Competition Committee proposals: end play when ball carrier's helmet comes off & sudden death overtime

[tryfuhl]

Competition Committee will propose killing plays when ball carrier loses helmet | ProFootballTalk.com

I don't know.. I get it, but I don't like it

Competition Committee will propose "modified sudden death" for overtime | ProFootballTalk.com

The new rule, as previously reported by many, will allow the team that receives the kickoff to start overtime to win the game only by scoring a touchdown. At that point, the game would end without the other team getting the ball -- and without an extra point being attempted.

If the team that receives the kickoff scores a field goal, the other team would then get the ball. A field goal by the other team would then extend the game, making it truly sudden death. Failure to score at all would end the game, as would a touchdown by the team that kicked off to start overtime.

I say you need to attempt the extra point.. just in case one of them gets it blocked/botched snap, etc

[tryfuhl]

also, maybe protecting the long snapper by preventing anyone from lining up in his frame

Snappers could get some protection, too | ProFootballTalk.com

and more protection for defenseless guys.. which is dumb because it will become even more subjective

Defenseless players will be further protected from blows to the head | ProFootballTalk.com

[Audi]

I like the rule of ending play when the helmet comes off.

Not only does it protect the safety of the players, as something is bound to happen, but it also will force them to tie on their helmets tighter. Way too many loose helmets these days.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Audi

I like the rule of ending play when the helmet comes off.

Not only does it protect the safety of the players, as something is bound to happen, but it also will force them to tie on their helmets tighter. Way too many loose helmets these days.

I think in theory it is right, but the first time a play is stopped when the ball is in the air to a wide open receiver in the end zone and he catches it.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

I think in theory it is right, but the first time a play is stopped when the ball is in the air to a wide open receiver in the end zone and he catches it.

if the ball is in the air then there's no ball carrier

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

if the ball is in the air then there's no ball carrier

Sorry, I did not read the rule, I did not see 'ball carrier' part. I thought they were saying anyone on the field loses his helmet.
But SirClintonPortis came up with one of several possible scenarios that could make this rule difficult. The first time it is applied on a game winning/changing play like a 4th and goal there will be controversy.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

Sorry, I did not read the rule, I did not see 'ball carrier' part. I thought they were saying anyone on the field loses his helmet.
But SirClintonPortis came up with one of several possible scenarios that could make this rule difficult. The first time it is applied on a game winning/changing play like a 4th and goal there will be controversy.

nah.. that'd be horrible though if it was just any helmet.. though I've seen people take knocks helmetless that weren't ball-carriers as well

[Monkeydad]

Helmet rule is stupid but will likely pass since they're suddenly so concerned with craniums. I love when a RB is fighting for yards even if the helmet comes off...they're usually great plays and I've never seen an injury on a play like that. They KNOW it's a violent sport when they signed up at age 10.

OT rule would be OK if extra points attemped as you said...could miss or be blocked.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by Buster

Helmet rule is stupid but will likely pass since they're suddenly so concerned with craniums.

OT rule would be OK if extra points attemped as you said...could miss or be blocked.

oh yeah.. I didn't even mention missed the short ones

let's just say I've putten Suisham in that special little place where my memories don't often return from

[mlmpetert]

I dont like any of sissy type rules. It takes way to much away from the tradition and history of football.

Im okay with the OT rule, but id rather them go to a college type format or just do away with OT all together. I know a lot of people dont like the college format because it will inflate the scores and mess up records and stuff like that, but i think fair competition is more important.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

I dont like any of sissy type rules. It takes way to much away from the tradition and history of football.

My point said more honestly.

[Trample the Elderly]

I thought that football was a blood sport? Why do they have to sissify every GD thing?

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by Buster

Helmet rule is stupid but will likely pass since they're suddenly so concerned with craniums. I love when a RB is fighting for yards even if the helmet comes off...they're usually great plays and I've never seen an injury on a play like that. They KNOW it's a violent sport when they signed up at age 10.

OT rule would be OK if extra points attemped as you said...could miss or be blocked.

Remember Jason Witten on Monday night a couple years back running for 25+ yards without his helmet? That would have been blown dead by this BS rule.

[MTK]

I wish they would just stop with the OT proposals, leave it alone.

As far as ending the play when a helmet comes off I definitely think that's a good idea. A no-brainer... ha!

[tryfuhl]

forget college format

trade turns but kickoffs on each