PDA

View Full Version : NFL to start suspending players for violent hits


Wolf
10-18-2010, 04:09 PM
NEW YORK (AP)—Aiming for the head or leading with the helmet to deliver a blow could soon cost NFL players game time as well as money.

The league is considering suspending players for illegal hits in an effort to help prevent serious injuries, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson told The Associated Press on Monday, one day after several scary collisions in games.

“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.”



http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-helmet-to-helmethits

Double Barrel
10-18-2010, 04:34 PM
Perhaps it's also time to stop referring to football games as "war". The simple fact is that in war you purposefully try to hurt people. But not so much in games, because that would be unsportsmanlike.

I think the only way players take this rule seriously is if there is the potential of suspensions.

infantrycak
10-18-2010, 04:36 PM
I think the only way players take this rule seriously is if there is the potential of suspensions.

Spoke volumes that Rodney Harrison said exactly that.

Texecutioner
10-18-2010, 04:37 PM
Shoot, than we might as well plan on not having Pollard out there soon. That guy is a violent hitting machine every week.

gtexan02
10-18-2010, 04:41 PM
Shoot, than we might as well plan on not having Pollard out there soon. That guy is a violent hitting machine every week.

They are only suspending people for making violent, helmet to helmet collisions. I have never seen Pollard lead with his helmet. He knows how to tackle the safe way

Stemp
10-18-2010, 04:54 PM
They are only suspending people for making violent, helmet to helmet collisions. I have never seen Pollard lead with his helmet. He knows how to tackle the safe way

"Pay Me Rick" gave himself a concussion with his helmet to helmet hit.

gary
10-18-2010, 11:09 PM
I just heard about it per ESPN.

Ryan
10-18-2010, 11:15 PM
the No Fun League strikes again.

I was watching ESPN a few minutes ago, and apparently Stuart Scott spoke to this head coach(i drifted off for a sec and didnt catch the name) about saying how the NFL isn't something people are sentenced to do and big hits are a part of the game, and if you don't like it, you don't have to play. Goodell and Co. need to stop playing big brother and let the people play football.

I fully can understand how shots to the head can be taken out, but now they are suspending people for "devastating hits". What is the defined rule of a "devastating hit"? This is gonna make even more hell on the refs and cause even more controversy.

The more i think about it, the more i think a lockout in 2011 isn't a bad idea.

gary
10-18-2010, 11:17 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5699517

Texan_Bill
10-18-2010, 11:19 PM
:facepalm:

Bulluck53
10-18-2010, 11:21 PM
I'm a fan of adding the rule against head shots, but I don't know where a "devastating hit" begins.

gary
10-18-2010, 11:23 PM
I'm a fan of adding the rule against head shots, but I don't know where a "devastating hit" begins.
I don't either.

Ryan
10-18-2010, 11:26 PM
So pretty much, should we just cut Pollard now? With the way the No Fun League is going, he'll have a lifetime suspension for playing the game with intensity.

Maybe i should be on the "wait and see" boat, but i don't know how this will benefit the league except for bumping up tv time for referees.

Dutchrudder
10-18-2010, 11:32 PM
I'm a fan of adding the rule against head shots, but I don't know where a "devastating hit" begins.

That's the point. Little by little the commish is making his role more important and powerful. Like the federal govt and homeland security, they just accrue power in little steps.

Goatcheese
10-19-2010, 02:40 AM
Some hits are more devastating than others. I mean if you hit Andre Johnson like Robinson hit Jackson he's going to pop up, pound his chest and say "thanks you sir. May I have another?"

On the other hand if you sneeze in Tom Lady's direction he's going to suffer a concussion and be out for 3 weeks.

http://blogs.baltimoreravens.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/band-aid.jpg

Koolaid Time
10-19-2010, 05:34 AM
So pretty much, should we just cut Pollard now? With the way the No Fun League is going, he'll have a lifetime suspension for playing the game with intensity.

Maybe i should be on the "wait and see" boat, but i don't know how this will benefit the league except for bumping up tv time for referees.

You know Jack Tatum is spinning in his grave.

Goatcheese
10-19-2010, 05:42 AM
Wow, Mike and Mike in the morning they just went OFF on this crap.

Well Golic anyway.

thunderkyss
10-19-2010, 06:19 AM
I agree with the rule.

I think they should extend more rules like it to all sports.

No wrecks in Nascar...... you'll be suspended for the next race.

SheTexan
10-19-2010, 06:29 AM
Wellll damn! I might as well watch bowling on Sunday aft!!

HTown2ATX
10-19-2010, 07:16 AM
What a joke. With crap like this I'm not going to be too sad if there is in fact a work stoppage next year. Teach these friggin morons a lesson.

Helmet to helmet yes I can see tightening up on that.

"Devastating hits" wayy too vague and will lead to watering the game even more.

CloakNNNdagger
10-19-2010, 07:43 AM
I remember having an extensive conversation with my friends on the Oilers, CB Steve Brown and big TE Jamie Williams ("spiderman") about this very topic. They related that there was a league concern even at that time about the game turning away from "tackling and wrapping"............to making no attempt at tackling, and just hitting offensive players with the purpose of maming and possibly taking them out of the game. It does seem that in the early days, this concept/technique was isolated to a handful of notorious players in the league. Today, it seems to be quite prevalent.

