Player Safety???

[echobravo]

Been away for a good long while as a poster here on BF, have been soaking in the story lines of the pas year or so. What I want to know is this, I thought this was to be a year of addressing player safety. From every snap I watched this year that is a joke and a half. Using the defenseless receiver rule and leading with the helmet rule (it is called spearing idiot announcers) as a cudgel against only certain players smacks of NBA level asshattery in officiating. If Tom Brady is your QB then the Brady rule is enforced to draconian levels. However if your QB is Jake Locker for instance, then prepare to watch every defense you face to tee off on him until he is a broken pile on the turf. What about piling on?? Nothing to see here move along?
I am not going to get into conspiracy theorizing about the SB. Denver very well could have lost if the game had been called rigidly. My problem comes from a complete change in how the games are called when the postseason begins. Moron play by play and color guys use the phrase "i guess the refs are going to let them play today" really get to me. If interference occurs and is not called the refs are not "letting them play" the refs are letting them cheat.
I would not mind seeing the collegiate rule of when you are down you are down adopted. It would slow down most of the pile ons and dives into prone players I have seen multiply in the last ten years in the NFL. When a player is down by contact and you dive in, that is a personal foul. For a league that is supposedly concerned about player safety, this is hypocrisy. Networks (including the NFL network) do no favors to player safety. They all have to show the highlight of the snot bubble hit whether dirty or not. This is supposed to be the NFL, not MMA. The helmet is not a weapon, and should not be used as such.
When was the last time a player was ejected? Compare that to the number of times a player should have been ejected. The disparity is vast. Refs will not eject a player for a flagrant spear. They have surrendered any moral authority. Penalize, eject, fine, and suspensions should be used on players that seek to injure rather than tackle. Will the NFL do this? There is about as much chance of that as any of hitting the powerball AND mega millions.
The NFL settled with former players concerning CTE, they said they would focus on player safety. I say bulls***!

[Joel]

I've been saying for a while that if the refs don't call spearing re-banning it won't help; if we don't enforce the rules, creating more unenforced rules can't fix that root problem.

Sadly, the NFL misses the point with safety; instead of banning deliberate attempts to injure opponents, the league banned ALL contact (injurious, intentional, incidental or not) to some areas an lets cheap shots everywhere else continue. That's why we had a playoff game 2 years ago where the commentators told us James Harrison and his teammates decided to just go low to avoid flags, even though going low INCREASES injury risks; lo and behold it took just over a quarter for Harrison to end Deckers season with a low hit and ACL sprain.

That's why Seattle runs every practice with players in body shields from neck to knees: So the Legion of Dope learns how to aim organ-liquifying hits that don't draw flags. Again, the NFL missed the point and missed the boat on preventing injuries. Perhaps that's why a judge just threw out the NFLs eye-popping $765 million concussion settlement, on the grounds it was too low: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10292549/judge-rejects-preliminary-approval-765-million-nfl-settlement-concussion-case

[echobravo]

Have heard that Mike Ditka said we should eliminate face masks to keep players from leading with the head. That would never happen thank god. A saner approach would be to make the facemasks not stick out as far. If the mask is 2 inches from your nose, you are gonna think twice about launching at a target head first. Also, visors should either be mandated and clear or outlawed. A tinted visor provides an unfair advantage because your opponents cannot see you eyes. A good portion of offense or defense is the ability to read the eyes of your opponents.
I would also dust off a rule that is already on the books, it is called aiding the runner. I am amazed that more players are not injured when an offensive lineman barrels into a scrum to push the RB a couple steps forward.

[Lancane]

I say scrap all the rules and make it a death match! :viking:

[Joel]

I say scrap all the rules and make it a non-contact death match! :viking:
Edited to comply with Goodellian "safety standards." ;)

[silkamilkamonico]

The SuperBowl showed that a defense can be dominant and physical and play clean and not be a concern to player safety. Hopefully the rest of the league is taking notes on how they played and we can see more of that type of defense more often.

[spikerman]

Wow, there's so much wrong with this thread that I'm too overwhelmed to respond. I'll have to sleep on it.

[Joel]

Same old thing:

"You may no longer shoot people in the face."

"Can I still stab them in the face? Or shoot them in the gut?"

":rolleyes: What was unclear about 'You may no longer SHOOT people in the FACE'?!"


The SuperBowl showed that a defense can be dominant and physical and play clean and not be a concern to player safety. Hopefully the rest of the league is taking notes on how they played and we can see more of that type of defense more often.
Seattle reportedly runs every practice with WRs wearing bodyshields over all legal areas just so DBs and LBs learn to aim bone-crushing organ-liquifying hits at perfectly legal areas. Pre-SB reports also said the Competition Committee has already decided to revise the rules (again) next year to address the pushing, shoving and pulverizing Seattle gets away with on technicalities.

It may be true "offense wins game, but defense wins championships," but it's also true offense sells tickets, broadcast contracts and merchandise. I guarantee Peyton Manning jersey and bobblehead sales plummeted after SB XLVIII.

I wish they WOULD fundamentally alter the rules, but not as they have so far. I've said for several years that regulating WHERE defenders hit instead of HOW and WHY would just mean dirty players aim the same old dirty hits at legal areas: Isn't that EXACTLY what Seattle DID do? Witness the result:

The greatest offense in history lies in ruins, a global laughingstock: "What's the difference between the Denver Broncos and Corn Flakes? Corn Flakes belong in a bowl."

Much of that's on our porous anemic line who couldn't block a strong breeze, but some is how Seattles DBs maul WRs, forcing Manning to hold the ball longer than our line allowed.

