PDA

View Full Version : Cheap shots, leading with the helmet...



hudlow
12-28-2012, 10:46 AM
...launching and spearing are going to have to be addressed in college football. I'm beginning to think that these dangerous actions should be called from the replay booth and penalties assessed if the hits are as obvious as some that were seen last night.

There's a good case for attempted murder with some of those hits.

hud

rthomas
12-28-2012, 11:01 AM
It's tackle football. There is no way helmets are not going to collide. If you want the tackles to go lower, then expect more knee injuries - but you have to pick your poison if you want tackle football.

johnb
12-28-2012, 11:10 AM
It's tackle football. There is no way helmets are not going to collide. If you want the tackles to go lower, then expect more knee injuries - but you have to pick your poison if you want tackle football.

It's not impossible to outlaw head shots and spearing. It's not always a dirty play, and I'm sure they're sometimes inadvertent, but I don't think it's as simple or macho as "it's tackle football, so suck it up."

Seems to me that if the refs enforce some basic rules, the rates of life-altering concussions would go down. And if they don't enforce the rules, and young men continue to get impaired at high rates, then the accumulating number of law suits (generally aimed at local school districts) will deservedly cripple the sport at the local level.

BD80
12-28-2012, 11:13 AM
I like the notion that if you hit with your facemask, it is a legal hit. It is the lowering of the head to use the crown of the helmet to deliver the blow that is illegal. That doesn't need to be a part of football.

hudlow
12-28-2012, 11:25 AM
It's tackle football. There is no way helmets are not going to collide. If you want the tackles to go lower, then expect more knee injuries - but you have to pick your poison if you want tackle football.


These NCAA Div 1 players are just a step away from the most elite in the game...they know how to use their equipment by this time. I will concede that accidents happen but I'd take a bum knee over paralysis...

rthomas
12-28-2012, 11:30 AM
Legal or Illegal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI1b66mBXys

hudlow
12-28-2012, 11:36 AM
Legal or Illegal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI1b66mBXys

Looks like the tackler led with his shoulder...that's football.

rthomas
12-28-2012, 11:40 AM
Looks like the tackler led with his shoulder...that's football.

Yes but they called a penalty. That's what I consider the problem to be.

oldnavy
12-28-2012, 11:43 AM
I like the notion that if you hit with your facemask, it is a legal hit. It is the lowering of the head to use the crown of the helmet to deliver the blow that is illegal. That doesn't need to be a part of football.

I grew up playing football from pee wee through high school, and no one ever taught us to hit with the top of the helment. It was called spearing and it was illegal 30+ years ago.

We were all taught to tackle with the "face on the ball".

I think they should be able to enforce, no hits above the shoulders. I also, think they can and should go to a booth review and call the penalty from the booth if it is missed on the field.

Having said that, some of the calls for illegal hits have been very questionable to me. There is virtually no way you cannot "lead with the head" and tackle someone. It just is a matter of how your head is positioned and where you are hitting the opponent.

Helment to helment is going to occur no matter what. Not on every play, but on a high percentage of plays. How many times have you seen a defender going in about numbers high, and the offensive player duck down placing his helment in the "strike zone"? It is a common occurance. Not sure you should penalize the defender if his facemask is up and he hits the opponents helment in that situation...

As far as going low and knees.... well most players would tell you they prefer getting hit high vs low ( I even heard an announcer of a NFL game say this so it has to be true, right?) ;)

Again, it boils down to where the helment is when contact is made. If the defender is face up and the face mask leads, then that is a lot less dangerous for both players than a tip of the helment strike which puts both players at risk and should never happen.

Barr8
12-28-2012, 12:06 PM
Hello everyone. I used to be dukeblood(before the board change) and just quit posting.

That hit on vernon Davis was called for a hit on. "defenseless receiver". Which IMO is inane! Is football coming to the point where you can't hit anyone until they are ready for it? If so, I will quit watching. As I'm a pacific northwestern I love the Seahawks, if memory serves me right that play was on a 3rd down.. Say if the score is close(it wasn't :) .... That could be a game changing penalty on what is a legal hit.


I'm all for protecting nfl players, but the game is severely being watered down by some of these new rules. You can almost call a penalty on any given play with some of these new rules. Watch the offensive line on a run play, there is almost always some helmet to helmet. PENALTY!

Bah, I shouldn't be too bitter. The hawks won and convincingly.

