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

[Choke]

I bolded the RED text for NinerFan49.

The hit that Steelers linebacker James Harrison put on Cleveland wide receiver Mohamed Massaquoi Sunday is being reviewed by NFL officials to determine if it were illegal and if so what punishment the league would issue.

Harrison's earlier hit that knocked Joshua Cribbs from the game in the second quarter of the Steelers' 28-10 victory in Heinz Field was determined to be legal, according to an NFL spokesman.

"The first hit (on Cribbs, who was a runner) was legal," Greg Aiello told the Post-Gazette in an email this afternoon. "The second will be reviewed."

Neither of Harrison's hits that knocked Browns Joshua Cribbs and Mohamed Massaquoi from the game for good drew a penalty, at least not on Sunday. But those two were among a handful of vicious hits to the head around the NFL Sunday that have drawn the attention from the league office and ultimately could draw punishment including a fine and/or suspension.

Ray Anderson, the league's vice president of football operations whose office doles out such punishment, reacted swiftly to the head hits on Monday.

"There's strong testimonial for looking readily at evaluating discipline, especially in the areas of egregious and elevated dangerous hits," he told the Associated Press.

"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."

The first of Harrison's hits did not come in question, even though his helmet hit Cribbs' helmet on a running play. It seemed unavoidable, two players flying through the air with no apparent intent by Harrison to lower his helmet into Cribbs' helmet. The rules allow for such an inadvertent hit.

The second hit by Harrison is the one that has come into question. Harrison hit Massaquoi high, not necessarily helmet to helmet, but it does not need to be a collision of helmets to be ruled illegal.

In the past -- such as Ryan Clark's big hit on receiver Wes Welker a few years ago in New England -- the hit clearly would have been legal. But the new rule, changed at the NFL meetings in March, now says that a defender must give the receiver time to protect himself after catching the ball before he is hit high. Did Harrison do that?

Mike Tomlin was quick to note Sunday that they were "Legal hits, not fineable hits. He played good football." Unfortunately for Harrison and the Steelers, Tomlin is not the final judge on such things. The NFL will let him know their ruling, usually no later than Wednesday.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10291/10962...m#ixzz12nEHPWOH

In neither of those hits did Harrison go "high".

He actually squats down to deliver the blow.

In both cases the other player drops his head to a lower position right before the contact.

In the one still in question, MM drops his head down because he dropped the ball. Otherwise he wouldnt have even been hit high at all.

 

[Bojang0301]

There is no rhyme nor reason to ##### Goodell's NFL. The league keeps getting worse and worse under him. Wouldn't surprise me if he lead the league to a strike as well.

 

[knowledge dropper]

Hockey has enforcers, baseball has the brush back pitch, perhaps football should allow the crackback and chop blocks back into the offensive arsenal?

 

[Choke]

Pretty sure Mike Golic has read this thread.

 

[delusional]

There's definitely been a severe increase in concussion injuries this season. Is it because they're more or less being forced to report them now?

I would imagine that is a good reason.

 

[delusional]

There is no rhyme nor reason to ##### Goodell's NFL. The league keeps getting worse and worse under him. Wouldn't surprise me if he lead the league to a strike as well.

I agree sadly. The guy really needs to stop carrying his soap box around & acting like he is above the law so to say.Going to be interesting to see who gets suspended in week 7 games and how many of those are questionable decisions

 

[Choke]

There's definitely been a severe increase in concussion injuries this season. Is it because they're more or less being forced to report them now?

I would imagine that is a good reason.

On another note... I see lots of players NOT wearing mouth pieces.There have been plenty of studies showing the correlation of it being a solid deterrent to concussions.

Its mandatory in all boxing and martial arts, as well as most every level of high school.

Maybe they should consider being very strict and demanding in this regard.

Even for the quarterback, which would hinder cadence calls but they have plenty of other rules to their advantage.

 

[belljr]

They said on ESPN last night, that one coach/former player are not forced to play in the NFL and the players know big hits are part of the game, if they feel they don't want to possibly be hit like that, then don't play the game. They also said head shots should not be in the game.

I don't think people have an issue with head shots resulting in suspenions, we can agree on that, but the vagueness of devastating hits is asking for trouble. For example, now on the peel back blocks that WR's use, they changed those rules to try to limit injury, are they going to be completely banned now? Thye are pretty devastating...

