T1B

Taking another technological step forward, NFL owners approved a communication device for defenses Tuesday.

One defensive player will wear a helmet similar to what the quarterback is allowed on offense. Should that player leave the game, another player can be designated to also have the device. But only one defender with the device can be on the field at a time.

"We want to safeguard against a situation with two players on the field at the same time with the helmet communication," said Atlanta Falcons president and competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay.

"We are talking about a three-down player, perhaps a linebacker who doesn't come off the field," added Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher, the other co-chairman of the committee that recommended instituting the device. Fisher has just such a player in Keith Bullock.

"In the event he goes down because of an injury, we'd identify our backup player as another three-down player."

Fisher noted this change won't eliminate entirely the need for signals from the sideline, something that pretty much has disappeared for offenses.

"The defense will still have need to signal in a hurry-up situation, where the ball is snapped very early," he said.

The vote was 25-7 in favor — 24 yes votes were required — and all seven negatives came from head coaches with offensive backgrounds.

Voting against the measure were Seattle (Mike Holmgren), Tampa Bay (Jon Gruden), Oakland (Lane Kiffin), Philadelphia (Andy Reid), St. Louis (Scott Linehan), Washington (Jim Zorn) and Green Bay (Mike McCarthy).

New England coach Bill Belichick, whose involvement in the Spygate scandal that included taping opposing coaches' defensive signals made the communication device a hotter topic, voted for the proposal.

"I've been for that ever since the thing with the quarterbacks came out," Belichick said. "The problem is just how to do it. The concept of it is fine, but the logistics of it are a little bit of a different story. You don't always have a quarterback in the game on defense, like you do on offense. It's a little bit of a different setup.

"There is a substitution issue. Even the way it's proposed now if you have a middle linebacker like Brian Urlacher or Ray Lewis, or somebody like that who played on every single play on defense as kind of the equivalent of the offensive quarterback, then that's one thing. A lot of teams don't have that, and I'd say we would fall into that category."

The owners also tabled discussion of a rule banning a player's hair from flowing over the nameplate and number on the back of the uniform.




RACK Oakland!

The offensive Star Wars gear should be trashed.
Never should have entered the game.

Leaving the game on the field makes it infinitely more compelling, spontaneous, creative and entertaining.

Slippery money-grubbers in charge is NEVAR a good thing.

It really won't change much of how the game is played ON the field.

This is the 21st Century, Poppy....feel free to join us in it.

I'm ALL in favor of innovation and advancement, when it actually makes something ... BETTER.

I'd like to hear you, or anyone else who favors the electronic communication from sideline to field, articulate HOW it makes the game better.
Why is the game better or more interesting because of it?
As I see it, it detracts significantly from the 'character' and creativity of the sport.

Falls directly in line with the cookie cutter league that the heirarchy has fostered.


Blows dick, basically.

Rack poptart. Next step will be to let the coordinators talk to the QB and the designated defensive “correspondent” during the plays. “Hey, Jamaal is open”, “Play action, play action”. It will be every bit as much fun as watching your kid play Nintendo.

Goober McTuber wrote:Next step will be to let the coordinators talk to the QB and the designated defensive “correspondent” during the plays. “Hey, Jamaal is open”, “Play action, play action”.

Good point here. But, how can you argue this deal after the spygate fiasco? It sucks, but unfortunately this was going to happen because Belicheat had to go and ruin it for everyone else.

poptart wrote:I'm ALL in favor of innovation and advancement, when it actually makes something ... BETTER.

I'd like to hear you, or anyone else who favors the electronic communication from sideline to field, articulate HOW it makes the game better.
Why is the game better or more interesting because of it?
As I see it, it detracts significantly from the 'character' and creativity of the sport.

Falls directly in line with the cookie cutter league that the heirarchy has fostered.

Blows dick, basically.

A radio helmet is no different that a defensive coach shuttling in plays during substitutions or using hand signals. But hey, I'm sure there were those who thought hash marks and plastic shell helmets adversely affected the "character and creativity of the sport".