Blake
10-19-2010, 08:12 AM
Headshots, ok. Devastating hits? Isnt that just about every hit in the NFL? I am all for protecting the players, and anyone who launches themselves like a missle into another player, or can be determined tried to headshot someone with their own helmet then ok. I think Didka said it best when he came on Mike and Mike talking about how the helmet is a weapon and basically needs to be controlled. It was funny when he said that if you took off that facemask these pretty boys wouldnt be hitting like this.

Also, what is going to happen with the show jacked up? lol

silvrhand
10-19-2010, 08:17 AM
Headshots, ok. Devastating hits? Isnt that just about every hit in the NFL? I am all for protecting the players, and anyone who launches themselves like a missle into another player, or can be determined tried to headshot someone with their own helmet then ok. I think Didka said it best when he came on Mike and Mike talking about how the helmet is a weapon and basically needs to be controlled. It was funny when he said that if you took off that facemask these pretty boys wouldnt be hitting like this.

Also, what is going to happen with the show jacked up? lol

I think the point they are trying to make is to stop players that are "purposely" laying out people. The small fines don't make a difference but when a player is intentionally putting money out there, and saying "I'll sign the check myself" that sort of attitude probably didn't help in this rule coming out.

Personally I think it is just out there for repeat offenders fine offenders.

BigBull17
10-19-2010, 09:44 AM
I'm a fan of adding the rule against head shots, but I don't know where a "devastating hit" begins.

Yeah, they need to be clear. I agree fines don't stop helmet to helmet hits, but you have to define the suspend able offense.

BigBull17
10-19-2010, 09:46 AM
I think the point they are trying to make is to stop players that are "purposely" laying out people. The small fines don't make a difference but when a player is intentionally putting money out there, and saying "I'll sign the check myself" that sort of attitude probably didn't help in this rule coming out.

Personally I think it is just out there for repeat offenders fine offenders.

Yeah, like how Merrywether and Harrison were head hunting Sunday.

axman40
10-19-2010, 09:51 AM
I see this as a GOOD thing maybe now the players will start to make fundamental

tackles instead of trying to make the Jacked Up reels!
:)

Dread-Head
10-19-2010, 09:55 AM
(yawn) Thought this was a man's game.

silvrhand
10-19-2010, 10:29 AM
Yeah, like how Merrywether and Harrison were head hunting Sunday.

I really haven't seen a good video but, it looks like Harrison let off on the second one, he reallly could have just flat out destroyed that guy. The first one I see as more incidental as I do intentional.

Merryweather was obviously head hunting especially after launching himself in mid air..

gtexan02
10-19-2010, 10:32 AM
If the NFL doesnt crack down on safety, you better believe they are going to get a 3rd party from the government doing it for them. Goodell already had to defend himself from congressional hearings. Better to legislate within the family, then have someone else do it for you.

We know too much about the lasting effects of hits like this to not penalize players who play with no regard for the rules. Going to helmet to helmet is dangerous. They arent responding to fines, so suspend them. What is controversial about this?

BigBull17
10-19-2010, 10:33 AM
I really haven't seen a good video but, it looks like Harrison let off on the second one, he reallly could have just flat out destroyed that guy. The first one I see as more incidental as I do intentional.

Merryweather was obviously head hunting especially after launching himself in mid air..

The Cribbs one was making a tackle and the guy ducked into helmet to helmet. The second one looked pretty bad to me. Dunta's wasn't intentional, but he didn't have to hit him like he did. If you bring your arms and wrap up, you don't hurt people as bad and you make the tackle. How often have we seen a smashing hit but the guy missed the tackle because he went for a KO.

eriadoc
10-19-2010, 10:36 AM
So we can start expecting even higher scoring and even higher yardage totals. The concept of defense in the NFL is becoming a joke. The league handcuffs the defense every chance they get.

Double Barrel
10-19-2010, 10:38 AM
I really souds like some folks want to see players getting injured. Otherwise, you'd understand that this is about player safety and has absolutely nothing to do with watering down the game.

It's black and white: you either support player safety or you like to see players getting hurt. If you're man enough to admit the latter, then you can talk about putting players in skirts. But you'll also have to own your own celebrating of one of the sadder aspects of the game with serious injuries, as well.

Blake
10-19-2010, 10:59 AM
(yawn) Thought this was a man's game.

People are getting seriously injured and having long term post concussion symptoms, like depression, memory loss, and other serious problems and you dont even give a crap.

I dont see the problem. Even if we do suspend players from the game it is going to cut down on the number of unnecessary concussions players receive. So its a win.

Dread-Head
10-19-2010, 11:00 AM
I really souds like some folks want to see players getting injured. Otherwise, you'd understand that this is about player safety and has absolutely nothing to do with watering down the game.

It's black and white: you either support player safety or you like to see players getting hurt. If you're man enough to admit the latter, then you can talk about putting players in skirts. But you'll also have to own your own celebrating of one of the sadder aspects of the game with serious injuries, as well.

Don't lead with your head and you'll be less likely to have a concussion or get a neck injury. It won't be an impossibility, but it lessens the chance. I don't favor leading with one's head and think if you're a cheap shot artist they should fine/suspend you, but refs are a-holes who selectively decide WHOM they'll penalize. Remember the "Horse collar?" When it was instituted initially they RARELY called it. It was called on the Texans earlier this year when someone got a hold of some punk's JERSEY but not his pads. The refs and league will use the helmet to helmet (which ALREADY exist) as an excuse to just hand out flags and fines like candy.

