) you must attempt to wrap your arms around the opponent and iii) you can’t tackle “high” (which might endanger your opponent’s neck. Combined these steps have dialled down the violence in the tackle.
Two further steps are in the form of sanctions. Players who infringe go off the pitch for a period of time giving their side a numerical disadvantage. In addition, players who are suspected of being concussed are sent off the pitch for a mandatory inspection. This latter point forces tacklers to be more careful as it is frequently the tackler who becomes concussed.
I don’t believe for a second that any of these changes have reduced the intensity or physicality of rugby.
The NFL should definitely consider them.
If it really wanted to be radical, it should outlaw (as many commenters have suggested) outlawing helmets and shoulder pads.
18
F=MA
Today's players are too big and too fast to play a game involving collisions that originated ~100 years ago safely.
Ice hockey is also approaching the same dilemma for the same reason. I suspect that for ice hockey to survive the men's game will come to resemble the women's game with regard to physical contact, i.e. collisions.
American football has no such choice except maybe emulate Australian Rules Football.
2
why Trump and rest of us leave NFL alone, nobody is forcing our kids to play football, and when you get out from collage if you think this is not for you than do some thing else , but we did not have too much enjoyming left for us in this world, so go and take care the killings in middle east or the mess at Washington , NFL. NBA . and all the Collage Sport's we have left for enjoyment
2
What is a catch? What is the role of replay? How many commercials are too many? Even, what to do about taking a knee during the National Anthem... These are challenges the NFL should be able to resolve.
But, the concept that football can be made safer (or safer) with a rule change or two is nutz. Football is terribly violent. Unless one has played the game it is impossible to understand how violent.
I'm not saying there should not be concerns regarding concussions and broken parts. But, this game is a multi billion dollar industry and changing the essence of the game--one team violently defeats another--will cost some people a lot of money. So, I don't think the game can be made "safe" to play.
go watch some rugby,
no human missiles on field,
just heads up hard play
7
@Left Back Rugby has all the pace and excitement that American football lacks; no three hour games here, folks. Two 40 minute halves, and everybody can go home in less than two hours.
1
Alas, even rugby seems to have changed. Bigger men. More direct and crushing tackles than I remember when playing the sport 30 years ago.
1
@Left Back
Or Aussie Rules Football...
My takeaway is that if your head (helmet) is facing upward, you’ll get called; if facing downward, it will be allowed. (Your body goes where your eyes are looking.)
"Alarmed by rising concussion rates and the lasting effects of repeated hits to the head, the N.F.L. adopted a new rule." Alarmed? Hardly! More like pushed, shoved, dragged into the future, kicking and screaming.
I'm still not interested.
3
Sounds like the famous definition of pornography to me. To paraphase: " Iknow it when I see, but I can't explain it."
Controversy over officials calls? Outrageous. This doesn’t exist in any other sport. Time to end football. I can find this kind of brilliant thinking at the local bowling alley.
1
Let's eliminate helmets and pads and go back to rugby-style play. There'd be fewer injuries (no one would lead with his head) and fans would be able to watch recognizable athletes and not anonymous, helmet-headed Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots.
7
Imagine you're in grade school again, playing on the cold grass. We never tackled with our heads first. Imagine you're playing without the helmet.
3
I hadn't heard of this rule, not being an ardent fan of the NFL. (Just the Steelers.)
The rule will hamper play by trying to contain what have become instinctive actions on the part of the player. I'm not saying it's a bad rule, just that every player has to un-learn something that has been ingrained for an entire career. (This rule is that much more important in college ball.) As the replays show there is a very fine line between a "good" tackle and a "bad" tackle. Arguments are inevitable because it's one more thing for a ref to look for. He may call a helmet tackle while missing a holding call. But therein may lie an answer. Holding isn't a big deal. It doesn't hurt anyone, and it's an effective way to keep a player from doing what you don't want him to do. It's defense. Loosen the rules against holding and you have a safer game with very little effect on how it's played.