Meanwhile, even incidentally momentarily brushing a palm across a QB or WRs head or neck—even if a defender DOESN'T do either but it LOOKS like he did: 15 yds, fines, suspensions....

[spikerman]

I will do my best to address a lot of the misconceptions in this thread tomorrow. I'm old and going to bed soon.

[MOtorboat]

I will do my best to address a lot of the misconceptions in this thread tomorrow. I'm old and going to bed soon.

You are old.

:subscribe:

[silkamilkamonico]

Same old thing:

"You may no longer shoot people in the face."

"Can I still stab them in the face? Or shoot them in the gut?"

":rolleyes: What was unclear about 'You may no longer SHOOT people in the FACE'?!"


The SuperBowl showed that a defense can be dominant and physical and play clean and not be a concern to player safety. Hopefully the rest of the league is taking notes on how they played and we can see more of that type of defense more often.
Seattle reportedly runs every practice with WRs wearing bodyshields over all legal areas just so DBs and LBs learn to aim bone-crushing organ-liquifying hits at perfectly legal areas. Pre-SB reports also said the Competition Committee has already decided to revise the rules (again) next year to address the pushing, shoving and pulverizing Seattle gets away with on technicalities.

It may be true "offense wins game, but defense wins championships," but it's also true offense sells tickets, broadcast contracts and merchandise. I guarantee Peyton Manning jersey and bobblehead sales plummeted after SB XLVIII.

I wish they WOULD fundamentally alter the rules, but not as they have so far. I've said for several years that regulating WHERE defenders hit instead of HOW and WHY would just mean dirty players aim the same old dirty hits at legal areas: Isn't that EXACTLY what Seattle DID do? Witness the result:

The greatest offense in history lies in ruins, a global laughingstock: "What's the difference between the Denver Broncos and Corn Flakes? Corn Flakes belong in a bowl."

Much of that's on our porous anemic line who couldn't block a strong breeze, but some is how Seattles DBs maul WRs, forcing Manning to hold the ball longer than our line allowed.

Meanwhile, even incidentally momentarily brushing a palm across a QB or WRs head or neck—even if a defender DOESN'T do either but it LOOKS like he did: 15 yds, fines, suspensions....


Seattle played a good physical clean game. I cant tell by this post what your stance is, but seattles defense was awesome to watch. Unfortunately.

[Joel]

Seattle played a good physical clean game. I cant tell by this post what your stance is, but seattles defense was awesome to watch. Unfortunately.
When the practice with guys wearing shields over all legal areas just so they learn to target them, they're doing exactly what I predicted from the rules change to "you can't even TOUCH players here and here, but may do anything you like everywhere else." Turn it around: Should defenders get flagged for an inadvertent glancing blow to the head? Isn't that why helmets exist?

I don't get why briefly accidentally slapping a guys helmet is a penalty, and a fine if it happens twice, but spending a whole game trying to break his leg is fine. They missed the point—badly.

Think of it this way: Just about everything Romanowski did is still perfectly legal, but a celebratory helmet bump after a TD is technically a foul.

[silkamilkamonico]

I'm glad we agree that seattle played an outstanding, physical, clean game against denver in the Super Bowl.

[Lancane]

I'm glad we agree that seattle played an outstanding, physical, clean game against denver in the Super Bowl.

Seattle was about as clean as Bullgator's underwear after seeing Tebow with his shirt off! I could point out a number of fouls that should have been called, but somehow were missed by the officials.

[spikerman]

Ok, I'm going to give you an official's point of view. Obviously I'm not an NFL official, but I think I can reasonably address some of these issues - I'll answer a couple of different posters in here:



Using the defenseless receiver rule and leading with the helmet rule (it is called spearing idiot announcers) as a cudgel against only certain players smacks of NBA level asshattery in officiating. Actually, it hasn't been called "spearing" in quite some time. You don't find that term in the NCAA rule book and if I had to bet, you won't find it in the NFL rule book either. Also, in theory, leading with the helmet is a foul no matter who it's against. It's rarely called unless the intent is obvious because people make contact using their helmets all the time, but that's how it's written.



If Tom Brady is your QB then the Brady rule is enforced to draconian levels. However if your QB is Jake Locker for instance, then prepare to watch every defense you face to tee off on him until he is a broken pile on the turf. What about piling on?? Nothing to see here move along? Player safety is paramount at every level. It's possible that certain officials see things different ways, but the rule book is the same for every player and I've never seen the "Michael Jordan Rule" applied at any level of football.


I am not going to get into conspiracy theorizing about the SB. Denver very well could have lost if the game had been called rigidly. Denver could have gotten every call on Sunday and they still would have been blown out. They were simply not ready to play.


My problem comes from a complete change in how the games are called when the postseason begins. Moron play by play and color guys use the phrase "i guess the refs are going to let them play today" really get to me. If interference occurs and is not called the refs are not "letting them play" the refs are letting them cheat. I do believe that the officials will let more things go in the post season because the stakes are so high and they want to make sure that the players decide it. It's human nature.


I would not mind seeing the collegiate rule of when you are down you are down adopted. It would slow down most of the pile ons and dives into prone players I have seen multiply in the last ten years in the NFL. When a player is down by contact and you dive in, that is a personal foul. For a league that is supposedly concerned about player safety, this is hypocrisy. Networks (including the NFL network) do no favors to player safety. They all have to show the highlight of the snot bubble hit whether dirty or not. This is supposed to be the NFL, not MMA. The helmet is not a weapon, and should not be used as such. Not sure I agree about adopting the college rule, but I agree that players tend to take it too far. Officials are more lenient in the NFL than at lower levels. One of the things that aggravate me the most is when people claim the play isn't over until the whistle blows. That is simply not true. The only time a whistle kills a play is when it's inadvertent.


