NFL might start suspending over flagrant hits that are currently illeg (1 Viewer)

[benm3218]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?i...er_espn_5699517

NEW YORK -- The NFL could soon start suspending players for dangerous helmet-to-helment hits, vice president of football operations Ray Anderson told The Associated Press on Monday.

A day after several scary collisions in Sunday's games, Anderson acknowledged the league might need to do more than fining players to prevent such hits.

"There's strong testimonial for looking readily at evaluating discipline, especially in the areas of egregious and elevated dangerous hits," he said in a phone interview. "Going forward there are certain hits that occurred that will be more susceptible to suspension. There are some that could bring suspensions for what are flagrant and egregious situations."

Anderson said the NFL could make changes in its approach immediately, with Commissioner Roger Goodell having the final say. League officials will consult with the union, but he didn't expect any opposition.

The Eagles' DeSean Jackson and the Falcons' Dunta Robinson were knocked out of their game Sunday after a frightening helmet-to-helmet collision, while Steelers linebacker James Harrison sidelined two Browns players with head injuries after jarring hits.

Anderson wouldn't speculate on how any players would be punished for hits from Sunday's games.

"The fundamentally old way of wrapping up and tackling seems to have faded away," he said. "A lot of the increase is from hits to blow guys up. That has become a more popular way of doing it. Yes, we are concerned they are getting away from the fundamentals of tackling, and maybe it has been coached that way. We're going to have to look into talking to our coaches."

________________________________________________________________________________

________________________

I don't think you need to try to hurt a guy to make a tackle. I don't want to impede players from making plays, but I also think if you put 2 players out of a game due to being overly violent you should pay the price.

http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/10/18...-real-football/

** Changed title to be more accurate.

 

[butcher boy]

So they're going to make the NFL even more unwatchable? Ugh.

 

[Arizona Ron]

So they're going to make the NFL even more unwatchable? Ugh.

You like seeing people get hurt?

 

[jlaw]

I don't necessarily have a problem with this. I like seeing the "Jacked Up" style hits as much as the next guy, but no one really wants to see someone get seriously hurt. I can't think of a situation where a player required to make a more fundamental hit / tackle instead of going for a kill shot would be somehow restricted in his ability to make the play.

 

[Mello]

I don't think you need to try to hurt a guy to make a tackle. I don't want to impede players from making plays, but I also think if you put 2 players out of a game due to being overly violent you should pay the price.

You don't to make a tackle. You do need to hit a person violently to make him drop the ball and force an incompletion or turnover. Unless you want to go for the strip and risk missing the tackle and looking stupid. If they are going to take a hard line on violent hits, I want them to at least get rid of the 5 yard illegal contact rule to try to even things up a little.

 

[butcher boy]

So they're going to make the NFL even more unwatchable? Ugh.

You like seeing people get hurt?

I dont l;ike watching a sport where the atheletes are afraid of going all out for feaar of getting suspended. It's already ridiculous seeing QBs get protected as much as they do. Back in the day, they didnt need anuy of this crap.

 

[butcher boy]

Also, manuy atheletes will tell you that injuries happen when you dont go all out. It can be just as dangerous

 

[Arizona Ron]

So they're going to make the NFL even more unwatchable? Ugh.

You like seeing people get hurt?

I dont l;ike watching a sport where the atheletes are afraid of going all out for feaar of getting suspended. It's already ridiculous seeing QBs get protected as much as they do. Back in the day, they didnt need anuy of this crap.

"Back in the day" NFL players had a much shorter life span. I'd like to see the sport continue without shortening a person's life to play it.

 

[G-Money]

Also, manuy atheletes will tell you that injuries happen when you dont go all out. It can be just as dangerous

100% true. Anybody who's ever played the game will tell you the same.

 

[benm3218]

I don't think you need to try to hurt a guy to make a tackle. I don't want to impede players from making plays, but I also think if you put 2 players out of a game due to being overly violent you should pay the price.

You don't to make a tackle. You do need to hit a person violently to make him drop the ball and force an incompletion or turnover. Unless you want to go for the strip and risk missing the tackle and looking stupid. If they are going to take a hard line on violent hits, I want them to at least get rid of the 5 yard illegal contact rule to try to even things up a little.