SM...you continually miss my point.

gtexan02
10-19-2010, 11:02 AM
Don't lead with your head and you'll be less likely to have a concussion or get a neck injury. It won't be an impossibility, but it lessens the chance. I don't favor leading with one's head and think if you're a cheap shot artist they should fine/suspend you, but refs are a-holes who selectively decide WHOM they'll penalize. Remember the "Horse collar?" When it was instituted initially they RARELY called it. It was called on the Texans earlier this year when someone got a hold of some punk's JERSEY but not his pads. The refs and league will use the helmet to helmet (which ALREADY exist) as an excuse to just hand out flags and fines like candy.

Im not following your train of thought at this point.

Are you upset that the new rule is going to swing games, or that old rule changes are swinging games?

The league is fair, and plenty competitive. Bad calls go both ways. Referees are only human, after all.

This new rule is not going to suddenly give refs the ability to fix games. There are already 100s of other penalties they could use to do that. Why would this change it at all?


You sound like you may have preferred living in ancient rome. If you want to see entertainers playing to the death, theres always bull fights

Double Barrel
10-19-2010, 11:04 AM
Don't lead with your head and you'll be less likely to have a concussion or get a neck injury. It won't be an impossibility, but it lessens the chance. I don't favor leading with one's head and think if you're a cheap shot artist they should fine/suspend you, but refs are a-holes who selectively decide WHOM they'll penalize. Remember the "Horse collar?" When it was instituted initially they RARELY called it. It was called on the Texans earlier this year when someone got a hold of some punk's JERSEY but not his pads. The refs and league will use the helmet to helmet (which ALREADY exist) as an excuse to just hand out flags and fines like candy.

SM...you continually miss my point.

I don't necessarily disagree with your post, and the human fallibility factor that is NFL referees is one of the most inconsistent aspects of the NFL that I really dislike.

I do think that they play a bigger role than they should in games (especially pass interference calls, very iffy many times).

However, I also think some defensive players are trying to hurt their opponents. You hear it in their pre-game chants, on the sidelines when they mic up players, and the continual referral to a game as "war" and "battle".

It is a fine line to draw, and I'm sure that there will be controversies. Hopefully, though, over time players will start to reflect the desire of the league to prevent serious injuries resulting from malicious hits.

Blake
10-19-2010, 11:07 AM
Don't lead with your head and you'll be less likely to have a concussion or get a neck injury. It won't be an impossibility, but it lessens the chance. I don't favor leading with one's head and think if you're a cheap shot artist they should fine/suspend you, but refs are a-holes who selectively decide WHOM they'll penalize. Remember the "Horse collar?" When it was instituted initially they RARELY called it. It was called on the Texans earlier this year when someone got a hold of some punk's JERSEY but not his pads. The refs and league will use the helmet to helmet (which ALREADY exist) as an excuse to just hand out flags and fines like candy.

SM...you continually miss my point.

Help me out then. What point are you trying to make by saying
(yawn) Thought this was a man's game.

BigBull17
10-19-2010, 11:56 AM
I understand people want to see hits, but I don't want to see the time when a guy gets hit and never wakes up. That is coming soon if they don't do something.

Mailman
10-19-2010, 12:14 PM
I see this as a GOOD thing maybe now the players will start to make fundamental

tackles instead of trying to make the Jacked Up reels!
:)

Like this Dunta Robinson lowlight from last year? (http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-videos/09000d5d8149b158/Austin-Collie-Highlight-WK-12-vs-Texans-2009) Remember how on the previous play Dunta jacked up Addai on a short pass over the middle, then celebrated like a fool while Peyton the Witch calmly got his team to the line and snapped the ball quickly? Well, pay attention to the end of this play.

Mailman
10-19-2010, 12:17 PM
Im not following your train of thought at this point.

Are you upset that the new rule is going to swing games, or that old rule changes are swinging games?

The league is fair, and plenty competitive. Bad calls go both ways. Referees are only human, after all.

This new rule is not going to suddenly give refs the ability to fix games. There are already 100s of other penalties they could use to do that. Why would this change it at all?


You sound like you may have preferred living in ancient rome. If you want to see entertainers playing to the death, theres always bull fights

There is no new rule, just stricter enforcement. The rule protecting defenseless players has not changed, but the league is putting teams on notice that violations of the rule could lead to suspensions.

Mailman
10-19-2010, 12:34 PM
Here is the relevant section from the NFL Rulebook.

Rule 12, Section 2, Article 8:

Impermissible Use of the Helmet and Facemask

(f) If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily. Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures, including but not limited to:

(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face with the helmet or facemask, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; or

(2) Lowering the head and violently or unnecessarily making forcible contact with the “hairline” or forehead part of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body; or

(3) “Launching” (springing forward and upward) into a defenseless player, or otherwise striking him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player’s head, neck, or face—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player’s neck. (Examples: a defender buries his facemask into a defenseless player’s high chest area, but the defender’s trajectory as he leaps into the defenseless player causes the defender’s helmet to strike the defenseless player violently in the head or face; or a defender, using
a face-on posture or with his head slightly lowered, hits a defenseless player in an area below the defenseless player’s neck, then the defender’s head moves upward, resulting in strong contact by the defender’s mask or helmet with the defenseless player’s
head, neck, or face [an example is the so-called “dip and rip” technique]).

Note: The provisions of section (f) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or noncrown parts of the helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on an opponent. (g) if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or
shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless player.