A player shuttling in plays means you have to sub in a different player, perhaps with a different skill set than the guy he’s replacing. Maybe adds a little more nuance. Plastic shell helmets adversely affected the "danger of the sport”. But pops was asking you to explain how this move makes the game better or more interesting.

The hash marks should be set wider apart.

Goober McTuber wrote:A player shuttling in plays means you have to sub in a different player, perhaps with a different skill set than the guy he’s replacing. Maybe adds a little more nuance. Plastic shell helmets adversely affected the "danger of the sport”. But pops was asking you to explain how this move makes the game better or more interesting.

The rule has nothing to do with making the game "more interesting". The new rule is an attempt to restore the integrity to the game lost after spygate. Poptart seems to think it will make the game less interesting. I think he's full of shit.

BSmack wrote:The rule has nothing to do with making the game "more interesting". The new rule is an attempt to restore the integrity to the game lost after spygate. Poptart seems to think it will make the game less interesting. I think he's full of shit.

I completely agree with ALL of that.

The one thing about the NFL that I don't like is that they protect the QB too much.

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:A player shuttling in plays means you have to sub in a different player, perhaps with a different skill set than the guy he’s replacing. Maybe adds a little more nuance. Plastic shell helmets adversely affected the "danger of the sport”. But pops was asking you to explain how this move makes the game better or more interesting.

The rule has nothing to do with making the game "more interesting". The new rule is an attempt to restore the integrity to the game lost after spygate. Poptart seems to think it will make the game less interesting. I think he's full of shit.

Are you suggesting that Bill Belicheat won’t find a way to intercept those transmissions? Should be less detectable than a cameraman.

Goober McTuber wrote:Are you suggesting that Bill Belicheat won’t find a way to intercept those transmissions? Should be less detectable than a cameraman.

It's a lot easier for the league to monitor radio frequency usage within the stadium than it is to monitor the stands for hand held camcorders. Also, it makes it a whole lot harder for Belicheat to synch the play call with the play on his game film. Not impossible mind you, but definitely more painstaking.

Goober McTuber wrote:

BSmack wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:A player shuttling in plays means you have to sub in a different player, perhaps with a different skill set than the guy he’s replacing. Maybe adds a little more nuance. Plastic shell helmets adversely affected the "danger of the sport”. But pops was asking you to explain how this move makes the game better or more interesting.

The rule has nothing to do with making the game "more interesting". The new rule is an attempt to restore the integrity to the game lost after spygate. Poptart seems to think it will make the game less interesting. I think he's full of shit.

Are you suggesting that Bill Belicheat won’t find a way to intercept those transmissions? Should be less detectable than a cameraman.

Yeah because we all know it is only the Patriots trying to gain an upper hand on the opposing team. No other teams would dare to do this. Hell no other team ever triend to intercept the other teams signals. You haters are priceless...

Neely8 wrote:Yeah because we all know it is only the Patriots trying to gain an upper hand on the opposing team. No other teams would dare to do this. Hell no other team ever triend to intercept the other teams signals. You haters are priceless...

Considering your close proximity to the world's second largest body of water, I find it amazing that you have been unable to wash that sand out of your vagina.

BSmack wrote:

Neely8 wrote:Yeah because we all know it is only the Patriots trying to gain an upper hand on the opposing team. No other teams would dare to do this. Hell no other team ever triend to intercept the other teams signals. You haters are priceless...

Considering your close proximity to the world's second largest body of water, I find it amazing that you have been unable to wash that sand out of your vagina.

Bri do you not think that EVERY team will look for a way to beat the system? To single out the Pats and Belichick just shows how much they are in some peoples domes. I love the Hate actually. For 30 some years before the Pats became good nobody ever talked about them....

BSmack wrote:Poptart seems to think it will make the game less interesting. I think he's full of shit.