I understand this, and I think you can still do this while aiming at the football which is always around the body core and waist, NOT the head/upper torso area.

So they're going to make the NFL even more unwatchable? Ugh.

You like seeing people get hurt?

I dont l;ike watching a sport where the atheletes are afraid of going all out for feaar of getting suspended. It's already ridiculous seeing QBs get protected as much as they do. Back in the day, they didnt need anuy of this crap.

"Back in the day" they tackled with wrapping up a guy and the style hits that are putting guys out of games were not as prevalent and the guys "back in the day" were not as fast or big, so give it a break.

 

[basher]

Harrison's hit on MoMass yesterday is the textbook example of a hit that absolutely is not in the spirit of the game. He saw an opportunity to blow a guy up and took it. His hit earlier in the game on Josh Cribbs looked to be much more a part of the game.

 

[basher]

Also, manuy atheletes will tell you that injuries happen when you dont go all out. It can be just as dangerous

Going hard and lunging with your head are not one in the same.

 

[benm3218]

Also, manuy atheletes will tell you that injuries happen when you dont go all out. It can be just as dangerous

Going hard and lunging with your head are not one in the same.

The NFL sees this too and hence the new focus. It has to stop or its going to get out of hand.

 

[butcher boy]

I don't think you need to try to hurt a guy to make a tackle. I don't want to impede players from making plays, but I also think if you put 2 players out of a game due to being overly violent you should pay the price.

You don't to make a tackle. You do need to hit a person violently to make him drop the ball and force an incompletion or turnover. Unless you want to go for the strip and risk missing the tackle and looking stupid. If they are going to take a hard line on violent hits, I want them to at least get rid of the 5 yard illegal contact rule to try to even things up a little.I understand this, and I think you can still do this while aiming at the football which is always around the body core and waist, NOT the head/upper torso area.

So they're going to make the NFL even more unwatchable? Ugh.

I dont l;ike watching a sport where the atheletes are afraid of going all out for feaar of getting suspended. It's already ridiculous seeing QBs get protected as much as they do. Back in the day, they didnt need anuy of this crap.

If guys are bigger and faster then it logiclaly follows that it takes more force to stop them. I'm not in favor of people intentionallly tyring to hurt a guy, but with guys being bigger and faster, you're going to see bigger hits needed to bring them down.

 

[belljr]

Harrison's hit on MoMass yesterday is the textbook example of a hit that absolutely is not in the spirit of the game. He saw an opportunity to blow a guy up and took it. His hit earlier in the game on Josh Cribbs looked to be much more a part of the game.

I agree and I'm a steelers fan. I don't think anyone thinks he was intentionally trying to hit Cribbs in the head the way that tackle happened, Cribbs being slowed down and falling forward as Harrison came from the side. The other I don't think he was trying to hit him in ht ehead but definitely trying to crush him...

 

[DoubleG]

Harrison's hit on MoMass yesterday is the textbook example of a hit that absolutely is not in the spirit of the game. He saw an opportunity to blow a guy up and took it. His hit earlier in the game on Josh Cribbs looked to be much more a part of the game.

There is a difference between hitting a guy hard to knock the ball loose/bring him down and just flat out trying to hit him hard because you are in a position to put his lights out/cause injury. I have no problem with the NFL giving players time off for crossing that line.

 

[benm3218]

I don't think you need to try to hurt a guy to make a tackle. I don't want to impede players from making plays, but I also think if you put 2 players out of a game due to being overly violent you should pay the price.

You don't to make a tackle. You do need to hit a person violently to make him drop the ball and force an incompletion or turnover. Unless you want to go for the strip and risk missing the tackle and looking stupid. If they are going to take a hard line on violent hits, I want them to at least get rid of the 5 yard illegal contact rule to try to even things up a little.

I understand this, and I think you can still do this while aiming at the football which is always around the body core and waist, NOT the head/upper torso area.

So they're going to make the NFL even more unwatchable? Ugh.