Note: Defenseless players in (f) and (g) shall include (i) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (ii) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (iii) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (iv) a
kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (v) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

Note: Launching is defined as springing forward and upward by a player who leaves his feet to make contact on the receiver.

(h) If a receiver has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching (springing forward and upward) into him in a way that causes the defensive player’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver’s head or neck area—even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet, facemask, shoulder, or forearm is lower
than the receiver’s neck

(i) a kicker/punter, who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked, is out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position. During the kick or during
the return, if the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of the kicker/punter, it is a foul.

(j) any player who grabs a helmet opening of an opponent and forcibly twists, turns, or pulls his head.

(k) Illegal contact with the helmet against the knee of the snapper during an attempt for a field goal or kick try.

Penalty: For unnecessary roughness: Loss of 15 yards. The player may be disqualified
if the action is judged by the official(s) to be flagrant.

Note: If in doubt about a roughness call or potentially dangerous tactics, the covering officials should always call unnecessary roughness.

Bulluck53
10-19-2010, 07:10 PM
A lot of talk on ESPNs post game show last night centered around the loss of technique in tackling today. I was taught to plant the facemask in the chest and wrap my arms around the guy for the tackle, but guys only go for the big hit now. I understand what the rules committee is trying to do here but it very well may lead to a watered down version of the game, especially if coaches don't go back to teaching proper technique.

Texan_Bill
10-19-2010, 07:17 PM
Shoot, than we might as well plan on not having Pollard out there soon. That guy is a violent hitting machine every week.

True, but seriously, I can't recall him launching himself like a missile with his head at someone else's head. I could very well be wrong, but I remember his hits typically being clean (aleit, violent ;) ).

HJam72
10-19-2010, 07:19 PM
No more hitting hard. This means all our guys who never tackle anybody are fine.

JB
10-19-2010, 07:38 PM
A lot of talk on ESPNs post game show last night centered around the loss of technique in tackling today. I was taught to plant the facemask in the chest and wrap my arms around the guy for the tackle, but guys only go for the big hit now. I understand what the rules committee is trying to do here but it very well may lead to a watered down version of the game, especially if coaches don't go back to teaching proper technique.

I really don't think they are trying to water the game down...

True, but seriously, I can't recall him launching himself like a missile with his head at someone else's head. I could very well be wrong, but I remember his hits typically being clean (aleit, violent ;) ).

This is what they are trying to stop.

mattieuk
10-19-2010, 07:51 PM
What is annoying is how the debate has been twisted by some radio/tv hosts and football fans is how by supporting the rule changes then you are a proponent of anti-football.

IMO there is far too much praise for injury inducing hits. I've been hearing people still saying today that the DRob hit was legal (no issue with someone arguing that they genuinely think it was a legal hit), but the issue for me is people still standing up and saying "Jackson just got jacked/any other glorification of a 'big hit'". The shot that DRob took on him could have ended his career, and could well have massive potential on diminished quality of life for Jackson in future years. Regardless of your view of the hit's legality, the trivialization of it it unacceptable, due to the consequences of the hit.

Also riding me is the 'I don't play to injure, but I play to hurt' doctrine spouted by some. These type of 'lay-you-out' hits that knock people out of the game are still injuries. A mild concussion is still an injury - the lack of a broken leg, or ripped muscle doesn't make it any less serious.

The concussion research with NFL players that I have read is really worrying, and the NFL has to protect it's players, to protect itself.

Oh, and don't get me started on the proponents of the 'they get paid enough, it's just what happens lobby'.

[/rant]

We all want to watch exciting football. I just want the golf carts to be kept at the local 18 holer.

eriadoc
10-19-2010, 10:23 PM
So fine guys for deliberate hits to the head, but not when the ball carrier ducks down into the defensive player's helmet. Also, get rid of the 5-yd. chuck rule to give the defense some of their effectiveness back.

If you think about it, the only thing the defense can do is try to separate the player from the ball. They can't really try to prevent the receiver from catching the ball in the first place, with the BS PI calls, the 5-yd. chuck rule, etc., and they can't really get after the QB too much with all the rules they've put in place to "protect" the QB. Just look at how passing has exploded because of the continual nerfing of the defense. Think about it - following the current path of events, we will eventually have a game of pitch and catch where the defense is only allowed to tackle, in a very narrow range, and then move on to the next play. They won't actually be able to stop the offense, just make them take time to move up and down the field. Hell, we're just about there now.

I understand player safety, but I'd argue that the NFL has created some of this problem by limiting what the defense can really do.

Bulluck53
10-19-2010, 10:31 PM
I really don't think they are trying to water the game down...

Of course they're not trying to, doesn't mean it can't happen.

gtexan02
10-19-2010, 10:32 PM
Defenses are doing just fine defending the pass. Defensive penalties like PI rarely make large impacts in games. From a FBO blog

In 2009, teams threw the ball 25 yards or more on 1,261 plays. They completed 350 of those passes, for a completion percentage of 27.8 percent. On those completions, they picked up an average of 42 yards and scored a touchdown 117 times. The pass fell incomplete 744 times, or 59.0 percent of the time. Teams threw interceptions on the passes 9.7 percent of the time.

As for defensive pass interference? It just doesn't happen very frequently. Those 1,261 bombs yielded just 45 pass interference penalties.

