Players shouldn’t panic about helmet rule
Maybe the first time Kamalei Correa was flagged for violating the NFL’s new helmet rule, which penalizes players for blasting an opponent with the crown of his head, was the last time.
“Honestly, I hope so,” the third-year Ravens linebacker told USA TODAY this week. “Because I don’t want to lose money.”
There’s much more at risk than money, which is part of the point with the ambitious rule designed to take the head out of the game. Correa’s penalty during the Hall of Fame Game last Thursday against the Bears provided quite the teaching moment and fresh example of what not to do as he lowered his helmet and struck with his head, neck and a spine aligned in the type of linear position that makes players more susceptible to suffering a serious injury.
“Man, it’s football,” Correa said. “It’s not going to be perfect. It’s physical. But you’ve got to train yourself to always keep your head up, because you could injure yourself like a Ryan Shazier situation.”
Shazier, the inactive Pittsburgh linebacker, suffered a severe spinal injury last December that has left his football future unclear. Like a rising concussion rate, Shazier’s injury was a key impetus to the league’s fast push during the offseason for the rule change.
“You don’t want to see that happen to anyone,” Correa added. “I wish him the best with his whole recovery. It’s a violent sport, so you’ve got to be smart about when you hit somebody and how you hit somebody.”
Correa had one of three penalties last Thursday that stemmed from the helmet rule, although one of the infractions was incorrectly called as “unnecessary roughness.” As the NFL ramps up with its first full week of preseason games starting Thursday, skepticism of the rule among players is rampant.
49ers cornerback Richard Sherman recently told USA TODAY that the “ridiculous” rule is “going to be a disaster,” in part due to the difficulty of interpretation.
“It’s another one of those rules where if they call it fair, it looks dumb,” Sherman said. “Offensive linemen, just about every play. Pulling around, he’s going to lead with the crown of his helmet. If you want to call it, call it. It’s going to be worse than holding.”
Sherman demonstrated his posture for a form tackle in the open field. He led with the shoulder, but as he wrapped up his head grazed my hip. That doesn’t appear to be the type of technique that the rule is intended to outlaw, but Sherman nonetheless wondered if it would draw a flag. He also suspects that, like many rules, there will be a bias that favors the offense.
“Hopefully we don’t get into a playoff game … and you have a running back going for the gusto, trying to go for a touchdown, and he dips his head into another player’s helmet, then you get a touchdown called back because by rule, he led with the crown of the helmet,” Sherman mused.
Figure this: If such a scenario if officiated consistently, runners won’t be so prone to barrel headfirst into the end zone.
Yet listen to Falcons running back Devonta Freeman, who contended, “That’s the NFL rule, not my rule.”
Vikings safety Andrew Sendejo also expressed his discontent by putting a message on his hat: “Make Football Violent Again.”
Relax, everybody. The spirit of the rule is spot on, even if it’s better late than never.
Sure, this emphasis didn’t exist several years ago, before more was learned about concussions and the NFL became the target of a class-action lawsuit that revolved around the long-term effects of head injuries. Now it’s the age of enlightenment in the NFL rather than denial.
In 2017, the NFL reported 291 concussions suffered during games and practices, the highest number since such data have been tracked. The league concluded that 46% of concussions were caused by helmet-to-helmet collisions. Of that figure, 25% were believed to involve the top of the helmet.
Although each of the roughly dozen players I spoke with during training camp this summer maintain that they won’t have to change techniques because, well, they don’t lead with their heads, there are enough reasons for the rule.
“I understand why there’s skepticism,” Troy Vincent, the NFL’s executive vice president for football operations, told USA TODAY on Wednesday. “It’s something new. It’s an adjustment. I’ve got to train my muscles to react differently.”
Vincent, who played 15 seasons in the NFL as a defensive back, is banking on the history of players and coaches ultimately adjusting to rules changes. The rule was adopted in March without much warning or public debate, and it quickly fueled questions from players (and others) about how officials would view incidental contact made with helmets.
The key, as Vincent emphasized again, is whether contact is “initiated” with the helmet.
“What we’re looking for is consistency with the officiating,” Vincent said.
That adds an extra layer of importance, and scrutiny, to the preseason. Typically, when there are rules changes or points of emphasis, officials are sticklers during exhibitions as part of the transition process. In this case, it’s the next step after the NFL had perhaps its most exhaustive and inclusive effort yet for a rule change, including significant input from coaches for crafting the rule and communicating techniques in educational videos that bring it to life.
Even with that, however, it’s still a rule of confusion.