"Make sure when anyone tackles you he remembers how much it hurts."—Jim Brown. Browns point was that he always used his hand, arm or shoulder to ward off tackles; are we to believe whipping a forearm into someone face doesn't often cause concussions? I've already cited an example of a shoulder-to-shoulder hit doing just that. You may have misspelled "hypocrisy," man.
To be fair, there IS a distinction between "hurt" and "harm," but I'm not sure Jim Brown, widely recognized as one of the most punishing runners in history, is the best authority on it (Stephen R. Donaldson would be better.
) I'm not saying Brown set out to injure people either, but this is along the lines of what I referenced earlier: Ban specific means of, rather than intent to, injure people and dirty players just find legal ways to inflict the same injuries within the new rules—they already do: That's why we keep seeing new rules every freakin' year, treating the symptom rather than the disease.
That's just more inconsistency, just like with the cut blocking rules: The same dangerous act magically becomes safe between the tackles, because... well, just because. Or, put another way, the same perfectly legal act suddenly becomes illegal if it happens in the open field. This rule's just more unconscionable because the act is DEFENSIVE, despite the suggestions it's offensive. Maybe if a concussed RB sues the NFL for CTE caused by too many un-duckable shoulderpads to the head things will change. The NFL will probably just ban running, but at least the game will be "safer."