PI calls seem like they happen a lot because they are usually big penalities. But the fact is, they are usualy pretty rare. Defensive backs have gotten pretty good at preventing receivers from catching balls. They bat them down, bump them off routes, etc

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/insider/news/story?id=5698822

BigTimeTexanFan
10-20-2010, 09:02 AM
So fine guys for deliberate hits to the head, but not when the ball carrier ducks down into the defensive player's helmet. Also, get rid of the 5-yd. chuck rule to give the defense some of their effectiveness back.

If you think about it, the only thing the defense can do is try to separate the player from the ball. They can't really try to prevent the receiver from catching the ball in the first place, with the BS PI calls, the 5-yd. chuck rule, etc., and they can't really get after the QB too much with all the rules they've put in place to "protect" the QB. Just look at how passing has exploded because of the continual nerfing of the defense. Think about it - following the current path of events, we will eventually have a game of pitch and catch where the defense is only allowed to tackle, in a very narrow range, and then move on to the next play. They won't actually be able to stop the offense, just make them take time to move up and down the field. Hell, we're just about there now.

I understand player safety, but I'd argue that the NFL has created some of this problem by limiting what the defense can really do.

This I agree with. How come nobody is talking about QB's taking some responsibility. When I was being coached you would always hear "you CANNOT leave the WR out to dry". Meaning don't throw the freaking ball where you know he's gonna get killed. The defense has a job to do too. I am not in favor of helmet to helmet hits, but for a play like Dunta Robinson's to be in question is ludicrous. He didn't lead with his helmet, but the QB should haver NEVER thrown that ball.

Double Barrel
10-20-2010, 09:56 AM
I think stronger enforcement of this existing rule will ultimately result in better defenses. Most of these hits are not sound tackling techniques, and rarely do I see any of the defenders actually wrapping up the ball carrier with both arms.

Just like home runs in baseball and dunks in basketball, big hits in football have been used by Sports Center for sensational replay value and have changed a very fundamental nature of defense. Now players launch themselves in spectacular fashion, not even trying to wrap up and using the arms as battering rams instead. Quite often, they bounce off of the ball carrier who gains major yardage. That's just stupid defense and sloppy technique. Now with the potential for stiff penalties, defenders will rely less on the missile technique and more on actually trying to wrap a guy up to tackle him.

infantrycak
10-20-2010, 10:12 AM
I think stronger enforcement of this existing rule will ultimately result in better defenses. Most of these hits are not sound tackling techniques, and rarely do I see any of the defenders actually wrapping up the ball carrier with both arms.

Excellent point. If you look at the 4 examples from this past weekend none of the tacklers were attempting to wrap up. On the Masoquoi hit Harrison even did the opposite and pushed him away.

Mr teX
10-20-2010, 10:21 AM
The Cribbs one was making a tackle and the guy ducked into helmet to helmet. The second one looked pretty bad to me. Dunta's wasn't intentional, but he didn't have to hit him like he did. If you bring your arms and wrap up, you don't hurt people as bad and you make the tackle. How often have we seen a smashing hit but the guy missed the tackle because he went for a KO.

Don't agree at all with the bolded. Every guy who has played defense has been told to put your facemask on, or across the numbers of the guy you're tackling. If the guy ducks & changes the angle, you can easily get a helmet to helmet hit. this is not even mentioning the whiplash effect of hitting someone.

silvrhand
10-20-2010, 10:34 AM
Excellent point. If you look at the 4 examples from this past weekend none of the tacklers were attempting to wrap up. On the Masoquoi hit Harrison even did the opposite and pushed him away.

I'd hate to have seen if Harrison wrapped up Maso and drove him like a form tackle is taught, Harrison really could have done a lot worse on Maso IMHO.

I'm a bit suprised by the fines this weekend, Harrison got the biggest fine which in my view was not the worst offense.. Merriweathers hit was just plain dumb, with Dunta right behind him. Repeat offenders are what this rule is targetted at, first offense unless just stupid won't be penalized.

infantrycak
10-20-2010, 10:44 AM
I'd hate to have seen if Harrison wrapped up Maso and drove him like a form tackle is taught, Harrison really could have done a lot worse on Maso IMHO.

I see what you are getting at but Harrison did two non-form tackle things - went head to head with his crown and left his feet. If he had center massed and driven with his legs it would have been a big hit but probably not a concussion hit. Clearly perfect form hits will sometimes result in injuries as well.

I'm a bit suprised by the fines this weekend, Harrison got the biggest fine which in my view was not the worst offense.. Merriweathers hit was just plain dumb, with Dunta right behind him. Repeat offenders are what this rule is targetted at, first offense unless just stupid won't be penalized.

Merriwether's was the worst hit but he was a first time offender and Harrison is a repeat offender.

Blake
11-05-2010, 01:53 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/11/05/myron-pryor-fine.ap/index.html

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2010/football/nfl/11/05/myron-pryor-fine.ap/myron-pryor.jpg

"NEW YORK (AP) -- The NFL has fined New England Patriots defensive tackle Myron Pryor $7,500 for his hit on Brett Favre that cut the Minnesota quarterback's chin.
Favre left the Vikings' loss midway through the fourth quarter Sunday and needed 10 stitches in his chin.
Pryor was not penalized on the play, in which his helmet got under Favre's facemask and cut Favre's chin.
The league has cracked down on illegal hits and has promised suspensions for hits to the head or neck area of defenseless players.
"

chicagotexan2
11-05-2010, 01:56 PM
I am certain our defense has nothing to worry about. Well maybe Pollard should but only for hitting a player after he's scored a TD.

