What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

NFL might start suspending over flagrant hits that are currently illeg (2 Viewers)

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.
:thumbup: Exactly. I find it kind of funny that the NFL wants to make the league less violent and yet some of the most violent players of the past are the most celebrated. Jack Tatum, Night Train Lane, Deacon Jones, etc.
 
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.
Especially since he cannot see thru the top of his own helmet.
 
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.
You're right. For some reason I was thinking that the other Falcon right there was the DB, but it was a linebacker that Jackson was passed over to.I'll just go back and put this one on the offensive coordinator. Sending a guy Jackson's size across the middle like that is just begging for what happened to happen. Wes Welker is arguably the best in the business at that kind of route and even he got destroyed on that route this year.

Over the last 15 years, virtually all of the rule changes have been to the benefit of the offenses. Everyone is talking about harsher punishments for defenders for initiating these types of hits and maybe that SHOULD be part of the solution. But there's another way to help eliminate a lot of the potential for these types of hits: ban receivers from crossing over the hashmarks during their routes. Essentially ban the crossing route. That's where a large number of those plays happen. If the receivers are running fly patterns, curls, or outs, you're not going to see those helmet to helmet hits as often. You'll still see safeties loading up and hammering guys running fly routes occasionally, but it will be less often than on crossing routes IMO.

 
:rant:

This won't please the :lmao: when Harrison and Ward wind up :angry: but it's in the best interest of the league, and is a necessary change. I hope they implement it immediately.

 
:no:

This won't please the :doh: when Harrison and Ward wind up :shrug: but it's in the best interest of the league, and is a necessary change. I hope they implement it immediately.
Implement what? The NFL already has had the ability to suspend players for excessively violent hits for years. Football is a violent sport and has been since the first game was played. Like it or not, players are going to get injured unless you significantly alter the way the game is played.
 
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.
You make the really nice tackle. The operative word here is tackle. Nail the guy at the waist hard and wrap him up. If you want to try and force a fumble hit the ball. this style of launching your body at the opponents head is ridiculous.
 
Regardless of the merits of this helping or hurting the game in any individual football game if the NFL really wants to pretend we can have an 18 game season they've got to make changes like this in order to preserve the talent level.

 
This is not a helmet-to-helmet hit:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlig...obinson-injured

His helmet hits Jackson in the body. When we are tackling this tends to happen as the helmet is on the head which is attached to the body, which is used for tackling. He doesn't even leave his feet.

No problem with this hit or the TJ Ward hit from a couple weeks ago. You see dirtier play from Hines Ward blindsiding guys away from the play every week. If the player has the ball, or the hit is simultaneous with the catch (as in the Ward hit) that should be part of the game. Players like Rodney Harrison who go after guys when the ball is long gone or make contact which is incidental to the play should be suspended, not those who are playing defense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Football is a violent sport and has been since the first game was played. Like it or not, players are going to get injured unless you significantly alter the way the game is played.
Players are going to get injured, but there's a big difference between Jahvid Best's head injury, which was an unfortunate accident caused by the speed and athleticism of the game, and Desean Jackson's head injury, which was a more or less deliberate attempt to injure someone.
 
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.
:link: As the saying goes, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks." It really starts by getting coaches to teach youth better and safer techniques.
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.
Completely agree. I don't mind the NFL trying to find a way to make football safer by creating incentives for hits that have a higher percentage for serious injury, but it is that "grey area," that subjective, judgment call that I am not so sure about.
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.
I would like to see why you think this (the bolded part)?
 
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.
I would like to see why you think this (the bolded part)?
People all over the world play sports every single day with concussions of varying degrees occurring. Most of the time, they shake it off and go back to what they were doing. In almost all of these cases there are no outward signs of any permanent injury. But the NFL is basically mandating that players cannot return to a game after a concussion now. That's far beyond the rules implemented in what some people here would consider sissy sports. Players should be educated on the symptoms and potential short term and long term risks. If they just got dinged up, can answer a few questions from the staff just fine, and want to go back in the game they should be allowed to. Truth is that there's an extremely high chance that no further injury will occur. To me, not giving players that choice is an overreaction.
 
