Thread: James Harrison is a Coward

Elway said he didn't think it was a dirty hit on Decker.

Harrison wasn't scared of Tebow, he just isn't smart enough to defend the option. He's aggressive and strong, but sometimes smart scheming beats raw talent.

This time, our coaching staff won out.

Originally Posted by Thnikkaman

It was a clean hit. I can't fault Harrison for that play. He was doing what the NFL wants him to do, go low instead of high.

Whatever, the gif in your sig has Elvis picking on poor Tom Brady. I wrote Doom a strongly worded letter saying that that wasn't a very nice thing to do.

Originally Posted by spikerman

I guess I'm just not sure where he was supposed to hit him. If he goes high, he gets fined, if he goes low he's called dirty. Players are taught to go low, I think it was just an unfortunate injury. To be honest, when it first happened I thought he got him at the thigh, but either way, imo, there was nothing wrong with the play.

I can't ever remember a time when tackles below the knee were illegal. I guess it's possible, but I just don't remember it.

Well, I wouldn't expect you to remember it first hand; I think it was in the '20s, maybe earlier.

My issue isn't WHERE Harrison hit Decker but WHY; again, I think focusing on the manner and location of contact was a BIG mistake that has complicated life for refs, greatly inhibited play for defenders and done little if anything to reduce serious injuries. The best way to reduce serious injuries, IMHO, is penalties, fines and suspensions for intending and causing serious injuries rather than every play that MIGHT produce one. Realistically, almost any play in a full contact sport carries significant risk of serious injury, but there's a world of difference between delberately trying to injure someone and doing so inadvertently.

Originally Posted by Joel

Well, I wouldn't expect you to remember it first hand; I think it was in the '20s, maybe earlier.

My issue isn't WHERE Harrison hit Decker but WHY; again, I think focusing on the manner and location of contact was a BIG mistake that has complicated life for refs, greatly inhibited play for defenders and done little if anything to reduce serious injuries. The best way to reduce serious injuries, IMHO, is penalties, fines and suspensions for intending and causing serious injuries rather than every play that MIGHT produce one. Realistically, almost any play in a full contact sport carries significant risk of serious injury, but there's a world of difference between delberately trying to injure someone and doing so inadvertently.

I see what you're saying, I'm just not sure how you determine intent.

Originally Posted by spikerman

I see what you're saying, I'm just not sure how you determine intent.

Not easily; as I said before, it would require judgement calls from refs, which I generally dislike, but is ultimately their job; reducing injuries and restoring the ability of defenders to defend the pass is worth that price.

Seriously, THREE guys in ONE year break Marinos record for single season passing yardage? As many as have surpassed the single season TD record he set the same year. Anyone old enough to remember Marinos sophomore season and only Super Bowl appearance knows that was a FREAKISH performance; he belongs in Canton for that year alone. Things like the Harrison and Brady rules have made those once in a life time numbers as common as concussions and injuries like Deckers remain. They didn't make the game safer, only gave passing a huge competitive advantage to a passing game that already had plenty.

We've handcuffed defenders to the detriment of the game yet severe injuries continue apace; obviously, barring TECHNIQUES rather than ACTS isn't doing the job. For the record, I also think Harrison hit Decker in the thigh just ABOVE rather than ON the knee (where he was "aiming" only he knows.) Ironically, a hit on the knee might have been better; in replays it's clear Deckers entire body above the knee moved right from the force of the blow, while everything below the knee remained stationary, which is probably what stretched his MCL.

Yet that illustrates my point: Say there were no rules against removing helmets, punching or blows to the head. Repeatedly beating opponents over the head with ones helmet would still be unsportsmanlike and unnecessary roughness justifying ejection, fines and suspensions. Do we really need rules explicitly STATING that? Evidently, the answer is "desperately."

I think the infraction should be intent to cause serious injury, and the determing factors:

1) Whether a player chooses more dangerous contact when less dangerous contact is possible, 2) Whether the contact does, in fact, cause injury and 3) A history of the player committing such illegal acts.

All three should not be required for a penalty/ejection/fine/suspension, but in Harrisons hit on Decker all three were present, IMHO: He didn't have to go high OR low; he could have wrapped up at the waist, though Decker would probably have gotten another half a yard (and completed the catch.) Harrison CHOSE to go low, consciously or otherwise, which caused the injury.

