In December of 2009, the NFL decided to modify its unnecessary roughness penalty with hopes of eliminating hits resulting in long-term player injuries. But many league officials and players have been critical of the rule change questioning its consistency as well as adding safety precautions to a game that is intended to be physical. This controversial change by the league has many wondering if this is just the beginning of many similar rule revisions to come.

The effect of the unnecessary roughness penalty has been brought to headline news after a number of retired players suffered tragic psychological side effects. The league’s new message to players is clear. They are going to increase the severity of the penalty with far more hefty fines and suspension time, and especially far more for repeat offenders.

Here is a breakdown of only a few of the policies that are stirring up controversy.

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (f) It is unnecessary roughness if a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against ANY OPPONENT, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures.

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (g) It is unnecessary roughness if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet, forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless receiver who is catching or attempting to catch a pass.

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8 (h) If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver’s head or neck area — even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower than the receiver’s neck.

Article 8 (f) prohibits any helmet-to-helmet contact where the first entry of touching is the collision of a player’s headgear. This rule is necessary for obvious reasons. But criticism comes from NFL players feeling that sometimes this helmet-to-helmet contact is unavoidable. Therefore it is not fair to enforce long-term penalties against defenders who do not intentionally tackle using their helmet. And that the speed of the game causes this type of contact to be inevitable. An issue also surfaces when discussing how this rule applies to the quarterback position, and whether it should be enforced differently or the same.

Article 8 (h) protects a defenseless receiver from being hit while in the process of catching a pass. This rule is also necessary for obvious reasons, but many players have voiced their disapproval stating there are sometimes instances where they can not be conscious of this rule at all times while playing the game at the speed they are accustomed to. For what most defensive players say is sometimes unpreventable, the league is enforcing much harsher consequences for these kinds of hits.

In 2007, the University of North Carolina’s Center for the Study of Retired Athletes conducted research on nearly 600 retired NFL players who had all suffered at least three concussions over the span of their careers. The study found that 20.2 percent of them had faced depression, which is three times the rate of retired players who had never suffered a concussion. After another study done by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research found similar results in 2009, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was essentially put in a position where a change had to be made. For the first time in the league’s history, players who were suffering from any concussion-like symptoms were prohibited from returning to action the same day.