 

[NinerFan49]

I bolded the RED text for NinerFan49.

blah blah

In neither of those hits did Harrison go "high".

He actually squats down to deliver the blow.

In both cases the other player drops his head to a lower position right before the contact.

In the one still in question, MM drops his head down because he dropped the ball. Otherwise he wouldnt have even been hit high at all.

1. As I said, I was commenting on two images that you posted (in post #148), assuming that you posted them in chronological order... and I asked "Is leading with the helmet when striking another player legal?" This is the first of those images: http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9316/shoulder2.png

It still looks to me as if he led with the helmet there. I've also watched that replay on TV at least 10 times and it looks to me as if Harrison struck Cribbs with his shoulder and helmet almost at the same time. But if NFL officials watched that play in slow motion and determined it wasn't illegal, I'll defer to their judgement.

2. Your desire to find Harrison innocent of doing any wrongdoing may yet prove to be misguided. The text you quoted clearly states:

"The second hit by Harrison is the one that has come into question. Harrison hit Massaquoi high, not necessarily helmet to helmet, but it does not need to be a collision of helmets to be ruled illegal.

In the past -- such as Ryan Clark's big hit on receiver Wes Welker a few years ago in New England -- the hit clearly would have been legal. But the new rule, changed at the NFL meetings in March, now says that a defender must give the receiver time to protect himself after catching the ball before he is hit high. Did Harrison do that?"

3. Your claim that hitting with the helmet is only illegal when it is done with the crown of the helmet is still wrong.

4. The minutiae is still less important than the greater point: Something needs to be done to decrease violent hits on players' heads, something that you seem to be vehemently opposed to. Why?

 

[Class Dismissed]

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9316/shoulder2.png

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/5451/shoudler1.png

Looks clean to me. That's football. Most NFL players agree. Head contact happens. That's why they wear helmets in the first place.

Is leading with the helmet when striking another player legal?

in most cases yes, otherwise over half of all ball carriers would be flagged.

Every player involved with that play is leading with the helmet, on both teams.

 

[The Comedian]

Newsflash: Steelers are dirty, cheap players lead by a loser who is lucky not to be in jail or wrapped around a telephone pole right now. Not really surprised.

 

[Choke]

I bolded the RED text for NinerFan49.

blah blah

In neither of those hits did Harrison go "high".

He actually squats down to deliver the blow.

In both cases the other player drops his head to a lower position right before the contact.

In the one still in question, MM drops his head down because he dropped the ball. Otherwise he wouldnt have even been hit high at all.

1. As I said, I was commenting on two images that you posted (in post #148), assuming that you posted them in chronological order... and I asked "Is leading with the helmet when striking another player legal?" This is the first of those images: http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9316/shoulder2.png

It still looks to me as if he led with the helmet there. I've also watched that replay on TV at least 10 times and it looks to me as if Harrison struck Cribbs with his shoulder and helmet almost at the same time. But if NFL officials watched that play in slow motion and determined it wasn't illegal, I'll defer to their judgement.

2. Your desire to find Harrison innocent of doing any wrongdoing may yet prove to be misguided. The text you quoted clearly states:

"The second hit by Harrison is the one that has come into question. Harrison hit Massaquoi high, not necessarily helmet to helmet, but it does not need to be a collision of helmets to be ruled illegal.

In the past -- such as Ryan Clark's big hit on receiver Wes Welker a few years ago in New England -- the hit clearly would have been legal. But the new rule, changed at the NFL meetings in March, now says that a defender must give the receiver time to protect himself after catching the ball before he is hit high. Did Harrison do that?"

3. Your claim that hitting with the helmet is only illegal when it is done with the crown of the helmet is still wrong.

4. The minutiae is still less important than the greater point: Something needs to be done to decrease violent hits on players' heads, something that you seem to be vehemently opposed to. Why?

The NFL has already stated the hit was legal. Inadvertant contact helmet-to-helmet on a ball carrier is fine.Which is what I had stated all along.

You posted rules and misinterpreted them.

My claim is if the helmet isnt "used" to hit someone, as stated in the rules, its ok. Inadvertant is allowable.

He was given time to catch the ball... the problem was he dropped it and then ducked into the tackler.

 

[NinerFan49]

The rules states that if you lead with the helmet when making a hit, it's spearing and it's illegal, as it should be. And, yes, *intentionally* leading with the helmet when making a hit is dirty.