I dont l;ike watching a sport where the atheletes are afraid of going all out for feaar of getting suspended. It's already ridiculous seeing QBs get protected as much as they do. Back in the day, they didnt need anuy of this crap.

If guys are bigger and faster then it logiclaly follows that it takes more force to stop them. I'm not in favor of people intentionallly tyring to hurt a guy, but with guys being bigger and faster, you're going to see bigger hits needed to bring them down.

As the article stated, fundamentals of tackling should be stressed. You do not need to blow a guy up to stop him.

 

[DawgPoundNJ]

Also, manuy atheletes will tell you that injuries happen when you dont go all out. It can be just as dangerous

100% true. Anybody who's ever played the game will tell you the same.

But when a 37 year old ex-football player is so messed up that he can hide his own Easter eggs, there is a problem.

 

[Nightly Mistake]

So they're going to make the NFL even more unwatchable? Ugh.

You like seeing people get hurt?

The NFL is a faster and faster game. While some of this is poor tackling or reckless play, there are times when the adjustment of the ball carrier's body position or even hits by other players put his head in the line of fire. It's what I've always said about the unfairness of the "defenseless receiver" rule, especially as to safeties who often have to run all the way to the sideline and are somehow still supposed to avoid contact at the last second when the receiver doesn't end up with the ball. Also, the sheer speed behind violent hits is causing more and more decelaration injuries to the brain which isn't and can't be much alleviated by helmet technology. I actually think that the equipment (e.g. shoulder pads - not helmets though) is too good and removes the negative consequences of violent hits from defensive players. If they hurt more they'd not hit quite as hard.

 

[Sammy B]

The thread title is a little misleading. I understand and support the penalties against helmet-to-helmet hits but a lot of clean tackles/hits could fall under the "over violent" category. Players should not get suspended for clean tackles regardless of there intensity. I see this causing more problems.

 

[jdgsatx]

It all makes for great entertainment, just like the big wrecks in NASCAR. But the NFL needs to take the appropriate steps to ensure the equipment is progressing with the sport to compensate for bigger, faster, and stronger players. Suspending a guy and taking his check away might discourage something, however the equipment itself needs to remain a priority in player safety.

 

[RUSF18]

If guys are bigger and faster then it logiclaly follows that it takes more force to stop them. I'm not in favor of people intentionallly tyring to hurt a guy, but with guys being bigger and faster, you're going to see bigger hits needed to bring them down.

"Bigger hits needed"...it's all about hitting, not tackling. These players aren't getting hurt on textbook tackles, they're getting hurt on violent helmet/shoulder/neck collisions.

 

[benm3218]

The thread title is a little misleading. I understand and support the penalties against helmet-to-helmet hits but a lot of clean tackles/hits could fall under the "over violent" category. Players should not get suspended for clean tackles regardless of there intensity. I see this causing more problems.

I'll quote Dougle G here - There is a difference between hitting a guy hard to knock the ball loose/bring him down and just flat out trying to hit him hard because you are in a position to put his lights out/cause injury. I have no problem with the NFL giving players time off for crossing that line.There is no need to try to hurt a guy. Make a hit or a tackle, I am sure the NFL is ok with that, but being overly violent is no ones best interests. The NFL wants a good game and to make money. They don't to bore us. They just want to keep overly violent plays out and I applaud it. I remember being sickened by the blow some guy (Sapp?) laid on Clifton a few years back. No need for that, and wrong (whether or not it was legal).

 

[butcher boy]

So if a guy is coming really fast at you and you are setup to make a really nice hit/tackle what are you supposed to do? If you don't go all out, the guy might run over you and you end up being the one getting hurt. I'm fully aware that there's a difference betwen tackling and purposely hurting a guy, but rules like this will make defenses play tentatively, and then you'll see less efective defences and guys getting hurt just as much.

 

[Arizona Ron]

So they're going to make the NFL even more unwatchable? Ugh.

You like seeing people get hurt?

