The NFL rule for the smuggler's test does not really concern the safety of the players.

Imagine being penalized, hurt your team and maybe even get a fine for just doing your damn job.

Welcome to the world of today's NFL passcasters, where textbook addressing on a quarterback is a motive.

Or worse.

If you've been careful, you've probably noticed that the controversy surrounding the new rule change on skipping this season follows what has become a pretty predictable model for the NFL. First, the league unilaterally decides to modify a rule under the pretext of "improving player safety". Then, when she jumps out at them, they scramble to "fix" something that does not need to be repaired.

This pattern is repeated many times, as many NFL attempts to "improve player security" appear to be more public relations oriented than anything else. The league reacted to serious injuries to its most prominent players, and introduced these rule changes to try to convince fans that they would never let the same thing happen again.

Ask yourself this, if the NFL really were concerned about the safety of the players, why would they have moved so fast to lower the helmet rule during the pre-season after the players, coaches and fans all complained?

Sit down and try to answer this question for a minute. If the rule had been well studied and planned by a team of doctors, trainers, physiologists, kinesiologists and all kinds of oligists, as well as coaches, players and all those you would think. should have a say in a rule change to improve player safety – and they all came to the conclusion that this rule would make the game safer for players, should not it be harder to change the rule? probably be Less sure?

And yet, that's exactly what the NFL did with the headset rule change in the pre-season.

This rule change was a bullshit reaction to Steeler linebacker Ryan Shazier's spinal injury in a game where he dropped his head just before contact on a tackle attempt, and not really on player safety. . My prayers are lifted for Shazier as he continues to recover, but an isolated incident and injury should not force a change of heart, especially one that was as badly thought as the rule of lowering the helmet.

In addition, harassment has been banned for a long time, so the rule already in the books needs to be strengthened. But the owners have changed the rule this season anyway, obviously without much, if any, comment from people who might have told them that it was a bad idea. When they finally arrived at the beta test, they lived the pre-season, that was predictable, a clusterfuck.

What's funny is that the NFL is so concerned about public relations that no matter what on the other hand, when they gave in and basically changed the rule of lowering the number of helmets, they still insisted in their communiqué that they were not changing the new rule at all.

But hey, that's how the NFL operates its magic. This is how advertisers chastise players for them to not adapt to rule changes, even if there is little or no public data indicating whether some of these rule changes make the game safer.

And sometimes rule and enforcement changes are so ridiculous and obvious that even someone who has never watched a minute of football can see that something is wrong. At this point, no matter how much water advertisers carry for the league, fans will want things to return to normal. It seems that this is the point where we are finally with the new version of the smuggler's sketch.

The NFL says that assailants must literally defy the law of physics or get a penalty, which is bullshit.

Think I'm kidding? It's in the rule.

"… the defender is responsible for avoiding landing on the quarterback when he takes it to the ground."

How, Sway?

You do not have the answers!

If the NFL had asked one of the many current and former players if the rule change was feasible …

Or all the coaches if they can train a guy not to fall into a quarter that he is tackling …

Or a physicist it was plausible that a player could stop his momentum and change the trajectory of his fall into the air …

If the NFL had done all of those things, the NFL could have completely avoided this mess by not changing the rule at all, or by doing it in a way that actually subscribed to the laws of physics. But that would have forced them to worry about whether or not they had understood the first time. I find it hard to believe they are doing it at this point.

All they seem to care about is that they have had good press coverage for rule changes. And now that everyone is in a crisis, all of a sudden, it is said that the owners will soon tackle the application of the rule.

I would not be surprised if they said the changes would not change either.

Now I understand why some people might not understand why rule change is such a big deal because they have never rushed a smuggler before.

As I have done it once or twice in the NFL, I want to try to explain why the rule change was so absurd.

You see, when quarterbacks see a guy coming at full speed, all right, they will usually go limping as soon as they will feel in touch. Even if they are tense, they do not have the impetus to fight against the blow. This is the reason why, when a defensive player strikes a flaming fifth, the quarterbacks are rarely able to stand up, as athletic or strong as they are.

Well, if a guy of my size or taller has two steps to break through and you can not or do not have a lot of resistance, what is supposed to be To prevent falling on you?

Absolutely nothing, that's what!

