NFL shouldn't punish LeVeon Bell for losing helmet

By Dominic Davies / Expert

During the Thanksgiving rivalry match between the Pittsburgh Steelers and Baltimore Ravens, the rookie running back LeVeon Bell took a ferocious hit while driving for the endzone.

Bell was briefly knocked out, and many assumed the worst when he remained motionless on the ground.

Despite falling into the endzone and the ball clearly crossing the plane (all that’s required for a touchdown) the score didn’t count. The reason? His helmet came off a half-yard before the line.

It’s a relatively new rule (implemented in 2010) that states that a play ends immediately when a player loses his helmet, and, perhaps a good one.

After all, there’s nothing more dangerous than a helmet-to-helmet collision. A strike from a helmet on an unprotected skull — inadvertent or not — could easily kill.

Plays such as the one by the Dallas Cowboys’ Jason Witten, a 53-yard catch and run that saw him lose his helmet after a high hit, are exciting, sure, but are now gone for good.

(If Witten had made that play in today’s NFL, the play would have been called dead on the Eagles’ 35-yard line.)

So on Thursday night, when Bell’s helmet came off after a scary hit from Ravens’ cornerback Jimmy Smith, the referees were technically right to place the ball inside the one-yard line.

The touchdown, earned by a rookie runner who was willing to put his body on the line to keep his team in the game, was taken away.

Now, I doubt in the grand scheme of things Bell really cares about losing that touchdown (he already had one on the day, and two plays later the Steelers scored on fourth down).

He’ll be more concerned with the concussion suffered as a result of the hit. As should the Steelers and fans be.

But there’s clearly something wrong when a rule created solely to protect the players is responsible for taking away one of the game’s great achievements.

There’s a difference between Witten’s catch-and-run (and the hit he could have suffered after he lost his helmet), and Bell’s fall into the endzone.

Bell wasn’t making a football move, and he wasn’t trying to gain extra yardage. He simply fell forward. He was already going down.

The letter of the law was followed, and as a result Bell’s achievement was pointlessly stripped of him.

The NFL has become a letter-of-the-law league, where any inadvertent yet potentially dangerous hit is flagged, without thought to intent or situation.

While obviously some players’ need to have their dangerous hits flagged — and fined, as is the case for Redskins safety Brandon Meriweather — the referees no longer have license to use common sense in applying the rules.

Common sense dictates that Bell and the ball weren’t going anywhere but across the endzone when the helmet came off.

Perhaps the NFL cannot afford any gray area anymore in how the games are managed. Arguably in this regard their hands are tied.

But changes to the rule could be made so that things like this doesn’t happen again.

Why not just have the play end as soon as the ref blows the whistle? Penalising any player who tries to tackle the ball carrier after the whistle is blown, so long as the player is still going to ground.

That way the player is protected and whatever hard yards he managed to gain while falling forward are preserved, but he can’t sprint off and risk another big hit.

As it stands, with the ball being placed at the exact spot the helmet comes off, the rule in a way encourages hits that could take a helmet off.

The players now know — at least, we’d like to think so — the risks associated with playing the game. They go out there knowing that they’re putting their bodies on the line.

That’s not to say the NFL shouldn’t implement more rules to make the game safer, long term. They absolutely should.

But when a player pays the price to make a play for his team — and in this case, the price is especially heavy — he shouldn’t have that achievement stripped from him due to a technicality.

It’s not in the spirit of the rule, or the game.

The Crowd Says:

2013-12-03T09:23:23+00:00

Jared

Roar Pro


Maybe we will see a change in the coaching and equipment managers in regards to having your equipment done up properly so as to prevent such occurrences in the future.

2013-12-03T07:40:53+00:00

Jimmy S

Guest


With Mushi on this one. Runner's responsible for their own helmet. If it comes off then there's no reason to keep the play alive because it endangers the runner. There's no reason to give the runner extra yards after the play is dead unless the defence has committed a penalty in getting the helmet off.

2013-12-03T05:10:31+00:00

jarodb

Guest


Dom, I am just very upset with the fact that the NFL defended the no-call on the spearing to the head. I watched James Harrison make the EXACT same hit on Joshua Cribbs and get fined $75,000. Look up the hit if you want and tell me they are not the EXACT same hit. I was very disappointed in the officiating in that play. I understand the helmet off rule, but the hit to the head cannot be ignored. I am indifferent towards the Steelers and Ravens, but I felt like the Steelers were cheated out of at least a fine for the hit on Bell if anything. What do you think? This shocked me that it was not addressed by the media more.