The NFL is a faster and faster game. While some of this is poor tackling or reckless play, there are times when the adjustment of the ball carrier's body position or even hits by other players put his head in the line of fire. It's what I've always said about the unfairness of the "defenseless receiver" rule, especially as to safeties who often have to run all the way to the sideline and are somehow still supposed to avoid contact at the last second when the receiver doesn't end up with the ball. Also, the sheer speed behind violent hits is causing more and more decelaration injuries to the brain which isn't and can't be much alleviated by helmet technology. I actually think that the equipment (e.g. shoulder pads - not helmets though) is too good and removes the negative consequences of violent hits from defensive players. If they hurt more they'd not hit quite as hard.

So you think the two plays mentioned in the OP yesterday were acceidents?

 

[benm3218]

So if a guy is coming really fast at you and you are setup to make a really nice hit/tackle what are you supposed to do? If you don't go all out, the guy might run over you and you end up being the one getting hurt. I'm fully aware that there's a difference betwen tackling and purposely hurting a guy, but rules like this will make defenses play tentatively, and then you'll see less efective defences and guys getting hurt just as much.

Make the play, use your arms. Don't lead with your head and risk paralysis.

 

[perry147]

How many of these hits are intentional helmet to helmet hits?

These guys are flying around tying to make a play and wanting to make the receiver drop the ball.

I completely understand the need to try and protect players, but you are really putting guys in difficult positions.

 

[butcher boy]

Arms are not enough to stop players in every instance nowadays. It's the laws of inertia.

 

[benm3218]

Arms are not enough to stop players in every instance nowadays. It's the laws of inertia.

of course. i am saying to try to wrap him too, no need to spear with your head and knock both of you out of the game.

 

[treat88]

First, I applaud improving the safety of the players in every way reasonable without changing the fundamental rules and nature of the sport.

Second, I don't think it is possible to eliminate all or even most helmet to helmet collisions. Things simply move too fast for it to be a conscious/premeditated act in most instances.

Third, I think the defensive players draw far too much of the blame for these hits. The offensive players contribute to the circumstances just as much as the defensive players do when this kind of collision occurs.

Fourth, I don't think fines/suspensions are appropriate except in the most egregious of circumstances.

These types of collisions are simply part and parcel of the sport as it is currently played. They happen predominately by accident with no one player being at fault in causing them. The defensive players are in a no-win situation.

The answer to the problem lies in improving the protective equipment the players use not legislating the matter.

 

[David Yudkin]

We'll have to see if they start doing anything differently, but IIRC when they revised the rules on helmet to helmet contact a few years ago they added in a clause about player ejections on excessively violent hits and/or defenseless receivers. But to date, they pointed out on tv yesterday that not one player has been ejected from a game since they amended the rule. They should start with that and move on to escalating fines and suspections for repeat offenders.

 

[VaTerp]

So if a guy is coming really fast at you and you are setup to make a really nice hit/tackle what are you supposed to do? If you don't go all out, the guy might run over you and you end up being the one getting hurt. I'm fully aware that there's a difference betwen tackling and purposely hurting a guy, but rules like this will make defenses play tentatively, and then you'll see less efective defences and guys getting hurt just as much.

Nobody is suggesting guys don't "go all out." What is being suggested is making the game safer.As someone who played DB in HS and was taught the game by my father, an all conference safety at VA Tech, what this is really about is TECHNIQUE.

There are ways to hit a guy, dislodge the ball, and even intimidate without the dangerous collisions that result from launching yourself and leading with the helmet. Ray Lewis' hit on Keller on the opening MNF game was a textbook example of how you can blow a guy up but do so in a manner that is much less likely to cause serious injury to both players.

 

[Arizona Ron]

How many of these hits are intentional helmet to helmet hits?These guys are flying around tying to make a play and wanting to make the receiver drop the ball. I completely understand the need to try and protect players, but you are really putting guys in difficult positions.

The difference between accidental hits and intentional ones will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case. I doubt the NFL would simply say "all helmet-to-helmet hits will result in suspension".

