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

[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.

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

I think the fact someone gets hurt/injured during a play has nothing to do with whether the hits were fineable/suspendable.Guys leave the game due to legal tackles all the time.

 

[benm3218]

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.

You are right. I think they are realizing that if they knock their top players out of games or end their careers short by allowing this stuff it will hurt more than the highlight will help. Again, I think there is room to blow up a play. but some of the times the plays shouldn't happen the way they do. Yesterday there were a bunch of them right after all the concussion stuff, so we see this announcement today. I doubt many people get in trouble, but it would be nice to draw attention to it and maybe prevent some of the injuries.

 

[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.

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.

 

[DrJ]

It would be better if they cleaned up pass interference rules

This too. They've basically invited all of these hits by giving offensive guys the advantage and benefit in so many areas, because the casual fans prefer 49-42 games.

 

[benm3218]

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

watch them and tell me what you think

 

[Insein]

The league definitely needs to take a harder stance on unnecessary roughness, i.e. using your body like a missile with your head down to drill a player in a vulnerable position. Helmet to helmet is not usually the intention but its the result when you leave your feet and lower your head thus eliminating the ability to see where you are going.

For as much as I loved Brian Dawkins, he would always put his head down when he went for the big hit. He risks his own spine just as much as the opposing player. Players need to remember how to tackle and not go for the "jacked up" segment every week. Perfect form tackles make for great highlight reel hits too.

On the flip side though, they need to review the following day to make sure that it was indeed an unnecessary hit and not just appeared to be the previous day before a suspension is handed down. I think the Suh body slam on Delhomme in the preseason would be worthy of a suspension. The Desean hit was borderline but when a player launches themselves, helmet first and head down, it shoudl be a cause for concern. It causes more damage then the horse collar IMO.

 

[Todem]

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 we were not seeing as many helmet to helmet hits like this.The game has grown so violent over the last 15 years. Players are much stronger and faster.If the hit looks intentional and so obvious that the player launched themselves to hit the player above the shoulder pads they should be suspended without pay. If it happens again...kick them out of the league.I find it amusing the amount of remarks that poo poo anyone who thinks the game is getting soft. Quite the contrary. The game has become more viloent than ever.Are the QB's over protected? Yeah and it is the ref's fault for over interpreting the rules. I mean you can;t friggin sneeze on a QB. I am all with most on that. The bumps beyond 5 yards? Also a joke.But this is no joke. Someone will get killed on the field. It is bound to happen soon. These hits are out of control and are happening it seems every week now.It must be dealt with for the safety of human life.The problem is, that looking at a hit and determining if it was malicous or an accident is subjective.

 

[Nightly Mistake]

You know which post this is referring to.

 

[gary mexico]

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

You like seeing people get hurt?

I dont want to watch two-hand touch football...

 

[David Yudkin]

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 have been involved in youth football for years and can second the fact that many coaches are doing the game a disservice. In general, very few teams teach their kids to tackle properly and kids on both sides of the ball are leading with their heads down and tackling with their helmets. We just had a high schooler in town left paralyzed by a helmet to helmet hit during a tackling drill in practice.IMO, defenders can send just a strong a message by hitting people hard without hitting players in the head. I realize sometimes fluke things happen at the last second and sometimes these things are unavoidable, but many times if a defender aimed lower, hit more with a shoulder, or generally avoided a player's head the same result (a big dislodging hit) would be accomplished.

 

[benm3218]

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

watch them and tell me what you think

There was no need for that helmet to helmet hit. It was unjustifiable.

 

[gary mexico]

The league definitely needs to take a harder stance on unnecessary roughness, i.e. using your body like a missile with your head down to drill a player in a vulnerable position. Helmet to helmet is not usually the intention but its the result when you leave your feet and lower your head thus eliminating the ability to see where you are going.

Most of the time the offensive player is the one who inititiates the helmet to helmet contact when he lowers his head running with the ball...