This situation is completely different from attacking a quarterback who is struggling and can prepare himself or even join hands. You have already pushed a door and thought that it was a lot heavier than it really was? Yeah, that's what you usually feel when you're still in your pocket. Once you have exploded in them, there is nothing to slow you down before landing on them. So unless a coach has invented a technique that allows players to levitate in the air, this rule change is simply absurd.

Clay Matthews is not the only one to have been unfairly penalized by this rule change so far. But his sack – yes, the bag – from Alex Smith Sunday was probably the typical example of why rushers are not winners if the rule does not change. I still can not overcome the fact that he was penalized in a game in which the quarterback still had the ball.

But I'm misleading.

Look, the NFL has already put rules in the past that prohibit smugglers from hitting down quarters when it's in the pocket (as was the case for Carson Palmer and later for Tom Brady). In the center of the chest, you run the risk of being hit by a helmet against a helpless player. So, the NFL has already struggled to not make a mistake when you hit the quarterback.

To his credit, Matthews's tackling technique was perfect for avoiding a flag. He even shifted his head to the side just before making contact to make sure his helmet did not kiss Smith. And instead of picking up Smith and breaking him down, all Matthews did was the tackle that made him fall on Smith. He was obviously aware of the new rule change because, as soon as he and Smith had fallen together, Matthews started looking around to make sure he was not reported.

But he was!

After seeing this game, I just want people who have changed the rule in the first place to stand in front of a video and try to explain how this rule change helps solve anything. I also want them to be obliged to explain in detail what Matthews could have done differently on this piece. And finally, I would pay a lot of money to see these same decision makers make a concrete demonstration of what Matthews should have done differently. I want them to feel the sensation of trying to attack someone without landing, and I want this shit to be broadcast on all streaming services so that We can all to laugh.

I know it will never happen, but I can dream, is not it?

Now I will say that players play a little in the hand of the NFL with their rhetoric denouncing these new rule changes.

Calling the game "soft" gives many ordinary people who have never played football the impression that current players just want to be able to hurt themselves in peace. It also reinforces the story that players need owners to "save them from themselves", a story that benefits owners only. Many "fans" already consider gamers to be commodities rather than real people. So I think no one will be able to offer favors to the players so they do not fall into the trap of rhetoric.

It also happens to be inaccurate.

These rule changes are not bad because they make the game "soft". They are bad because they are really friggin 'stupid!

Some of them too clearly enough are not make the game safer, and in fact, you can make a pretty compelling case that some of them make the game more dangerous for defensive players who obviously have to try to be contortionists at full speed or risk being reported.

If you do not believe me, ask the Dolphins veteran forward William Hayes, who tried to do like the NFL and defy the laws of gravity on Sunday, and unfortunately for him, he was demoted. Hayes is now on the injured list and lost for the season with a serious knee injury after making a good start to a very surprising 3-0 Miami squad … all because he tried to respect a crazy rule change.

And why?

Because Aaron Rodgers was injured last year?

Go dude!

But the NFL understands the power of words.

That's exactly why they constantly repeat the message that they are only making these changes for the good of their players. Current players could help themselves by giving up soft rhetoric and simply claiming that owners improve player safety. Challenge the NFL to prove that these rule changes are needed next time before the guys have to play under them. Ask them to disclose how they came to formulate and approve these rule changes in the first place. Emphasize how much all players want to make the game safer, but there must be some evidence that any of these rule changes can achieve that goal before putting them in place.

If I look pissed off, you're fucking right I am! The same NFL that took years to recognize that there might be a connection between football and the CTE continues to be done in the past by claiming the title of "player safety".

I am one of the old players of the league. completely Above. If they really Concerned about the safety of the players, they would stop making reactive rule changes and solicit the contributions of the players.

Hopefully, the NFL will come off the new rule because, at the rate we are going, 72 additional penalties will be imposed by the end of the season. No one want to see that. Some of these calls have already affected the results of the games, at least one player has been injured and even some of the quarterbacks enjoying the calls have opposed the rule.

But you know what, even if make To fix another mess that they created, no one should forget the Keystone Kops way in which the NFL slapped these rule changes during the offseason. And the next time the league declares itself committed to player safety, maybe be a little more skeptical before buying this hook, line and lead.

Player safety, huh? * sucks teeth *