:thumbup:

This won't please the :2cents: when Harrison and Ward wind up :missing: but it's in the best interest of the league, and is a necessary change. I hope they implement it immediately.
Implement what? The NFL already has had the ability to suspend players for excessively violent hits for years. Football is a violent sport and has been since the first game was played. Like it or not, players are going to get injured unless you significantly alter the way the game is played.
"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.
from the article in the OP.
 
I would prefer suspensions for egregious hits as opposed to the current system of trying to create new layers of rules explicity defining what may or may not constitute a penalty. The NFL could use some post-game judgement injected into this. I think we have largely tapped out the ability for referees to instantly judge intent, location, and power of hits in real-time.

 
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.
I would like to see why you think this (the bolded part)?
People all over the world play sports every single day with concussions of varying degrees occurring. Most of the time, they shake it off and go back to what they were doing. In almost all of these cases there are no outward signs of any permanent injury. But the NFL is basically mandating that players cannot return to a game after a concussion now. That's far beyond the rules implemented in what some people here would consider sissy sports. Players should be educated on the symptoms and potential short term and long term risks. If they just got dinged up, can answer a few questions from the staff just fine, and want to go back in the game they should be allowed to. Truth is that there's an extremely high chance that no further injury will occur. To me, not giving players that choice is an overreaction.
Are you a credentialed expert? What gives your opinion on this matter any validity?

 
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.
I would like to see why you think this (the bolded part)?
People all over the world play sports every single day with concussions of varying degrees occurring. Most of the time, they shake it off and go back to what they were doing. In almost all of these cases there are no outward signs of any permanent injury. But the NFL is basically mandating that players cannot return to a game after a concussion now. That's far beyond the rules implemented in what some people here would consider sissy sports. Players should be educated on the symptoms and potential short term and long term risks. If they just got dinged up, can answer a few questions from the staff just fine, and want to go back in the game they should be allowed to. Truth is that there's an extremely high chance that no further injury will occur. To me, not giving players that choice is an overreaction.
What are these sports that you're talking about? In rugby there is a mandatory 3-week stand down for concussions globally.
 
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.
I would like to see why you think this (the bolded part)?
People all over the world play sports every single day with concussions of varying degrees occurring. Most of the time, they shake it off and go back to what they were doing. In almost all of these cases there are no outward signs of any permanent injury. But the NFL is basically mandating that players cannot return to a game after a concussion now. That's far beyond the rules implemented in what some people here would consider sissy sports. Players should be educated on the symptoms and potential short term and long term risks. If they just got dinged up, can answer a few questions from the staff just fine, and want to go back in the game they should be allowed to. Truth is that there's an extremely high chance that no further injury will occur. To me, not giving players that choice is an overreaction.
What are these sports that you're talking about? In rugby there is a mandatory 3-week stand down for concussions globally.
In Badminton a concussion is nothing. I have seen a player have a birdie DONK right off his bare head. He rolled on the ground in pain for 3 minutes, got up and played the ENTIRE rest of the game.

Badminton players would call NFL concussion sissies a lot of names if they knew about this. They don't though. They are out training their butts for the next match. Not worrying about silly rules for safety. Badminton players laugh in the face of concussions and wear their injuries with PRIDE.

 
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.
I would like to see why you think this (the bolded part)?
People all over the world play sports every single day with concussions of varying degrees occurring. Most of the time, they shake it off and go back to what they were doing. In almost all of these cases there are no outward signs of any permanent injury. But the NFL is basically mandating that players cannot return to a game after a concussion now. That's far beyond the rules implemented in what some people here would consider sissy sports. Players should be educated on the symptoms and potential short term and long term risks. If they just got dinged up, can answer a few questions from the staff just fine, and want to go back in the game they should be allowed to. Truth is that there's an extremely high chance that no further injury will occur. To me, not giving players that choice is an overreaction.
Are you a credentialed expert? What gives your opinion on this matter any validity?
No, take my opinion or leave it.
 
I would tend to disagree with your overall point, but I see where you are coming from. You seem to be arguing from two standpoints.