 

[benm3218]

The league definitely needs to take a harder stance on unnecessary roughness, i.e. using your body like a missile with your head down to drill a player in a vulnerable position. Helmet to helmet is not usually the intention but its the result when you leave your feet and lower your head thus eliminating the ability to see where you are going.

Most of the time the offensive player is the one who inititiates the helmet to helmet contact when he lowers his head running with the ball...

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

 

[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.

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).

And that's where the problems would start. I think the definition of "that line" would be such a grey area. Helmet-to-helmet hits are pretty clear and should be penalized. I think for the most part players want to play as hard as they can without injuring another player. How many times have we seen a running back catch a quick screen only to be leveled by a linebacker who read the play correctly? Do you think the linebacker wanted to injure or just make a great play? Look at the roughing penalty called on Jim Leonhard yesterday. Lloyd was in bounds. Leonhard led with his shoulder, popped him out of bounds. Neither player was hurt. Looked pretty clean to me and yet there was a penalty called. Can only imagine how the game will be affected once the refs have to be on the look out for "over violent" hits.

 

[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.

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.

Disgree completely. I cannot think of one recent helmet to helmet hit caused by the offensive player "ducking" to get out of the way. Please share a link to such a hit if you happen to come across one on youtube or elsewhere. The onus is clearly on the defensive player to strike the offensive player in a "legal" manner. I played DB from the time I was about 8 years old until I graduated HS and briefly walked on at the Univ. of Maryland. I know it's very difficult when things happen so fast on the field and some of these hits are simpy going to happen.

But again, there are better techniques that can be used to protect the other player and yourself.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Looks like other industries are following suit. Boxers are now only allowed to punch to the body, Cops now carry around paintball guns instead of real guns, UFC fighters now engage in tickle fights, Nascar is employing a 25mph speed limit to its races, and lightbulbs that burn out at the top of radio towers will no longer be replaced.

In all seriousness though, it's an interesting dialog. Football is a dangerous game. The players are aware of the dangers when they choose to make it their profession just like cops, radiotower repairmen, boxers, and nascar drivers are. For 4 million bucks a year you can make a living by playing a game, at the risk of being seriously injured. That's your choice. If that doesn't sound like a good deal to you, then it's a free country, you can work in an office where your biggest risk is carpel tunnel, and someone else will take those risks (and big bucks) instead.

On the flipside, helmet to helmet hits didn't seem to be nearly this big a problem even as recently as 5-10 years ago. Where are all these coming from all of the sudden?

 

[DrJ]

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 have been involved in youth football for years and can second the fact that many coaches are doing the game a disservice. In general, very few teams teach their kids to tackle properly and kids on both sides of the ball are leading with their heads down and tackling with their helmets. We just had a high schooler in town left paralyzed by a helmet to helmet hit during a tackling drill in practice.IMO, defenders can send just a strong a message by hitting people hard without hitting players in the head. I realize sometimes fluke things happen at the last second and sometimes these things are unavoidable, but many times if a defender aimed lower, hit more with a shoulder, or generally avoided a player's head the same result (a big dislodging hit) would be accomplished.

When I was playing HS football our coaches taught us not to do this not because of the risk to the other player but because of the risk to yourself and your spine. Surprised that they're not doing that anymore. I still think that they've invited violent hits with a lot of these rule changes though. Call a guy down once the defender has control of him and guys won't see as much need to put crazy hard hits on people that there's no way they can stay up after.

 

[Mello]

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 we were not seeing as many helmet to helmet hits like this.The game has grown so violent over the last 15 years. Players are much stronger and faster.If the hit looks intentional and so obvious that the player launched themselves to hit the player above the shoulder pads they should be suspended without pay. If it happens again...kick them out of the league.I find it amusing the amount of remarks that poo poo anyone who thinks the game is getting soft. Quite the contrary. The game has become more viloent than ever.Are the QB's over protected? Yeah and it is the ref's fault for over interpreting the rules. I mean you can;t friggin sneeze on a QB. I am all with most on that. The bumps beyond 5 yards? Also a joke.But this is no joke. Someone will get killed on the field. It is bound to happen soon. These hits are out of control and are happening it seems every week now.It must be dealt with for the safety of human life.The problem is, that looking at a hit and determining if it was malicous or an accident is subjective.