DukieInBrasil
12-28-2012, 12:30 PM
not a big football fan, but it is purposely designed to be a contact sport. Now, contact that is designed to hurt someone intentionally or that tends to lead to severe injury of the tackler should be controlled. But a lot of the helmet-to-helmet calls and other penalties on hard hits are stupid. Doesn't matter much to me as i rarely watch the game, but people play football willingly, knowing that injuries often happen.

bedeviled
12-28-2012, 12:33 PM
Why it is our natural instinct (defense AND offense) to drop our head? I wonder if our biomechanics handles an axial compression better than other types of forces. Leading with the facemask, I suspect, would introduce more shearing or bending forces on the defender's spine (and torsional if they don't it exactly straight-on)...which is part of what we're trying to prevent the offense from experiencing in helmet-to-helmet collisions. Thus, if defenders were mandated to tackle like that, 100% of such tackles would involve this effect.

sporthenry
12-28-2012, 12:42 PM
There already is a rule for helmet to helmet hits. At first, I thought last nights shouldn't have been a foul (b/c I figured it was the same as NFL in that ball carrier wasn't defenseless but NCAA has taken it a step further).


ARTICLE 3. No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with
the crown (top) of his helmet. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 9-6.)

As far as the whole, this is football, what are they doing nonsense. Money drives everything. I doubt the NFL and others want to do this. They have to do this to limit their exposure to liability. The NFL is facing billions is law suits, just imagine what college or high schools could be facing. I don't think the future is bright for football at least as we know it and I'd be surprised to see things stay this physical 10-20 years down the road.

Bob Green
12-28-2012, 01:16 PM
I don't think the future is bright for football at least as we know it and I'd be surprised to see things stay this physical 10-20 years down the road.

I agree. There will be more game changing rules implemented due to concerns for player safety. It may take 10-20 years, but the end results are going to be significant. Kick-offs and punts could very well be eliminated. There are a lot of injuries on those plays.

Edouble
12-28-2012, 01:21 PM
Why it is our natural instinct (defense AND offense) to drop our head? I wonder if our biomechanics handles an axial compression better than other types of forces. Leading with the facemask, I suspect, would introduce more shearing or bending forces on the defender's spine (and torsional if they don't it exactly straight-on)...which is part of what we're trying to prevent the offense from experiencing in helmet-to-helmet collisions. Thus, if defenders were mandated to tackle like that, 100% of such tackles would involve this effect.

I thought that the risk in a helmet-to-hemet collision is not that the offensive player's spine will be compromised, but that a jarring hit to the head will shake their brain around in their skull.


Not a big football fan, but...

It is our natural instinct to flinch when a 90 mph fastball is headed straight towards us.

It is our natural instinct to close our eyes when heading a soccer ball.

Etc., etc.

So, regardless of what our natural instincts are, we commonly overcome them in sports through practice.

oldnavy
12-28-2012, 01:43 PM
Why it is our natural instinct (defense AND offense) to drop our head? I wonder if our biomechanics handles an axial compression better than other types of forces. Leading with the facemask, I suspect, would introduce more shearing or bending forces on the defender's spine (and torsional if they don't it exactly straight-on)...which is part of what we're trying to prevent the offense from experiencing in helmet-to-helmet collisions. Thus, if defenders were mandated to tackle like that, 100% of such tackles would involve this effect.

The idea I was left with while be coached to do this is that you bring your chest and arms into play so you can wrap up the man with the ball. It led to less force being applied directly to the spinal column per se. Remeber when everyone wore the neck collars?? That was to prevent your head from snapping back as far when you hit someone with your facemask.

There is no avoiding dangerous collisions in football. On any given play a player literally risks their life (albeit it very rarely happens thank the Lord) or injury. I say as long as people understand the risk, let them play.

Basketball is also a sport that is very dangerous. My son suffered a concussion and is still dealing with the after effects from hitting his head on the court after blocking a shot and coming down off balance.

A year or so later, he broke his arm and had to have two plates and 14 screws placed when another player fell on him.

And to think we were worried about him playing football!!

Stuff happens. Make sensible rules, but realize that no matter what we will never live in a world where injury or accidents do not occur.

bedeviled
12-28-2012, 01:48 PM
I thought that the risk in a helmet-to-hemet collision is........that a jarring hit to the head will shake their brain around in their skull.Yes, the risk of concussion is definitely greater than that of paralysis or whatever. I was addressing the earlier posts of lead-with-the-crown vs lead-with-the-facemask (not the helmet-to-helmet part of the conversation). I had presumed concussion would be equal since both would involve the cranial pinball. But, perhaps you are right, there may be a concussion difference between crown vs facemask approaches. My guess, though, is that it would still favor the crown approach.