What about when you lead whith your SHOULDER and have the helmet make contact initially?The refs dont throw a penalty... because its not a penaly. He did NOT lead with the "CROWN OF HIS HELMET" (i.e. spearing) as the rule states.

You are missinterpeting the rule.

If there is any FINE its going to be for HITTING TOO HARD. Nancy Football League. You may continue to espouse it all you want.

This is what you posted in post #171. According to you, "the rule states" that hitting with the helmet is only illegal when it is done with the "CROWN OF HIS HELMET." But, according to nfl.com's summary of NFL rules, hitting with the helmet is illegal even if it doesn't involve the crown of the helmet:

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/penaltysummaries

(A 15-yard penalty shall be assessed for

A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent.

Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.

 

[Choke]

4. The minutiae is still less important than the greater point: Something needs to be done to decrease violent hits on players' heads, something that you seem to be vehemently opposed to. Why?

The offensive players must assume some responsibility too. They play at 100% effort also. In the case of the Merriweather hit... thats guy should be suspended. Even he admitted that hits like that shouldnt happen.

Robinson and Harrison arent alone in the other injuries (though I will admit that James Harrison is a badmofo and delivers an incredible amount of force in his hits (possibly more then any player ever in the history of the NFL, he did set the combine record for bench press], and thus should be kicked out of football for other players safety) as the QBs and Players themselves are also part of the equation.

 

[Choke]

The rules states that if you lead with the helmet when making a hit, it's spearing and it's illegal, as it should be. And, yes, *intentionally* leading with the helmet when making a hit is dirty.<=== he didnt do this. This did NOT happen.

What about when you lead whith your SHOULDER and have the helmet make contact initially?The refs dont throw a penalty... because its not a penaly. He did NOT lead with the "CROWN OF HIS HELMET" (i.e. spearing) as the rule states.

You are missinterpeting the rule.

If there is any FINE its going to be for HITTING TOO HARD. Nancy Football League. You may continue to espouse it all you want.

This is what you posted in post #171. According to you, "the rule states" that a player can only be found guilty spearing when he leads with the "CROWN OF HIS HELMET." But, according to nfl.com's summary of NFL rules, hitting with the helmet is illegal even if it doesn't involve the crown of the helmet:

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/penaltysummaries

(A 15-yard penalty shall be assessed for

A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent.

Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.

I was talking about that specific play.If you dont USE your helmet (crown/spear included) you are okay. Inadvertant helmet-to-helmet is allowable. He didnt lead with it or use it.

*and you are grasping at straws here. you got curbstomped in this discussion.

 

[Class Dismissed]

This season games are averaging 68 passes. The most in history. Why? Everyone is protected. The defense can't do part of their job effectively anymore.

Yes, and that is why so few people watch the NFL nowadays.

Yep, selling out for casual fans, yourself included. btw, game attendance is dropping.. know why? The game is becoming trendy and casual fans don't go to the stadium. They go to sports bars.

1. Right. It is a shame that that NFL is "selling out to the casual fans." They should cater only to the "true fans" who enjoy seeing people sustain brain damage.2. Right. The recession and outrageously high ticket and concession prices have had absolutely no effect on game attendance. It's only the "trendiness" of the NFL that has resulted in lower attendance.3. You are aware that the NFL is more popular than it has ever been. Right?

History is replete with businesses who made bad decisions while on top, that resulted in their downfall.Walmart at the top of their game decided to be more like Target, changed the logo to look like Target, took high volume merchandise out of action alley for an uncluttered store look, and reduced selection and raised prices to be more like Dollar Stores, the result was 5 successive quarters of negative growth trends. Starbucks has been hurt by the economy, or so they say, they fail to realize that you can no longer walk into a Starbucks and get a cup of the House Blend. Think about that, the blend that made them famous was tossed aside for the Pikes Place blend which marketing people told them would attract more of the customers who wont drink Starbucks because it tastes burnt.In both cases a successful business made decisions that alienated the their core customer for the pursuit of an elusive one, and in both cases they lost customers because of it.The NFL is not immune to falling popularity, just like MLB, or NASCAR, it can happen

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Trent Dilfer made a good point. If you see a WR running across a zone to catch a pass, and now you can't blow him up to break up a pass, what can you do? Go low? Hit his legs? Now you have knee injuries. The problem of injuries will not go away.

