Now playing: Flag Football

[Korey]

[url="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/101019_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl"][color="#000080"][u]NFL cracks down on big hits[/u][/color].[/url]

[font="Garamond"]If you guys have been following the NFL at all, this has become the hot button topic. After several hard hits this past week in the NFL, many of which have resulted in concussions. In fact, this year in the NFL, the concussion toll has risen to 27 reported cases, which has risen by 14 cases at this point last season. The NFL has gradually increased the severity of the punishment of illegal "flagrant hits", most of which involve helmet to helmet collisions or hard hits to the head. Three players were fined and later suspended for their hits this past week. James Harrison of the Steelers was the biggest target. Harrison was fined 75 thousand dollars for his hits on Browns recievers Josh Cribbs and Mohammed Massaquoi. Further investigation into the hits reveal that while his hits did have helmet to helmet contact, there was no flag thrown on either play. The NFL has since updated its policy on illegal hits to include a fine and immediate suspension for a game. This has drawn a lot of fire by NFL players, who say that this rule will interfere with the game, which is violent by nature. The league claims that the policy is to increase player safety in regards to hard hits on defenseless players that are unable to protect themselves from such hits.

So, how do you enforce safety in a violent game such as American football? While player safety is important in the game, players play with the full knowledge that this game has its risks and that they may be on the receiving end of some brutal hits. Personally, having such a policy in place is rather harsh. If the hit draws a flag and an ejection, then the league should consider handing out a suspension or a fine. However, as the case was with Harrison, hits that DON'T draw flags shouldn't draw fines from the league. This kind of rule causes the NFL to lose some of its luster, because big hits are part of the game. This may cause some players (read: defenders) to put on kid-gloves when dealing with hits, because it may be called or reviewed by the league and may end up in a fine or suspension or both. It also leads to the NFL monitoring EVERY hard hit to see if it was legal. Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but isn't that what an official is present on the field for?

So, what should the plan be? Should the NFL keep the new policy or should they just let the players play?[/font]

[CaNz]

these kind of hits are not usually that common , but i was watching a game between Dallas and Minnesota, and i saw the quarterback get taken down from behind the line of scrimmage, and after the ball was thrown with a helmet to helmet hit. its no secret that these hits hurt, a lot... and that is usually what you expect in a football game, but when these hits have a high chance of landing you in the hospital something should be done about it. Tony Romo is young and he got back up... but it could have easily gone the other way if the hit was slightly more solid, costing a team their star player.
if one team loses a player... its only fair if the other team loses one as well... so i can see why suspension has been selected as the punishment. It does seem harsh though. I completely agree hard hits are part of the game, but it already was an illegal hit... but the current severity of the punishment has not detered it. most players seem to be able to control themselves and not fly into people head first. it really isn't an easy task to collide head first on a tackle without putting effort into it. frankly, as much as i love watching football, i would rather see it being played fair, rather than played all out... if i want that i will throw in a copy of NFL Blitz.

[Boo]

Just beef up the defences 'n' stop being whiny gits. You already have armour. Seriously.

[CaNz]

yeah... but it would be safer without it if people are gonna use the helmets to give other players concussions.
d:

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Calibri]Part of the problem actually stems from an existing safety measure: the helmet. When football was first played, the helmet was little more than a thick leather cap. You ram anything headfirst with that on, you're going to give yourself a concussion anyway. Modern football did away with that helmet in favor of one that protects the skull better, but as a result there's less for a player to fear from charging a solid object head first. In factâ??provided my source gave me correct infoâ??players now are taught to lead with their heads instead of their shoulders because it's safer to do so.

Also on a related note, the asinine rule where [url="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/don_banks/08/18/helmets/index.html"]a play is blown dead when a player loses their helmet[/url] is playing no small part. Which, granted, the rule is well-intentioned and certainly reasonable, since it's designed to protect a helmetless player from getting injured. But the inherent problem is that now a player can "get" a play stopped by losing their helmet, and that can wreak havoc on sack fumbles and interceptions and awesome rushes when a player breaks a tackle sans helmet and keeps going for twenty more yards and a touchdown.