I have seen no convincing evidence that the game has become more violent over the years. I remember days when DBs were lauded for laying the wood on any receiver who dared go over the middle. Defensive players are obviously stronger, but so are offensive players. I think people are simply more sensitive today, there's more media needing to get us to watch/listen to them, there's fantasy football where people care more about individual stats, and due to the overreaction towards concussions players are being kept off the field after many big hits.

 

[DrJ]

Looks like other industries are following suit. Boxers are now only allowed to punch to the body, Cops now carry around paintball guns instead of real guns, UFC fighters now engage in tickle fights, Nascar is employing a 25mph speed limit to its races, and lightbulbs that burn out at the top of radio towers will no longer be replaced.In all seriousness though, football is a dangerous game. The players are aware of the dangers when they choose to make it their profession just like cops, radiotower repairmen, boxers, and nascar drivers are. For 4 million bucks a year you can make a living by playing a game, at the risk of being seriously injured. That's your choice. If that doesn't sound like a good deal to you, then it's a free country, you can work in an office where your biggest risk is carpel tunnel, and someone else will take those risks (and big bucks) instead.Protect the players to the point that it doesn't greatly impact the game, that's fine. But if we're not already across that line, we're getting dangerously close to it.

The NFL still has an interest in reducing these occupational hazzards as much as possible. How about we not give cops bulletproof vests? Getting shot in the chest is just part of the job, bro.

 

[VaTerp]

In all seriousness though, football is a dangerous game. The players are aware of the dangers when they choose to make it their profession just like cops, radiotower repairmen, boxers, and nascar drivers are. For 4 million bucks a year you can make a living by playing a game, at the risk of being seriously injured. That's your choice. If that doesn't sound like a good deal to you, then it's a free country, you can work in an office where your biggest risk is carpel tunnel, and someone else will take those risks (and big bucks) instead.

Yes, it's a choice and football is a violent game where some of these collisons are inevitable. But that doesnt mean the league shouldnt look for ways to make it safer for the participants.In the examples you mentioned outside of football, there is constant evaluation of the equipment and practices used in order to make those situations as safe as possible and provide as much protection as possible to those who do choose to participate.If the NFL was not doing the same, they would be remiss.

 

[Insein]

Looks like other industries are following suit. Boxers are now only allowed to punch to the body, Cops now carry around paintball guns instead of real guns, UFC fighters now engage in tickle fights, Nascar is employing a 25mph speed limit to its races, and lightbulbs that burn out at the top of radio towers will no longer be replaced.In all seriousness though, football is a dangerous game. The players are aware of the dangers when they choose to make it their profession just like cops, radiotower repairmen, boxers, and nascar drivers are. For 4 million bucks a year you can make a living by playing a game, at the risk of being seriously injured. That's your choice. If that doesn't sound like a good deal to you, then it's a free country, you can work in an office where your biggest risk is carpel tunnel, and someone else will take those risks (and big bucks) instead.

I believe there is a happy medium we can find where we can have football be football without guys ending up brain dead by their 40's. We're not going overboard and declaring the National Two hand touch league. But they can't keep going the way they are where players are getting knocked out every week. I heard something today on Mike and Mike that suprised me. Mouthguards are not mandatory. That right there should be a mandatory piece of equipment. Thats one simple step they could take towards protecting players more. They need to look into these things or else we will not be having football because all the stars will be "jacked up."