I'm surprised that there is so much talk out there about rules compared to equipment. It would be ironic if helmets lead to more head injuries than they prevent. Do Australian rules football and rugby suffer as many head injuries? Would de-escalating football gear help or hinder? IDK. Also, there is motorcycle equipment to displace force to the body. I wonder if it is effective or feasible for sports.

EDIT: I see OldNavy beat me to the equipment talk. I fully agree with both his posts and will yield the floor :)

oldnavy
12-28-2012, 01:53 PM
Yes, the risk of concussion is definitely greater than that of paralysis or whatever. I was addressing the earlier posts of lead-with-the-crown vs lead-with-the-facemask (not the helmet-to-helmet part of the conversation). I had presumed concussion would be equal since both would involve the cranial pinball. But, perhaps you are right, there may be a concussion difference between crown vs facemask approaches. My guess, though, is that it would still favor the crown approach.

I'm surprised that there is so much talk out there about rules compared to equipment. It would be ironic if helmets lead to more head injuries than they prevent. Do Australian rules football and rugby suffer as many head injuries? Would de-escalating football gear help or hinder? IDK. Also, there is motorcycle equipment to displace force to the body. I wonder if it is effective or feasible for sports.

What we need to do is outlaw 300 pounder's that run sub 4.6 40's!! That's insane!!

The size and speed of the players and the violence of the collision has as much if not more to do with the injuries than anything else.

greybeard
12-28-2012, 01:54 PM
It's not impossible to outlaw head shots and spearing. It's not always a dirty play, and I'm sure they're sometimes inadvertent, but I don't think it's as simple or macho as "it's tackle football, so suck it up."

Seems to me that if the refs enforce some basic rules, the rates of life-altering concussions would go down. And if they don't enforce the rules, and young men continue to get impaired at high rates, then the accumulating number of law suits (generally aimed at local school districts) will deservedly cripple the sport at the local level.

Many fouls are not intentional. However, I am sorry, hits that are intended to dislodge the ball by nailing a receiver going over the middle are downright dangerous, helmet to helmet hits or not. The head snaps forcefully, it stops, but the brain doesn't and the skull isn't made of pudding. These hits should be banned, period. And, for those who would complain that the passing game is already too wide open and such a rule would open the field still more, that the only chance the defense has to close off this part of the field is to intimate, hurt, injure, and rock the brains and bones of receivers, they are just blowing smoke. Offense sells and so does violence. That's the list. If they want to curb the effectiveness of the passing game, lengthen the distance from the line of scrimmage in which defenders can hand check or whatever you call it. Do away with that stupid five yard rule and stop needless brutality, intimidation, violence and injury to receivers. Stop it now.

While we are at it, no one can tell me that the second and third guys in as a ball carrier is just about to hit the ground should be aiming to land on him, or nail him into the ground with helmet to helmet or any other kind of downward directed force. These hits are meant to cause real pain, to intimidate, and often to injure, which, if not intentional, is certainly forceable. One such hit put RGIII out of a game, and caused him to miss another. The number of ball carriers who do not get off so lucky comprise high numbers. This business has nothing to do with playing the game. It should be stopped. Every single one of those hits should be reviewed by the League after each game and the penalties handed out should be severe. You put somebody out, you miss a game, at a minimum.

And, I have to say that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. It is one thing for a back to lower his upper torso to run through hits or arm tackoles and quite another for a back to lead with his helmet into a defender, often smacking the defender who is in a flexed but upright position dead on in the face or head. I don't know that power backs have any choice in the matter, that is, they either run that way or sit, or do it on their own because it works and they are there to play football in a manly way. Nor do I care. I don't remember too good anymore but I am hard pressed to remember full backs who got low to break tackles when helmets were comparative toys running into people with their heads or even in a manner that puts their heads and necks (spines) at risk. That's right, sports fans, you smach into somebody with your head level to the ground and aligned with your spine, how nice is that for the long term well being of your spinal column.

The inglorious part of all of this were the disclosures of the insistence in the past that injured players get shot up with pain killers used for horses. Players who were in otherwise debilitating pain, were being drugged up by the boatload every week and the devisitation wrought is appauling. Now, the league wants to continue the practice but only for those who are willing to sign a release. Really, hey, marginal player who has a prospect of only 3 plus years in the league, you think maybe you want to sign a release? Yeah, the Commish is making the game too soft. My grandma.

