OT: Ban on Violent Hits

I'm all for it.  Everytime I hear aabout one of these severe injuries, my love of the game gets a serious gut check test.  It always pulls through, but I don't know how much more it can take.  I think this initiative is more than overdue. 

Players are geting bigger, faster, and stronger. The protective gear is getting better and better providing a false sense of security. Too many coaches at the formative levels teach/encourage "big hitting" insteadof wrapping up and dragging down. All this is combining to produce more violent collisions. Momentum is conserved. Hockey is the same way with the same issues.

Other violent sports like rugby / Aussie rules football, these violent collisions are tempered by two facts: 1) they don't have protective equipment so there's more respect for the big hit on what it can do to not just your opponents, but your own body 2) the "open field" running which generates the speed / momentum that turns these hits to violent isn't as common, not to mention that when true speed is built up in these games, the stopping force isn't usually a safety who has been lining up the hit for 30 seconds that isn't seen by the offensive player... it's usually a player from behind or the side that drags the offender down after running to catch up to them.

The violent hit stuff in football and hockey has gone beyond "it's just toughness" or "they're trying to pansy down the sport" type defenses. If coaches aren't going to teach proper technique and not enforce discipline on their teams for the "big hit" head shot, then its up to the league to.

I'd support rules like this. Did anyone hear on Sunday when Rodney Harrison said he set $50,000 of his own money aside to use to pay his fines throughout the season to invest in his "reputation as a hard hitter"? That's the kind of thing that drives me nuts. Football is a violent sport, no doubt, but they make rules for a reason. Just because someone doesn't want to follow the rules, the other person shouldn't have to suffer the consequences/injuries. 

I liked the idea that you would be suspended as long as the injured player is out if it is a dangerous hit.

Leaving your feet and using your helmet as a spear has never been tackling. The only reason it has come to this is because refs have swalowed their whistles and been complacent for far too long. It has always been in the rule book that leading with your helmet and making no attempt to wrap up is a penalty, but fans liked it and the montra of "it's part of the game" has built up steam. It isn't part of the game, it isn't how a defender should tackle. It is dangerous and I think it should be called as it is stated in the rule books. It sets a bad precedent and it teaches kids the wrong (and dangerous) way to play the game. Segments on FuckfacePN called "Jack'd Up" showing players being knocked out cold from illegal hits doesn't exactly teach the young kids that isn't how the game is played either. The precedent set has detracted from the quality of the sport (poor form tackling from Pop Warner on up) and if it isn't corrected I think you will see parents steering their kids away from a sport where dangerous and illegal hits are considered welcome and the talent in the league will drastically lower as well. IME.

The pros have to keep in mind that they set the tone for the leagues below.  When you're a pro, you have team medical staff attending to you, you have a certain amount of health coverage for you when you can no longer play. 

But the players in high school and youth leagues (which have many more players than the pros or college level, remember) don't have nearly the same care.  There isn't quite the same ability to deliver the forceful hits that can mess somebody up, but with so many more players, there's that many more collisions and hits and it can add up.

A lot of the rules and safeguards the NFL puts in place can have a bit effect down the food chain - the youth players see that this whole safety thing is important and it changes their play, little by little.  I'm all for the NFL setting a good example.

A lot of the time helmet to helmet contact happens when a reciever braces for the pending hit.  His actions make him lower his head.  The defender is already making his move to put his head across the body of the ball carrier.  And then the reciever's action put himself in harms way but the penelty is given to the defense.

The offense has way too many advantages as it is. 

Now if the defender leaves his feet doing his best Ram Man from Masters of the Universe impersonation, then yes something should be done.

My understanding is that the NFL is going after head shots and "devastating hits."   I'm all for making the game safer, but they need to define what a "devastating hit" is...The hit Lawrence Taylor put on Joe Theisman that broke Theisman's leg was "devastating" but it wasn't dirty. 

So the NFL is all about safety of the players, protecting them, etc. ... but they're going to add 2 more games to the schedule? 

Someone in the MSM please pick this up and run with it! An 18 game schedule will add 12.5% MORE hits 

The NFL is full of it

This feels like a typical overreaction to isolated events, ignoring the fact that having more games with players less versed in proper tackling technique will do far more harm than outlawing "bad hits" after the fact.  That's why this ruling makes no sense - players usually don't go for "head shots" with much, if any, premeditation, but are simply reacting to an incredibly fast game.  Sure, it might slow players down a bit when going for a tackle, but all that will accomplish is to make defenses more tentative, not necessarily safer. 

They should ban smoking, too, but it just looks so damn cool, man.

Call me insensitive, but these players know what they're signing up for.  It's not like "big hits" are new to football.

If you don't want to hit, or be hit, don't play.  Professional football is a job and it's voluntary.