When was the last time a player was ejected? Compare that to the number of times a player should have been ejected. The disparity is vast. Refs will not eject a player for a flagrant spear. They have surrendered any moral authority. Penalize, eject, fine, and suspensions should be used on players that seek to injure rather than tackle. Will the NFL do this? There is about as much chance of that as any of hitting the powerball AND mega millions.
The NFL settled with former players concerning CTE, they said they would focus on player safety. I say bulls***! Under NFL rules, targeting does not automatically result in an ejection. At the NCAA and lower levels it does. Certain things do result in an ejection and the NFL officials will eject if necessary. I have no doubt that NFL officials are told that the fans are there to watch the famous players so they do their best to avoid ejections. The NFL and NCAA are definitely focused on player safety. The foul for targeting defenseless players is a prime example of that.


Sadly, the NFL misses the point with safety; instead of banning deliberate attempts to injure opponents, the league banned ALL contact (injurious, intentional, incidental or not) to some areas an lets cheap shots everywhere else continue. That's why we had a playoff game 2 years ago where the commentators told us James Harrison and his teammates decided to just go low to avoid flags, even though going low INCREASES injury risks; lo and behold it took just over a quarter for Harrison to end Deckers season with a low hit and ACL sprain. The NFL and NCAA is trying to eliminate brain injuries. They're trying to "train" players to go low. Yes, it might result in a knee or other lower body injury, but in the league's line of thinking, that's better than the head trauma. A player might have trouble getting out of bed in a few years, but at least he'll know where he's at when he gets out of bed. Personally I had no problem with the hit on Decker.


That's why Seattle runs every practice with players in body shields from neck to knees: So the Legion of Dope learns how to aim organ-liquifying hits that don't draw flags. I hadn't heard this. I think it's genius and I wish every team would adopt this practice.



Also, visors should either be mandated and clear or outlawed. A tinted visor provides an unfair advantage because your opponents cannot see you eyes. A good portion of offense or defense is the ability to read the eyes of your opponents.

At the NCAA and HS level all face masks MUST be clear, if worn. It has nothing to do with competitive advantage. It goes back to safety. If a player sustains an injury to the head and neck, medical professionals have to be able to see their eyes without removing the helmet in case of a neck injury.


I would also dust off a rule that is already on the books, it is called aiding the runner. I am amazed that more players are not injured when an offensive lineman barrels into a scrum to push the RB a couple steps forward. That foul was never called so it was amended in the rule book. It is no longer illegal to aid the runner by pushing him. In theory it is illegal to pull or pick up the runner to help him. You're right that we never call this. In fact, if I see this I usually blow it dead as forward progress stopped.



Meanwhile, even incidentally momentarily brushing a palm across a QB or WRs head or neck—even if a defender DOESN'T do either but it LOOKS like he did: 15 yds, fines, suspensions.... They changed the rule a couple of years ago. Now the referee has discretion. As long as it looks to be incidental he can pass on the flag. The rule used to say "any contact" to the QB's head, but that's no longer the case. I also don't know of anybody who has been suspended for brushing the palm across a QB or WR's head or neck. As for the WR's, you're talking about a defenseless player. It's true that contact to the head and neck area is a foul on a defenseless player - all in the name of safety.



...but a celebratory helmet bump after a TD is technically a foul. Ummm, in no way is this, or has it ever been, a foul.

[spikerman]

Oh, and I'm terribly sorry for the long post. I'll try not to let it happen again.

[silkamilkamonico]

Seattle was about as clean as Bullgator's underwear after seeing Tebow with his shirt off! I could point out a number of fouls that should have been called, but somehow were missed by the officials.

Seattle didn't play a "dirty" game by any means. Sure there was calls that weren't called, but the same could be said for Denver as well.

[Lancane]

Seattle didn't play a "dirty" game by any means. Sure there was calls that weren't called, but the same could be said for Denver as well.

Then what would you call it? Seattle was getting away with murder and every time the Broncos tried to match them they'd get a flag? Hell, there were times that Seattle was guilty but the referees called the foul against the Broncos. Come the end of the first half I was starting to wonder if the Refs had money riding on the game it was so bad.

[spikerman]

Then what would you call it? Seattle was getting away with murder and every time the Broncos tried to match them they'd get a flag? Hell, there were times that Seattle was guilty but the referees called the foul against the Broncos. Come the end of the first half I was starting to wonder if the Refs had money riding on the game it was so bad.

Wow... I must have watched a completely different game.

[Joel]

Actually, it hasn't been called "spearing" in quite some time. You don't find that term in the NCAA rule book and if I had to bet, you won't find it in the NFL rule book either. Also, in theory, leading with the helmet is a foul no matter who it's against. It's rarely called unless the intent is obvious because people make contact using their helmets all the time, but that's how it's written.
Seriously? Refs rarely flag guys leading with their helmets unless intent's obvious? Maybe not in college, but it seems pretty common in the pros; they certainly aren't more lenient with THAT rule.


Under NFL rules, targeting does not automatically result in an ejection. At the NCAA and lower levels it does.... The NFL and NCAA is trying to eliminate brain injuries. They're trying to "train" players to go low. Yes, it might result in a knee or other lower body injury, but in the league's line of thinking, that's better than the head trauma. A player might have trouble getting out of bed in a few years, but at least he'll know where he's at when he gets out of bed. Personally I had no problem with the hit on Decker.
Then it's not about safety, it's about BRAIN AND SPINAL safety at the expense of ALL OTHER safety (and still did Wolfe no good, even in preseason.) Evidently we fundamentally disagree on how to improve safety in general; I think adopting the targeting rule would make the defenseless player rules superfluous, to great betterment of both the game and player safety. If doesn't matter HOW players are trying to put each other in the hospital, only IF; players who AREN'T doing that shouldn't be penalized, fined and suspended for incidental contact in a full contact sport.