You want to see the most recent story, which also debunks the myth of the high pay that makes it "all worth it," check out a new 30-30 that aired last week. To paraphrase Detective Joe Friday in a show called Dragnet (yikes am I old), there are a million stories in the world of sports, this is one of them perhaps worth a look.

Jarhead
12-28-2012, 02:11 PM
My dad played football for Erasmus High School in Brooklyn, N.Y. I remember a picture from a game (sometime in the early 20s, I think) where he and most of his teammates wore no helmets, but for a few who wore pads over their ears.

I don't imagine that head shots were much of a problem back then. My football experience covered one season in high school, and our helmets and shoulder pads where leather. There were additional pads sewn into the pants. Oh, yeah, there was the cup. Again, I don't remember head shots. Yeah, there were punches, handfuls of dirt in your face and other sporting gestures. The helmets were not very substantial, and there were no masks.

What would happen if we returned to that kind of helmet, or if, like rugby, we wore no helmets at all. Rugby, in its own way is just as interesting to watch, so... Well, it's just a thought, but what would happen?

camion
12-28-2012, 02:19 PM
Put the padding on the outside of the helmet instead of the inside. The problem will solve itself.

It's a joke son. But why do helmets have to be so hard?

oldnavy
12-28-2012, 02:28 PM
Many fouls are not intentional. However, I am sorry, hits that are intended to dislodge the ball by nailing a receiver going over the middle are downright dangerous, helmet to helmet hits or not. The head snaps forcefully, it stops, but the brain doesn't and the skull isn't made of pudding. These hits should be banned, period. And, for those who would complain that the passing game is already too wide open and such a rule would open the field still more, that the only chance the defense has to close off this part of the field is to intimate, hurt, injure, and rock the brains and bones of receivers, they are just blowing smoke. Offense sells and so does violence. That's the list. If they want to curb the effectiveness of the passing game, lengthen the distance from the line of scrimmage in which defenders can hand check or whatever you call it. Do away with that stupid five yard rule and stop needless brutality, intimidation, violence and injury to receivers. Stop it now.

While we are at it, no one can tell me that the second and third guys in as a ball carrier is just about to hit the ground should be aiming to land on him, or nail him into the ground with helmet to helmet or any other kind of downward directed force. These hits are meant to cause real pain, to intimidate, and often to injure, which, if not intentional, is certainly forceable. One such hit put RGIII out of a game, and caused him to miss another. The number of ball carriers who do not get off so lucky comprise high numbers. This business has nothing to do with playing the game. It should be stopped. Every single one of those hits should be reviewed by the League after each game and the penalties handed out should be severe. You put somebody out, you miss a game, at a minimum.

And, I have to say that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. It is one thing for a back to lower his upper torso to run through hits or arm tackoles and quite another for a back to lead with his helmet into a defender, often smacking the defender who is in a flexed but upright position dead on in the face or head. I don't know that power backs have any choice in the matter, that is, they either run that way or sit, or do it on their own because it works and they are there to play football in a manly way. Nor do I care. I don't remember too good anymore but I am hard pressed to remember full backs who got low to break tackles when helmets were comparative toys running into people with their heads or even in a manner that puts their heads and necks (spines) at risk. That's right, sports fans, you smach into somebody with your head level to the ground and aligned with your spine, how nice is that for the long term well being of your spinal column.

The inglorious part of all of this were the disclosures of the insistence in the past that injured players get shot up with pain killers used for horses. Players who were in otherwise debilitating pain, were being drugged up by the boatload every week and the devisitation wrought is appauling. Now, the league wants to continue the practice but only for those who are willing to sign a release. Really, hey, marginal player who has a prospect of only 3 plus years in the league, you think maybe you want to sign a release? Yeah, the Commish is making the game too soft. My grandma.

You want to see the most recent story, which also debunks the myth of the high pay that makes it "all worth it," check out a new 30-30 that aired last week. To paraphrase Detective Joe Friday in a show called Dragnet (yikes am I old), there are a million stories in the world of sports, this is one of them perhaps worth a look.

One small disagreement but overall I like your post. The "piling on" is as old as the game. It used to be called. Now I think they call it a late hit, but I agree that there seems to be a lot of it going on now. However, I would distinguish between piling on (clearly when player is down or is engaged by two or more players and is going down) and when a big lineman is coming in at full speed and closing on a runner who may or may not be going down. Does this make sense?? The refs need to be quicker with the whistle in order to stop that type of play.