People all over the world play sports every single day with concussions of varying degrees occurring. Most of the time, they shake it off and go back to what they were doing. In almost all of these cases there are no outward signs of any permanent injury. But the NFL is basically mandating that players cannot return to a game after a concussion now. That's far beyond the rules implemented in what some people here would consider sissy sports.
First (correct me if I am wrong) you are saying that if most other sports where just as aggressive towards keeping players out of games after concussions as the NFL is, you would feel better about it. So, before the NFL takes action on protecting players in a certain way, in a violent and non-"sissy" sport, the same protection level should be established in a less violent and more "sissy" of a sport?
Players should be educated on the symptoms and potential short term and long term risks. If they just got dinged up, can answer a few questions from the staff just fine, and want to go back in the game they should be allowed to. Truth is that there's an extremely high chance that no further injury will occur. To me, not giving players that choice is an overreaction.
Second, you believe that through increased education, that players will be able to make a sound decision about whether they should play or not following a concussion? So, in a game where an injury can lose you a position, you don't think a player, thoroughly educated on the short and long-term risks of concussions, would put his health at risk to try and keep his job?The NFL is a violent sport, relative to many other popular and well-known sports. Players need to be protected in such violent sports. So it would be logical that the greater the violence in a sport the greater the protection (I'm not saying violence has increased, IJIC there's confusion).Athletes, in general, do not want to not lose their jobs. We have seen many athletes lose their jobs to injury (i.e. Kolb, Vick, Bledsoe). So it would be logical that if players know they are hurt, but have the choice to sit-out or stay in a game or practice, that they would choose to stay-in, even at the risk of their own health. While most athletes don't want to hurt themselves, it is difficult for anyone to look at a bad imminent situation (i.e. losing their job to injury) and imagine an even worse one in the long-term (not being able to remember what you ate at 9:00AM at 9:05AM the same day at age 50).
 
Interesting article from Rich Hoffman on Philly.com:

Rich Hofmann: DeSean Jackson’s injury reminds us ‘this isn’t tiddlywinks'

Published: Yesterday

By RICH HOFMANN

hofmanr@phillynews.com

They lay there, seemingly motionless, for a minute or so. Medical personnel from both teams surrounded the tangle of fallen bodies, stabilizing heads, asking questions, working to assess the damage. However long you watch the game, you never get used to the contradictory feelings, the thrill followed immediately by the dread. And so it was again.

The Eagles' DeSean Jackson had been jacked up by the Falcons' Dunta Robinson, head first, helmet into his chest and chin - and now neither was moving. It is the kind of hit that the sport has traditionally celebrated - violent, explosive, raw. Most times, guys just shake their heads and get up. Most times.

The good news is that Jackson and Robinson did get up. Jackson has a concussion. The Falcons did not say anything more than that Robinson has a head injury. There was relief when they finally stood, and an ovation from the crowd at Lincoln Financial Field. But there could be no more poignant football scene than that of the two of them, supported under each arm, walking slowly toward their respective dressing rooms at either corner of the stadium's south end zone.

After which, it was first-and-10 for the Eagles at the Falcons' 17-yard line.

"It's just part of the game," said Eagles cornerback Ellis Hobbs, who suffered a broken neck last season. "Someone gets hurt, I always say, 'The show continues.' For that 10 to 15 minutes, everything stops and everything is standing still. But once that guy gets up, whether he's wheeled off or carried off or walks off on his own power, I think the show continues.

"There's no hard feelings for anybody. I've been in that position. That's just the nature of the game and that's how it goes."

The players are all so matter-of-fact about it that it stuns you - even though you know ahead of time that matter-of-fact is how they are going to be. It is an NFL football player's defense mechanism, that hard mental shell that takes care of the parts that the helmets and the shoulder pads cannot possibly protect.

Of about 10 Eagles players approached yesterday after Jackson's hit, 100 percent of them offered a variation on "it's just part of the game." Nobody criticized Robinson, who received a 15-yard penalty for hitting Jackson while he was defenseless. They cannot afford to be scared or intimidated because there are hundreds of people who would be more than willing to make the same deal in exchange for half of the sum on an NFL player's paycheck.

They cannot afford it. Cannot.

"If I get hit hard, it just happened," said Eagles receiver Jason Avant, a man who speaks often about his religious faith. "I signed up for it, so I can't go out there and be tentative. If you're tentative, you're always going to get hit. If you go hard, you have a chance of hitting somebody before they hit you."

