OT: Ban on Violent Hits

that have played professional football and feel qualified to pass rules for them raise your hands.

Ah, you were talking about your fantasy teams.

The body of evidence on concussions is growing, and as already said, if this ban protects receivers and QB's and others from cheap shots and unnecessarily violent hits, all the better.

I wouldn't, however, attribute this altruistic motive to the NFL. They have a product to sell, and if any player loses his life (or career) to an unnecessarily violent hit, the whole league could be shut down. Imagine if a marquee player, say Tom Brady, was permanently debilitated because someone used their helmet or force inappropriately in a hit after the play was dead. That would be the end of football.

Actually, I think this kind of ban could come to college too. Make the penalty severe enough, and cheap shots like this will happen a lot less.

It certainly comes to mind with my 4th grader playing ball. Between practice and games, he already has experienced bad play. There is no place for it. Fortunately, 4th graders aren't usually strong enough or fast enough to cause the kind of injuries we're talking about. But I'd much rather see the rules change now, before he gets old enough to pay the price of serious concussions.

Well at this point, the NFL definitely needs to address this somehow.  You're never going to get rid of all serious injuries in football, but a lot of these injuries (specifically concussions, which are drawing more attention by the day) are preventable if you can stop idiots from deliberately leading with their helmets when they go to make a hit.

My only concern is how consistently they'll be able to enforce whatever rule they come up with.  Somebody's gonna be spending a lot of time reviewing replays of hits every Monday.  There are almost definitely gonna be cases where somebody gets a suspension they didn't deserve, and somebody doesn't get one that they did.

It's always going to be too tough to regulate hits, the game is too quick.  Some of those hits were caused both by people ducking and isn't it a human reaction to put your head down? 

Not sure if this was said earlier. but someone mentioned this, not sure what show, that the field should be expanded.  The argument is players have gotten bigger and quicker and the field has stayed the same.  If they make the field bigger, then there would be more space to cover and maybe the hits would go down.  Players would not want to be as aggressive with more room to cover. 

Not sure what can be done, but the injuries are alarming. 

They need to enforce the rules they have.

In 2007 they instituted the rule that players must be ejected for a flagrant helmet to helmet hit.  Not one player has been ejected because of this.

The problem is judging "flagrant" is a difficult thing for an official to do.  There's no black and white definition which causes the penalty to seap into the official's mind when considering whether a hit was flagrant.  Nobody wants to eject a player on a borderline call.

But they need to.  Just eject them.  It's like porn - you know a flagrant helmet to helmet when you see it.  Now man up and enforce the rule.  You'd be amazed at how fast people will stop leading with their head if they know they'll get ejected for it.

Has many rules addressing contact and tackles.  It all happens fast and there is one referee, yet illegal hits are caught pretty consistantly.  Rules take time to have the desired effect.  The first effect will be more penalties.  Eventually coaching and player development will catch up and players just won't be making the illegal hits anymore.  This will likely be the first of many rules designed to protect players in contact situations.

I am all for it. 

Or, rather, hopefully, it's the beginning of substantial change and not just window-dressing for change. This will protect receivers and QBs, primarily, and also  DBs/LBs who affected by the hits that they inflict. But the real story, as we've come to learn regarding concussions is not the "violent" big hits, it's the more rote subconcussive trauma that inflicts less spectacular damage over the long course of a player's career. Linemen receive this subconcussive, big-but-not-devastating hits every day in practice and several times during the course of a game. Skill position players are affected too, of course. We know that Chris Henry had CTE, and it likely led to his death, but he was not a known concussion sufferer. There was likely no single hit that did it.

Policing big hits isn't the answer, and as we learn more and more about the effects of the game, it's going to become more clear that there are going to have to be BIG changes to football if it's going to be viable. Malcolm Gladwell has reportedly claimed that football would, in twenty years, "end up like the army" because middle class families won't let their kids participate (I think he should have said "boxing," but whatever). Well, this is already happening, bigtime. And I'm one of them. Growing up, I sort of always associated the "white people sports" (LAX, soccer) with parents who were afraid to have their kids play contact sports with kids of color in our very segregated southern city. Now, with everything coming out, I'm not letting my two boys play football. They both play soccer. (I should point out that bigtime college/pro sports run in the family, it's not at all unreasonable to think that at least one of my boys would have been a serviceable high school level football player). 

I've actually been thinking lately, and I think I've written on here before, that we're at the beginning of something of a 1905 moment with regard to the way the game looks and our increased understanding of its dangers. The forward pass, as an innovation, basically saved the game and I suspect that there's going to have to be more in the way of rule changes, perhaps allowing more men downfield, that are aimed at changing the way the game looks and is played, rather than adding punitive "lipstick on a pig" measures like this one. You're not going to change the mentality of a guy like James Harrison within the current rules, there has to be efforts made to change either the type of competitors on the field or the way competitions take place. (In short: The A11 is coming back, baby! And next time it will be mandated.)

Every sport has its "BOOM" moment.  With Nike putting out commercials like this its more evident than ever before, the big hits at any level is the "BOOM" moment in football.  This will change more than the rules in football.  1st its helmet to helmet, then its low shots like at :14 in the video and another big shot at :50 and the boxing knockout right around the end.  Sure you can change the rules and make it safer but there is something to be said for youngsters watching commercials like this one that builds up to the anticipation of laying someone out with a big hit.  Also, it's not as easy as it may seem to alter your aim on a moving target, even for pros.  What is intended to be an at the numbers tackle turns into a helmet to helmet as has already been mentioned when players brace for impact.  And what about the flip side, it doesn't happen as often or as violently but running backs at the second level and with breakaways, lower their head to deliver a blow.  Where do you draw the line?

I agree with a number of points from various posts but the bottom line is if the players think it's such a great idea to change the rule then just stop delivering the hits.  What do you need a rule change for if the majority say they want the change?  As Nike would say, "Just Do It" or stop doing it.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZZVhUXL25k

At some point they at still playing football, a violent and dangerous game.

The NFL wants their star players to be able to play 2 more games a year.  If the NFL cared they'd put in rules to protect offensive linemen.

Helmet to helmet should only be a penalty when hitting a defenseless player. It should not be ruled if helmet to helmet if the defender is making a standard tackle and the ball carrier head happens to be in the wrong place.

There is a modern marvels on the history channel right now about football helmets 

*episode is titled "most dangerous"*

I think the safety of the players should always be an issue but you have to be careful to balance safety with the fact you are in fact playing a violent game. There's no escaping that. The other thing is that with a rule this you have to be careful about what is and isnt illegal. If I leave my feet as a safety to make a hit and I lead with my forearms and make contact with a receivers chest and happen to slide up into his head not because I'm a dirty player or have any intention of hurting said receiver, but because this is a violent game in which I made a violent collision with another player, do I get this suspension? I certainly dont think i should but it certainly seems thats a hit that will be on their list. The DeSean Jackson hit did look like Robinson lowered his head. It actually looks like the brunt of the blow was to his chest though. except for the lowering of the head, I think it looks like routine hit. Should it have been a penealty? yes. is it a play that Robinson should be suspended for? I don't know. The Harrison hits on the other hand against Cleveland looked specifically helmet to helmet. where do you draw the line beyond enforcing rules already on the books?