 

[benm3218]

First, I applaud improving the safety of the players in every way reasonable without changing the fundamental rules and nature of the sport.Second, I don't think it is possible to eliminate all or even most helmet to helmet collisions. Things simply move too fast for it to be a conscious/premeditated act in most instances.Third, I think the defensive players draw far too much of the blame for these hits. The offensive players contribute to the circumstances just as much as the defensive players do when this kind of collision occurs.Fourth, I don't think fines/suspensions are appropriate except in the most egregious of circumstances.These types of collisions are simply part and parcel of the sport as it is currently played. They happen predominately by accident with no one player being at fault in causing them. The defensive players are in a no-win situation.The answer to the problem lies in improving the protective equipment the players use not legislating the matter.

So you don't think its the style of play that Harrison employs? Because he said after the game - "You don't want to injure people. I don't want to injure anybody," ... "But I'm not opposed to hurting anybody."He plays with the purpose of hurting the other guy, not just making a stop.

 

[Sabertooth]

Also, manuy atheletes will tell you that injuries happen when you dont go all out. It can be just as dangerous

This is a terrible posting.

 

[butcher boy]

Also, manuy atheletes will tell you that injuries happen when you dont go all out. It can be just as dangerous

This is a terrible posting.

And what are you addding to the topic, jackass?

 

[David Yudkin]

First, I applaud improving the safety of the players in every way reasonable without changing the fundamental rules and nature of the sport.Second, I don't think it is possible to eliminate all or even most helmet to helmet collisions. Things simply move too fast for it to be a conscious/premeditated act in most instances.Third, I think the defensive players draw far too much of the blame for these hits. The offensive players contribute to the circumstances just as much as the defensive players do when this kind of collision occurs.Fourth, I don't think fines/suspensions are appropriate except in the most egregious of circumstances.These types of collisions are simply part and parcel of the sport as it is currently played. They happen predominately by accident with no one player being at fault in causing them. The defensive players are in a no-win situation.The answer to the problem lies in improving the protective equipment the players use not legislating the matter.

Even the NFL has allocations and provisions for defining what an inappropriate helmet to helmet hit is. For example, a RB running through the line and a linebacker butting heads is not a penalty and is a common occurance. But a blitzing linebacker launching into a QB is a total no-no. A defensive back getting a 10 yard head start on a fully exposed and defenseless receiver on a ball sailing 10 feet over his head is a total no tolerance play.

 

[treat88]

First, I applaud improving the safety of the players in every way reasonable without changing the fundamental rules and nature of the sport.Second, I don't think it is possible to eliminate all or even most helmet to helmet collisions. Things simply move too fast for it to be a conscious/premeditated act in most instances.Third, I think the defensive players draw far too much of the blame for these hits. The offensive players contribute to the circumstances just as much as the defensive players do when this kind of collision occurs.Fourth, I don't think fines/suspensions are appropriate except in the most egregious of circumstances.These types of collisions are simply part and parcel of the sport as it is currently played. They happen predominately by accident with no one player being at fault in causing them. The defensive players are in a no-win situation.The answer to the problem lies in improving the protective equipment the players use not legislating the matter.

So you don't think its the style of play that Harrison employs? Because he said after the game - "You don't want to injure people. I don't want to injure anybody," ... "But I'm not opposed to hurting anybody."He plays with the purpose of hurting the other guy, not just making a stop.

Isn't part of the sport hitting the other guy often enough and hard enough that it effects their ability to contribute?In making a tackle you absolutely want to punish the ballcarrier as much as is legally possible.The ballcarrier for darn sure wants to punish you for trying to tackle him.Harrison clearly defined the difference between injuring and hurting.

 

[Mello]

So if a guy is coming really fast at you and you are setup to make a really nice hit/tackle what are you supposed to do? If you don't go all out, the guy might run over you and you end up being the one getting hurt. I'm fully aware that there's a difference betwen tackling and purposely hurting a guy, but rules like this will make defenses play tentatively, and then you'll see less efective defences and guys getting hurt just as much.

Nobody is suggesting guys don't "go all out." What is being suggested is making the game safer.As someone who played DB in HS and was taught the game by my father, an all conference safety at VA Tech, what this is really about is TECHNIQUE.