Avant smiled. It is his professional world. From a distance, it seems to be getting better in some ways and worse in others. The league has done much to try to take out the hits on vulnerable, defenseless players - especially quarterbacks. But at the same time, the players all just keep getting bigger and faster - and the whole mass-times-velocity calculation is continually pushing the human body past its ability to endure.

The explosiveness with which a defensive back can launch himself at a ballcarrier has never been more dangerous - and the fact that so many players lead with their helmets and ask questions later turns them into lethal human missiles on pretty much every play.

When you ask Eagles coach Andy Reid if it is getting worse, he says, "I understand what you're saying [but] I think it's been that way. At that position, you've got speed players and then you've got some guys that can whack you when they get to you. I don't think things have changed that way. I think you're seeing some violent collisions throughout the league but you've seen them over time . . . "

Later, Reid said, "I don't see a lot of cheap shots. This is just hard, aggressive, hard-nosed football. These things are going to happen in this sport. Again, this isn't tiddlywinks. This is a violent sport and things are going to happen every once in a while. The league's doing a good job, but guys are bigger and faster and flying around."

There are no obvious answers, not as long as you and I keep watching the sport in record numbers. Because the thrill of the hit is undeniable and it always has been. It is a part of what keeps us all coming back every Sunday, and to pretend otherwise is to do just that - pretend.

Unless they can find a way to shrink the players, or slow down the players, it will just get worse, though. Maybe they need weight limits based on positions. Maybe they need helmets that don't protect so well, which would make defensive players less likely to hit headfirst. It is clear that they need to work toward something safer because those long, hushed moments in stadiums are not getting any less frequent.

Neither is the list of concussions - six for the Eagles since training camp, six and counting.

"You feel bad for DeSean," tight end Brent Celek said. "But you almost have to be kind of heartless about it because if you go out there thinking, 'This is going to happen to me,' then you start playing fearful . . . "

They know no other way.

 
Just read the Harrison article...what a POS.

They need to start ejecting players from the game followed by a 2 or 3 game suspension.

 
Ever watch the AFL? The Australian Football League? No helmets and you can only make tackles from the shoulders to mid thigh. It's still a pretty violent game, but players never get paralyzed or decapitated. Hit another player in the head, take 10 games off. It can be done.

The NFL just doesn't know what to do here. Rodney Harrison said fines never changed his propensity for head hunting in today's USA Today. Game suspensions got his attention though. The NFL is stuck right now... they want to protect players but don't have a good rule set to enforce it. I think it can be done without whimpifying the game.

First, blind side hits like the one Sapp laid on an O lineman and nearly paralyzed the player several years ago can be stopped. Sapp even bragged about it. Sapp was thrilled he hurt that guy. That mentality has to be stopped. Suspend Sapp for the rest of the year using an "intent to injure" rule. Hines Ward on Rivers last year is another clear intent to injure play. Let's be real, and admit Harrison intended to injure yesterday too. The hit Eric Smith put on Boldin last year, intentional or not... suspend him for the year. He led with his helmet and launched.

Now it gets more complicated. Jim Leonard laid out a Denver WR yesterday, but there was NO helmet to helmet contact, yet Leonard got a 15 yard flag. Horrible call. Big hits do not have to be legislated out of the game. These refs, who seem to be getting worse, simply need to make correct calls. They should review these hits before enforcing a penalty, as on Leonard, and eject a Harrison, especially after his clear intent to injure a WR. Yes, judge and jury right there based on replays. In game. Let the NFL sort it out later.

This can be done without ruining the NFL. The NFL just has to have the will to do it. You line a player up, lead with the helmet, ejection on the spot after a review. You lead with a shoulder, no problem.

The REAL problem is that the NFL knows that a % of fans watch to see plays like this, not unlike the NHL who refuses to get rid of fighting over concerns about league revenues. It IS a fixable problem, IF the NFL wants to fix it.

 
The REAL problem is that the NFL knows that a % of fans watch to see plays like this, not unlike the NHL who refuses to get rid of fighting over concerns about league revenues. It IS a fixable problem, IF the NFL wants to fix it.
That's probably part of the problem right there. One interesting thing you see in hockey is that the fighting disappears completely during the playoffs when all the arenas are jam packed and the fans are paying top dollar. Obviously, the fighting is not a prerequisite for winning the stanley cup. So perhaps the same argument can be made againsts "head hunting" in football.
 