Again, I realize rules like I'm suggesting force refs to make a many judgement calls, and typically consider that a major deficiency in rules but, as also previously stated, judgement calls are ultimately in their job description. Every time a ref must decide whether a runner was down before he lost the ball or it crossed the goal line/first down marker, that's a judgement call. It just usually doesn't cause paralysis if they blow it.

I'm going to take these in sections if you that's ok.

Originally Posted by Joel

Not easily; as I said before, it would require judgement calls from refs, which I generally dislike, but is ultimately their job; reducing injuries and restoring the ability of defenders to defend the pass is worth that price.

There are some plays that require judgement on the part of the officials, but usually it doesn't entail what the player is thinking, only a judgement of the act itself. I'll explain that a little more later.

Seriously, THREE guys in ONE year break Marinos record for single season passing yardage? As many as have surpassed the single season TD record he set the same year. Anyone old enough to remember Marinos sophomore season and only Super Bowl appearance knows that was a FREAKISH performance; he belongs in Canton for that year alone. Things like the Harrison and Brady rules have made those once in a life time numbers as common as concussions and injuries like Deckers remain. They didn't make the game safer, only gave passing a huge competitive advantage to a passing game that already had plenty.

I agree that the rules heavily favor the offense, but that's just the game today. To this day, I don't believe I have ever seen a passer as accomplished as Marino. I remember that year well and I don't think any of the big three this year are nearly as impressive as he was that year. I think your argument is with the competition committee, but with the popularity of the game today I don't see much of a chance of them making major changes.

We've handcuffed defenders to the detriment of the game yet severe injuries continue apace; obviously, barring TECHNIQUES rather than ACTS isn't doing the job. For the record, I also think Harrison hit Decker in the thigh just ABOVE rather than ON the knee (where he was "aiming" only he knows.) Ironically, a hit on the knee might have been better; in replays it's clear Deckers entire body above the knee moved right from the force of the blow, while everything below the knee remained stationary, which is probably what stretched his MCL.

Yet that illustrates my point: Say there were no rules against removing helmets, punching or blows to the head. Repeatedly beating opponents over the head with ones helmet would still be unsportsmanlike and unnecessary roughness justifying ejection, fines and suspensions. Do we really need rules explicitly STATING that? Evidently, the answer is "desperately."

I would argue that, yes, these rules are needed. I can't tell you how many times players and coaches have questioned what should be an obvious foul and I've had to explain the rule to them. If the rule wasn't in place and it was completely up to the official to determine what rose to the level of an ejection it would lead to charges of favoritism and ultimately chaos. Granted there is some discretion on the part of an official as to whether a personal foul or ejection is warranted, but there are also guidelines for those actions. I don't think the players, fans, or even officials want to make the rules more "flexible".

I think the infraction should be intent to cause serious injury, and the determing factors:

1) Whether a player chooses more dangerous contact when less dangerous contact is possible, 2) Whether the contact does, in fact, cause injury and 3) A history of the player committing such illegal acts.

All three should not be required for a penalty/ejection/fine/suspension, but in Harrisons hit on Decker all three were present, IMHO: He didn't have to go high OR low; he could have wrapped up at the waist, though Decker would probably have gotten another half a yard (and completed the catch.) Harrison CHOSE to go low, consciously or otherwise, which caused the injury.

Again, I realize rules like I'm suggesting force refs to make a many judgement calls, and typically consider that a major deficiency in rules but, as also previously stated, judgement calls are ultimately in their job description. Every time a ref must decide whether a runner was down before he lost the ball or it crossed the goal line/first down marker, that's a judgement call. It just usually doesn't cause paralysis if they blow it.

Again, you're asking the officials to rule on what the player is thinking at the time. I don't think that's realistic. I see all kinds of things on the field and I have no idea what these guys are thinking. Imo, if a player has to think about all of the things you want them to while playing you're ultimately going to see a slower, much less exciting game. By the time Harrison would have thought about whether he needed to go high, or low, or try to wrap him up, Decker would have been gone.