There are ways to hit a guy, dislodge the ball, and even intimidate without the dangerous collisions that result from launching yourself and leading with the helmet. Ray Lewis' hit on Keller on the opening MNF game was a textbook example of how you can blow a guy up but do so in a manner that is much less likely to cause serious injury to both players.

On the DJax play, how does the defender cause him to drop that pass without a violent hit? I think that's a catch using any other technique since the defender was playing off and was too far away to hit DJax at the moment the pass arrived.

 

[Nightly Mistake]

How many of these hits are intentional helmet to helmet hits?These guys are flying around tying to make a play and wanting to make the receiver drop the ball. I completely understand the need to try and protect players, but you are really putting guys in difficult positions.

The difference between accidental hits and intentional ones will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case. I doubt the NFL would simply say "all helmet-to-helmet hits will result in suspension".

The problem is that in prior scenarios resulting in fines, I've never seen them account for the offensive player's movement in causing or affecting the illegal hit. The NFL is just not acknowledging that.

 

[VaTerp]

First, I applaud improving the safety of the players in every way reasonable without changing the fundamental rules and nature of the sport.

Second, I don't think it is possible to eliminate all or even most helmet to helmet collisions. Things simply move too fast for it to be a conscious/premeditated act in most instances.

Third, I think the defensive players draw far too much of the blame for these hits. The offensive players contribute to the circumstances just as much as the defensive players do when this kind of collision occurs.

Fourth, I don't think fines/suspensions are appropriate except in the most egregious of circumstances.

These types of collisions are simply part and parcel of the sport as it is currently played. They happen predominately by accident with no one player being at fault in causing them. The defensive players are in a no-win situation.

The answer to the problem lies in improving the protective equipment the players use not legislating the matter.

I'd like to hear more of your reasoning on this. How do offensive players, especially WRs running and looking at the ball, contribute to these kinds of hits just as much.Also, as I mention above, I belive you can significantly reduce the number of dangerous hits if safer techniques are taught, starting with youth football.

I do agree though, that improvements in equipment are a key point as well.

 

[treat88]

First, I applaud improving the safety of the players in every way reasonable without changing the fundamental rules and nature of the sport.Second, I don't think it is possible to eliminate all or even most helmet to helmet collisions. Things simply move too fast for it to be a conscious/premeditated act in most instances.Third, I think the defensive players draw far too much of the blame for these hits. The offensive players contribute to the circumstances just as much as the defensive players do when this kind of collision occurs.Fourth, I don't think fines/suspensions are appropriate except in the most egregious of circumstances.These types of collisions are simply part and parcel of the sport as it is currently played. They happen predominately by accident with no one player being at fault in causing them. The defensive players are in a no-win situation.The answer to the problem lies in improving the protective equipment the players use not legislating the matter.

Even the NFL has allocations and provisions for defining what an inappropriate helmet to helmet hit is. For example, a RB running through the line and a linebacker butting heads is not a penalty and is a common occurance. But a blitzing linebacker launching into a QB is a total no-no. A defensive back getting a 10 yard head start on a fully exposed and defenseless receiver on a ball sailing 10 feet over his head is a total no tolerance play.

Agreed. Those would certainly constitute egregious circumstances.I don't think we saw clear instances of egregious collisions yesterday.

 

[benm3218]

First, I applaud improving the safety of the players in every way reasonable without changing the fundamental rules and nature of the sport.Second, I don't think it is possible to eliminate all or even most helmet to helmet collisions. Things simply move too fast for it to be a conscious/premeditated act in most instances.Third, I think the defensive players draw far too much of the blame for these hits. The offensive players contribute to the circumstances just as much as the defensive players do when this kind of collision occurs.Fourth, I don't think fines/suspensions are appropriate except in the most egregious of circumstances.These types of collisions are simply part and parcel of the sport as it is currently played. They happen predominately by accident with no one player being at fault in causing them. The defensive players are in a no-win situation.The answer to the problem lies in improving the protective equipment the players use not legislating the matter.

So you don't think its the style of play that Harrison employs? Because he said after the game - "You don't want to injure people. I don't want to injure anybody," ... "But I'm not opposed to hurting anybody."He plays with the purpose of hurting the other guy, not just making a stop.