 

[perry147]

Looks like other industries are following suit. Boxers are now only allowed to punch to the body, Cops now carry around paintball guns instead of real guns, UFC fighters now engage in tickle fights, Nascar is employing a 25mph speed limit to its races, and lightbulbs that burn out at the top of radio towers will no longer be replaced.In all seriousness though, football is a dangerous game. The players are aware of the dangers when they choose to make it their profession just like cops, radiotower repairmen, boxers, and nascar drivers are. For 4 million bucks a year you can make a living by playing a game, at the risk of being seriously injured. That's your choice. If that doesn't sound like a good deal to you, then it's a free country, you can work in an office where your biggest risk is carpel tunnel, and someone else will take those risks (and big bucks) instead.

You can not have players destroying each other for our entertainment. Do some research on some of the retired players and their health today now and see if you have the same reaction. A guy showing generative brain functions mimicking dementia before they are in their mid 40's needs to raise some red flags.

 

[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.

Disgree completely. I cannot think of one recent helmet to helmet hit caused by the offensive player "ducking" to get out of the way. Please share a link to such a hit if you happen to come across one on youtube or elsewhere. The onus is clearly on the defensive player to strike the offensive player in a "legal" manner. I played DB from the time I was about 8 years old until I graduated HS and briefly walked on at the Univ. of Maryland. I know it's very difficult when things happen so fast on the field and some of these hits are simpy going to happen.

But again, there are better techniques that can be used to protect the other player and yourself.

I think both Robinson's tackle on Jackson and Harrison's tackles on Cribbs/Massaqoui are clear instances where the defender was simply trying to make a clean hard hit and helmets collided due to the movements of the offensive player.Meriweather's shot on Heap was far more egregious than either of these and one which I can agree involved a clear intent to use the helmet as a weapon.

 

[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.

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.

Disgree completely. I cannot think of one recent helmet to helmet hit caused by the offensive player "ducking" to get out of the way. Please share a link to such a hit if you happen to come across one on youtube or elsewhere. The onus is clearly on the defensive player to strike the offensive player in a "legal" manner. I played DB from the time I was about 8 years old until I graduated HS and briefly walked on at the Univ. of Maryland. I know it's very difficult when things happen so fast on the field and some of these hits are simpy going to happen.

But again, there are better techniques that can be used to protect the other player and yourself.

I think both Robinson's tackle on Jackson and Harrison's tackles on Cribbs/Massaqoui are clear instances where the defender was simply trying to make a clean hard hit and helmets collided due to the movements of the offensive player.Meriweather's shot on Heap was far more egregious than either of these and one which I can agree involved a clear intent to use the helmet as a weapon.

I think MAssaqoui hit was not clean or caused by him. It was caused by defender. Did you watch this just now? http://thebiglead.com/index.php/2010/10/18...-real-football/

 

[treat88]

In all seriousness though, football is a dangerous game. The players are aware of the dangers when they choose to make it their profession just like cops, radiotower repairmen, boxers, and nascar drivers are. For 4 million bucks a year you can make a living by playing a game, at the risk of being seriously injured. That's your choice. If that doesn't sound like a good deal to you, then it's a free country, you can work in an office where your biggest risk is carpel tunnel, and someone else will take those risks (and big bucks) instead.

Yes, it's a choice and football is a violent game where some of these collisons are inevitable. But that doesnt mean the league shouldnt look for ways to make it safer for the participants.In the examples you mentioned outside of football, there is constant evaluation of the equipment and practices used in order to make those situations as safe as possible and provide as much protection as possible to those who do choose to participate.If the NFL was not doing the same, they would be remiss.

100% agree with this.Fining/suspending the defensive player is 100% not the answer.

 

[treat88]

I think MAssaqoui hit was not clean or caused by him. It was caused by defender. Did you watch this just now?

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

Yes. Several times.You can clearly see Massaquoi duck as he turns his head upfield (at the 1:00 mark). Without that duck there is no helmet to helmet collision and there is no way Harrison can adjust to that once he committed to the tackle.