I hadn't heard this. I think it's genius and I wish every team would adopt this practice.
Don't worry; given the ultimate dividend and utter lack of consequences, I'm sure EVERY NFL team will soon run practices with WRs wearing shields over all the legal areas. Maybe we can give players Prussian infantry helms with the spike on top, so they can LITERALLY spear opponents; as long as they don't do it in the head or neck, that's perfectly safe. :)


That foul was never called so it was amended in the rule book. It is no longer illegal to aid the runner by pushing him. In theory it is illegal to pull or pick up the runner to help him. You're right that we never call this. In fact, if I see this I usually blow it dead as forward progress stopped.
It darned well BETTER be illegal in practice, because that's what got people killed and nearly got football federally outlawed.


They changed the rule a couple of years ago. Now the referee has discretion. As long as it looks to be incidental he can pass on the flag. The rule used to say "any contact" to the QB's head, but that's no longer the case. I also don't know of anybody who has been suspended for brushing the palm across a QB or WR's head or neck. As for the WR's, you're talking about a defenseless player. It's true that contact to the head and neck area is a foul on a defenseless player - all in the name of safety.
You're right, I'd forgotten they changed it (last year, I thought) and that was the beginning of a good start: They need to finish the job.

Let's be realistic: Efforts to take ref discretion out of the equation have failed spectacularly as they must. Fans still scream profanities questioning your mental and visual acuity, ancestry and membership in the genus homo as much as ever. A certain amount of human judgement will and SHOULD always be a part of officiating; we don't want a computer assessing fouls, but men. Trying to enslave officials to inflexible narrowly defined prohibitions and penalties is no wiser nor better for sports rules than it is for criminal law.

So let's make the lump you'll ALWAYS take—no matter WHAT we do—at least worthwhile. Bring targeting bans to the NFL so it doesn't matter WHERE a cheap shot is aimed, only IF, and penalties, fines and suspensions don't result from inadvertent incidental contact to some areas while deliberately injurious contact to others is fine; that doesn't improve safety, only declare the rest of the body expendable so long as the brain and spine are (somewhat) protected. Have officials OFFICIATE, not simply measure.

Oh, and bring back the rule about a catch being a reception when a WRs pushed out of bounds; it was never called as often as it should've been, but the solution was NOT to simply never call it at all. I know you disliked the rule precisely because it required official discretion, but that's officiating; changing the rule didn't make NE fans scream any less about the ruling Bradys last second pick against Carolina wasn't "catchable" for Gronk. That's just life as an official (sorry.)


I hadn't heard this. I think it's genius and I wish every team would adopt this practice.
Don't worry; given the ultimate dividend and utter lack of consequences, I'm sure EVERY NFL team will soon run practices with WRs wearing shields over all the legal areas. Maybe we can give players Prussian infantry helms with the spike on top, so they can LITERALLY spear opponents; as long as they don't do it in the head or neck, that's perfectly safe. :)


Ummm, in no way is this, or has it ever been, a foul.
It's a helmet-to-helmet hit; won't someone PLEASE think of the children?!

[wayninja]

No offense to either party, but the thought of a Joel/Spikerman battle being the most interesting thing here for the next 5 months makes me want to mainline drano.

[silkamilkamonico]

Seattle didn't play a "dirty" game by any means. Sure there was calls that weren't called, but the same could be said for Denver as well.

Then what would you call it? Seattle was getting away with murder and every time the Broncos tried to match them they'd get a flag? Hell, there were times that Seattle was guilty but the referees called the foul against the Broncos. Come the end of the first half I was starting to wonder if the Refs had money riding on the game it was so bad.

Typical reffed football game with missed calls for both teams. Seattle was physical and there were no dirty hits.

Imo this notion that some people have about team a getting all the calls and team b not getting any is ridiculous.

Just my humble opinion.


Nobody watching that game objectively is thinking seattle somehow got more calls then denver.

[spikerman]

No offense to either party, but the thought of a Joel/Spikerman battle being the most interesting thing here for the next 5 months makes me want to mainline drano.
Me too.

[Joel]

Me too.
Cool; then the rules say I win 1-0. :tongue:

[spikerman]

Seriously? Refs rarely flag guys leading with their helmets unless intent's obvious? Maybe not in college, but it seems pretty common in the pros; they certainly aren't more lenient with THAT rule. I can't remember the last time I saw a player flagged for leading with the helmet on a non-defenseless player in the NFL. By rule, any time you lead with the helmet it's a foul, but it's rarely called. In fact, for all of the griping before the season started about the new rule about running backs lowering their heads, I don't remember one instance of it being called.



Then it's not about safety, it's about BRAIN AND SPINAL safety at the expense of ALL OTHER safety (and still did Wolfe no good, even in preseason.) Evidently we fundamentally disagree on how to improve safety in general; I think adopting the targeting rule would make the defenseless player rules superfluous, to great betterment of both the game and player safety. If doesn't matter HOW players are trying to put each other in the hospital, only IF; players who AREN'T doing that shouldn't be penalized, fined and suspended for incidental contact in a full contact sport. People are going to get hit in the head. Targeting is a foul. I don't know the NFL rule book, but in college you have rule 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 which cover targeting. One specifically talks about leading with the crown of the helmet. In college (and I assume the NFL) that's a foul no matter who does it to whom, the other is targeting "defenseless players" which cover hits to the head and neck area. I'm not sure I understand the point about Wolfe - there was nothing illegal in that hit. It was just unfortunate.