You try to "blow him up" by striking with to an area that is not dangerously close to his head. Or his knees. That leaves plenty of areas to aim for.

And what happens if/ when the WR changes his level??? I can aim for the waist all I want but if the WR chooses to go down and I hit him in the head, then what????

 

[NinerFan49]

The rules states that if you lead with the helmet when making a hit, it's spearing and it's illegal, as it should be. And, yes, *intentionally* leading with the helmet when making a hit is dirty.

What about when you lead whith your SHOULDER and have the helmet make contact initially?The refs dont throw a penalty... because its not a penaly. He did NOT lead with the "CROWN OF HIS HELMET" (i.e. spearing) as the rule states.

You are missinterpeting the rule.

If there is any FINE its going to be for HITTING TOO HARD. Nancy Football League. You may continue to espouse it all you want.

This is what you posted in post #171. According to you, "the rule states" that a player can only be found guilty spearing when he leads with the "CROWN OF HIS HELMET." But, according to nfl.com's summary of NFL rules, hitting with the helmet is illegal even if it doesn't involve the crown of the helmet:

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/penaltysummaries

(A 15-yard penalty shall be assessed for

A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent.

Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.

I was talking about that specific play.If you dont USE your helmet (crown/spear included) you are okay. Inadvertant helmet-to-helmet is allowable. He didnt lead with it or use it.

*and you are grasping at straws here. you got curbstomped in this discussion.

Blather all you want. But you claimed that hitting with the helmet was only illegal when it involved the "CROWN OF THE HEAD," and you were completely wrong about that.But that's ok. The greater point remains that those of us who said the NFL needed to do more to prevent violent hits on the head were vindicated by the passage of new rules to prevent "devastating hits" to the head... And posters like you who vehemently insisted that no such problem existed were proven wrong.

 

[CaptainHook]

you have to give the WR time to catch the ball....what... i wonder if we just saw the death of the zone defense.

 

[Choke]

The rules states that if you lead with the helmet when making a hit, it's spearing and it's illegal, as it should be. And, yes, *intentionally* leading with the helmet when making a hit is dirty.

What about when you lead whith your SHOULDER and have the helmet make contact initially?The refs dont throw a penalty... because its not a penaly. He did NOT lead with the "CROWN OF HIS HELMET" (i.e. spearing) as the rule states.

You are missinterpeting the rule.

If there is any FINE its going to be for HITTING TOO HARD. Nancy Football League. You may continue to espouse it all you want.

This is what you posted in post #171. According to you, "the rule states" that a player can only be found guilty spearing when he leads with the "CROWN OF HIS HELMET." But, according to nfl.com's summary of NFL rules, hitting with the helmet is illegal even if it doesn't involve the crown of the helmet:

http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/penaltysummaries

(A 15-yard penalty shall be assessed for

A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent.

Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.

I was talking about that specific play.If you dont USE your helmet (crown/spear included) you are okay. Inadvertant helmet-to-helmet is allowable. He didnt lead with it or use it.

*and you are grasping at straws here. you got curbstomped in this discussion.

Blather all you want. But you claimed that hitting with the helmet was only illegal when it involved the "CROWN OF THE HEAD," and you were completely wrong about that.But that's ok. The greater point remains that those of us who said the NFL needed to do more to prevent violent hits on the head were vindicated by the passage of new rules to prevent "devastating hits" to the head... And posters like you who vehemently insisted that no such problem existed were proven wrong.

I never said ONLY. Never.You are making stuff up now.

Cant you comprehend that when I use laymen terms such as He did NOT lead with the "CROWN OF HIS HELMET" that is what the rulebook calls use or using? Im not staring at a rulebook for verbatim quotes.

You cant get that? you cant understand or comprehend that?

Your entire debate is now down to arguing that minute detail?

You are a joke.

 

[NinerFan49]

Trent Dilfer made a good point. If you see a WR running across a zone to catch a pass, and now you can't blow him up to break up a pass, what can you do? Go low? Hit his legs? Now you have knee injuries. The problem of injuries will not go away.

You try to "blow him up" by striking with to an area that is not dangerously close to his head. Or his knees. That leaves plenty of areas to aim for.

And what happens if/ when the WR changes his level??? I can aim for the waist all I want but if the WR chooses to go down and I hit him in the head, then what????