 

[VaTerp]

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 have been involved in youth football for years and can second the fact that many coaches are doing the game a disservice. In general, very few teams teach their kids to tackle properly and kids on both sides of the ball are leading with their heads down and tackling with their helmets. We just had a high schooler in town left paralyzed by a helmet to helmet hit during a tackling drill in practice.IMO, defenders can send just a strong a message by hitting people hard without hitting players in the head. I realize sometimes fluke things happen at the last second and sometimes these things are unavoidable, but many times if a defender aimed lower, hit more with a shoulder, or generally avoided a player's head the same result (a big dislodging hit) would be accomplished.

Absolutely.I was just looking at the Ray Lewis hit on Dustin Keller in week 1 and the Robinson hit on Jackson yesterday. At first glance, the hits appear very similar. But if you look closer there are subtle differences in technique that could have led to Robinsion delivering a jarring, dislodging hit that would have had a much smaller chance for both guys being seriously injured.Robinson gets out in front of his pads and launches himself into Jackson while Lewis stayed behind his pads delivers a safer hit that was just as effective. I know that it's not easy and that Robinson/Jackson are moving faster and have less room for error as smaller players. But the point remains that subtle differences in technique could be the difference between a great hit and potential paralysis.And it starts at the youth level. As Yukin states there are far too many coaches out there who are not teaching these guys how to protect themselves and their fellow players. If these things were taught properly from Pop Warner through the NFL, I believe you would see a significant reduction in the amount of dangerous and violent hits.

 

[benm3218]

I think MAssaqoui hit was not clean or caused by him. It was caused by defender. Did you watch this just now?

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

Yes. Several times.You can clearly see Massaquoi duck as he turns his head upfield. Without that duck there is no helmet to helmet collision and there is no way Harrison can adjust to that once he committed to the tackle.

I'll agree to disagree. Thank you for posting intelligent discussion in a non-combative way by the way.

 

[njherdfan]

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.

Revis had a great hit on Royal yesterday as well to dislodge a pass coming in, but he did not lead with his head. Instead, he used textbook fundamentals and laid Royal out, and they both got up afterwards.

 

[Godsbrother]

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.

As does Ray Lewis and just about every other LB in the game. They don't want to injure anyone but they do want to hit them hard. This has been the essence of football since the game began.If they start suspending players for hurting their opponents then you're going to be taking away most of the top defensive players in the game.

 

[treat88]

I think MAssaqoui hit was not clean or caused by him. It was caused by defender. Did you watch this just now?

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

Yes. Several times.You can clearly see Massaquoi duck as he turns his head upfield. Without that duck there is no helmet to helmet collision and there is no way Harrison can adjust to that once he committed to the tackle.

I'll agree to disagree. Thank you for posting intelligent discussion in a non-combative way by the way.

Same.

 

[DrJ]

In all seriousness though, football is a dangerous game. The players are aware of the dangers when they choose to make it their profession just like cops, radiotower repairmen, boxers, and nascar drivers are. For 4 million bucks a year you can make a living by playing a game, at the risk of being seriously injured. That's your choice. If that doesn't sound like a good deal to you, then it's a free country, you can work in an office where your biggest risk is carpel tunnel, and someone else will take those risks (and big bucks) instead.

Yes, it's a choice and football is a violent game where some of these collisons are inevitable. But that doesnt mean the league shouldnt look for ways to make it safer for the participants.In the examples you mentioned outside of football, there is constant evaluation of the equipment and practices used in order to make those situations as safe as possible and provide as much protection as possible to those who do choose to participate.If the NFL was not doing the same, they would be remiss.

100% agree with this.Fining/suspending the defensive player is 100% not the answer.

While this would lead to some relatively arbitrary suspensions totally at the discretion of the ref, it would make Packers fans whine all the more about refs. It might actually be a win.