As for the judgement calls, you're right, officials make judgements on things like forward progress, fumble/not a fumble, catch/not a catch, etc., but those are tangible things that, at the college and NFL level, can be reviewed. They don't make judgements on what a player is thinking. If I see a player take a swing at another player, I don't care why he did it, only that he did it.

Sorry if I went off on a tangent or if I missed your point. It's been a long day. Hopefully, just the fact that we're having this disagreement points out how tough it wil be to ask officials to make these kinds of calls on the fly.

Originally Posted by spikerman

I can't tell you how many times players and coaches have questioned what should be an obvious foul and I've had to explain the rule to them.

hey spike, just curious, what level do you ref at?

Spike refs Texas HS (biggest HS football in the world BTW) and Semi-Pro ball in Texas.

I met him at the taigate, he's a standup guy and he definitely knows his shit.

Originally Posted by spikerman

I'm going to take these in sections if you that's ok.

Probably best.

Originally Posted by spikerman

There are some plays that require judgement on the part of the officials, but usually it doesn't entail what the player is thinking, only a judgement of the act itself. I'll explain that a little more later.

'K, and I agree it's counterproductive to expect mind reading.

Originally Posted by spikerman

I agree that the rules heavily favor the offense, but that's just the game today. To this day, I don't believe I have ever seen a passer as accomplished as Marino. I remember that year well and I don't think any of the big three this year are nearly as impressive as he was that year. I think your argument is with the competition committee, but with the popularity of the game today I don't see much of a chance of them making major changes.

It's both; the competition committee (basically owners) surely enjoys the shootout revenue, but if even awful teams can just chuck the ball up for grabs and count on a catch or penalty to keep them in games against the best, fans will lose respect for and thus interest in the game, lowering rather than increasing revenue. You want parity to preserve competitiveness to preserve interest, but you SACRIFICE interest if it reaches the point of actively handicapping the best teams. "Sorry, Coach McCarthy, but the Rams REALLY suck; you have to bench Aaron Rodgers to keep it 'fair.'"

Yet if the competition committee gave us the Bert Emmanuel rule, their goal with the Harrison and Brady rules was reducing injury, and their main motive the revenue lost when highly paid marquee players miss months of games. Makes you wonder why they'll decide hits made thousands of times in decades of games will be illegal next year (REAL reason: Peyton misssed the whole season and has a $20 million bonus scheduled for March. )

Originally Posted by spikerman

I would argue that, yes, these rules are needed. I can't tell you how many times players and coaches have questioned what should be an obvious foul and I've had to explain the rule to them. If the rule wasn't in place and it was completely up to the official to determine what rose to the level of an ejection it would lead to charges of favoritism and ultimately chaos. Granted there is some discretion on the part of an official as to whether a personal foul or ejection is warranted, but there are also guidelines for those actions. I don't think the players, fans, or even officials want to make the rules more "flexible".

You misunderstand: My point was without rules against punching, helmet removal and blows to the head, bludgeoning an opponents skull with a helmet would be entirely legal because, despite clear deliberate intent to inflict severe injury, no rule prohibited the SPECIFIC MEANS of doing so. Thus, though we SHOULD not, we DO need rules against ALL acts with dangerously vicious intent, whether or not the specific form is legal. We wouldn't need to prohibit nearly as much if such rules existed, and existing prohibitions against myriad things don't significantly reduce serious injury, or even prevent vicious players finding legal ways to deliberately inflict them.

Officials are already plagued with charges of bias, and always will be (did you see the Texans last two regular season games? ) Why not get something worthwhile to show for it?

Originally Posted by spikerman

Again, you're asking the officials to rule on what the player is thinking at the time. I don't think that's realistic. I see all kinds of things on the field and I have no idea what these guys are thinking. Imo, if a player has to think about all of the things you want them to while playing you're ultimately going to see a slower, much less exciting game. By the time Harrison would have thought about whether he needed to go high, or low, or try to wrap him up, Decker would have been gone.

I do not and would not ask officials to read minds. My stated criteria were:

1) Whether a player chooses more dangerous contact when less dangerous contact is possible,

That's a slight judgement, but requires no telepathy; whether a player can make a hit AND avoid vital and/or injury prone areas is usually clear (and I'd only argue for a penalty when it WAS, as I think Harrisons hit was.)