Alternatively, live with the game the way it is since fans overwhelmingly like it this way. Just have the players sign away any rights to health insurance in the case of head trauma. They can pay for their own medical care. That's a market response. It's worth a try.
@Stevenz"t is since fans overwhelmingly like it this way. Just have the players sign away any rights to health insurance in the case of head trauma. They can pay for their own medical care"
by that logic, the fans should pay for the medical care.
2
In football, as in so many arenas, if people have weapons they will use them. This principle guides decisions about how to make many things safer. Players will not stop using weapons until the weapons are taken away. And anyone who has watched rugby knows how easy it is to make a safe tackle without using any weapons.
4
Accept it for what it is, "Hunger Games Vivo". The players know the risks and the rewards. Even though they get good reward (until they're in their thirties), avoiding the risks are illusory. Let's please face who we really are- a blood sport nation.
2
The WSJ did a breakdown of the "action" on the average televised NFL game a few years ago .....
Average Game Time 3 hrs. 12 minutes
Shots of players standing around 67 minutes
Commercials 63 minutes
Shots of coaches, crowd, cheerleaders 36 minutes
Replays 15 minutes
Ball actually in play 11 minutes
I've got better things to do on a Sunday afternoon.
17
Bingo! Apparently few have noticed, though the number is growing, that the game, as presented, has grown stupefyingly dull.
8
@Jim Mc that’s like saying a chess game only involves a few minutes of play time because you only count the time the chess pieces are moving
1
It has "tackled" tackling many times in the past. There's just no way to modify it without changing the game itself.
What do you want, two hand touch?
A sport that is played mostly with the hands and in which the ability to disable players with ramming them with astronaut helmets is paramount is called FOOTBALL in America.In the recent Russia World Cup no American media called that sport,in which the ball is played with the FEET(thus FOOTBALL) for its rightful name.It is,ridiculously,SOCCER so as not to collide with the OWNERS of the word FOOTBALL .
The US resists to join the rest of the world in many areas,some much more important than SOCCER,like CLIMATE CHANGE,the IRAN NUCLEAR TREATY, and others and It's going backwards fast and its will to show off how important it is rubs everybody the wrong way.
@Roberto Muina. There are large parts of the world where it is called soccer. There is nothing "rightful" about it.
1
@Roberto Muina football name is an historical artifact to differentiate games played on foot vs on horse.
Well, kudos to the NFL for realizing the dangers of very strong and physical players hitting each other with their helmets! The helmets themselves have become very sophisticated over the years... but in doing so, they became an additional weapon.
Personally, I like football...but I hate the needless injuries and concussions we see occurring on a weekly basis. Yes, the players shouldn't tackle head-first! But let's face it, it will take some time for players and officials to figure it out... unless we went back to the 1920's and '30's gear: leather helmets!
1
Many people believe that the answer is to go back to leather helmets, because in the "good old days" players learned how to tackle without using their helmets.
Well, in those good old days, players were MUCH smaller and MUCH slower.
Playing without helmets, with the athletes now playing the game, now would be suicide.
2
Simple fix. Take away modern lethal helmets and go back to leather helmets.
1
One of the most successful sports in the world, a televison magnet on Sundays in the fall and winter, is always being badgered by the media. If the NFL does nothing about the injuries and head trauma issues in its sport then the league is bludgeoned by the media. Any attempt, no matter how well thought out, to change any rule that would make the game safer, is hammered. Do I smell a little hypocrisy.
1
@kjd. Is the media to blame for everything? What a pointless off-topic comment.
1
@kjd Only a media at war with football would write such a meaningless article.
1
“ it won’t work “. The battle cry against change. Give it a chance and avoid becoming a CTE victim that could end your life.
1
This is a barbaric sport and should be outlawed. I shudder each time I see a clip of a vicious tackle.
The NFL is not going to take out head to head contact with a billion pages of rules. I never thought I'd say this, but in football the helmet increases moral hazard. What about playing without helmets? sure, people would get hurt, but people are already getting hurt, and maybe the injuries like lacerations would be better than getting your brain knocked around your skull, causing neurocogntive problems?