 

[Goldfinger007]

One thing I think that has gotten lost in all of this is how these poor fundamentals aren't just causing injuries, but costing their teams as well. How many times have you seen a guy drop his head trying to blow somebody up, only to end up looking like an utter fool when they miss the tackle? Personally, i don't think this kind of crap is football anyway. What happened to throwing your head across his chest, wrapping him up and driving your legs? Football is supposed to be played with your shoulders, not the crown of your head. This sloppy technique, and thats exactly what it is sloppy technique, just leads to increased injuries and missed tackles. Where's the benefit in that?

 

[CalBear]

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.

It doesn't really matter if it's a catch or not if you get flagged for 15 yards, right? (Which is what happened). If you want to analyze that specific play, it was third down, and Jackson caught the ball two yards short of the first down. A classic-technique tackle, with the head up and arms wrapped, would have left Philly with fourth down. And it still would have looked good. Instead, Philly got a first down and two players were seriously injured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmsAdwm7LHQ

Pause the video at 0:35. Jackson is coming down with the ball and Robinson is coming towards him, body vertical, in position to make an easy tackle on a defenseless receiver. He could stay in that posture and prepare to wrap up Jackson; instead, he lowers his head and shoulder and sends both men to the hospital.

There's no argument to be made that Robinson's play constitutes better defense; in almost any scenario where a hit like that results in the pass being incomplete, you're going to get flagged for the hit and Philly will get a first down. There's no argument to be made that the game is "more watchable" with that kind of hit in it; how easy is it to watch two teams gathered around their unconscious players?

 

[g5jamz]

I thought they'd changed the rule to protect "defenseless" receivers from shots to the head...regardless of what's used (helmet, shoulder, drop kick, etc).

As far as these hits go...I can see where they are legal, but they borderline on unsportsmanlike when he starts to walk over and stand over MM.

 

[netnalp]

Wasn't the game more violent in previous decades or is that it has become less acceptable for players and coaches to talk about trying to hurt another player?

From watching NFL Films on ESPN, it seems defensive players from the 80's and back would brag about wanting to knock the opposing QB out of the game, and doing things like biting and punching #### during a pile up for a fumble.

I think helmet to helmet needs to be stopped, but I don't like the rules where any contact to a QBs head is flagged, it's not unusual for the QB to duck, causing and arm targeted to swat the ball or grab a shoulder, grazes the helmet and draws a flag.

 

[Insein]

One thing I think that has gotten lost in all of this is how these poor fundamentals aren't just causing injuries, but costing their teams as well. How many times have you seen a guy drop his head trying to blow somebody up, only to end up looking like an utter fool when they miss the tackle? Personally, i don't think this kind of crap is football anyway. What happened to throwing your head across his chest, wrapping him up and driving your legs? Football is supposed to be played with your shoulders, not the crown of your head. This sloppy technique, and thats exactly what it is sloppy technique, just leads to increased injuries and missed tackles. Where's the benefit in that?

there is no team benefit for sure. The only benefit is the player getting on sportscenter to increase his self worth. Which is all well and good but if you break your neck on one of those tackles, you won't be making any money.

 

[VaTerp]

I think both Robinson's tackle on Jackson and Harrison's tackles on Cribbs/Massaqoui are clear instances where the defender was simply trying to make a clean hard hit and helmets collided due to the movements of the offensive player.Meriweather's shot on Heap was far more egregious than either of these and one which I can agree involved a clear intent to use the helmet as a weapon.

I have no idea how you can see anything that Jackson did to cause the hit other than catching the ball, running and becoming a target. The hit on Cribbs is one that looks like Harrison was trying to lead with the shoulder but circumstance led to helmet to helmet collision. I don't agree that it's the offensive players fault at all but do see your point a little bit with this one.On the Massaquoui play, he clearly does start to lower himself to avoid the hit but Harrison is leading with the crown of his helmet (as the still pic on the link cleary shows) when he should be leading with the shoulder.Two different hits, two different situations, two different offensive players. The constant is Jerome Harrison and his helmet down. I think the onus is on him.