Have heard the term "jacked up" several times. Probably doesn't help that Boomer and the boys, have a segment called "jacked up" on the Sunday Morning show. How culpable are they and the producers of the show? I mean, don't football players strive to make THEIR highlights?

Everyone has to take some blame.

 
As a Patriots fan, I was really disturbed by Meriweather's hits on Heap yesterday. He clearly launched himself both times. The first time he missed high (when Heap caught the TD). The second time though, he got Heap with the crown of his helmet. Helmet/Helmet hits do happen during the course of a game -- someone shifts just so and the aim is off. Sure, it's a split second thing. When you see a player leading with his crown like that, there's no way to assume there was anything other than an intent to injure.

I think the player should be sent off the field immediately along with the hefty fines and possible suspensions. Unfortunately, I think Meriweather is thick as a brick and may not be able to learn to lay the hit properly.

 
Vince Wilfork had some interesting things to say on WEEI this morning regarding questions about Brandon Meriweather's helmet-to-helmet against Raven's Heapp. Link ~2-3 minutes audio

 
Ever watch the AFL? The Australian Football League? No helmets and you can only make tackles from the shoulders to mid thigh. It's still a pretty violent game, but players never get paralyzed or decapitated.
Yes, I've seen it. Have not seen a NFL player get decapitated yet either, or paralyzed for that matter, but I've only been watching 15 years. Biggest difference between the sports is the lack of helmets, instead of changing any rules, that would have the greatest impact on decreasing collisions. A helmet does very little to prevent a concussion I would imagine, it's more useful in minimizing the impact of knees to the head or elbows to the face.
 
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.
This actually can be true. Hesitation can lead to more injuries. For example, a RB who dances around in the backfield looking for a hole is leaving himself vulnerable to being tackled from behind when he won't expect it, which is a common cause of knee injuries. On the other hand, Peyton Hillis is always moving forward. He may get hurt, but he won't get hurt from a tackle from behind.
 
The hitting has not changed over the years, the players have. Todays players are so much bigger and so much faster that it come down to basic physics..not dirty hits.

When 250 pound LB that can run a 4.6 forty and is at top speed collides with a 200 pound RB or WR who also is at top speed there is going to be a winner and a loser in that collision.

 
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.
This actually can be true. Hesitation can lead to more injuries. For example, a RB Laurence Maroney who dances around in the backfield looking for a hole is leaving himself vulnerable to being tackled from behind when he won't expect it, which is a common cause of knee injuries. On the other hand, Peyton Hillis is always moving forward. He may get hurt, but he won't get hurt from a tackle from behind.
Corrected. :lmao:
 
The shoulder can dole out ample punishment. Fundamental tackling needs to return. There are no points awarded for blowing somebody up.

I don't like complicated rules that make the game tedious or impair the ability of defensive players to react. At the same time, concussions have horrible long-term consequences, and there is nothing gained from teeing off on a guy.

There will always accidental helmet-to-helmet or otherwise brutal hits. Let's get rid of the intentional ones, and severely punish those who ignore the rules.

Wrap up and make a play. If you want to head hunt, consider the UFC.

 
The shoulder can dole out ample punishment. Fundamental tackling needs to return. There are no points awarded for blowing somebody up.I don't like complicated rules that make the game tedious or impair the ability of defensive players to react. At the same time, concussions have horrible long-term consequences, and there is nothing gained from teeing off on a guy.
Well, Cribbs and DJax both had to leave the game. That certainly helped their opponents.
 
Ever watch the AFL? The Australian Football League? No helmets and you can only make tackles from the shoulders to mid thigh. It's still a pretty violent game, but players never get paralyzed or decapitated.
Yes, I've seen it. Have not seen a NFL player get decapitated yet either, or paralyzed for that matter, but I've only been watching 15 years. Biggest difference between the sports is the lack of helmets, instead of changing any rules, that would have the greatest impact on decreasing collisions. A helmet does very little to prevent a concussion I would imagine, it's more useful in minimizing the impact of knees to the head or elbows to the face.
LOL... ever heard of exageration to make a point? Of course no player has been decapitated. Euphamism. Here is the Harrison article:

PITTSBURGH -- Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison states his objective matter-of-factly: He's out to hurt any opposing player who roams into his vicinity.