Double Barrel
11-05-2010, 01:56 PM
I don't understand how they can fine players for hits that were not called penalties during games. It would be one thing if it was just the occasional non-call, but it's becoming somewhat of an epidemic of fining players after games for non-penalized hits. Harrison has been hit with three fines for over $100,000 on three hits, two of which were not called penalties by the NFL's referees.

Rey
11-05-2010, 02:14 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/11/05/myron-pryor-fine.ap/index.html

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2010/football/nfl/11/05/myron-pryor-fine.ap/myron-pryor.jpg

"NEW YORK (AP) -- The NFL has fined New England Patriots defensive tackle Myron Pryor $7,500 for his hit on Brett Favre that cut the Minnesota quarterback's chin.
Favre left the Vikings' loss midway through the fourth quarter Sunday and needed 10 stitches in his chin.
Pryor was not penalized on the play, in which his helmet got under Favre's facemask and cut Favre's chin.
The league has cracked down on illegal hits and has promised suspensions for hits to the head or neck area of defenseless players.
"


I watched that game, saw the hit and felt like it was a good hit...

Not sure what the NFL wanted him to do differently there...

This is exactly what I was worried about...taking aggression out of the game...

I just hope that the NFL, the players, and fans find a happy medium because I don't really like what I'm seeing now...players pulling up from hits they'd normally take and guys getting reprimanded for what I think are good hits...

Rey
11-05-2010, 02:15 PM
I am certain our defense has nothing to worry about. Well maybe Pollard should but only for hitting a player after he's scored a TD.

Thing is, I don't know what constitutes fines or suspension any more...

Seems like anytime an offensive player gets hurt, the NFL comes down on the defense...

Especially if the offensive player is a prominent one.

So yeah, I am totally worried that one of our players may get suspended for taking a hard hit on a player.

Double Barrel
11-05-2010, 02:35 PM
I watched that game, saw the hit and felt like it was a good hit...

Not sure what the NFL wanted him to do differently there...

This is exactly what I was worried about...taking aggression out of the game...

I just hope that the NFL, the players, and fans find a happy medium because I don't really like what I'm seeing now...players pulling up from hits they'd normally take and guys getting reprimanded for what I think are good hits...

I think you were right in your predictions. I saw that hit on Favre and thought it was just a good, solid tackle. If this keeps up on the current pace, I think they will end up fining aggression out of defenses, which not only waters down the product, but changes the fundamental nature of defense. And should this come to pass, I'm just not sure if I'd still be a fan of the new version of the game.

eriadoc
11-05-2010, 03:06 PM
I watched that game, saw the hit and felt like it was a good hit...

Not sure what the NFL wanted him to do differently there...

This is exactly what I was worried about...taking aggression out of the game...

I just hope that the NFL, the players, and fans find a happy medium because I don't really like what I'm seeing now...players pulling up from hits they'd normally take and guys getting reprimanded for what I think are good hits...

There's about a one-foot region on the QB that defensive players are allowed to hit. There's no excuse for the D players not to hit that spot when going full speed at players trying to avoid them.

/sarcasm

KA4Texan
11-05-2010, 05:47 PM
I think you were right in your predictions. I saw that hit on Favre and thought it was just a good, solid tackle. If this keeps up on the current pace, I think they will end up fining aggression out of defenses, which not only waters down the product, but changes the fundamental nature of defense. And should this come to pass, I'm just not sure if I'd still be a fan of the new version of the game.

Agreed, specially when it is already a watered down version of its original self in its current state. Yet some how, even if they do fine the aggression out of football completely, it will still be better than soccer.

Double Barrel
11-05-2010, 05:54 PM
Agreed, specially when it is already a watered down version of its original self in its current state. Yet some how, even if they do fine the aggression out of football completely, it will still be better than soccer.

LOL! This is true.

Welcome to the board. I'm honored that your first posted quoted me. :cowboy1:

KA4Texan
11-05-2010, 06:22 PM
Thank you, been lurking for a few seasons now.

What can I say, you spoke truth.:shades:

Rey
11-05-2010, 06:35 PM
There's about a one-foot region on the QB that defensive players are allowed to hit. There's no excuse for the D players not to hit that spot when going full speed at players trying to avoid them.

/sarcasm

I was thinking the other day about how they would legislate hits on players who are...well, vertically challenged...

The shorter the person, the smaller the area that you are trying to pin point as a defender...

Like, Troy Smith at QB is not only a mobile guy, but he's kind of small by QB standards....

Same with a guy like Desean Jackson or even a Trindon Holiday...It'd seem like little fast/quick players like that would be at an added advantage (whereas they used to be at a disadvantage) because defenders wouldn't be able to just unload on them...

If a big guy hit a little guy really hard...I don't think it'd matter if it were a 'legal' hit or not...I think he'd get fined...

I dunno...This latest thing with Favre just has my head spinning...I really have no clue what is legal anymore...

Rey
11-22-2010, 05:35 PM
Asante got a penalty for his hit in last nights Eagles/Giants game.

I thought it was a good hit...Almost like the Dunta hit except Asante's head was more upright...

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

I think that receiver is happier that he was hit up high around his shoulder pad area vs. down low near his knees....

If a guy takes a hit like that in his knees that would be kind of ugly.

JB
11-22-2010, 06:02 PM
Asante got a penalty for his hit in last nights Eagles/Giants game.