If it's clear that the tackler did not aim for an area near the player's head, he shouldn't be penalized. It looked to me as if D. Robinson did aim for an area near L. Jackson's head... so under the new rules, he would have been penalized.

 

[Football Critic]

Wow, thought I would see more men in here, but guess I was wrong.....

Its football, you don't want to get laid out coming across the middle, don't play football.

Leading with Helmet, suspension and fine, absolutley.

Devastating hits, I watch for them, so do others....you give people like D. Robinson even a penalty.....I'll watch "Desperate Housewives", since rumor has it, there is more physicallity on it.

This is down right pathetic that this is even discussed.

Why not just use flags?

 

[CaptainHook]

Also paging andy reid please stop having ur 170 pound speedster run short crossing routes

 

[NinerFan49]

I never said ONLY. Never.

You are making stuff up now.

Cant you comprehend that when i use laymen terms such as He did NOT lead with the "CROWN OF HIS HELMET" that is what the rulebook calls use or using?

You cant get that? you cant understand or comprehend that?

Your entire debate is now down to arguing that minute detail?

You are a joke.

You can lie all you want... And fling all the insults you want... All you have done is prove that trying to reason with you is a waste of time so I'm going to ignore you from now on.

 

[Choke]

I never said ONLY. Never.

You are making stuff up now.

Cant you comprehend that when i use laymen terms such as He did NOT lead with the "CROWN OF HIS HELMET" that is what the rulebook calls use or using?

You cant get that? you cant understand or comprehend that?

Your entire debate is now down to arguing that minute detail?

You are a joke.

You can lie all you want... And fling all the insults you want... All you have done is prove that trying to reason with you is a waste of time so I'm going to ignore you from now on.

Lie?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Trent Dilfer made a good point. If you see a WR running across a zone to catch a pass, and now you can't blow him up to break up a pass, what can you do? Go low? Hit his legs? Now you have knee injuries. The problem of injuries will not go away.

You try to "blow him up" by striking with to an area that is not dangerously close to his head. Or his knees. That leaves plenty of areas to aim for.

And what happens if/ when the WR changes his level??? I can aim for the waist all I want but if the WR chooses to go down and I hit him in the head, then what????

If it's clear that the tackler did not aim for an area near the player's head, he shouldn't be penalized. It looked to me as if D. Robinson did aim for an area near L. Jackson's head... so under the new rules, he would have been penalized.

Now all you have to do is sell my on how an official is going to make that call during game speed- where he THINKS a defender is aiming. I'm meaning toward the side of those who are stating this is going to kill defenses even more. You can't touch the WR's for 5 yards, or hit them hard accross the middle. Imagine a guy with Jackson's speed knowing this and working the underneath. There's a reason passing is at an all-time high and this without question will aid that. You're now going to see a lot of penalties then reviews of hits that determine nothing was wrong IMO

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Also paging andy reid please stop having ur 170 pound speedster run short crossing routes

Now he won't have to worry about that. Now one if the biggest playmakers in the league can work the underneath without any true harm.

 

[NinerFan49]

Trent Dilfer made a good point. If you see a WR running across a zone to catch a pass, and now you can't blow him up to break up a pass, what can you do? Go low? Hit his legs? Now you have knee injuries. The problem of injuries will not go away.

You try to "blow him up" by striking with to an area that is not dangerously close to his head. Or his knees. That leaves plenty of areas to aim for.

And what happens if/ when the WR changes his level??? I can aim for the waist all I want but if the WR chooses to go down and I hit him in the head, then what????

If it's clear that the tackler did not aim for an area near the player's head, he shouldn't be penalized. It looked to me as if D. Robinson did aim for an area near L. Jackson's head... so under the new rules, he would have been penalized.

Now all you have to do is sell my on how an official is going to make that call during game speed- where he THINKS a defender is aiming. I'm meaning toward the side of those who are stating this is going to kill defenses even more. You can't touch the WR's for 5 yards, or hit them hard accross the middle. Imagine a guy with Jackson's speed knowing this and working the underneath. There's a reason passing is at an all-time high and this without question will aid that. You're now going to see a lot of penalties then reviews of hits that determine nothing was wrong IMO

1. Yes, that determination (deciding where a tackler was aiming to hit) may prove to be difficult. But it doesn't have to be determined on the spot. That call can be made later, after officials watch the film of the play in slow motion.2. Once players realize that they will be suspended if they launch themselves at an area close to a ball carrier's head, that should act as a deterrent and lower the incidence of "devastating hits" to the head. Which is a very good thing.3. Yes, the new rules will probably hurt the defense and help the offense. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. Fans would rather see high scoring games than low scoring ones. 4. I think this is very similar to when the NFL outlawed clotheslining. It made the game better... except for those people who enjoyed seeing people clotheslined.

