Banning the 3-point stance?

Although this is an NFL issue, if the NFL did ban the 3-point stance I'm sure there would be a trickle down to college eventually. Now, on to the absurdity of this idea. After all the studies and debate, their idea is to ban the 3-point stance? That's like trying to cut down on traffic deaths by banning manual transmission.

If they really wanted to do anything about concussions, why don't they make every player wear a big goofy helmet like that safety for the Bills did back in the early 90's.

over 2 years ago cpm126 15 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

At first glance, I thought you were talking about 3 point stances for defenders.

But OL? This isn’t Urbania…

"Have I ever told the story of when I met Miley Cyrus?"

by Jeff Junstrom on Feb 8, 2010 9:25 PM EST reply actions

This kinda of looks like our O-Line at the start of last season!

Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
Vince Lombardi

by PaJoe on Feb 9, 2010 12:09 PM EST up reply actions

If

you read on further in the article, the Comish also suggests that they may experiment with the linemen wearing sacks around their legs ala 3-legged races…may be tried during the exhibitions…if that doesn’t work, they may try sacks over their helmets.

by DerryPharmer on Feb 9, 2010 8:47 AM EST reply actions

They could also play the game in

three feet of water.

by cpm126 on Feb 9, 2010 9:31 AM EST up reply actions

I don't see it as that ridiculous of an idea

but then again, I never played organized football at a high level, let alone as a lineman.

From my understanding, though, the three point stance essentially lets the lineman get down real low and angled forward so they can explode forward (at somewhat of an angle) and causes a lot of head impact. Seems pretty logical to remove if you are concerned so much about the sub-concussive impacts that occur at line play.

Would it remove an advantage the O-linemen have? Sure, but there would probably be countermeasures implemented to maintain the balance.

As for the “reduce traffic deaths by banning manual transmissions,” well I’m sure if there were studies done that showed that there was a significant increase in the chances of death or serious injury when using a manual transmission, that such a law could and would be passed, and wouldn’t be considered absurd at all.

by The JuggerNitt on Feb 9, 2010 12:11 PM EST reply actions

No, you're right.

There is always going to be a “blood & guts” contingent of football fans that will decry the loss of any semblance of contact from the game. Generally, they’ve never set foot on a football field.

This issue is not about the NFL. It’s about the standards for safety and conduct that the NFL has a responsibility to be setting if they want kids to continue to play the sport of football. They need to figure out a way to make the game safer, or somebody else will.

Pitt currently has both a better football and basketball team than Michigan.

by jesse. on Feb 9, 2010 12:56 PM EST up reply actions

I just think of things like the horse collar and the facemask

by eliminating them, you make it harder for the defender to bring someone down, but you also make it much safer. It is all about finding the right balance of what is effective and what is safe. Maybe they won’t wind up banning the 3 point stance, but they’ll modify the rules so that it somehow makes it safer, or perhaps there will be a study done showing that the 2 point stance isn’t statistically any safer. Heck, maybe they’ll make it so the o-line and d-line essentially start like wrestlers and are already grappling with each other.

by The JuggerNitt on Feb 9, 2010 1:04 PM EST up reply actions

It's already a penalty to takle or grab the horse collar or facemask.

In all seriousness, when was the last time somebody was seriously injured by a fasemask? It’s pretty rare, because everybody knows to let go because of the penalty.

Pitt currently has both a better football and basketball team than Michigan.

by jesse. on Feb 9, 2010 1:18 PM EST up reply actions

right, it is penalized now

but at one time (at least for horsecollars, I’m also assuming for facemasks) they weren’t penalized. Then the penalty was enacted, and tackling became just a bit harder, for the sake of safety

by The JuggerNitt on Feb 9, 2010 3:33 PM EST up reply actions

Then why isn't everyone wearing Steve Kelso's helmet?

Better yet, make one that is twice as thick and even softer

by cpm126 on Feb 9, 2010 1:16 PM EST up reply actions

I don't know that the Pro-Cap

is safer than the concussion resistant helmets that are available to the players today. Resistance to concusions is something that helmet manufactuers have been paying attention to for literally about four seasons. The cost of those helmets is prohibitive (about $1,000 per) at most levels of football, although, ironically, most major D1A programs (Penn State included) mandate their use. Of course there is no union in the NCAA.

The NFL players union would strike before they would let the league mandate that they wear something that looks as stupid as the Pro-cap anyway. Frankly, I’m not sure that they even make them anymore. Regardless, NFL players are not acting any less foolish than the hockey players did when the NHL decided to mandate helmets.

I mean, if your point is, “Concussions aren’t serious, because if they were, everybody would be wearing a Pro-cap” You’re way, way, off base.

Pitt currently has both a better football and basketball team than Michigan.

by jesse. on Feb 9, 2010 1:23 PM EST up reply actions

My point was if the NFL

really wanted to do something about concussions, they would be looking at big goofy
helmets without a hard exterior. Instead, they are looking at rule changes that would essentially encourage every team in the league to run the Big 12 south offense.

I agree that mandating big goofy helmets would be similar to the Craig MacTavish hockey situation where you have players fighting helmets for no logical reason.

by cpm126 on Feb 9, 2010 1:37 PM EST up reply actions

The NFL is in a bit of a pickel...

They want/need to address the head injury problem, while at the same time .they are loathe to admit there is a head injury problem. Keep in mind, there are hundreds of ex-football players that have disability claims relative to head injuries. Paying thos disbaility claims is one thing, dealting with the law-suits that will be attendent to them having denied those claims for the last 20 years will be still another.

Pitt currently has both a better football and basketball team than Michigan.

by jesse. on Feb 9, 2010 2:04 PM EST up reply actions

OK

so now I am going to show some of my age…the first year I played, I had no facemask, graduated to a double -bar and eventualy to a “cage”….so one adapted himself to the equipment and vice versa…you are far more willing to stick your face into a pile or into someone elses face or helmet, whenever you have more protection…a Kelso Helmet would just make it more rational to use it as an advantage as anything else…Why ? cause that’s what us “old guys” did and do…oh and just for conversation’s sake, I was just getting out when they made mouthpieces mandatory…you just have to make the punishment fit the crime…spearing and leading with your head should be an automatic ejection + penalty….start getting a reputation for such, I would suggest suspensions both pro and college…I’ve had my share of “seeing stars”, but the way and at the speed the Game is played today, their will be a death sooner than later, let alone the memory problems such as dementia and physical problems such as parkinsonism…WE as sportfans love the “hits” and I do understand that, but the odds are against anyone, let alone the NFL of NCAA addressing the real problem…that’s why MMA is so popular, but I digress big time.

by DerryPharmer on Feb 9, 2010 1:56 PM EST reply actions