1
don't know what to do with the helmet? don't wear it. let's play 2 hand touch with blocking. this is absurd. I've been a Giant fan for 60 years but I'm done.
1
It's really pretty simple. If you lower your head to tackle, you probably are violating the rule. Lead with your facemask. Keep your head facing forward.
The resistance to this is just reflexive, and dumb.
Well, at least soccer doesn't have all those commercial breaks!
6
The NFL exists to give people a chance to watch extreme athletes beat each other into submission.
The game and its rules are a side-effect of the spectacle.
1
I love the game but neither of my football-able sons played and I am thankful for that. My guess is that no amount of rule making will reduce the liability (which is what the owners are really afraid of...) to zero. Go soccer...
I struggle with being a fan of the NFL. I love my Saints and I like Dak Prescott. But the violence and the health issues bother me, as they should. I was very happy when the targeting rule was created. Even I am having trouble understanding how the game can be played with this new rule.
1
Like everything else, the money will dictate where the game goes from here.
My guess is that the League office and owners are spending more time figuring out how to max out on NFL gambling than how to protect their players.
Players come and go.
Money keeps compounding.
2
As others have mentioned, maybe the NFL should eliminate helmets and pads altogether. Helmets and pads give the wearer a false sense of safety. Humans are conditioned from birth to know their physical limits.
Regardless of what they do, I don’t see the NFL ever being as popular as it use to be. Two of the leagues big outlets, ESPN and Sports Illustrated are hemorrhaging money. TV ratings and merchandise sales have dipped. The same way that cable and the internet decimated the once lofty ratings the big three networks enjoyed, the many sports and activities do the same now to the big four American sports. The golden age of American football is over and unlike the passing from baseball to football, this time it’s football to a number of other new sports and activities. I’m not sad, for far to long the American public has put a lot of emphasis on organized multi-billion dollar sports.
1
Take helmets and padding away and use the rugby contact rules. It's not as if rugby is a safe game, but it seems to be safer than American football.
8
High school football participation is already down by 25% or only 75% of players out compared with past years. If something doesn't prevent head injuries, it will go down to 50%, then down to 25%
This is called 'extinction'. The NFL and football in general should figure this out.
5
@G And I was laughed at when I said Times is leading a war on football. What about lacrosse? No. The Times and the Duke faculty convinced me that is also a demonic activity.
My only uncle was an Ivy League professor. He thought every sport was the dumbest activity imaginable. And I played in the Big Ten. He never acknowledged my achievements in any manner. He wasn’t the only faculty member who thought that. They just don’t say it now for fear of offending women.
So when you read of objections to football, remember the ones making the objections are likely to be against all sporting activities.
2
@G High school participation should go to zero ASAP.
NFL players are adults, and they can make their own decisions. But legally (and morally) there can be no informed consent by a minor. Consent by a guardian is borderline child abuse.
if hitting by head is what the players and coaches want,then hit by the head!,do not use helmet(supposedly helmet was introduced as a protective and safety tool not as a weapon).
Players and coaches will adapt. They will adapt even if helmet contact (advertent and inadvertent) is completely banned. The game will change. If that change gives the offense too big an advantage, adjustments will be made.
It might also be helpful to limit player size. People don't naturally weigh 300 pounds. If a weight limit were set at, say, 250 pounds, almost everyone could meet it. And the forces of impact would be reduced.
1
No helmets, no problem. Get rid of all protective gear except maybe cups and players will be less likely to use extreme force on each other.
9
Whenever I watch films of early football, when players wore leather caps, before the advent of hard helmets, I see lots of exciting rough-and-tumble play in which heads were not used as battering rams against opponents. I for one (who briefly played football as a high school senior) like the new look to the game: faster, more lively, with fewer permanently damaged brains. The NFL is going in the right direction and over time the game will evolve into a better sport for everyone.
16
Make them play both ways...that will fix a lot of problems...
