On Tuesday, the NFL enacted a new rule that prohibits players from lowering their helmets to initiate contact. Violators will be punished by a penalty and/or an ejection. Unsurprisingly, defensive players aren't a fan of the NFL's version of the targeting rule.

Two of the NFL's most prominent cornerbacks, the Redskins' Josh Norman and the 49ers' Richard Sherman, blasted the rule change during interviews with USA Today Sports' Mike Jones.

"I don't know how you're going to play the game," Norman said. "If your helmet comes in contact? How are you going to avoid that if you're in the trenches and hit a running back, facemask to facemask and accidentally graze the helmet? It's obviously going to happen. So, I don't know even what that definition looks like."

"It's ridiculous," Sherman said via text. "Like telling a driver if you touch the lane lines, you're getting a ticket. (It's) gonna lead to more lower-extremity injuries."

Bills linebacker Lorenzo Alexander agreed with their assessment.

"It continues to put us in a predicament," he said. "In our mind, it makes it hard to play defense in this league. In my mind, there needs to be more of a common-sense approach to it. … It is football at the end of the day. There are going to be injuries that you can't avoid. You can't legislate everything out.

'I'm a guy that considers myself physical and lays big hits. I've never had a helmet-to-helmet hit, but what if I get one next year? And that's putting onus on a referee and he throws out a star player that impacts a game? I don't know how that's going to play. It only takes one time to throw out a Von Miller or Khalil Mack."

Former NFL defensive end Justin Tuck called the rule "horrible" on Twitter while former linebacker Dave Wyman told ESPN's Adam Schefter that the rule is as a "f------ mess." You get the point: Former and current NFL players aren't happy with a rule change that will undoubtedly lead to some controversial penalties and ejections, as well as a change in playing style.

Here's the rule, by the way, which is simple and complicated all at the same time:

There's no doubt that some of the players' concerns are real. It's going to be difficult for officials to enforce the rule (what will be the difference between a hit that warrants a penalty and a hit that warrants an ejection?) and it's going to be difficult for players to avoid making initial contact with their helmets. Inevitably, it'll happen accidentally to a star player in a big moment, which will affect the final outcome of the game. The players aren't wrong about that.

But the other side of the debate is equally, if not more, persuasive. Player safety should take precedence over any other aspect of the game. Changing the rules to eliminate the use of the helmet as a weapon might negatively impact the game from a quality of football perspective, but it could also force players (who want to avoid penalties and ejections) to stop using their helmet as a spear. And if the new rule can prevent more Ryan Shazier type of injuries from happening then it should be considered a much needed change. 

Take it from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who made a reasonable point at the league's annual meetings in Orlando on Wednesday.

"Our focus is how to take the head out of the game and make sure that we're using the helmet as protection, and it's not being used as a weapon, and that's the core of what we're focused on, and I think we made a tremendous amount of progress in that this week," Goodell said, per NFL.com.

The important part now is making sure everyone -- from the players, to the officials, to the coaches, and to the fans -- understands what warrants a penalty and what warrants an ejection. 

Whether they can do that and then correctly enforce the rule remains to be seen.