My diasgreement is with the RGIII hit and how you discribed it. (Disclaimer, I am a Ravens fan). RGIII was hit by Ngata who is 350+ and moving at full speed. RGIII was on the way down, but he was not on the ground or if he was he had just touched the ground at about the same time the hit occured. Ngata was actually going over top of RGIII. He was aiming for where RGIII was at the time Ngata left his feet. RGIII went below Ngata and RGIII's leg was extended up in the air and whipped around and Ngata hit the leg. I think that if Ngata had tried to jump over RGIII his leg would have still hit him and snapped it back like it did. I don't think there was any malicious intent at all in that play, just one of those bad things that happen.

Second disclaimer I am a Redskins fan as well, and I was sickened when I saw that play and honestly thought RGIII was done. He is an amazing physical specimen and I think a mere mortal would have been done. I can hardly believe that it was just a sprain!

This is different than what I think you are describing when a player is on the ground and a defender piles into him. Great point, I just think the example you used was not the best to describe what I think you are describing.

Duke79UNLV77
12-28-2012, 02:48 PM
Put the padding on the outside of the helmet instead of the inside. The problem will solve itself.

It's a joke son. But why do helmets have to be so hard?

Don Beebe figured that out years ago by putting padding on the outside of his helmet after head injuries. Sure, it looks silly at first, but why aren't all helmets like that, plus other advancements since Beebe's time.

greybeard
12-28-2012, 04:04 PM
One small disagreement but overall I like your post. The "piling on" is as old as the game. It used to be called. Now I think they call it a late hit, but I agree that there seems to be a lot of it going on now. However, I would distinguish between piling on (clearly when player is down or is engaged by two or more players and is going down) and when a big lineman is coming in at full speed and closing on a runner who may or may not be going down. Does this make sense?? The refs need to be quicker with the whistle in order to stop that type of play.

My diasgreement is with the RGIII hit and how you discribed it. (Disclaimer, I am a Ravens fan). RGIII was hit by Ngata who is 350+ and moving at full speed. RGIII was on the way down, but he was not on the ground or if he was he had just touched the ground at about the same time the hit occured. Ngata was actually going over top of RGIII. He was aiming for where RGIII was at the time Ngata left his feet. RGIII went below Ngata and RGIII's leg was extended up in the air and whipped around and Ngata hit the leg. I think that if Ngata had tried to jump over RGIII his leg would have still hit him and snapped it back like it did. I don't think there was any malicious intent at all in that play, just one of those bad things that happen.

Second disclaimer I am a Redskins fan as well, and I was sickened when I saw that play and honestly thought RGIII was done. He is an amazing physical specimen and I think a mere mortal would have been done. I can hardly believe that it was just a sprain!

This is different than what I think you are describing when a player is on the ground and a defender piles into him. Great point, I just think the example you used was not the best to describe what I think you are describing.

We are quite close. Piling on, as old as the game, is not what I am talking about. It is second and thiird pursuits that get there and launch just as the ballcarrier is going down and do so at angle that is downward. I also have a big time issue with especially the behemoths rolling a downed or about to br down guy again with no effort to minimize impact but rather to nonchalantly crushing whatever gets in their way.

I agree that these things might be difficlt to call in the heat of play. That's why I chose to go the review of all game film by the league. I see no justication for the downward direction (always onan angle of course hits; none. No one would take such an angle to tackle, and certainly not commit to the extent that the hit could not be avoided once tne ball carrier is just about to or has hit the ground. I think that such a play can almost always be called straight up on the field. Whether it has been or not, a penalty, fine or perhaps full, or partial game assessment,should be mandatory regardless of inferrible intent;the presence of intent,of course, would necessarily carry a bigger penalty as would the degree of reckless disregard. If avoidable, a penalty would have to ensue.

I saw the RGIIIplay as falling within the zone of reckless. The hit, I thought, came way late and was of the 0h my gosh variety, that is, stuff just happens. However, youhave examined the hit more closely so I defer with the caviet, would he have needed, or even wanted to be launching so low if RGIII had not been going down; wouldn't the big linemen been looking formore of RGIII if he loaunched when a tackle was still in doubt? That is what I read, but again did not examine to the extent you did.