I thought it was a good hit...Almost like the Dunta hit except Asante's head was more upright...

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

I think that receiver is happier that he was hit up high around his shoulder pad area vs. down low near his knees....

If a guy takes a hit like that in his knees that would be kind of ugly.

I didn't see anything wrong with that hit at all. Looks like he hit him with his shoulder and arm.

bah007
11-22-2010, 06:57 PM
Okay so now you can't lead with your shoulder either. Check.

Dutchrudder
11-23-2010, 11:46 AM
I really don't see what the big deal is with the fines. 75k is nothing to a LB making 5+ million a year. 20k to BP who makes 3.1 million a year is still pennies. I agree that hit should not have been a fine, much less a penalty, but the consequences really aren't strong enough to change the conduct on the field.

bah007
11-27-2010, 02:16 PM
I really don't see what the big deal is with the fines. 75k is nothing to a LB making 5+ million a year. 20k to BP who makes 3.1 million a year is still pennies. I agree that hit should not have been a fine, much less a penalty, but the consequences really aren't strong enough to change the conduct on the field.

Here is the problem to me:

If a LB puts his shoulder into the RBs upper chest he draws a 15 yd penalty plus a fine.

But if a WR hits a CB head to head on a downfield block he draws nothing.

They talk about protecting unprotected players but I haven't seen a flag yet when a guy gets de-cleated on a punt return when he gets blindsided by a block.

Let's be real here. It's just another way for the NFL to re-structure the rules to give advantages to the team with the ball. They want more points scored. And for the past ten years or so they have been slowly changing the rules of the game so that they can get the results they want. All this stuff about protecting players is bullshit. It's about money. The NFL, like any business, wants to draw the maximum number of customers. And most of the fans want to see an offensive shootout.

Rey
11-27-2010, 06:08 PM
I really don't see what the big deal is with the fines. 75k is nothing to a LB making 5+ million a year. 20k to BP who makes 3.1 million a year is still pennies. I agree that hit should not have been a fine, much less a penalty, but the consequences really aren't strong enough to change the conduct on the field.

Fair is fair.

It's the principle behind it, plus the fact that suspensions may come.

False Start
11-28-2010, 08:48 AM
Asante got a penalty for his hit in last nights Eagles/Giants game.

I thought it was a good hit...Almost like the Dunta hit except Asante's head was more upright...

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

I think that receiver is happier that he was hit up high around his shoulder pad area vs. down low near his knees....

If a guy takes a hit like that in his knees that would be kind of ugly.

Holy crap! That is a joke. Might as well start playing flag football.

infantrycak
11-28-2010, 08:53 AM
Here is the problem to me:

If a LB puts his shoulder into the RBs upper chest he draws a 15 yd penalty plus a fine.

Let's be real here.

OK, let's be real. A LB putting a shoulder into a RB's chest draws no flag, fine, anything. It is a legal hit. Where the heck did that even come from?

Asante got a penalty for his hit in last nights Eagles/Giants game.

I thought it was a good hit...Almost like the Dunta hit except Asante's head was more upright...

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

I think that receiver is happier that he was hit up high around his shoulder pad area vs. down low near his knees....

If a guy takes a hit like that in his knees that would be kind of ugly.

You may not like the rule but that was classic helmet to helmet. Asante made no attempt to tackle correctly. He wanted a big highlight reel hit. And BS on the down low near his knees excuse. There is a huge zone between the head and knees. Frankly your defense makes outlawing this stuff sound more necessary if people have your attitude of either I am going to their head or to their knees - either way to hurt somebody rather than just make a tackle. Asante should have cleared his helmet, lowered his shoulder and wrapped. He knew the rule and violated it.

Rey
11-29-2010, 10:11 PM
OK, let's be real. A LB putting a shoulder into a RB's chest draws no flag, fine, anything. It is a legal hit. Where the heck did that even come from?



You may not like the rule but that was classic helmet to helmet. Asante made no attempt to tackle correctly. He wanted a big highlight reel hit. And BS on the down low near his knees excuse. There is a huge zone between the head and knees. Frankly your defense makes outlawing this stuff sound more necessary if people have your attitude of either I am going to their head or to their knees - either way to hurt somebody rather than just make a tackle. Asante should have cleared his helmet, lowered his shoulder and wrapped. He knew the rule and violated it.


BS on everything you wrote here. I can tell you never played any kind of football. That is more than apparent now.


Yes he went for the big hit...So what?

There is no way to avoid helmet to helmet hits. Doesn't matter if you're going for a big hit or making a solid tackle.

You have absolutely no clue at all.

And the hitting in the legs does matter because that is not outlawed. If guys can't hit up high like that anymore they will start hitting very low. It's all about leverage.

If you hit a guy in the mid section it is more likely they will be able to withstand the hit. That's simple physics. Hit a guy up high and force his legs from under him...Hit a guy down low and force his upper body to take a nose dive....

Nobody wants to get hit in the stomach like that either by the way.

And wrapping up in that situation takes some of the force out of the hit. The point is to knock the shit out of the guy and maybe hurt him a bit (not injure him) and/or possibly knock the ball loose. Sounds like you want to take some of the essence that is football out of the game.

I'm just gonna ignore your post on this subject from now on because you are really don't know what you're talking about on this subject. Period, the end. Asante's hit was a good hit and should not have been flagged and it should not be an illegal hit. Neither should a bunch of other hits that have happened.