If he sees players down on the turf -- as he did Sunday when he sidelined Browns wide receivers Josh Cribbs and Mohamed Massaquoi with concussion-causing hits only minutes apart -- he knows he has done his job.



"If I get fined for that, it's going to be a travesty. They didn't call [a penalty] on that. There's no way I could be fined for that. It was a good, clean legit hit. ... I didn't hit that hard, to be honest with you.



-- James Harrison, speaking about his concussion-causing hits Sunday

"I don't want to injure anybody," Harrison said following Pittsburgh's 28-10 victory. "There's a big difference between being hurt and being injured. You get hurt, you shake it off and come back the next series or the next game. I try to hurt people."

Harrison's reputation as being one of the NFL's nastiest players was enhanced when his leading-with-the-helmet hits on Cribbs and Massaquoi left the Browns with just two healthy wide receivers for more than a half. Neither hit was penalized, although the NFL said Monday it is reviewing the hit on Massaquoi. The league determined the tackle on Cribbs was legal.

Harrison defended his hits after the game.

"If I get fined for that, it's going to be a travesty," Harrison said. "They didn't call [a penalty] on that. There's no way I could be fined for that. It was a good, clean, legit hit. ... I didn't hit that hard, to be honest with you. When you get a guy on the ground, it's a perfect tackle."

Harrison's style of play is raising questions about whether it's possible to stay within the rules, yet also play dirty. While the Browns weren't especially critical of the hits following the game, tight end Benjamin Watson was more outspoken Monday.

"I hope the NFL does the max, whatever the max is, I hope they give it to him," Watson said.

NFL vice president of football operations Ray Anderson told The Associated Press that the league could soon start suspending players for dangerous helmet-to-helmet hits. The NFL is emphasizing a reduction in football concussions, which can lead to dementia and brain disease.

AFC North blog

ESPN.com's James Walker writes about all things AFC North in his division blog.

• Blog network: NFL Nation

The crown of Harrison's helmet slammed into the left side of Cribbs' helmet as the receiver was running a Wildcat formation play, causing Cribbs to crumple face-first into the turf. He appeared to be momentarily knocked out. Because Cribbs was a runner, such helmet-to-helmet contact is permissible.

"I thought Cribbs was asleep," Harrison said. "A hit like that geeks you up, especially when you find out the guy is not really hurt, he's just sleeping. He's knocked out but he's going to be OK."

Harrison struck Massaquoi with his helmet as he rammed his right forearm and shoulder into the receiver to break up a pass. NFL rules now require a defender to give a receiver time to defend himself before he absorbs such a hit.

Steelers coach Mike Tomlin also said it was a legal hit. However, the outside linebacker has drawn fines in the past for his aggressive style of play.

He drew a $5,000 penalty for slamming Tennessee quarterback Vince Young to the turf Sept. 19, a play that also wasn't penalized. Harrison also was fined $5,000 last season for unnecessary roughness following a late hit on Bengals tackle Andrew Whitworth. In 2008, he drew a $20,000 fine for criticizing a roughing-the-passer penalty against him.

The Steelers haven't publicly discouraged Harrison from playing with an edge, believing it enhances their image as one of the NFL's toughest, physical and most intimidating defenses. Following Sunday's game, safety Ryan Clark called Harrison "an animal" and wide receiver Hines Ward termed him "a beast" -- and both were being complimentary.

"You see a guy like that, knocking guys out like that ... he's a man on a mission," Ward said. "He sets the tempo for everybody."

Harrison said he doesn't want to put any player out of a game or jeopardize his career. Still, the former AP NFL Defensive Player of the Year realizes it can be difficult to draw a line between merely hurting a player and badly injuring him as hits are being delivered so quickly, there's no time to consider the consequences.

Tomlin appeared to suggest that younger players looking for a role model to copy for physical play might find him in Harrison, who was chosen as an AFC Pro Bowl starter the past three seasons.