Which brings meto another issue. I think it clear that hits on RGIII preconcussion when he ran the option and had gotten rid of the ball were vicious and deliberate, that were message senders--you run thiis play and we are taking your boy out. That, to me, is a bunch of c@$p. You stop the play or not. Nailing someone on the field of play to intimidate, to create the specter that we will put yourguy at risk unnecessarily has no place in sport. This, by the way, has played out through the years along racial loines,to take the really blazing and creative aspect to quarterbacking black athletes bring to that position out of the game by taking them out if they use it. years ago, during the pit-bull episodewhen everyone was condemning Vick for his unpardonable acts, I raised the question, whatimpact did the treatment that Vick must have been subjected to since he was as a kid on the football field have to do with his indifference to the pain of these dogs that had been bred to kill. I suggested then that the failure of people to speak out against the violence against Vick were out of integrity with their concern for the violence done by him against those dogs. Violence had been for his entire life because he played quarterback with the unique style of an extraordinary black athlete. I did not intend that to in anyway suggest that the violence against Vick, or any indifference to it, was racially motivated, but rather to ignore violence perpetrated against Vick because he was terribly gifted and played in a style that coaches apparently felt it was okay to literally take out of the game by taking out the athlete.

Of course, you will see any quarterback who steps out of the pocket get nailed in a way that would be against the rules if he was inside the pocket. But the viciousness thrown at RGIII and Vick to stop a legitimate and exciting part of the game offends my sensibilities and my abhorence of the life-is-cheap ethos that permeates this game (?) called football. Go RGIII. oops, I mean Rdskins of course.

Edouble
12-28-2012, 04:10 PM
My dad played football for Erasmus High School in Brooklyn, N.Y. I remember a picture from a game (sometime in the early 20s, I think) where he and most of his teammates wore no helmets, but for a few who wore pads over their ears.

I don't imagine that head shots were much of a problem back then. My football experience covered one season in high school, and our helmets and shoulder pads where leather. There were additional pads sewn into the pants. Oh, yeah, there was the cup. Again, I don't remember head shots. Yeah, there were punches, handfuls of dirt in your face and other sporting gestures. The helmets were not very substantial, and there were no masks.

What would happen if we returned to that kind of helmet, or if, like rugby, we wore no helmets at all. Rugby, in its own way is just as interesting to watch, so... Well, it's just a thought, but what would happen?

This is an interesting question. IMHO, I think it would make things worse. You have to figure there are some crazy people out there that would be willing to sacrifice their heads and future health to hit harder than hard and become the best paid linebackers/tackles in the NFL.

johnb
12-28-2012, 04:15 PM
...

What would happen if we returned to that kind of helmet, or if, like rugby, we wore no helmets at all. Rugby, in its own way is just as interesting to watch, so... Well, it's just a thought, but what would happen?


A quick google search turned up an increasing concern about concussions in rugby. Data on comparative rates weren't easily available and may not have been compiled.

I would say that the great helmets make people feel invincible and more likely to spear people than if they didn't have helmets.

The rules changes wouldn't have to be tremendously onerous but instead focus on players who are relatively defenseless (wide receivers going over the middle; quarterbacks while passing; kickers while wearing a uniform) and on technique (more wrap your arms around the player rather than body blows; avoidance of tackling while the receiver is in the air).

I haven't seen evidence for kick offs causing injuries, but it seems easy to just give the other team the ball at the 20 or 30. And I can also imagine the punting team having the option of just tacking on 40 yards and handing over the ball. The idea of no field goals at all and no punts but 4 downs to make the 10 yards seems revolutionary but would certainly open up the game. I can also imagine reducing the amount of time between plays.

Edouble
12-28-2012, 04:17 PM
A quick google search turned up an increasing concern about concussions in rugby. Data on comparative rates weren't easily available and may not have been compiled.

I would say that the great helmets make people feel invincible and more likely to spear people than if they didn't have helmets.

The rules changes wouldn't have to be tremendously onerous but instead focus on players who are relatively defenseless (wide receivers going over the middle; quarterbacks while passing; kickers while wearing a uniform) and on technique (more wrap your arms around the player rather than body blows; avoidance of tackling while the receiver is in the air).

I haven't seen evidence for kick offs causing injuries, but it seems easy to just give the other team the ball at the 20 or 30. And I can also imagine the punting team having the option of just tacking on 40 yards and handing over the ball. The idea of no field goals at all and no punts but 4 downs to make the 10 yards seems revolutionary but would certainly open up the game. I can also imagine reducing the amount of time between plays.