 

[David Yudkin]

One thing I think that has gotten lost in all of this is how these poor fundamentals aren't just causing injuries, but costing their teams as well. How many times have you seen a guy drop his head trying to blow somebody up, only to end up looking like an utter fool when they miss the tackle? Personally, i don't think this kind of crap is football anyway. What happened to throwing your head across his chest, wrapping him up and driving your legs? Football is supposed to be played with your shoulders, not the crown of your head. This sloppy technique, and thats exactly what it is sloppy technique, just leads to increased injuries and missed tackles. Where's the benefit in that?

Don't even get me started on tackling. I watch at least 5 youth games a weekend from the little kids up to high school and kids just don't know how to tackle. My son's junior high team has allowed 8 plays of 50+ yards over the last two weeks. On all of them at least 6 players had the guy dead to rights but only grabbed jerseys, tried arm tackles, didn't wrap up, or took horrible angles to hit the guy with the ball.

 

[Godsbrother]

I have seen no convincing evidence that the game has become more violent over the years. I remember days when DBs were lauded for laying the wood on any receiver who dared go over the middle. Defensive players are obviously stronger, but so are offensive players. I think people are simply more sensitive today, there's more media needing to get us to watch/listen to them, there's fantasy football where people care more about individual stats, and due to the overreaction towards concussions players are being kept off the field after many big hits.

The game has always been violent and I actually think it was moreso in the late 60s and 70s when I started following the NFL.

I didn't see the other hits yesterday but I did see the two by Harrison. I thought the hit on Cribbs was accidental as Cribbs was lowering his head at the same time Harrison was going in for the tackle.

I can't really tell if Harrison contacted Massaquoi with his helmet or not -- it was a violent hit though.

The refs have the ability to throw a player out for excessive roughness and the league has the ability to fine players for excessive hits. If they have a player that continually gets fined for excessive hits then the league can suspend the player. What else can you do?

 

[GroveDiesel]

DrJ pretty much owning in this thread. The NFL has helped created this problem by trying to prolong plays as long as possible in order to benefit offenses. No more "in the grasp," forward progress is called only after a huge pile of guys is already shoving a guy backwards and falling on him and receivers are given free reign to run wide open all over the field. If a defensive player can't touch a receiver until the ball touches the receiver, you'd better believe they're going to hit the receiver as hard as possible right when the ball gets there. Give the defensive players more incentive to stick close to receivers and bump and shove them all the way down the field and they won't even have the ability to build up a head of steam and crush receivers.

I think that offensive coordinators and QBs are to blame here too. In the past it was much less likely for receivers to run all of those slants across the middle of the field. You would see TEs curling in or running some slants, but smaller receivers never went across the middle specifically because their team didn't want to get them killed. And then we see small guys like Welker and Jackson running these slants over the middle in front of the linebackers or safeties. Of COURSE those little guys are going to get crushed when you throw routes like that. Why in the world would an offensive coordinator think it's a good idea to expose their players like that?

 

[CalBear]

DrJ pretty much owning in this thread. The NFL has helped created this problem by trying to prolong plays as long as possible in order to benefit offenses. No more "in the grasp," forward progress is called only after a huge pile of guys is already shoving a guy backwards and falling on him and receivers are given free reign to run wide open all over the field. If a defensive player can't touch a receiver until the ball touches the receiver, you'd better believe they're going to hit the receiver as hard as possible right when the ball gets there. Give the defensive players more incentive to stick close to receivers and bump and shove them all the way down the field and they won't even have the ability to build up a head of steam and crush receivers.

I don't see how this commentary has any relevance to the hits we actually witnessed this weekend. None of them were plays that would have been called "in the grasp", and none of them involved a player covering a receiver off the line.

 

[netnalp]

Start ejecting players for hits, then repeat offenders like Flozell should be ejected for leg whips and tripping.