I came to the conclusion long ago that much like a good soldier, if 'tart ain't bitching about something, (as it pertains to the NFL) he ain't happy.

I saw this news in the paper this morning and it barely registered a reaction. Ho Hum. I also had no doubt that when I opened this forum, somebody would've started a topic decrying the inhumanity of it all.

Christ, were we already done crying about the proposal to make players tuck their dreadlocks up under their helmet?

The draft can't get here soon enough. Maybe then we'll have something worth talking about.

Bri wrote:Poptart seems to think it will make the game less interesting. I think he's full of shit.

That's not my take.

It actually makes sense to allow the defensive team to have radio gear ... if the offensive team has it.

My take is that electronic gear should NEVER have been introduced in the first place.

The game is MUCH better without it.

I don't see how any 'true' fan of football could think differently.

poptart wrote: My take is that electronic gear should NEVER have been introduced in the first place.

Two wrongs don't make a right, eh?

Curious, but I don't recall ever seeing you rail against the QB having an earpiece.

Link?

STFU, 'tart... the cat's out the bag already.

RumpleForeskin wrote:The one thing about the NFL that I don't like is that they protect the QB too much.

That trend started in the late 80's (as I recall) because there were essentially no rules governing when a defensive player could hit a QB, meaning that he was essentially free game. Oh, they had a "two step" rule back then, but that was enforced about as often as travelling is in the NBA.

Anywho, one particular season, Elway, Montana, Marino, Jim McMahon and 5 or 6 other starting QBs were all out at the same time because they were getting the shit kicked out of them on every fucking play. The league quickly (and rightly) realized that no one was going to pay $$ to attend a game, or sit in front of the TV to watch a game where non-drafted or sixth round second-stringers were leading the offenses. Thus, they started making more rules and more strictly enforcing others to protect QBs.

Back on topic...

I don't have a problem with the headsets for either side, but especially for the offense. I used to take for-fucking-ever for a play to be called and the games used to last damn near four hours. The headsets and the shorter clock have significantly sped up the game, which I think makes it a lot more fun to watch. And hell, even the "sped up" version still takes 3 hours.

What has sped up the game is that the clock is only temporarily stopped when a player goes out of bounds.
It is stopped until the ball is spotted, at which point it starts again -- except for the last 2 minutes of the first half and the last 5 minutes of the second half, when the clock is stopped until the ball is snapped again.
In an earlier era, the clock was stopped any time a player went out of bounds, and it didn't start again until the ball was snapped.
This was the rule for the ENTIRE GAME.

I don't know for sure exactly what year this was changed, but it makes a VERY significant difference in the time of a ballgame.
The clock keeps chuggin' right along these days.

The games were dragging on in time because the league became a passing league and there were far too many stops of the clock.
Inc. pass, player out of bounds.
So the league stepped in and decided to keep the clock rolling when a guy goes out of bounds.


Wagon, I've been against the head gear since it was introduced for the offense.
If I haven't commented on it at this board, I likely did at a previous board.


Mvscal, funny, the question I posed to Bri was, how has the electronic gear improved the game?
And this is the appropriate question, because when something is introduced it must be done so because a tangible IMPROVEMENT is expected to come from it.
Simple example was the goal posts being moved back to the end of the end zone.
FGs had become far too easy and also the goalposts were getting guys killed.
A rule change was made and the improvement was clear and tangible.

For decades the league had no electronic gear.
Gear was introduced.
Ok -- how has it made the game better?

As I see it, coaches have training camp, pre-season, weekly meetings & gameplanning, sideline talk, timeouts and halftime to coach away.

The rest is for the 'prepared' players go on the field and find a way to get things done.

Receiver comes back to the huddle and tells the QB that the corner will bite if he fakes an out and runs to the post.
Suggest the QB pump as he fakes the out, and then lofts it deep as the receiver runs for the post.
They go with it.

A little player creativity.
A bit of character.

Do you think anything like that happens these days?

These things used to be routine in an earlier day.