So then... offensive players get to wear helmets, defensive players do not get helmets.

allenmurray
12-28-2012, 04:26 PM
We deserve to be entertained, no matter what the cost. If he dies, he dies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDgcc5Sif3k

rthomas
12-28-2012, 04:33 PM
We deserve to be entertained, no matter what the cost. If he dies, he dies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDgcc5Sif3k

Yes, we are entertained.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs

oldnavy
12-28-2012, 05:30 PM
We are quite close. Piling on, as old as the game, is not what I am talking about. It is second and thiird pursuits that get there and launch just as the ballcarrier is going down and do so at angle that is downward. I also have a big time issue with especially the behemoths rolling a downed or about to br down guy again with no effort to minimize impact but rather to nonchalantly crushing whatever gets in their way.

I agree that these things might be difficlt to call in the heat of play. That's why I chose to go the review of all game film by the league. I see no justication for the downward direction (always onan angle of course hits; none. No one would take such an angle to tackle, and certainly not commit to the extent that the hit could not be avoided once tne ball carrier is just about to or has hit the ground. I think that such a play can almost always be called straight up on the field. Whether it has been or not, a penalty, fine or perhaps full, or partial game assessment,should be mandatory regardless of inferrible intent;the presence of intent,of course, would necessarily carry a bigger penalty as would the degree of reckless disregard. If avoidable, a penalty would have to ensue.

I saw the RGIIIplay as falling within the zone of reckless. The hit, I thought, came way late and was of the 0h my gosh variety, that is, stuff just happens. However, youhave examined the hit more closely so I defer with the caviet, would he have needed, or even wanted to be launching so low if RGIII had not been going down; wouldn't the big linemen been looking formore of RGIII if he loaunched when a tackle was still in doubt? That is what I read, but again did not examine to the extent you did.

Which brings meto another issue. I think it clear that hits on RGIII preconcussion when he ran the option and had gotten rid of the ball were vicious and deliberate, that were message senders--you run thiis play and we are taking your boy out. That, to me, is a bunch of c@$p. You stop the play or not. Nailing someone on the field of play to intimidate, to create the specter that we will put yourguy at risk unnecessarily has no place in sport. This, by the way, has played out through the years along racial loines,to take the really blazing and creative aspect to quarterbacking black athletes bring to that position out of the game by taking them out if they use it. years ago, during the pit-bull episodewhen everyone was condemning Vick for his unpardonable acts, I raised the question, whatimpact did the treatment that Vick must have been subjected to since he was as a kid on the football field have to do with his indifference to the pain of these dogs that had been bred to kill. I suggested then that the failure of people to speak out against the violence against Vick were out of integrity with their concern for the violence done to him for playing quarterback with the unique style of an extraordinary black athlete. I did not intend that to in anyway suggest that the violence against Vick, or any indifference to it, was racially motivated, but rather to ignore violence perpetrated against Vick because he was terribly gifted and played in a style that coaches apparently felt it was okay to literally take out of the game by taking out the athlete.

Of course, you will see any quarterback who steps out of the pocket get nailed in a way that would be against the rules if he was inside the pocket. But the viciousness thrown at RGIII and Vick to stop a legitimate and exciting part of the game offends my sensibilities and my abhorence of the life-is-cheap ethos that permeates this game (?) called football. Go RGIII. oops, I mean Rdskins of course.

A quarterback out of the pocket is a running back. The problem with players like RGIII and Vick is that they bring that running threat that players like a Brady or Manning do not. I do not think you can say expect defenders to have two sets of rules on how to hit or tackle running backs and how to tackle quarterbacks running the ball. They allow QB's to slide

The Ngata play upset me only because of how RGIII's leg got whipped. If you watch the play Ngata really doesn't hit RGIII as much as RGIII "kicks" Ngata. Now I am not saying that RGIII "kicked" Ngata, but Ngata basically "missed" RGIII. RGIII had already juked a Raven and was cutting back and going into his slide about the time Ngata launched himself for the hit - that is why Ngata was 'high' on the play and didn't really make full contact with RGIII (he was aiming for where RGIII would have been had he not started sliding). It is a bam-bam type play. Had Ngata slamed into RGIII after he was on the ground, different story altogether, but he basically landed on top of him with his belly and rolled over him. Having Ngata land on you and roll over you is bad in and of itself, but in this case the damage was done before.

Again, your point is well taken. I agree on late hits, etc... but the sport of football is violent. When you play you are instilled with the mind set to knock the other guy's block off. Now how you can play 'that' game in a more gentle style I really do not know. The game would have to be modified to a point where I don't think anyone would want to watch it. Our local High School plays a style where they arm tackle and really don't hit the other guys. They lose most all of their games and are no fun to watch. There are some really, really good HS football teams in this area, and they play a much harder style.