Don't worry; given the ultimate dividend and utter lack of consequences, I'm sure EVERY NFL team will soon run practices with WRs wearing shields over all the legal areas. Maybe we can give players Prussian infantry helms with the spike on top, so they can LITERALLY spear opponents; as long as they don't do it in the head or neck, that's perfectly safe. :) I applaud the Seahawks for teaching their players to target legal areas. I guess I don't understand your issue with it. Football is not trying to eliminate hard hits. It's trying to eliminate hard hits that are going to result in long-term permanent and catastrophic effects to the players. Bad knees is one thing, paralysis and brain injuries are another.



It darned well BETTER be illegal in practice, because that's what got people killed and nearly got football federally outlawed. Ummmm, I've never heard this before. I'm not sure how pushing a ball carrier from behind is so dangerous.



It's a helmet-to-helmet hit; won't someone PLEASE think of the children?! Helmet to helmet hits are not automatically illegal and there is no rule about that type of contact between teammates.

[Joel]

I can't remember the last time I saw a player flagged for leading with the helmet on a non-defenseless player in the NFL. By rule, any time you lead with the helmet it's a foul, but it's rarely called. In fact, for all of the griping before the season started about the new rule about running backs lowering their heads, I don't remember one instance of it being called.
Oh, I see what you mean: They never call SPEARING (or "leading with helmet" if one prefers; semantics) unless intent's obvious: THAT'S true, and long has been, which is why the NFL chose to re-ban it a few years ago. Since then they call ALL infractions of the new redundant rule, intentional or not.

If they want to flag guys for inadvertently hitting crown first, why not just DO IT under th EXISTING rule, without ALSO flagging them for hitting the head/neck, let alone still-legal hits to the shoulder that LOOK like they went to the head/neck?



People are going to get hit in the head. Targeting is a foul. I don't know the NFL rule book, but in college you have rule 9-1-3 and 9-1-4 which cover targeting. One specifically talks about leading with the crown of the helmet. In college (and I assume the NFL) that's a foul no matter who does it to whom, the other is targeting "defenseless players" which cover hits to the head and neck area. I'm not sure I understand the point about Wolfe - there was nothing illegal in that hit. It was just unfortunate.
I don't believe targeting itself is a foul in the NFL; that's one of the big differences in the pros. Players are going to get hit in the head, yes; in the NFL it's a personal foul the first time, a fine the second and thereafter a possible suspension, intentional, accidental or incidental.

The point about Wolfe is precisely THAT "there was nothing illegal in that hit; it was just unfortunate." Even if the Seahawks INTENTIONALLY hit him the in SPINE to take him out of the game (and I'm NOT saying they necessarily did,) that's perfectly legal, because they didn't spear him or hit him in the head/neck: Deliberately paralyzing someone is perfectly legal as long as the player doesn't hit them in the head/neck; hitting them in the head/neck is completely illegal whether or not injurious or deliberate.

That doesn't improve safety; it just redirects intentionally injurious hits to specific areas so the NFL doesn't have to worry about judges saying their $765 million concusssion settlement isn't enough (except the judge said that ANYWAY; back to square one.) Like I say, they missed the point, "intentionally," IMHO.


I applaud the Seahawks for teaching their players to target legal areas. I guess I don't understand your issue with it. Football is not trying to eliminate hard hits. It's trying to eliminate hard hits that are going to result in long-term permanent and catastrophic effects to the players. Bad knees is one thing, paralysis and brain injuries are another.
Again, that misses the point; a dirty hit (i.e. attempt to injure opponents and take them out of games) is a dirty hit and a clean hit (i.e. attempt to tackle opponents and intimidate them by HURT without HARM) is a clean hit—WHEREVER either occurs. When Romanowski went to the Raiders and dislocated Sharpes elbow that was a legal hit—and IT STILL IS. Dirty as HELL, but as long as he didn't lead with his crown or hit Sharpe in the head/neck, "safety" has been defended. Except it hasn't and isn't.

You live pretty close to Earl Campbell; go tell him it's OK that he spends most days in a wheelchair as long he doesn't have brain damage.


Ummmm, I've never heard this before. I'm not sure how pushing a ball carrier from behind is so dangerous.
You said,
In theory it is illegal to pull or pick up the runner to help him. You're right that we never call this.
That's a HUGE no-no going back to the bad old days of football that ended after 19 people DIED during the 1905 college season, leading to the landmark reforms with which I'm sure you're familiar (if only because one of them was the creation of the NCAA.) Among the many barbarities of the Flying Wedges heyday was that teammates routinely grabbed ball carriers and became "ball-carrier carriers" once forward progress was stopped by trivial things like broken limbs, unconsciousness and/or death.

Uniforms even had large hanging loops at the waist for teams to grab onto when carrying their wounded/slain teammats into the end zone. THAT'S why the practice was banned, and should still be penalized (heavily.) Heck, Bo Jackson ended his OWN career by running so hard his hip popped out when he was tackled from behind; if we care about safety (or fear it as much as coaches and refs feared Teddy Roosevelts threat of a federal football ban) we definitely shouldn't let teams yank ball carriers forward from tackles just because their knee's not down.