2013-12-03T03:48:40+00:00

mushi

Guest


The problem is if you do allow the "fall' you have to allow the defenders to stop the fall, which is probably the worst time for someone without a helmet to get hit.

AUTHOR

2013-12-03T02:38:00+00:00

Dominic Davies

Expert


I see your point (both mushi and Jimmy's) but if he was already going down as a result of the hit, and would have gotten those yards regardless of whether or not he lost his helmet, why take yards away because the helmet happened to be loosened just before he hit the ground? Perhaps that's too finicky? I think the no-helmet dead ball rule is best applied in cases such as the Witten run, not so much if a player is already going to ground anyway. It's not like a player who was about to tackle a ball carrier going to ground would be able to pull out of the hit if he suddenly noticed the helmet was coming off a millisecond before making contact. It's an interesting discussion, keep it going.

2013-12-03T00:36:13+00:00

Jared

Roar Pro


Wow that's a massive fine and a draft pick really hurts the organisation. But I agree an example has to be made to say no this is completely unacceptable.

2013-12-02T23:26:06+00:00

mushi

Guest


sorry meant to put the reply under Dominic's

2013-12-02T21:22:38+00:00

mushi

Guest


Why should he be allowed the yards for falling forward if no defensive player is allowed to preventing him from falling forward? you say you aren't giving him a free pass but that is exactly what you are giving him, it defies commonsense. A defender near the goal line under your revised rules is encouraged to execute the hit and cause the player serious harm.

2013-12-02T13:13:45+00:00

Jimmy S

Guest


If the RB is falling forward gaining yardage, then the play is still live, and RB can still be hit.

AUTHOR

2013-12-02T06:43:53+00:00

Dominic Davies

Expert


If a defender tries to hit a player who is going to ground in the head area he'll be called for a penalty. I'm saying if a player is going to ground without a helmet he should be awarded the progress he earned, not penalised because he took such a nasty shot. As soon as that helmet comes off he can't be tackled, obviously the player can't bounce off a hit that took off his helmet and keep running like Witten did (because that's inviting more contact), but he should be allowed to keep the yards he gained falling forward.

2013-12-02T05:18:02+00:00

Jimmy S

Guest


So you're saying defenders should be encouraged to hit players like Leveon Bell, a helmet-less unconscious runner falling forward, in order to prevent touchdowns? I understand you're saying that in this case that wouldn't have happened, but whenever it could happen, you're saying you want to see defenders hit unconscious unprotected players? I don't see that there's any other conclusion from what you've written.

AUTHOR

2013-12-01T23:03:53+00:00

Dominic Davies

Expert


Yep! It was reported today that it would be a six-figure fine for the Steelers AND the loss of a draft pick. It's extreme, but probably necessary. He's a head coach, after all and if he made contact he could have hurt Jones.

2013-12-01T22:58:16+00:00

mushi

Guest


Really I've seen more than the occasional player plunge over wearing something to protect his head?

2013-12-01T22:56:20+00:00

mushi

Guest


Ah by properly you mean "the way do it!" If you did this you basically would need to shut down the NFL for several years to rebuild everyone's technique and completely change the laws of the game.

2013-12-01T21:30:04+00:00

Worlds Biggest

Guest


Thought I read they might lose a draft pick, sounds extreme.

AUTHOR

2013-12-01T14:09:30+00:00

Dominic Davies

Expert


Most likely a fine in his case. It probably wont be as big a fine as the one the Jets' assistant coach got back in 2010 (he was also suspended) but it won't be a small amount.

2013-12-01T09:13:56+00:00

Worlds Biggest

Guest


Dom what about Mike Tomlin stepping onto the field during the Jones return, what sort of punishment is expected ?

2013-12-01T07:14:44+00:00

Leroy14

Guest


We score all our tries in rugby without helmets. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.

AUTHOR

2013-12-01T04:18:29+00:00

Dominic Davies

Expert


My point is it's an incentive not to try and avoid helmet-to-helmet contact. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. And I have played.

2013-12-01T03:31:55+00:00

Storm Boy

Guest


The rule looks like it was added as a safety protection measure to stop a player running on without his helmet on. LeVeon Bell didn't run on. His body with the ball fell across the end zone line as a result of the tackle. There should be an exception to the rule to allow the touchdown in that situation. Otherwise defenders will try to knock the helmet off to stop a touchdown. Not that I guess that is easy to do.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar