NFL Removing "Devestatign Hits" from the game

[packerbacker1234]

Not sure anyone has been following this specifically but:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeffri&page=hotread06/NFLViolence

I get the helmet to helmet hits. Everyone understands it. But devestating hits? Really? You're going to remove the "big hit" from the game, hits that created the "hit stick" in Madden? Hits that make us jump out of our seats in excitement over the play for the defense? Hits that have made Ray Lewis one of the best MLB's to ever play the game?

Hits that cause TURNOVERS, or BREAK UP PASSES, hits that actually make big differences in the game... they want to remove?

Why? You cannot remove violence from football. Saftey can only go so far. They start removing the violence, the popularity is going to drop long haul.

[Tony Oday]

DO NOT HIT WITH THE CROWN OF THE HELMET!!!

It really isnt that hard. I am sure most of us played football at one time or the other and I was always taught..keep your head up, wrap up and drive through...not duck your head like a battering ram. That is how I broke my arm on a kick off return...he was penalized 15 and got his ass kicked at the following party...it was a rival school.

[packerbacker1234]

DO NOT HIT WITH THE CROWN OF THE HELMET!!!

It really isnt that hard. I am sure most of us played football at one time or the other and I was always taught..keep your head up, wrap up and drive through...not duck your head like a battering ram. That is how I broke my arm on a kick off return...he was penalized 15 and got his ass kicked at the following party...it was a rival school.

It's more than that. Outside of Merriweather none of the hits last week we're intentional or even necessarily illegal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3FJjqltDmA

Yes, there was helmet to helmet contact but if you pause it frame by frame, you will see he is actually leading with his shoulder, dropping low to make contact with the football, and because of the angle at which they meet, the heads collide, even though a majority of that blow was delivered with his shoulder, in fact, being that the shoulder itself may have caused the injury, not the head.

This was a football play. It wasn't malicious, it was trying to make a big hit to cause a turnover, and he didn't spear him, he lead with proper big hit technique and the helmets just happened to hit. They have shown this over and over again on ESPN with tons of former players saying "whats the problem". Everyone agree merriweather hits need to go away, no one agrees what harrison did was wrong.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmsAdwm7LHQ

Again, he lead with his shoulder, hit him square in the chest and lifted up - exactly like your taught. In that process, the body slid, causing contact helmet to helmet. He didn't lead with the helmet, he didn't do anything illegal, he was breaking up a pass with proper big hit technique, and due to how things go in games, crap happens.

There is a big difference between those two hits... and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb1CmHk9GK0

That is illegal. That is helmet to helmet launching. The other two plays were normal, everyday, football plays. Yeah was it violent? Sure, and that is why we watch the damn game.

[Noodle]

I think Packerbacker is exactly right in his breakdown of the three hits.

But I still maintain that if the NFL really wants to curb the mayhem, all they have to do is this:

Remove the facemask.

The facemask is why we were all taught to throw our eyes through the ball carrier. Tarlam with his rugby background could confirm this, but I bet if you don't have a facemask, you trhow a shoulder and keep your face (and helmet) out of harms way.

I'm just saying . . .

[Tarlam!]

Unfortunately, I can't load videos from my laptop at the moment because it runs hot and crashes if I do. It's probably God's way of telling me to get off YouPorn and get a job! :lol:

But, I've seen the hits on ESPN Channel, and to me, they were helmet to helmet, but I wouldn't bet anything on it.

The wording here isn't clear:


That is one of the biggest questions facing the NFL as it heads into its first weekend with this controversial emphasis on minimizing violent hits. The league has made it clear that such plays -- especially helmet-to-helmet collisions -- will lead to penalties like those recently given to Atlanta Falcons cornerback Dunta Robinson ($50,000), New England Patriots safety Brandon Meriweather ($50,000) and Pittsburgh Steelers outside linebacker James Harrison ($75,000)

I am all for big hits and am no stranger to big hitting from my Rugby days, where no helmets are worn and we are taught to lead with our shoulders, not heads. When in possession, we are taught to lower the head into an opposing tackler to reduce the hit zone.

The major difference I see is the size of the players in the NFL. there aren't too many 300lb's in Rugby!

Removing helmets from the American game is out of the question, but using them as a battering ram to injure players should be outlawed and punished accordingly IMHO.

[channtheman]

It sounds to me like the NFL is going to fine and suspend guys based on how much someone gets hurt. Oh yeah, now lets add 2 more games of this.

Maybe the NFL should go to a 45 game season and switch to 2 hand touch. They can play 3 times each week, it would be great! :roll:

[Tarlam!]

The facemask is why we were all taught to throw our eyes through the ball carrier. Tarlam with his rugby background could confirm this, but I bet if you don't have a facemask, you trhow a shoulder and keep your face (and helmet) out of harms way.

I'm just saying . . .

Interesting point! I don't know if the rest of the forum knows, but KY is an ex-Rugby player, too. We've PMed about it a few times, and he must have been a mean opponent!

My previous posts confirms how we do it, but I think you nailled the why we do it. Any thoughts, Shep?

[bobblehead]

Its called physics. If you lean forward by definition you will "lead with your head" to an extent and at times you will get helmet to helmet contact.

If you "lean forward" to make a tackle but conciously tip your head back so as to not "lead with the helmet" you will break your neck upon contact.

If you stand up straight and make a tackle so as not to break your neck or create the possibility of helmet to helmet contact you will get flat out plowed over by the offensive player and likely get hurt in some other way.

I get not allowing the helmet to helmet on a defensless player. A QB standing in the pocket, or a stretched out WR. These guys are in a precarious position, and the defender is determining the nature of the contact completely. But a WR with the ball, or a RB with the ball. These guys are delivering hits as well as taking them.

[Tarlam!]

Its called physics. If you lean forward by definition you will "lead with your head" to an extent and at times you will get helmet to helmet contact.

If you "lean forward" to make a tackle but conciously tip your head back so as to not "lead with the helmet" you will break your neck upon contact.

If you stand up straight and make a tackle so as not to break your neck or create the possibility of helmet to helmet contact you will get flat out plowed over by the offensive player and likely get hurt in some other way.



Um, you'd think you'd be right, but, I don't think you are. Again, no Rugby player crashes head first into a tackle unless he's in possession of the ball or plain stupid. Obviously, the head sticks out above the shoulder, but you aim your shoulder, thus "lead" with it.

Having said that, a football play is MUCH faster, in Rugby you have much more time to set up your "prey", it's not a stop and go game, like football, it flows.

I also don't think the League is punishing helmet to helmet when a RB or WR has lowered his head, nor should they.

[Bossman641]

I find the whole approach by the NFL very hypocritical. Ya, we are going to make a big deal about player safety, but at the same time we are adding 2 additional games a year.

I also think the NFL is way overreacting. For the guys that it was a true cheap shot like Merriweather, yes fine them suspend them. It is a contact sport, and there is going to be incidental helmet to helmet hits.

[packerbacker1234]

I find the whole approach by the NFL very hypocritical. Ya, we are going to make a big deal about player safety, but at the same time we are adding 2 additional games a year.

I also think the NFL is way overreacting. For the guys that it was a true cheap shot like Merriweather, yes fine them suspend them. It is a contact sport, and there is going to be incidental helmet to helmet hits.

That is what I am saying. The bottom line with the new ruling is thjat they are making it subjective to what a devestating hit actually is. I mean, this is football - when tackling someone the goal isn't "just" to bring them down - it's to seperate the ball from the carrier, or to make a WR drop the pass. The problem with trying to protect WR's that go over the middle by "not letting you lay them out" is that they are then allowed to virtually freely catch the ball - because the big reason those hits occur over the middle is because covering someone perfectly running a crossing pattern over the middle man on man is nearly impossible. It relies on Zone play by a LB, and often times the LB is not in position to knock down the pass, but they are in position to make contact as the ball gets there, or just slightly after.

How do you then cause a incomplete pass? You hit him... hard.

This is a sport of contact. It is popular because of it's gladitorial nature. Every player knows what he risks stepping out on the field. I get wanting to "reduce injuries" - but as Mark Schlareth said, welcome to football. Injuries are part of. He had 29 surgeries while playing in the league and doesn't regret any of them, becuase he was doing what he loved at all costs.

Favre was even brought up in the debate, because no other QB has thrown into as much traffic as often as him, including over the middle. He has put some wr's in great positions to get hands on the ball... and great positions to get absolutely leveled. Ask the players who played with him if they were scared of going over the middle for those balls.

Being scared his often how injuries happen. Driver made a LIVING over the middle, taking big hits, getting up, smiling, and pointing FIRST DOWN. My issue isn't with removed spearing/launching with head. My issue is removing violence from football.

The league is now telling players that "you are not aloud to big hit anyone anymore", and that is really pissing people off. It has Urlacher coming out and telling the league to shove it. It has James Harrison threatening to retire because the league is telling him in a sport based on violence and big hits, he is no longer aloud to be violent with his hits. I am almost surprised Ray Lewis hasn't spoke up yet, because Ray Lewis is the master of those big hits.

[Tony Oday]

If you are looking at the ground when you hit the guy it is leading with the crown of the helmet...you do NOT need to do that to hit with your shoulder.

Rugby tackling is very different from Football tackling. We were taught in rugby to grab spin and fall with the guy no need for huge hits.

[pbmax]

Just so everyone is on the same page, that ESPN article, and others like it were essentially retracted midweek. Devastating hits were not on the table for suspensions, ESPN got a little carried away.

Hitting helmet to helmet is what is on the table for suspensions, as well as other already illegal hits (defenseless WRs, etc.)

And lets be honest, the league office is doing this for four reasons.
1. Player safety
2. 18 game schedule
3. Public relations
4. Future litigation

The player safety angle is obvious, though problematic. The game thrives, in part, about being a sport of collisions. Its also quite possible that far more instances of damage to players and their brains comes from collisions on the LOS rather than the spectacular less common hits in the secondary.

The owners want the revenue of 18 regular season games and I would not be stunned to see additional playoff games. If they need to tweak the rules to do it, they will not be shy. This ties in with 3.

People watching highlights now (especially non fanatics) don't see the hits and react the same way. After the stories about Mike Webster and the length of former players lives, people watch the collisions and wonder how much damage is being done.

Owners and the league (and not just the NFL) have to be rightly terrified of lawsuits because of medical problems brought on by playing football. While nothing can be done about past attitudes, treatments and decisions, the NFL clearly hopes to be seen as proactive on this issue. It will argue, with significant merit, that very little was known about the effect football had on the brain until very recently.

[pbmax]

Leading with the head. Its a very misleading way to term the problem. As Bobble said, geometry and x years of evolution (and/or God's plan, take your pick) have meant that to be running or diving at something means your head will either be first or second in the race to be their first (you could stretch your arms out and in a sprint stretch out you upper torso or kick your foot forward).

The problem is making the hit with the head. This used to be very rare. Turning into Chuck Cecil was not the norm until 20 years ago or so. But the possibility of making a spectacular collision and this the highlight reel is irresistible to some. And coaches (not all) began to teach putting your hat on the ball as a way of forcing turnovers. I have heard many players repeat this as a point of emphasis from their coaches.

I do not agree with Bobble that leading with the top of you head is less or similarly dangerous to leading with your head up and trying to get your facemask on the opposition. Seeing what you are hitting is the best way to avoid a dangerous collision. And while there are certainly positions that could result in your neck being bent back, being able to see the hit and angle coming is the best way to avoid it. With your head down, you have no control what happens.

And I agree with Tar, its most simple to slide you head to one side while making the tackle and wrapping up. Tacking with your chest, in other words. Its not always possible to tackle with this form, but it should be the first choice.

[gbgary]

they could have waited a week to announce this...with mr matthews coming back and all. :D

[bobblehead]

Its called physics. If you lean forward by definition you will "lead with your head" to an extent and at times you will get helmet to helmet contact.

If you "lean forward" to make a tackle but conciously tip your head back so as to not "lead with the helmet" you will break your neck upon contact.

If you stand up straight and make a tackle so as not to break your neck or create the possibility of helmet to helmet contact you will get flat out plowed over by the offensive player and likely get hurt in some other way.