Helmet to helmet hits are not automatically illegal and there is no rule about that type of contact between teammates.
I guess; teammates usually aren't defenseless when head-butting each other—just make sure they don't do it with the CROWN, or you have to assess the personal foul: It's in the book, and heaven forbid we expect refs to use ANY human discretion at all. Much easier to say even glancing blows to a defenseless players head/neck are fouls, fines and suspensions, but an elbow to the spine BELOW the neck is cool. C1-C7 are off limits for even minor incidental contact; T1-T12 and L1-L5 are fair game. Go, safety! :rolleyes:

[spikerman]

Ok, I have to admit that I'm not quite sure what you're going for here. Do you want every hit that leads to an injury to be penalized? Maybe I'm misreading what you're saying because frankly I'm baffled. I'll try to address your points though (as best as I understand them, anyway).


Oh, I see what you mean: They never call SPEARING (or "leading with helmet" if one prefers; semantics) unless intent's obvious: THAT'S true, and long has been, which is why the NFL chose to re-ban it a few years ago. Since then they call ALL infractions of the new redundant rule, intentional or not.

If they want to flag guys for inadvertently hitting crown first, why not just DO IT under th EXISTING rule, without ALSO flagging them for hitting the head/neck, let alone still-legal hits to the shoulder that LOOK like they went to the head/neck?

There is an existing rule and I'm not sure what you mean by "re-ban" it. As far as I know, it has always been illegal to intentionally lead with the crown of the helmet. The thing is there is always helmet to helmet contact. Officials are looking for players using their helmet as a weapon. They do not call every time there is a helmet to helmet hit. If it's against a "defenseless player" then yes, any contact to the head and neck area is a foul.



I don't believe targeting itself is a foul in the NFL; that's one of the big differences in the pros. Players are going to get hit in the head, yes; in the NFL it's a personal foul the first time, a fine the second and thereafter a possible suspension, intentional, accidental or incidental. I would bet that targeting is a foul in the NFL, but unlike NCAA I don't believe it warrants an ejection.


The point about Wolfe is precisely THAT "there was nothing illegal in that hit; it was just unfortunate." Even if the Seahawks INTENTIONALLY hit him the in SPINE to take him out of the game (and I'm NOT saying they necessarily did,) that's perfectly legal, because they didn't spear him or hit him in the head/neck: Deliberately paralyzing someone is perfectly legal as long as the player doesn't hit them in the head/neck; hitting them in the head/neck is completely illegal whether or not injurious or deliberate. First, I doubt any of these guys want to "intentionally" paralyze somebody. Second, I doubt any of these guys have enough knowledge to hit somebody in the perfect spot to paralyze them.


That doesn't improve safety; it just redirects intentionally injurious hits to specific areas so the NFL doesn't have to worry about judges saying their $765 million concusssion settlement isn't enough (except the judge said that ANYWAY; back to square one.) Like I say, they missed the point, "intentionally," IMHO. I have no doubt that money plays a part in what the NFL rule is as far as protecting against brain injuries, BUT there's a much bigger issue at work. There was a more than 30% drop in kids playing football this past year. If the game isn't made safer it will go away sooner rather than later.



Again, that misses the point; a dirty hit (i.e. attempt to injure opponents and take them out of games) is a dirty hit and a clean hit (i.e. attempt to tackle opponents and intimidate them by HURT without HARM) is a clean hit—WHEREVER either occurs. When Romanowski went to the Raiders and dislocated Sharpes elbow that was a legal hit—and IT STILL IS. Dirty as HELL, but as long as he didn't lead with his crown or hit Sharpe in the head/neck, "safety" has been defended. Except it hasn't and isn't. So what would you have them do? Penalize every hit that results in an injury? What about the perfectly legal block on Von Miller that resulted in a torn ACL? Was that a foul?


You live pretty close to Earl Campbell; go tell him it's OK that he spends most days in a wheelchair as long he doesn't have brain damage. My guess is that he would rather be spending his life in a wheelchair than be dead or not able to remember who he is. Football takes a beating on the body; I think everybody realizes that. Players don't expect to suffer brain damage as well. Ask Junior Seau or Dave Duerson if they would switch places with Earl Campbell.



You said,
That's a HUGE no-no going back to the bad old days of football that ended after 19 people DIED during the 1905 college season, leading to the landmark reforms with which I'm sure you're familiar (if only because one of them was the creation of the NCAA.) Among the many barbarities of the Flying Wedges heyday was that teammates routinely grabbed ball carriers and became "ball-carrier carriers" once forward progress was stopped by trivial things like broken limbs, unconsciousness and/or death.

Uniforms even had large hanging loops at the waist for teams to grab onto when carrying their wounded/slain teammats into the end zone. THAT'S why the practice was banned, and should still be penalized (heavily.) Heck, Bo Jackson ended his OWN career by running so hard his hip popped out when he was tackled from behind; if we care about safety (or fear it as much as coaches and refs feared Teddy Roosevelts threat of a federal football ban) we definitely shouldn't let teams yank ball carriers forward from tackles just because their knee's not down. I'm not sure where this is coming from. This rule is not a safety rule, but a competitive advantage rule. I've personally never seen a player injured from "aiding the runner."



I guess; teammates usually aren't defenseless when head-butting each other—just make sure they don't do it with the CROWN, or you have to assess the personal foul: It's in the book, and heaven forbid we expect refs to use ANY human discretion at all. Much easier to say even glancing blows to a defenseless players head/neck are fouls, fines and suspensions, but an elbow to the spine BELOW the neck is cool. C1-C7 are off limits for even minor incidental contact; T1-T12 and L1-L5 are fair game. Go, safety! :rolleyes: No, they are not defenseless. Defenseless players are clearly defined in the rule book and the rule does not apply to two teammates celebrating. That would be ridiculous.

[SR]

In other news...

[spikerman]

Ok.. i'll stop.

[SR]

Ok.. i'll stop.

No...not you. You make fantastic points.