Harrison knows the importance of wrapping up to secure tackles, and the danger of low hits; he could've dived at Deckers waist and wrapped up as easily as he dived at his leg with his shoulder. He might not have made the tackle (though the chance would probably have been higher) and Decker would've gotten another half yard (plus a catch,) but in tons of scenarios like that the NFL has decided preventing injury trumps making the play.

Simms stated at the time Pitt players have said they'll start going low, aware of the risk to joints, to avoid penalties for going high. Note: They seek to avoid penalties/ejections/fines/suspensions (NOT causing concussions) by doing things they explicitly admit knowing will cause serious injuries. That's the problem with prohibiting means rather than ends, but knowing intent does not always require knowing thoughts.

2) Whether the contact does, in fact, cause injury

Again, no telepathy required; whether a hit causes injury is rarely a judgement call, and never more than marginally

3) A history of the player committing such illegal acts.

That requires no more than knowledge of the players documented history; it's already used as the standard for escalated penalties against repeat violators of the Harrison rule.

As for the judgement calls, you're right, officials make judgements on things like forward progress, fumble/not a fumble, catch/not a catch, etc., but those are tangible things that, at the college and NFL level, can be reviewed. They don't make judgements on what a player is thinking. If I see a player take a swing at another player, I don't care why he did it, only that he did it.

Yes, because punches and blows to the head are both prohibited. What about an elbow or knee to the kidney? I can't kick or stomp, but what if I remove my shoe THEN cleat a guy on the ground; he must leave the game if bleeding. Focusing on MANNER of contact rather than MOTIVE and EFFECT just makes a list of illegal ways to seriously injure, intentionally or not. The problem is that simultaneously creates a list of LEGAL ways to seriously injure DELIBERATELY, and another of things with NO risk of injury that still draw flags and fines.

It's a 15 yard penalty and fine if a guy accidentally smacks a head with a forearm, even if the other player doesn't know about or feel it. If a guy with a history of that needlessly blows up Deckers knee it's fine, because the MEANS is legal. Those are opposite but common extremes of rules failing their purpose. I can't fault refs; their job is to enforce, not define, rules--just another of many good reasons to fix the well intended but flawed rule.

Originally Posted by spikerman

Sorry if I went off on a tangent or if I missed your point. It's been a long day. Hopefully, just the fact that we're having this disagreement points out how tough it wil be to ask officials to make these kinds of calls on the fly.

Sometimes, often in fact, calls are hard, especially on the fly. Sometimes REALLY important calls. That makes it more rather than less inexcusable for refs to punt calls like, say, Mike Renfros TD catch in the '78 AFCCG.

Originally Posted by chazoe60

Spike refs Texas HS (biggest HS football in the world BTW) and Semi-Pro ball in Texas.

I met him at the taigate, he's a standup guy and he definitely knows his shit.

I think it's because they had no pro teams until 1960, and the only college team the NCAA took remotely seriously was Texas. Even they were looked down on because A&M was usually their only real competition in the state, and the only out of state SWC team was Arkansas (until they bailed for the SEC because the NCAA always snubbed the SWC.) Yet OU was elected "champion" repeatedly even though Nebraska was usually THEIR only real competition. Just another reason the NCAA is such a joke to me, and probably part of why HS football is like a religion in Texas (that, and there's NOTHING else to do on Friday nights in MANY tiny towns. )

Originally Posted by vandammage13

I'm not necessarily pointing to the Decker hit, but just his justified reputation over the course of his career.

The guy had a chance to end Tebowmania and all he gets is one late hit.

On those read option plays, matched one on one with Tebow, he constantly chose to commit to the RB when clearly containing Tebow was his responsibility in those situations.

He committed to the RB because he was scared. Watch the game again (as I have twice), and it is easy to see he wanted no part of Tebow.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Originally Posted by chazoe60

Spike refs Texas HS (biggest HS football in the world BTW) and Semi-Pro ball in Texas.

I met him at the taigate, he's a standup guy and he definitely knows his shit.

Thanks Chaz, I don't claim to be an expert, and I hope I don't come off that way, I just have to do a lot of studying. I'm sure Carol says the same thing about her son. It really is much harder than I thought it would be, but I have to admit, I love it.