Isn't part of the sport hitting the other guy often enough and hard enough that it effects their ability to contribute?In making a tackle you absolutely want to punish the ballcarrier as much as is legally possible.The ballcarrier for darn sure wants to punish you for trying to tackle him.Harrison clearly defined the difference between injuring and hurting.

And yet he put two people out of the game after hurting them...

 

[DrJ]

How about they go back to their old way of considering a play a tackle if they're really worried about the health of their players? I watched Payton's 275 yard game against the Vikings, and he wasn't even on the ground for half of the tackles. As soon as he was wrapped up they'd be blowing a whistle. If you make your rules conducive to getting all of these violent hits, so you can let offensive guys try and drag a pile for a first down, don't complain when dudes get hit violently trying to take them down.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also, manuy atheletes will tell you that injuries happen when you dont go all out. It can be just as dangerous

This is a terrible posting.

Don't do this. If you disagree, that's fine. State your point and discuss it.TIA.J

 

[Nightly Mistake]

So they're going to make the NFL even more unwatchable? Ugh.

You like seeing people get hurt?

The NFL is a faster and faster game. While some of this is poor tackling or reckless play, there are times when the adjustment of the ball carrier's body position or even hits by other players put his head in the line of fire. It's what I've always said about the unfairness of the "defenseless receiver" rule, especially as to safeties who often have to run all the way to the sideline and are somehow still supposed to avoid contact at the last second when the receiver doesn't end up with the ball. Also, the sheer speed behind violent hits is causing more and more decelaration injuries to the brain which isn't and can't be much alleviated by helmet technology. I actually think that the equipment (e.g. shoulder pads - not helmets though) is too good and removes the negative consequences of violent hits from defensive players. If they hurt more they'd not hit quite as hard.

So you think the two plays mentioned in the OP yesterday were acceidents?

Robinson's hit on Jackson was clearly a Chuck Cecil-esque helmet to helmet hit where he led with the crown of his helmet. Like I said, "some of this is poor tackling or reckless play" and that's one example. I haven't seen the Harrison stuff but I'll look when I can. My other comments were general comments on the subject matter.

 

[treat88]

First, I applaud improving the safety of the players in every way reasonable without changing the fundamental rules and nature of the sport.

Second, I don't think it is possible to eliminate all or even most helmet to helmet collisions. Things simply move too fast for it to be a conscious/premeditated act in most instances.

Third, I think the defensive players draw far too much of the blame for these hits. The offensive players contribute to the circumstances just as much as the defensive players do when this kind of collision occurs.

Fourth, I don't think fines/suspensions are appropriate except in the most egregious of circumstances.

These types of collisions are simply part and parcel of the sport as it is currently played. They happen predominately by accident with no one player being at fault in causing them. The defensive players are in a no-win situation.

The answer to the problem lies in improving the protective equipment the players use not legislating the matter.

I'd like to hear more of your reasoning on this. How do offensive players, especially WRs running and looking at the ball, contribute to these kinds of hits just as much.Also, as I mention above, I belive you can significantly reduce the number of dangerous hits if safer techniques are taught, starting with youth football.

I do agree though, that improvements in equipment are a key point as well.

I think you often times see a defender going for a shot at the numbers when the offensive player ducks or falls in a way the defender couldn't anticipate causing a helmet to helmet collision.It's unintentional on both sides, but defenders are almost always trying to make clean hits, when the ballcarrier reacts in a way that causes helmet to helmet collisions.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Also, manuy atheletes will tell you that injuries happen when you dont go all out. It can be just as dangerous

This is a terrible posting.

And what are you addding to the topic, jackass?

If you come back in a couple of weeks, please be way cooler.J

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

It would be better if they cleaned up pass interference rules

 

[DrJ]

Another one that seems to have gone away is the QB in the grass move. Once upon a time, it would be a sack without actually taking the guy down. Now they want a highlight of huge guys like Culpepper tossing it downfield with 3 guys draped on him and they don't call those anymore. If you want to really make the game safer, you make have to actually sacrifice a highlight or two.