6
Walker: I agree with you. Limited substitution would place a greater emphasis on endurance. Players would have to be smaller and lighter lessening the force of impact. Over the last 30 years players have gotten much bigger and stronger. Unfortunately bones, joints, and skulls have not kept pace
1
More and more I can’t even think of football without thinking about head injury. This year, for the first time, we will not be “making time” to watch the game on Sundays.
10
Eliminate the plastic helmet altogether. All NFL players should wrap their heads in bubble wrap.
1
With all the money the NFL has you would think they would have the resources to enhance the helmet. I'm not sure what they can do but maybe have a helmet that takes away a lot of the shock.
A player whose rules infraction causes an opposing player to be removed from the game due to injury should also be removed from the game until the injured player returns.
If an injured player's injury lasts beyond the game in which the injury occurs, the play should be carefully reviewed by the league and any player found responsible (i.e., the injury resulted from breaking the rules) should sit out until the injured player returns, through the end of the season if necessary.
Both the injured player and the suspended player must continue to be paid by their team; the players should not be financially victimized by the violence inherent in the game.
6
The new helmet rule, like the NFL's entire approach to player safety is flawed. The new rule will not only bring inconsistency on the field for what is or is not a good tackle, it. like other rules will alter and undermine the nature of the game. But more importantly in my opinion, The NFL is compromising player safety to protect the their Brand via TV and photo images.
The football helmet is effectively a weapon and design advancements are being made (and existing designs banned), but not one design I've seen involves softening the outer surface (shell of the helmet to work as a further "shock absorber"). Common sense and physics tells us that the collision of two rigid/non-absorbing surfaces will not mitigate the damaging forces involved. In our daily lives we see rubber bumpers and padding at potential points of impact for cars, boats, etc. A softer outer shell will reduce the damaging forces on the brain in helmet-to-helmet contact.
Unfortunately, a padded or "Nerf" surfaced helmet will have terrible TV optics for aesthetics (no sheen & bright colors, slightly larger) and appearance (Softened helmet surfaces will deform a bit during a game and a players head may get a little flat in one area--Heaven forbid--the Shield can't stomach having that image!
Until I see design concepts involving all aspects of the helmet (notably the outer shell), I cannot take the NFL's pledged "commitment with the players safety in mind" seriously.
16
@John Currall Google "Guardian caps." The kind of thing you're talking about is already available.
It wasn't too many years ago that professional cycling started requiring helmets. The riders didn't like that, because of style, and heat (fear it would be too hot under the helmet), and tradition. But it's no longer a big deal, and riders are safer. Changes in the interest of safety are a good thing.
Trade football for Ultimate! It's just as fast and exciting but without the brutality.
It’s about time. What are the players saying? They don’t have the skills to adjust? They do. It will be a better game.
6
You know Autumn is in the air when the NYT spews out more rhetoric related to the NFL. We already KNOW that tackling is dangerous and that playing football creates head injuries.
Yet these players are doing it on their own free will in order to receive big money and fame. And those who watch football or attend the games love it. So let's move on, shall we?
How come we never hear anything about the inherent dangers of playing hockey?
6
@james I wholeheartedly disagree. If there was a field of work with the same preventable dangers and outcomes I'm sure that the Times would be covering those too.
Also, the data is such that before the age of 25 or so it is really hard for people to make truly informed decisions, especially with risks that could take decades to appear. So I'm not sure that these players, who join the NFL at 22 or 23, are truly making sound informed decisions.
5
@james Coal miners, relative to those in their respective communities, make good money. They go into coal mines of their own free will. We know that black lung exists, and that on occasion a mine collapses. Why all of those dang pesky rules?
1
@james becuase hockey does not bring in anywhere close to the amount of money that NFL brings in..... sorry guy there is no comparison between the two...nice try though.
The NFL just can’t get out of its own way, can it. Who knew that putting a bunch of Reactionaries in charge of something would backfire? Too bad the lesson didn’t sink in before November 2016.
3
Bit by bit, football is dying. Fans and players are now reduced to defending the raw, unpleasant core of their love, namely, violence. Sometimes as we learn more about the real world, we, if we are mature, realize we have to give up childish fetishes. Football is one one of those, now that we know what’s at stake in our kids’ future health. It’s time: turn it off.
