• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Should The NFL's New Rule Be The Brady Rule

The Fallen Angel

3rd Level Red Feather
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,587
Points
0
The NFL has put in a new rule dubbed "the Steeler's rule" about big hits/hits to the helmet.

But lets think about this, shouldn't it be called The Brady Rule. All of this protecting the quarterback got out of hand when Tom Brady was injured in the first game of the season against the Chiefs a few years back on a "low hit". Brady was out the rest of the year and all of a sudden you couldn't hit the quarterback low anymore, and then it developed into not being able to touch the quarterbacks head in any way. Now that has morphed into no hits to the helmet on any player.

So is this really the NFL trying to be safer for the players as they claim, or is it really them just protecting the "stars" from being injured
 
Players have to sit out portions of games or entire games if they are not cleared by doctors after suffering a concussion. In the short term, anyway, that would hardly seem to be in the interests of the league when their stars are on the bench. If defensive players actually do change their style of play, one could argue that the game's not as exciting without helmut to helmut hits. So I do think a crackdown on those type of hits is for player safety and not for the benefit of the league. I remain unconvinced, though, that the league is implementing measures to protect players because they genuinely care about the players' well-being :angel: (which does go to your point...).

It took a long time for the league to really examine the consequences of head trauma, and I don't think they should be all that proud of their record regarding player safety in other areas. Most players don't last very long in the league due to injuries. Plus, the league was pushing for an 18-game schedule: something anithetical to player safety. Is it okay to list greed as your primary motive, or is that frowned upon?
 
I dunno. As a fan, I lust for blood and big time hits.

At the same time, football is a notoriously dangerous sport, with most careers short-lived (and most lives markedly shortened or altered for the worse)... this is most likely the NFL moving to cover it's behind preemptively to prevent future ligation from hobbled, dumbstruck players.
 
Unfortunately, injuries are a part of the game however, I do think an emphasis on player safety should be implemented. There are thousands of high school players who look up to the NFL players. They should set an example for young players. Concussions especially. The announcers who laud, 'he really got his bell rung! what a great hit' should be ashamed. The low hits on quarterbacks are sometimes cheap shots trying intentionally to injure them. Not cool.

Those days of clotheslining opponents is long gone, and if you asked any of them who were on the receiving end of them, they would tell you its about time. Sure I like big hits as much as the next guy but I don't wish anyone to get injured. Its a game!

Let me ask you this, if your favorite player got a cheap shot on him and he ended up done for the year or worse, wouldn't you be pissed? Wheres the flag!
 
What's New
9/29/25
Visit our Chat Room, free to all members, and always busy.

Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1704 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Top