 

[GroveDiesel]

9

DrJ pretty much owning in this thread. The NFL has helped created this problem by trying to prolong plays as long as possible in order to benefit offenses. No more "in the grasp," forward progress is called only after a huge pile of guys is already shoving a guy backwards and falling on him and receivers are given free reign to run wide open all over the field. If a defensive player can't touch a receiver until the ball touches the receiver, you'd better believe they're going to hit the receiver as hard as possible right when the ball gets there. Give the defensive players more incentive to stick close to receivers and bump and shove them all the way down the field and they won't even have the ability to build up a head of steam and crush receivers.

I don't see how this commentary has any relevance to the hits we actually witnessed this weekend. None of them were plays that would have been called "in the grasp", and none of them involved a player covering a receiver off the line.

I wasn't aware that this thread was dedicated to just the hits that happened this weekend.ETA: The Jackson hit absolutely wouldn't have happened if the cornerback had been able to bump him after 5 yards. But because he couldn't, Jackson got a step on him and Robinson had to come in and try to separate Jackson from the ball.

 

[THE SNOWMAN]

Welcome to the Nancy Football League.

 

[LittlePhatty]

[the defender]... risks his own spine just as much as the opposing player.

Yes, the rule is there to protect both players. There is a reason you don't lower your head and use it as a battering ram. Spinal cord damage/being paralyzed from the neck down. James Harrison is risking his own health too. If a hit just goes an inch the wrong way or just happens at the wrong angle, he'll find himself in a situation where he needs to be hooked up to a machine just to poop.

 

[CalBear]

DrJ pretty much owning in this thread. The NFL has helped created this problem by trying to prolong plays as long as possible in order to benefit offenses. No more "in the grasp," forward progress is called only after a huge pile of guys is already shoving a guy backwards and falling on him and receivers are given free reign to run wide open all over the field. If a defensive player can't touch a receiver until the ball touches the receiver, you'd better believe they're going to hit the receiver as hard as possible right when the ball gets there. Give the defensive players more incentive to stick close to receivers and bump and shove them all the way down the field and they won't even have the ability to build up a head of steam and crush receivers.

I don't see how this commentary has any relevance to the hits we actually witnessed this weekend. None of them were plays that would have been called "in the grasp", and none of them involved a player covering a receiver off the line.

I wasn't aware that this thread was dedicated to just the hits that happened this weekend.

I just fail to see a scenario where someone covering a receiver off the line will end up leveling the receiver with a massive hit. Those hits will always come, as they did this week, from players the receiver is moving towards, who are facing the QB; linebackers and safeties, or cornerbacks in zone coverage. Allowing a bump-and-run cornerback to contact the receiver further down the field won't change that dynamic. I also can't remember a situation where a player's forward progress was stopped long enough that a whistle might have blown, and someone came and took his head off. The kinds of injuries that happen in piles are more leg and arm injuries, like Reggie Bush and Pierre Thomas, not beheadings like those we saw this weekend.

 

[CalBear]

ETA: The Jackson hit absolutely wouldn't have happened if the cornerback had been able to bump him after 5 yards. But because he couldn't, Jackson got a step on him and Robinson had to come in and try to separate Jackson from the ball.

Horse manure. Watch it again.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmsAdwm7LHQ

The ball is at the 32 yard line. The defender is lined up at the 29 yard line, 3 yards off the line of scrimmage. Jackson makes his cut at the 31 yard line, just a yard past the line of scrimmage. The defender releases him--he doesn't even have Jackson as an assignment in the pattern; Jackson comes across the field through the zone defense without a trailing defender. He doesn't get five yards downfield until he hits the right hashmark. Even when he catches the ball he's only 6 yards down the field.

A defender on Jackson, if there had been one, could have contacted him through most of the pattern. In any case, Atlanta was playing zone and did not have a defender on Jackson.

 

[Ladsud]

"If you throw at someone's head, it's very dangerous, because in the head is the brain."

Pudge Rodriguez

 

[Arizona Ron]

Welcome to the Nancy Football League.

If it prevents me from watching a game with my daughter and trying to explain why someone was killed on the field playing the sport I love, I'm all for it.