[echobravo]

There was a more than 30% drop in kids playing football this past year. If the game isn't made safer it will go away sooner rather than later.


That is a large part of the reason I started this thread. NFL needs to actually address the player safety issue. Saying that they are for player safety while doing little about it changes nothing. I do not claim to have all the answers, only pointing out a problem that will be made worse with time if nothing is done.

[spikerman]

That is a large part of the reason I started this thread. NFL needs to actually address the player safety issue. Saying that they are for player safety while doing little about it changes nothing. I do not claim to have all the answers, only pointing out a problem that will be made worse with time if nothing is done.

I'm curious to hear what else you think they should do. They have instituted rules that a lot of people complain about due to player safety. I'm not calling you out; I appreciate that you want a safer game. I'm just wondering if you have some specific ideas in mind.

[echobravo]

Football is a nasty game, and I mean that with all the love I have for the game.

Noticed several years ago that there was more piling on than I had seen before. Maybe to up the stat line and maybe to enforce intimidation. I like in the college game that if your knee hits you are down, end of play. NFL will likely never adopt that, but it would slow down guys diving into the pile. I do not agree that the defenseless receiver and helmet to helmet hits are called fairly. Agree to disagree Spikerman.

Ill fitted helmets are no help either. When a players helmet flies off during a play that helmet is too loose. Every player should have the red marks on their forehead like Peyton Manning. The durn things should be hard to put on.

Sometimes the fault lies in safety equipment being too good. No I would not want the NFL to adopt 1970s helmets. Shortening the distance from the face mask to the face would still keep players safe. They would not feel feel as safe to leap into a pile or tackle a man head to head.

A form tackle should be made at the hips, not the knees or the shoulders (at least that is what I was taught). ESPN is as much to blame as the coaching culture. They show the big nasty hits on the highlight reel even if the hit was illegal.

I would love to listen to any serious suggestions, it is a game we all love.

[spikerman]

Football is a nasty game, and I mean that with all the love I have for the game.

Noticed several years ago that there was more piling on than I had seen before. Maybe to up the stat line and maybe to enforce intimidation. I like in the college game that if your knee hits you are down, end of play. NFL will likely never adopt that, but it would slow down guys diving into the pile. I do not agree that the defenseless receiver and helmet to helmet hits are called fairly. Agree to disagree Spikerman.

Ill fitted helmets are no help either. When a players helmet flies off during a play that helmet is too loose. Every player should have the red marks on their forehead like Peyton Manning. The durn things should be hard to put on.

Sometimes the fault lies in safety equipment being too good. No I would not want the NFL to adopt 1970s helmets. Shortening the distance from the face mask to the face would still keep players safe. They would not feel feel as safe to leap into a pile or tackle a man head to head.

A form tackle should be made at the hips, not the knees or the shoulders (at least that is what I was taught). ESPN is as much to blame as the coaching culture. They show the big nasty hits on the highlight reel even if the hit was illegal.

I would love to listen to any serious suggestions, it is a game we all love.

I can honestly admit that I haven't noticed more piling on. If so, they definitely need to get that under control. I can live with agreeing to disagree with the hits to a defenseless receiver, but my guess is that that will eventually become a challengeable call. I agree with you about the helmets coming off. In NCAA it was so bad that they instituted a rule that if a player's helmet comes off then he has to leave the field for a play unless it came off as the result of a foul. Since they've instituted that rule I've noticed that the helmets seem to fit a lot better.

I also agree about the form tackle, but some guys are bigger than others and as you know, in football, the low man wins. Sometimes a 175lb CB has no choice but to go low on a 200lb running back. It's unfortunate, but I don't know that there is any way around that.

[Joel]

Ok, I have to admit that I'm not quite sure what you're going for here. Do you want every hit that leads to an injury to be penalized? Maybe I'm misreading what you're saying because frankly I'm baffled. I'll try to address your points though (as best as I understand them, anyway).
I want them to flag, fine and suspend attempts to injure (or further injure) and/or interfere with a catch before the ball arrives; otherwise stay out of it. It's one thing to try knocking the ball loose and quite anothet to try knocking an organ loose. Liuget diving at Mannings taped ankles was legal but dirty; slamming a receiver going up for a catch shouldn't be either UNLESS similarly targeted to cause/increase injury. When guys like Harrison outright say they don't care if injuries increase as long as they avoid more fines and suspensions, safety's reduced, not improved.

That's why I was equally glad to see the Commissioner lower the boom on Bountygate and disgusted when the NFLPA raised Hell about it. It spoke volumes about how routine dirty play is that the group represeting players was more concerned with protecting those inflicting the cheap shots than those receiving them. You know far better than I that many coaches at every level teach even JHS kids that taking the best opponents off the field is "just part of the game," and that indoctrination and culture stays with many of them all the way to the pros.

That's far more dangerous to both the player and game than long term concussion effects, because it's far more systemic and broader reaching. It needs to stop yesterday.


There is an existing rule and I'm not sure what you mean by "re-ban" it. As far as I know, it has always been illegal to intentionally lead with the crown of the helmet. The thing is there is always helmet to helmet contact. Officials are looking for players using their helmet as a weapon. They do not call every time there is a helmet to helmet hit. If it's against a "defenseless player" then yes, any contact to the head and neck area is a foul.
I mean that since it's always been illegal to lead with the crown (though "always" is a big word, it's been that way a long time) we didn't need NEW rules repeating the ban on leading with the crown, with or without launching; it's redundant. A point of emphasis, maybe, but a new rule? If the old one's routinely disregarded, how long before the new one is?