So given watching football watered down to arm tackling and such, I would probably just not watch it. I don't need to see players knocked out or pounced on when down on the ground to enjoy the game, but it does need some 'pop' to be interesting to me, otherwise we might as well watch the lingerie league... hummm?? :o

I think with a modicum of common sense and maybe some improvements in equipment, we can keep the essence of the game and reduce the injuries.

throatybeard
12-28-2012, 09:13 PM
Yes, we are entertained.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs

Football is just fightin round the world

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOAOLihlh50

greybeard
12-28-2012, 10:50 PM
A quarterback out of the pocket is a running back. The problem with players like RGIII and Vick is that they bring that running threat that players like a Brady or Manning do not. I do not think you can say expect defenders to have two sets of rules on how to hit or tackle running backs and how to tackle quarterbacks running the ball. They allow QB's to slide.

I do not think thart running backs get hit in the same universe as hard as RGIII is getting nailed after the ball is long gone on an option play. The rule, as you say, is that when a quarterback is outside the pocket he is fair game as if a running back or receiver. Fair game for what, is my point. It should not be for violence to deter running the option rather than to defend it. That is not sport, nor is it a game. It should not simply be a fllag, but should be punished severely. Right now it is neither and that, in my view, is dead wrong.

Quarterbacks can slide. But why is it okay to nail RGIII when his foot is in the air and about to land out of bounds, rather than hit him the way a wide receiver or running back would be hit? I mean people are head hunting and everybody knows it. Ditto for Vick, double ditto for Vick. The answer should be an unequivocal "no."

This is violence of the worst sort. Violence that is designed to intimidate, to harm, to prevent someone from doing what the law of the game permits. Cleaning up the violence in the game is pure pablum in the face of this allowed play.

By the way, if you are one of those big guys whose job it is to roll on people, especially quarterbacks and you are the second guy in, and you find yourself in the midst of commiting your momentum and realize that you are a tad too late to get away with such nonsense, well, maybe you try to pull up and maybe you succeed and nothing comes of it. Maybe, as in the case of RGIII, something does come of it. They need to review all these secondary hits when the guy is down or nearly just so. As I said, these things are not difficult to evaluate; guys should be penalized personally, maybe coaches--your team reaches a certain level of these, "sorry coach, next week, this week you get to kick back and watch from home." The game will be better for it. The players, those that do the hitting, will be better men for it. The health, the well being of everyone who plays in the NFL, college, high school, and lower, will be better for it. NFL football sets the ethos of sport, and perhaps more than that. Right now it ain't getting it done.

oldnavy
12-29-2012, 07:37 AM
I dont disagree with the hits after he pitches the ball. He is no longer in the play so he shouldnt be hit. Don't disagree that the QB's take harder hits when out of the pocket and without the ball than other players. Dont disagree with defensive players sending a message by doing this. But I do disagree that QB's in the play, running the ball get hit any harder than RBs. RBs in the NFL take a POUNDING. The refs are calling hits after the slide, maybe not as consistantly as they should but Ive seen several this year. The Ngata play is not one of those that should be called, and it wasn't called. Had RGIII gone to the ground anyother way than he did, we wouldn't even be talking about that play.

We agree that they can clean it up some, but I don't think we will ever see a risk free game of full contact tackle football.

Anyway, GO DEVILS!!

oldnavy
12-29-2012, 10:32 AM
I dont disagree with the hits after he pitches the ball. He is no longer in the play so he shouldnt be hit. Don't disagree that the QB's take harder hits when out of the pocket and without the ball than other players. Dont disagree with defensive players sending a message by doing this. But I do disagree that QB's in the play, running the ball get hit any harder than RBs. RBs in the NFL take a POUNDING. The refs are calling hits after the slide, maybe not as consistantly as they should but Ive seen several this year. The Ngata play is not one of those that should be called, and it wasn't called. Had RGIII gone to the ground anyother way than he did, we wouldn't even be talking about that play.

We agree that they can clean it up some, but I don't think we will ever see a risk free game of full contact tackle football.

Anyway, GO DEVILS!!

Clarifying my own post. When I said I don't disagree, I mean I don't disagree with Greybeard that it is happening. It sounded like I was ok with the practice of hitting the QB after he is out of the play, or that players are sending a message, which I am not.