BroadwayJ667 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 We should really merge all these hits conversations. This is relative to the posts I was making about James Harrison... Harrison was saying the same thing, and if you've ever played, you'll agree. These plays are happening wayyy too fast to be that cautious. I'd even venture to argue if you start going into these plays more tentatively, that you are actually more prone to get hurt. But further, its a double standard. Offense can get away with face masks and helmet to helmet, but not defenders...sh*t aint right. It not even that, they are taught not to think. They are trained to play with reaction and instinct. When you think on the field you play slow. Look what are they supposed to do when an offensive player dodges and the defensive player who is already in the process of making a tackle, can't avoid hitting him in the head. It's wrong. I really may give up watching football, this is crossing a line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 How many games per season would Ronnie Lott be suspended for if he played under these guidelines? 9? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJ667 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 How many games per season would Ronnie Lott be suspended for if he played under these guidelines? 9? Jack tatum would be banned from the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tparich Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 It wasn't a good, hart hit. It was illegal under the rules that have been in place for some time now. Robinson was penalized for the hit BEFORE the NFL came out and said that there will be more enforcement of the rules. That said, I do agree that Anderson screwed up in saying something to Mort or allowing himself to get misquoted. The bottom line is that Robinson's hit was an illegal hit under longstanding rules. It was not all of a sudden made illegal by new rules or new interpretation. If they start to enforce the the rule exactly as it is written then there will be at least 20 penalties a game for aggressive teams. For what it's worth I thought the Revis hit was worse then the Leonard hit but it wasn't even brought up as a hard hit because the receiver bounced right back up. If the receiver had stayed on the ground then the media would be bringing up that play as well. Also that same exact hit would of been a penalty as far as the wording of the rule you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larz Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 the nfl is about making money they don't want to see a guy get killed, literally, on the field or paralyzed or squished or whatever so they are trying to stop that from happening it's all about the product being appealing to more people, globally simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lupz27 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I have 2 instances where I would like to know if they would be penalties, fines, or suspension. 1. Ray Lewis's hit on Keller week one, does this fall into the devastating category? If so I quit watching football. 2. David Harris' hit on Ronnie Brown on the screen pass he snuffed out, in this instance he blasted him while he was in the process of catching the ball, the hit was chest to chest, facemask to facemask, where does this fall? Its hits like these that has made the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s dubb Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Great quote right here: Steve Breaston "Say it's third-and-15 and you go across the middle. As a defender, you try to dislodge that ball so he doesn't make the catch. Now, it's what, you let them catch it? You make the tackle, but they pick up the first down? I don't know." This is what kills me. Even offensive players don't like it. FU Goodell! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh4dy15 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 You guys are totally misunderstanding this "rule" and so are these idiot players. The rules hasnt changed at all, the only thing that changed is the punishment. It's not a "hard hitting" rule its a illegal hitting punishment change. Obviousely the plays are still going to be reviewed too and if they see an intent to injure somebody it used to be a fine, now its a suspension. All they have to do is stop leading with the tops of their helmets into the opposing players faces. If the offense changes direction and causes an accidental helmet to helmet I'm sure the NFL will review that and see it was not intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 You guys are totally misunderstanding this "rule" and so are these idiot players. The rules hasnt changed at all, the only thing that changed is the punishment. It's not a "hard hitting" rule its a illegal hitting punishment change. Obviousely the plays are still going to be reviewed too and if they see an intent to injure somebody it used to be a fine, now its a suspension. All they have to do is stop leading with the tops of their helmets into the opposing players faces. If the offense changes direction and causes an accidental helmet to helmet I'm sure the NFL will review that and see it was not intent. They are enforcing something that you are taught in pee wee. Do not lead with the crown of your head. They will look to measure intent (a hard thing to do) and simultaneously protect their most important asset to some degree (the players). No one wants to see what happened to the Rutgers player this weekend. THAT is what they are trying to eliminate. That and the realization that concussions can screw you up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Bullsh*t. Nobody has a problem with the illegality of spearing or helmet-to-helmet hits (except