Rey
11-29-2010, 10:22 PM
I didn't see anything wrong with that hit at all. Looks like he hit him with his shoulder and arm.

Yeah that's what I saw...There may have been some incidental contact with the WR's facemask...But I don't know how you avoid that kind of stuff if you hit a gut in his shoulder pad area....

Seems a lot to ask of a defender flying in full speed trying to make a hard hit.

That was a clean hit to me and so was the hit Pollard had this weekend...

At least they aren't suspending players....yet...

I just hate seeing stuff like the Asante hit penalized...

JB
11-29-2010, 10:32 PM
Yeah that's what I saw...There may have been some incidental contact with the WR's facemask...But I don't know how you avoid that kind of stuff if you hit a gut in his shoulder pad area....

Seems a lot to ask of a defender flying in full speed trying to make a hard hit.

That was a clean hit to me and so was the hit Pollard had this weekend...

At least they aren't suspending players....yet...

I just hate seeing stuff like the Asante hit penalized...


If it is penalized, I just accept that it was a bang, bang play. Refs have to make judgement calls. But if he was fined, the league is totally ********* up!

Rey
11-29-2010, 10:33 PM
If it is penalized, I just accept that it was a bang, bang play. Refs have to make judgement calls. But if he was fined, the league is totally ********* up!

Yeah...he was fined for that...


NFL Picks Asante Samuel’s Wallet For $40K After Hit On Hagan

NY, NY, United States (AHN) – The NFL fined Philadelphia star cornerback Asante Samuel a substantial $40,000 for a helmet-to-helmet hit on New York wide receiver Derek Hagan during the Eagles 27-17 win over the Giants last Sunday night.

Officials docked the Eagles 15 yards for Samuel unnecessary roughness during the game. Samuel put his head down and drilled Hagan after the four-year pro caught a short pass from Eli Manning.

The NFL’s fine is the most recent in a string imposed this season for what the league has deemed illegal hits. Recently, Raiders linebacker Richard Seymour was fined $25,000 and Green Bay Packers safety Nick Collins fined $50,000.

One of the most vocal players on this issue has been the Steelers’ James Harrison, who has already been fined $5,000, $20,000 and an unprecedented $75,000 fine for three separate infractions. Harrison met with commissioner Roger Goodell concerning the issue.

“It was just for him to hear my side of things and for them to help me understand exactly what the rules are as far as helmet-to-helmet contact,” Harrison told the New York Times following the meeting. “So I spoke my mind. They said what they had to say.”



Honestly, Harrison has gotten the raw end of the deal on a few of those hits too...

On that Asante hit the receiver turned right into the hit. Very hard for a DB coming up full speed to anticipate where and how the receiver is going to turn.

As soon as he turned around Asante was there.

infantrycak
11-29-2010, 10:34 PM
BS on everything you wrote here. I can tell you never played any kind of football. That is more than apparent now.


Yes he went for the big hit...So what?

There is no way to avoid helmet to helmet hits. Doesn't matter if you're going for a big hit or making a solid tackle.

You have absolutely no clue at all.

And the hitting in the legs does matter because that is not outlawed. If guys can't hit up high like that anymore they will start hitting very low. It's all about leverage.

If you hit a guy in the mid section it is more likely they will be able to withstand the hit. That's simple physics. Hit a guy up high and force his legs from under him...Hit a guy down low and force his upper body to take a nose dive....

Nobody wants to get hit in the stomach like that either by the way.

And wrapping up in that situation takes some of the force out of the hit. The point is to knock the shit out of the guy and maybe hurt him a bit (not injure him) and/or possibly knock the ball loose. Sounds like you want to take some of the essence that is football out of the game.

I'm just gonna ignore your post on this subject from now on because you are really don't know what you're talking about on this subject. Period, the end. Asante's hit was a good hit and should not have been flagged and it should not be an illegal hit. Neither should a bunch of other hits that have happened.

LOL, yeah OK. What I described is what every coach teaches. Guess no coach knows as much about football as you either. Try not to get your panties soiled while they're twisted so far up your butt.

But I'm sure you know oh so much more about football than the multiple NFL officiating crews with decades of experience whom you disagree with. And your assertion of simple physics would better be labeled simpleton physics.

Rey
11-29-2010, 10:41 PM
Another thing on that Asante hit the receiver turned right into the hit. Very hard for a DB coming up full speed to anticipate where and how the receiver is going to turn.

As soon as he turned around Asante was there.

Rey
11-29-2010, 10:43 PM
LOL, yeah OK. What I described is what every coach teaches. Guess no coach knows as much about football as you either. Try not to get your panties soiled while they're twisted so far up your butt.

But I'm sure you know oh so much more about football than the multiple NFL officiating crews with decades of experience whom you disagree with. And your assertion of simple physics would better be labeled simpleton physics.

Says the guy who thinks players would rather get hit in the stomachs where there is no padding vs. up around the shoulder area.

Once again, you are lacking knowledge in this area. I respect your opinions on a lot of other stuff, but not this.

infantrycak
11-29-2010, 10:43 PM
Another thing on that Asante hit the receiver turned right into the hit. Very hard for a DB coming up full speed to anticipate where and how the receiver is going to turn.

As soon as he turned around Asante was there.

I agree the NFL needs to figure out something to tweak in the rule to account for players lowering their way into helmet to helmet contact and some similar scenarios where the defender had no apparent intention of violating the rules.