I would bet that targeting is a foul in the NFL, but unlike NCAA I don't believe it warrants an ejection.
It's impossible to prove something is NOT there, but if that rules on the books I'm not aware of it. Everone who stays below the shoulders (and above the knees on QBs) can do pretty much anything but punch, kick or spear, even if indisputably meant to injure.


First, I doubt any of these guys want to "intentionally" paralyze somebody. Second, I doubt any of these guys have enough knowledge to hit somebody in the perfect spot to paralyze them.
I'm not sure many of them care if they paralyze someone as long as they "take him out" or "send a message." Sending a message with pain is fine, IMHO, but not with injury. "Injury" needn't be paralysis anymore than "danger" is restricted to concussion risks; those are just two of the most serious forms. Too many players and, far worse, coaches, seem to have taken the wrong lesson from LTs career-ending hit on Theismann. Taylor was as mean and nasty as they come, but didn't intend THAT, and did sorely regret it.


I have no doubt that money plays a part in what the NFL rule is as far as protecting against brain injuries, BUT there's a much bigger issue at work. There was a more than 30% drop in kids playing football this past year. If the game isn't made safer it will go away sooner rather than later.
Requiring player make hits statistically PROVEN to INCREASE injury doesn't make the game safer; we're just trading less concussions for more ACL tears and broken legs. I doubt Mrs. Soccer Mom considers that "solution" acceptable. Especially not when her kid comes home and tells her how Coach taught him to snap another 10 year olds wrist without getting flagged, and I know too many guys who were coached that way as early as JHS. One went from such a JHS to Westlake High, and you surely know the name of the school that gave us Brees and Foles.

Getting rid of concussions (which is impossible anyway) doesn't address that deeper, broader SYSTEMIC problem, and the NFLs approach has actually INCREASED injuries. That won't save the game from falling youth interest (or parental tolerance) any more than Play60 will.


So what would you have them do? Penalize every hit that results in an injury? What about the perfectly legal block on Von Miller that resulted in a torn ACL? Was that a foul?
No, because it sure didn't look like an attempt to injure (in fact, it LOOKED like the injury occurred AFTER the block, due to the turf rather than fairly tame contact.) Intent matters far more than results here, because we can't banish injury from full contact sport (another Lombardi quote: "Dancing is a contact sport; football is a collision sport,") trying to snap bones and rupture organs doesn't magically become ethical if it fails and clean hits that cause inadverent injury risk shouldn't be penalized.

We can't get rid of injuries, serious injuries nor even concussions, because stuff happens. Severly punishing and refusing to tolerate INTENTIONAL injury CAN practically end it.


IMy guess is that he would rather be spending his life in a wheelchair than be dead or not able to remember who he is. Football takes a beating on the body; I think everybody realizes that. Players don't expect to suffer brain damage as well. Ask Junior Seau or Dave Duerson if they would switch places with Earl Campbell.
Even a decade ago the argument players don't expect brain injury had merit, because the NFL had done such a successful half-century job concealing, denying and discrediting that risk. However, if '90s football players and '50s smokers could plausibly and equally claim ignorance of the respective risks, neither can now. There will always be concussions in football (and everywhere,) though we should take all reasonable steps to prevent them; INCREASING serious injury generally is an unreasonable step, especially while ignoring bigger problems.


I'm not sure where this is coming from. This rule is not a safety rule, but a competitive advantage rule. I've personally never seen a player injured from "aiding the runner."
It was legal and standard till 905, and you know as well as I the 1905 rules changes had everything to do with safety and avoiding a federal ban, but nothing to do with preventing competitive advantage (else passing wouldn't have been legalized.) Neither aiding the runner nor one-man lines grant any competitive advantage so long as all teams are equally entitled, but the Nineteenth Centurys rolling scrums were killers, slaughtering over a dozen players in 1905 alone.

Again, pre-1905 football uniforms came with waist straps specifically designed for aiding the runner; they weren't worried about competitive advantage: They were tired of posthumous TDs.


No, they are not defenseless. Defenseless players are clearly defined in the rule book and the rule does not apply to two teammates celebrating. That would be ridiculous.
Right, I conceded that point.

[Joel]

I'm curious to hear what else you think they should do. They have instituted rules that a lot of people complain about due to player safety. I'm not calling you out; I appreciate that you want a safer game. I'm just wondering if you have some specific ideas in mind.
One big complaint many people (including me) have against the new "safety" rules is they make the game LESS rather than MORE safe. There's an argument that compromising some of the games physical intregity, or at least tradition, is justified if it makes players safer, gives them longer careers and healthier retirement—but how is it worth it to do the OPPOSITE? What did we gain? The NFL ended its civil liability; the players are still screwed, and more so, merely in different ways.

[7DnBrnc53]

Especially not when her kid comes home and tells her how Coach taught him to snap another 10 year olds wrist without getting flagged, and I know too many guys who were coached that way as early as JHS. One went from such a JHS to Westlake High, and you surely know the name of the school that gave us Brees and Foles.

Getting rid of concussions (which is impossible anyway) doesn't address that deeper, broader SYSTEMIC problem, and the NFLs approach has actually INCREASED injuries. That won't save the game from falling youth interest (or parental tolerance) any more than Play60 will.

Play60? Why are you hating on that, Joel? That had such a cool theme song about telling you to get on the bus, or something (lol).

Seriously, though, who was the coach at this school where they told kids to snap wrists? Sensei John Kreese from the Cobra Kai? That's insane. Honestly, there shouldn't even be organized tackle football until ninth grade.

In the town that I live (and grew up), we didn't get tackle for elementary kids until the mid-90's. Before that, everyone played flag until seventh. They should go back to flag, but extend it to seventh and eighth grade kids.