13
Rugby players tackle without using their head.
US pro football team owners encouraged this violence for years because it sells.Their new calculus what will cost them more money, lawsuits from players or loss of income from reduced violence?
11
@Pete
Absolutely--check out the rules and police of Rugby Union and how they're administered at the highest level. To my point of view, player safety comes first.
2
On most passing plays, the defensive backfield tries to dislodge the ball from the player via collision. Perhaps the league should focus on tackle football, and require that tacklers wrap up the receiver with their arms during the tackle. Prohibit them from “blowing up” the receiver. Only allow these collisions along the sidelines, where the receiver could be forced out of bounds.
This simple change would greatly reduce the violent impacts that can lead to CTE.
9
Simple, but not going to happen: Get rid of helmets and the game will change.
(Does rugby have the same problem with concussions and head- to-head-hits)?
5
@Penn Towers - Soccer, rugby, and hockey all have head injury problems.
@Jorge While football gets all the press, the biggest offender in U.S. sports when it comes to concussions is women's ice hockey.
1
I don't see how this is solved in a game that is fundamentally about gladiators squaring off against each other. The size, the speed, the contact, IS the game. Removing it removes the heart of the game.
3
@Sagrilarus
Check out football in the leather helmet era or rugby
1
@Sagrilarus
That's the problem. They are not gladiators, and this is not the Roman Colosseum. If you want to see lions eat Christians, and gladiators disable each other, bring back Rome.
1
First off thanks to Dr Bennett Omalu and Mike Webster (NFL) who uncovered this CTE damage in 2002.
I note that even young middle school players today are practicing 'Heads Up' football both on offense and defense.
If the NFL rules change to this type football does not work this year, then return to the simple thin leather helmet of the pre-war years. I am quite certain -as in rugby- the head will then not be used as a leading weapon.
'Heads up' football may just save football.
2
Championships come, and championships go, but traumatic brain injuries are forever.
26
Switch to Rugby. Much fewer head injuries in Ruby. Wearing helmets and pads invite use as a weapon. These players complaining that they cant tackle without using the helmet would find a way if no helmet was on their head.
Game is much more exciting as well.
27
How do they tackle in rugby?
I know they don’t wear pads, but I know they have to use their arms.
I am sure rugby players aren’t leading with their head.
20
@Nycoolbreez
You tackle with your shoulder and wrap the other player with your arms. Using only the shoulder is a penalty. This reduces the impact and force of the tackle. Very few concussions in Ruby. Happens by mistake but because of the rules it is not a legitimate byproduct.
6
I never thought I'd say this, but we might be seeing the beginning of the end of professional football. It sounds crazy to say, but even I, a huge fan of the sport, feel uncomfortable now watching these guys go at each other while knowing the serious long-term consequences for players involved. The NFL better figure something out fast.
32
The new rule should be enforced only if the helmet hit appears to be intentional. Yes, that's a judgment call on the ref's part, but not really a difficult one. Otherwise the players end up being obsessed about head and helmet position during every moving moment of the game.
2
Get rid of the helmets. Problem solved
17
@Hambone Nonamington
Though I agree for the most part, the consequence will be a couple of guys dying on the field each season instead of dozens dying 20 years later. Quite the choice to have to make.
3
@Hambone Nonamington This has been casually discussed before, and it's been pretty unanimously decided against. Not only would it be a huge liability for the NFL, it would also increase the chance of death from injury, even if it decreased the amount of head injuries in the game.
@Hambone Nonamington New problems: gouged eyes, crushed noses, broken teeth.
1
Injuring your knee is not the same as injuring your brain
12
@KNMNW
You are right. Injuring your knee often ends careers.
@KNMNW Thats easy for us to say but when a knee injury could stop your livelihood where as a brain injury could maybe affect you somewhere down the line you can see where athletes priorities lie. I'm not saying they're right I'm saying you can see why they might think that way.
1