 

[Godsbrother]

Newsflash: Steelers are dirty, cheap players lead by a loser who is lucky not to be in jail or wrapped around a telephone pole right now. Not really surprised.

So now this is only about the Steelers? Both of Harrison's hits involved the player with the ball so they were in clear view of multiple officials, yet no flags were thrown. If the hits were as cheap and dirty as you say they would have drawn penalties by the people who were closest to the action. People are reading too much into what Harrison's comments. If you are upset and offended by such talk then I have no idea why you even watch football.Here are some similar quotes made by other "POS" football players:"I wouldn't ever set out to hurt anyone deliberately unless it was, you know, important - like a league game or something."-- **** Butkus "I'm a Baptist, but I'm also a quarterback killer, and I ain't praying with you. But I will give you 30 seconds to ask your Lord and master to keep me from killing you." -- "Deacon" Jones "A linebacker's job is to knock out running backs, to knock out receivers and to chase the football," -- Ray Lewis“Make sure when anyone tackles you he remembers how much it hurts.” -- Jim Brown I have no problem with suspending a player for actions after the whistle blows but it is tough to judge intent during a play, especially with the game as fast as it is. When you start suspending players for their actions during a play then you better be darn sure about it. Unfortunately we have seen multiple cases where the NFL doesn't seem to be very consistent when they hand out suspensions.I am not sure why all of a sudden this is such a news story. If it is such a pressing issue then why wasn't anyone here complaining about it last week, last month, last year???? We even had one guy say that he won't watch football with his daughter anymore -- you have got to be kidding me! You people kill me

 

[Addai's Adidas]

What if they had a "srtike" zone on defenseless WR's between the shoulders and knees?

 

[Stillers Jr.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTs0SRwDmOs...player_embedded

Once again a complete S-Storm the media whips up...

Do you guys realize these types of hits happen multiple times EVERY game? Do you watch football?

Check out the video above, towards the end Mendenhall gets a crown of a helmet directly to his chin. Because he's not as fragile as Cribbs and Massoquoi, he continues playing. And since there's no "sizzle" the media doesn't show you that hit. And b/c the media hasn't shown you, a lot of you can't formulate your own opinions without the 15 second snippet and 3 inch headline...no offense, but it's like that with a lot of things.



So I ask you, are you condemning the act or the result?

If it's the act, then be prepared for 5-6 people a game getting suspended.

If it's the result then I want all players on my team to be 185 lbs and not wearing a mouthpiece.

And to those that think this type of thing is new to the NFL, you're either 13 years old or just don't watch a lot of the game. It's been part of the NFL from the beginning.

PS - Oh and I demand the NFL cease and desist the use of "Big Hits" to promote the league. It's pathetic and as full of Hypocrisy as Rodney ****** Harrison.

 

[ScottyFargo]

POUTING

That could be your new log in name.Evryone has seen you troll post after post after post.

I have been against these types of plays for years, c'mon. I seriously believe that the only reason many in here are pro-blind side helmet to helmet hits is because they also happen to be fans of the Steelers, who've employed these tactics for years via the play of Harrison, Polamalu, and Hines Ward. You've been indoctrinated to believe this style of play, that causes injuries, is not only acceptable, but is good play. That's wrong, Hines Ward attitude last year was wrong, James Harrison's attitude this year is wrong, and it's clear that the NFL agrees that there should not be a day where FIVE different players get concussed from Helmet to Helmets. If a player held up Mendenhall and he got blindsided and "put to sleep" I am certain you and the other Steeler fans would be screaming for blood.

 

[Choke]

Senior VP of Football Operation Ray Anderson was just live on Mike & Mike... and he stated...

"I dont know wher the the term "DEVASTATING HITS" came from, but those are not my words."

He went on to say that deliberate shots to the head and neck of defensless players is the point of emphasis. Think: Merriweather on Heap.