"James is always ready to deliver for his teammates," Tomlin said. "That's why they have so much respect for him. He's a good football player, man. He always delivers timely performances when you need them. Talking to a lot of young players, they want to know the recipe for being a dominant, great player. It's not only delivering plays, but delivering plays at a timely manner -- significant plays. And he does that for the most part."

:lmao: Not surprising Hines Ward likes this kind of play, he's been a dirty player as well, intending to injure. Never heard of paralyzed ex NFL players? Utley, Byrd, Stingley? They are rare examples, but far more ex players are vegtables and suffer from post concussion sydrome, and that is a VERY long list. Chrebet, Toon, Snell, Wesley Walker, there are about 4 more, and those are just ex Jets players.

Rocky Blier is a freakin vegtable. this sport is not boxing. Head injuries can be avoided with some judicious rule changes and solid enforcement. After some crippling injuries, they outlawed the horse collar tackle, and it didn't ruin the game. The same can be done here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
This actually can be true. Hesitation can lead to more injuries. For example, a RB who dances around in the backfield looking for a hole is leaving himself vulnerable to being tackled from behind when he won't expect it, which is a common cause of knee injuries. On the other hand, Peyton Hillis is always moving forward. He may get hurt, but he won't get hurt from a tackle from behind.
While the premise is true, the flaw is equating elimination of cheap shots with not going all out. You can still play at 100% intensity without these type of hits.And, "yes", these hits are glorified on sports center and are the tool of guys trying to make a name for themselves. You can watch almost any game and observe a guy trying to take a piece out of somebody with a hit a little too late, clearly unnecessary. Suspend a few guys are I bet we see better play.I'm all for a physical game, but a clean physical game.
 
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'm all for improving protective equipment. But there is something else that can be done. In today's Monday Night Countdown show, Steve Young made the point that when players go in for the "killer shot" and put their arms in front of them to strike with the forearms first, it's almost impossible for that to result in a helmet-to-helmet hit. It's when players go in to strike with the shoulder near a player's head that you end up getting a lot of H-2-H hits.
 
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?
+1It's appalling that so many posters adopt the mindless stance that it's "IMPOSSIBLE" to prevent needlessly dangerous hit and that there is "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING" that can be done about it without altering the nature of the universe (or of the NFL, at least). Makes me wonder how many of them are sadists who simply enjoy seeing people seriously hurt.

 
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'm all for improving protective equipment. But there is something else that can be done. In today's Monday Night Countdown show, Steve Young made the point that when players go in for the "killer shot" and put their arms in front of them to strike with the forearms first, it's almost impossible for that to result in a helmet-to-helmet hit. It's when players go in to strike with the shoulder near a player's head that you end up getting a lot of H-2-H hits.
A player would get flagged he throws his forearms into his opponent's chest.
 
Mello said:
People all over the world play sports every single day with concussions of varying degrees occurring. Most of the time, they shake it off and go back to what they were doing. In almost all of these cases there are no outward signs of any permanent injury. But the NFL is basically mandating that players cannot return to a game after a concussion now. That's far beyond the rules implemented in what some people here would consider sissy sports. Players should be educated on the symptoms and potential short term and long term risks. If they just got dinged up, can answer a few questions from the staff just fine, and want to go back in the game they should be allowed to. Truth is that there's an extremely high chance that no further injury will occur. To me, not giving players that choice is an overreaction.
So... someone who has just sustained a concussion is supremely qualified to decide if he has only sustained "minor" brain damage and therefore can continue to play?
 
Just give them flags already. Then all the whiners can go hop in their Prius's and get to their Greenpeace meeting already.

 
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.
Especially since he cannot see thru the top of his own helmet.
Because he is throwing his shoulder into the tackle at waist level. Textbook.
 
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.
This actually can be true. Hesitation can lead to more injuries. For example, a RB who dances around in the backfield looking for a hole is leaving himself vulnerable to being tackled from behind when he won't expect it, which is a common cause of knee injuries. On the other hand, Peyton Hillis is always moving forward. He may get hurt, but he won't get hurt from a tackle from behind.
Though there is some truth to what you are saying, it is NOT true that injuries ONLY happen when you don't go all out (as some people foolishly claim). They CAN happen even when you go all out.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top