Um, you'd think you'd be right, but, I don't think you are. Again, no Rugby player crashes head first into a tackle unless he's in possession of the ball or plain stupid. Obviously, the head sticks out above the shoulder, but you aim your shoulder, thus "lead" with it.

Having said that, a football play is MUCH faster, in Rugby you have much more time to set up your "prey", it's not a stop and go game, like football, it flows.

I also don't think the League is punishing helmet to helmet when a RB or WR has lowered his head, nor should they.

Every rugby player I knew in college suffered a concussion at one point or another. Also, as you said, the ball carrier is also not wearing the gear so he doesn't initiate the hit like the NFL guys.

Once upon a time my 8th grade coach gave me some great advice. He said "no matter what is happening on the field you should be looking to hit someone. Its when you are not that you get hurt." I think Chad Clifton would agree. I have taken some big hits in my day (jokes are aloud here), but I jumped up after all of them because I remembered that advice.

[bobblehead]

I do not agree with Bobble that leading with the top of you head is less or similarly dangerous to leading with your head up and trying to get your facemask on the opposition. Seeing what you are hitting is the best way to avoid a dangerous collision. And while there are certainly positions that could result in your neck being bent back, being able to see the hit and angle coming is the best way to avoid it. With your head down, you have no control what happens.
.

I tried this technique for awhile after I whiffed a few tackles with my head down and....FUCKING OUCH!!!!

Likely I did it wrong, but I always like to lower my head, crunch up my shoulders, and try to hit the guy shoulder to waistline. Occasionally when a carrier would lower his body for impact we would collide heads. Also at times he would cut and almost rip an arm off.

If you want to end the concussions, make it 15 yards for a first down and take away the helmets and much of the padding. I just don't think you can criticize a defender for some of the hits I have seen fined (the one harrison hit for sure....the dude ran into HIM)

[Guiness]

A lot of very insightful stuff here, and interesting to see the rugby perspective brought in - a sport that shares a lot with American Football.

My own experience with rugby was that most concussions are caused by the ground - although maybe that's different in Canada, because the school rugby season stretches until the ground is frozen.

I know this isn't quite the thread for it, but with all the emphasis on the helmet to helmet hits, I still don't get why (Urlacher?) the Bears LB didn't get a fine for the contact on Rodgers, AFTER he was down.

[Tarlam!]

Rugby tackling is very different from Football tackling. We were taught in rugby to grab spin and fall with the guy no need for huge hits.

Maybe that's why the American Eagles are no match for the Wallabies, the All Blacks etc? :lol:

But seriously, there's no need for big hits in Rugby, because it's a different game. Once tackled, the ball carrier must let the ball loose and a socalled ruck forms to decide next possession. Still, big hit are a big part of Rugby, because that's how dominance is established.

[mraynrand]

If you remove 'Big Hits,' what does Bigby have left in his arsenal?

[pbmax]

If you remove 'Big Hits,' what does Bigby have left in his arsenal?
His health?

[Tarlam!]

If you remove 'Big Hits,' what does Bigby have left in his arsenal?

Skin's eternal admiration?

[bobblehead]

Its called physics. If you lean forward by definition you will "lead with your head" to an extent and at times you will get helmet to helmet contact.

If you "lean forward" to make a tackle but conciously tip your head back so as to not "lead with the helmet" you will break your neck upon contact.

If you stand up straight and make a tackle so as not to break your neck or create the possibility of helmet to helmet contact you will get flat out plowed over by the offensive player and likely get hurt in some other way.



Um, you'd think you'd be right, but, I don't think you are. Again, no Rugby player crashes head first into a tackle unless he's in possession of the ball or plain stupid. Obviously, the head sticks out above the shoulder, but you aim your shoulder, thus "lead" with it.

Having said that, a football play is MUCH faster, in Rugby you have much more time to set up your "prey", it's not a stop and go game, like football, it flows.

I also don't think the League is punishing helmet to helmet when a RB or WR has lowered his head, nor should they.

I'm sure its just a coincidence, but from what I read, the only head injury suffered this week was by the safety who played like a pussy and got plowed over by Cedric Benson....sorry, I'd rather deliver the hit than take it...fines be damned.