 

[CaptainHook]

If a player held up Mendenhall and he got blindsided and "put to sleep" I am certain you and the other Steeler fans would be screaming for blood.

no..they wouldnt. and the nfl already said that play was perfectly legitimate, so im not sure where youre going with this other than being wrong and unreasonable and having a strong opinion anyway aka a woman.

you guys are completely overestimating how much control these defenders have. they are operating on such thin margins of error that there is no way they are actually headhunting. some inadvertent helmet to helmet contact is going to happen in this game and theres nothing you can do about it unless you want to redesign the whole sport.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Senior VP of Football Operation Ray Anderson was just live on Mike & Mike... and he stated...

"I dont know wher the the term "DEVASTATING HITS" came from, but those are not my words."

He went on to say that deliberate shots to the head and neck of defensless players is the point of emphasis. Think: Merriweather on Heap.

Cribbs was teed up for Harrison and he took an unnecessary hit that knocked out Cribbs. He's part of that "deliberate shot to the head and neck of defenseless players" in spite of the fact that he was a ball carrier and green lit for contact. He was still defenseless, literally, no matter what the rules say. I am positive that Harrison's play is also being considered under that terminology. Understanding that ball carriers will take hits doesn't mean that every hit against them is necessary, or that they're always able to defend themselves.

 

[Choke]

I cannot wait for all the FLOPPING and fake injuries to get suspension handed out. You think WRs are divas now? You aint seen nothing yet.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I cannot wait for all the FLOPPING and fake injuries to get suspension handed out. You think WRs are divas now? You aint seen nothing yet.

There does need to be a counter for this, I agree. If a player flops and pretends to be "put to sleep" (aka knocked out through a concussion) the MRI would show evidence of the concussion. If it's determined he didn't have one at all, and was acting, there needs to be punishment for that, as well.

 

[Choke]

Senior VP of Football Operation Ray Anderson was just live on Mike & Mike... and he stated...

"I dont know wher the the term "DEVASTATING HITS" came from, but those are not my words."

He went on to say that deliberate shots to the head and neck of defensless players is the point of emphasis. Think: Merriweather on Heap.

Cribbs was teed up for Harrison and he took an unnecessary hit that knocked out Cribbs. He's part of that "deliberate shot to the head and neck of defenseless players" in spite of the fact that he was a ball carrier and green lit for contact. He was still defenseless, literally, no matter what the rules say. I am positive that Harrison's play is also being considered under that terminology. Understanding that ball carriers will take hits doesn't mean that every hit against them is necessary, or that they're always able to defend themselves.

Ray Anderson (VP NFL Football Operations) just called that play flatly legal. That ballcarriers are naturally going to be subjected to hits that include the helmet.

RBs drop their helmets into defenders and deliver blows as well.

btw: Cribbs had both his arms free and was leaning head first. He could have gone down, he was fighting for more yards. He wasnt defensless.

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9316/shoulder2.png

 

[CaptainHook]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D65TCM3QhrQ

is this a penalty from now on also

 

[ScottyFargo]

Cribbs was teed up for Harrison and he took an unnecessary hit that knocked out Cribbs. He's part of that "deliberate shot to the head and neck of defenseless players" in spite of the fact that he was a ball carrier and green lit for contact. He was still defenseless, literally, no matter what the rules say. I am positive that Harrison's play is also being considered under that terminology. Understanding that ball carriers will take hits doesn't mean that every hit against them is necessary, or that they're always able to defend themselves.

Ray Anderson (VP NFL Football Operations) just called that play flatly legal. That ballcarriers are naturally going to be subjected to hits that include the helmet.RBs drop their helmets into defenders and deliver blows as well.

That's what the letter of the rule says. I still believe that his injury was preventable and that type of tackle was unnecessary, but I'll be looking forward to reading more of what Anderson has to say about this. Thanks.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

I've watched the Harrison hits several times and I don't see the outrage over what he did. It's not nearly as bad as some people are making it out to be.

 

[Choke]

Cribbs was teed up for Harrison and he took an unnecessary hit that knocked out Cribbs. He's part of that "deliberate shot to the head and neck of defenseless players" in spite of the fact that he was a ball carrier and green lit for contact. He was still defenseless, literally, no matter what the rules say. I am positive that Harrison's play is also being considered under that terminology. Understanding that ball carriers will take hits doesn't mean that every hit against them is necessary, or that they're always able to defend themselves.