They've got the players so douched-up now that they don't dare deviate from the radio directive or somebody's ass is gonna be on fire.

If you think the league has the same flair and character as it did 20 or 30 years ago you're high.
Perhaps the gradual change has fooled you.

All the little robotos must look and play alike.
All to provide a neatly packaged ... show ... rather than a game.

And keep your shirts tucked in too, players.


They've turned it into a coaches league rather than a players league.

That blows, sorry.

Poppy, for somebody that professes to be a pro football fan you sure do BITCH and WHINE about it a lot.

If you wanna' bitch about a rule change 'tart, how about this one. They've now made it where a receiver must get two feet down inbounds in order for it to be a catch. Doesn't matter if he gets shoved out of bounds by a defender first.

This rule change blows, IMO.

mvscal wrote:

poptart wrote:Receiver comes back to the huddle and tells the QB that the corner will bite if he fakes an out and runs to the post.
Suggest the QB pump as he fakes the out, and then lofts it deep as the receiver runs for the post.
They go with it.

A little player creativity.
A bit of character.

Do you think anything like that happens these days?

Yes. It happens every single game. Every single week.

Not so much for this guy...at least not for the Bungles anymore: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3327235" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wagon wrote:This rule change blows, IMO.

Why?

Suffice to say that many spectacular, acrobatic receptions will now be nullified because the defender will recover just in time to push him out of bounds before his feet land.

Mediocre DB's all over the league are saying a prayer of thanks. They basically don't have to cover a sideline route anymore and can cheat towards the middle.

Tough to understand why the league felt they needed to change this rule.

^^^^^

hmmm....the "sideline" has always been a boundry????

Defense has always been taught that the "sideline" is your friend (or goalline boundry).

CATCH the Ball inbounds.

no Grey area.

as long as "this" is enforced to the letter of the Law...no probs at all.

Sin,

~KWII

I'm alright with the change, Wagon, but I understand your point.

I think the change puts things back to more of a 'spirit of the game' realm.

Yes, catch the ball CLEARLY inbounds.
Simple.

Gives the officials less of a burden by eliminating the need for them to make a snap-judgement as to whether a receiver would have made the catch inbounds if he weren't ... smacked out.

poptart wrote: Gives the officials less of a burden by eliminating the need for them to make a snap-judgement as to whether a receiver would have made the catch inbounds if he weren't ... smacked out.

That's exactly it. Let the players decide the game, not the officials. The accurate QB's will flourish as well the athletic WR because they'll forced to be more crisp with their route running and passing.

poptart wrote: Yes, catch the ball CLEARLY inbounds.

Gives the officials less of a burden by eliminating the need for them to make a snap-judgement as to whether a receiver would have made the catch inbounds if he weren't ... smacked out.

There have been and there will be many instances of where it's clear that a receiver would have landed with both feet inbounds, well inbounds, had he not been shoved out.

This rule change punishes a WR (and his team) for going up and making a great grab.

Going forward, I think we're going to hear many complaints about this from all involved in the game. Players, coaches, fans, and the media are going to bitch incessantly, and rightfully so.

New Rule: The five-yard face mask penalty for incidental contact with the facemask was eliminated. Any twisting, grabbing or illegal use of a facemask will result in a 15-yard penalty.

hmmmmmmm .......

No more penalty for 'incidentally' contacting the facemask.

Will this result in more or less defender hands on offensive player facemasks?

Me thinks more.

That's stupid. When they instituted the 5-yard penalty, you had a lot of guys going out of their way to let go so they'd only be able to be tagged for five yards. Now, there's no incentive to let go, so you're going to end up seeing smaller players swung around by the facemask like a 380 lb defensive lineman is doing the olympic hammer throw.

Wasn't this rule put in place in the first place because 15 yards seemed a ridiculous penalty for a player who barely touches a facemask? I wonder why they took it back. Someone had to be bitching about it and lobbying for votes pretty heavily in order to get this overturned. What could his motivation have been? This is odd.