And the easiest way to get your helmet to come off quickly without physically removing the straps is to wear it looser and hit things with your head.

So there's a lot of head usage.

Big hits are a huge part of the entertainment side of football. Same with NASCAR and big blowout wrecks, and hockey and body-checks or rink-brawls. But along with that are [i]effective[/i] hits. If you hit someone hard, head on, give yourself a concussion, and you didn't tackle him in the process, your fans aren't going to be as happy. (His fans will love it, though.) Lead with the shoulder, hit hard and wrap him up, and you get the hard hit, the tackle, [i]and[/i] the safe factor all at the same time. So yes, while I consider the rule linked in my post to be an idiotic implementation of a good idea, I feel the decision to crack down on helmet-led hits is a good one and will go a long way to solving both problems.

(Also note that the author of my linked article mentions a "nose-bloodied" player back to back with a "lacerated" player. A laceration is a medical term for a cut. Head cuts are bleeders. They look a lot worse than they are, typically. Concussions are a different story, but you're typically not going to die from a laceration unless it's a six-inch-deep gash or something grotesque like that.)[/FONT]

[eleanor]

I got excited that this was about football but then realized it was about [url="http://www.eatliver.com/img/2009/3849.jpg"]handegg[/url] Edited October 22, 2010 by eleanor

[CaNz]

yeah... well which picture looks cooler, the guy tapping around a ball or a the tank with an egg?

(huh... Allamorph and I agree... this is a strange thread,)

[eleanor]

[quote name='CaNz' date='21 October 2010 - 11:25 PM' timestamp='1287717943' post='701221']
yeah... well which picture looks cooler, the guy tapping around a ball or a the tank with an egg?

(huh... Allamorph and I agree... this is a strange thread,)
[/quote]

they look equally cool

[Katie!]

It wouldn't be such a big deal if the hits weren't so blatantly deliberate. As big of a Patriots fan as I am, Meriweather's hit was completely unnecessary. I'm not so sure about suspensions, but a fine is definitely necessary because this week was absolutely ridiculous.

[CaNz]

[quote name='eleanor' date='22 October 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1287795003' post='701247']
they look equally cool
[/quote]

that's not a fun thing to say! why bother complaining about American football if you're gonna say they are equal now. \:

[Korey]

[quote name='CaNz' date='23 October 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1287798422' post='701250']
that's not a fun thing to say! why bother complaining about American football if you're gonna say they are equal now. \:
[/quote]

Who's complaining?

However, to continue on with the thread.

[quote Allamorph] Big hits are a huge part of the entertainment side of football. Same with NASCAR and big blowout wrecks, and hockey and body-checks or rink-brawls. But along with that are effective hits. If you hit someone hard, head on, give yourself a concussion, and you didn't tackle him in the process, your fans aren't going to be as happy. (His fans will love it, though.) Lead with the shoulder, hit hard and wrap him up, and you get the hard hit, the tackle, and the safe factor all at the same time. So yes, while I consider the rule linked in my post to be an idiotic implementation of a good idea, I feel the decision to crack down on helmet-led hits is a good one and will go a long way to solving both problems.[/quote]
[font="Garamond"]
Enterainment is a huge factor of the game, but the main factor the the players are disputing is that hits like that are hard to avoid 100% of the time. While prevention is a huge issue and the less concussions we can diagnose the better. There's something to be said for fundamental tackling, which is what most players in the Pop Warner stages are taught. However, most NFL players do look for the big hit because of the aforementioned entertainment factor.

What I contest is...if the defensive player can't lead with the helmet...then what about the offensive running back that's barreling through the offensive line with his helmet down? Can he get penalized for leading with his head?
[/font]