Ray Anderson (VP NFL Football Operations) just called that play flatly legal. That ballcarriers are naturally going to be subjected to hits that include the helmet.RBs drop their helmets into defenders and deliver blows as well.

That's what the letter of the rule says. I still believe that his injury was preventable and that type of tackle was unnecessary, but I'll be looking forward to reading more of what Anderson has to say about this. Thanks.

Sure its preventable. No hitting. No tackling. Problem solved.

 

[CaptainHook]

which player do you call the penalties on in these head to head collisions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLS6M2-mh0M...feature=related

edit i guess i should ask which one should you suspend

 

[ScottyFargo]

which player do you call the penalties on in these head to head collisions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLS6M2-mh0M...feature=related

edit i guess i should ask which one should you suspend

Certainly not Adrian Peterson because those hits get me geeked upThis one's appropriate given the Vikings opponent this week

 

[Workhorse]

I've watched the Harrison hits several times and I don't see the outrage over what he did. It's not nearly as bad as some people are making it out to be.

Honestly, out of all of the brutal hits this past weekend, IMO only the Merriweather hit deserves a suspension.

 

[ScottyFargo]

That's what the letter of the rule says. I still believe that his injury was preventable and that type of tackle was unnecessary, but I'll be looking forward to reading more of what Anderson has to say about this. Thanks.

Sure its preventable. No hitting. No tackling. Problem solved.

Preventable by changing the culture and going back toward actually tackling ball carriers, especially after they've already been wrapped up. V.P. Anderson:

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

That's a great move.

 

[NinerFan49]

POUTING

That could be your new log in name.Evryone has seen you troll post after post after post.

I have been against these types of plays for years, c'mon. I seriously believe that the only reason many in here are pro-blind side helmet to helmet hits is because they also happen to be fans of the Steelers, who've employed these tactics for years via the play of Harrison, Polamalu, and Hines Ward. You've been indoctrinated to believe this style of play, that causes injuries, is not only acceptable, but is good play. That's wrong, Hines Ward attitude last year was wrong, James Harrison's attitude this year is wrong, and it's clear that the NFL agrees that there should not be a day where FIVE different players get concussed from Helmet to Helmets. If a player held up Mendenhall and he got blindsided and "put to sleep" I am certain you and the other Steeler fans would be screaming for blood.

I don't know enough about the Steelers to comment on whether they're much dirtier than the average team or not. But I do think you're right that all those concussions sustained by players on Sunday illustrate that there is a serious problem... And comments like those made by James Harrison ("You don't want to injure people. I don't want to injure anybody," ... "But I'm not opposed to hurting anybody.") show that too many NFL players think it's not enough to tackle somebody, they want to hurt them...And, to be honest, I enjoy seeing "big hits" on players as much as most NFL fans do... but when those "big hits" are aimed too close to the head, the potential for brain damage is too great... The game got better, not worse, when clotheslining was made illegal... And the game will be made better by rules that punish "devastating hits" to players' heads.

 

[Johnny Ice]

Senior VP of Football Operation Ray Anderson was just live on Mike & Mike... and he stated...

"I dont know wher the the term "DEVASTATING HITS" came from, but those are not my words."

He went on to say that deliberate shots to the head and neck of defensless players is the point of emphasis. Think: Merriweather on Heap.

He also said the Robinson hit would have resulted in a suspension too which is nuts. I wish they would have asked him what else is he supposed to do to separate Jackson from the ball? Maybe a cross body block like the WWE I guess.

 

[ScottyFargo]

Senior VP of Football Operation Ray Anderson was just live on Mike & Mike... and he stated...

"I dont know wher the the term "DEVASTATING HITS" came from, but those are not my words."

He went on to say that deliberate shots to the head and neck of defensless players is the point of emphasis. Think: Merriweather on Heap.

He also said the Robinson hit would have resulted in a suspension too which is nuts. I wish they would have asked him what else is he supposed to do to separate Jackson from the ball? Maybe a cross body block like the WWE I guess.

Play the ball, maybe?

 

[Godsbrother]

If they were really worried about receivers getting hurt they would allow the bump-and-run pass defense again. Then guys like Deshean Jackson wouldn't be running free 100 miles an hour. Of course that would reduce the scoring and we know the NFL won't go for that.