maybe that idiot Crowder). We are complaining about this defenseless player bullsh*t. I can buy it on a pass that is overthrown by 20 feet, but what Leonhard did? There was nothing wrong with that, but AFAIK the league has said that was a good call. If that was illegal the NFL is in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Bullsh*t. Nobody has a problem with the illegality of spearing or helmet-to-helmet hits (except maybe that idiot Crowder). We are complaining about this defenseless player bullsh*t. I can buy it on a pass that is overthrown by 20 feet, but what Leonhard did? There was nothing wrong with that, but AFAIK the league has said that was a good call. If that was illegal the NFL is in trouble. Leonhard wasn't fined, where is the issue there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Leonhard wasn't fined, where is the issue there? Dunta Robinson was fined for a perfectly legal hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Dunta Robinson was fined for a perfectly legal hit. He has his chance to appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Leonhard wasn't fined, where is the issue there? The issue is that I heard that the NFL said it was a "good call". In all honesty I don't give a flying **** if they are fined. I care about the penalty. Fines don't change the outcome of a game, suspensions and penalties do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 The issue is that I heard that the NFL said it was a "good call". In all honesty I don't give a flying **** if they are fined. I care about the penalty. Fines don't change the outcome of a game, suspensions and penalties do. Most penalties are subjective. Welcome to the world of the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 He has his chance to appeal. So, that makes it right? Why should he have to appeal something that was clearly legal? Because it looked bad? Because Jackson is 160 lbs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh4dy15 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Are you kidding me? That was a bad call. End of story. Like thats never happened in the NFL before? The new rule has nothing to do with that. Besides what I'm saying isnt made up its a fact, they said the rules havent changed, only the punishment has. People are getting in an uproar over nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 So, that makes it right? Why should he have to appeal something that was clearly legal? Because it looked bad? Because Jackson is 160 lbs? The play would have been flagged regardless. He went head hunting, which is unsportsmanlike. The fine is between he and the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 The play would have been flagged regardless. He went head hunting, which is unsportsmanlike. The fine is between he and the league. Did you see the highlight? He was clearly not headhunting. It was a perfectly legal tackle. Its not Robinson's fault Jackson is tiny. That is a textbook way to tackle a receiver crossing the middle of the field. Knock the guy on his a$$ and let him know he cant run freely in the middle of the field without paying the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Are you kidding me? That was a bad call. End of story. Like thats never happened in the NFL before? The new rule has nothing to do with that. Besides what I'm saying isnt made up its a fact, they said the rules havent changed, only the punishment has. People are getting in an uproar over nothing. I'm not kidding you. They are not just mentioning using the helmet. They are talking about "defenseless players". Crushing defenseless players is what the NFL is built on. Destroy the weak. That rule has been on the books and it is a sucky rule. Especially when it comes down to allowing completions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE ILK Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKbYjyKOoR4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt39 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I'm not kidding you. They are not just mentioning using the helmet. They are talking about "defenseless players". Crushing defenseless players is what the NFL is built on. Destroy the weak. That rule has been on the books and it is a sucky rule. Especially when it comes down to allowing completions. I'd say its the offensive players fault for putting himself in a defenseless position. WHat about on interceptions? Are defensive players not allow to use the crackback block anymore? That was always on of the funnest hits in football....decleating a guy that's bigger than you when he isnt expecting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I'd say its the offensive players fault for putting himself in a defenseless position. It used to be on the quarterback to not lead his receiver into contact. That was before Peyton Manning and Drew Brees starting putting up arcade numbers throwing it across the middle of the field, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh4dy15 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I'm not kidding you. They are not just mentioning using the helmet. They are talking about "defenseless players". Crushing defenseless players is what the NFL is built on. Destroy the weak. That rule has been on the books and it is a sucky rule. Especially when it comes down to allowing completions. So what changed? You just stated yourself that was already the rule. If you think the NFL was built on helmet to helmet hit on defenseless receivers and enjoy seeing that than you got bigger problems then worrying about a rule change. These are still ****in people man, theyre not invincible and those hit at the speed these player are moving are dangerous and could paralyze players. And please understand I'm not talking about all hard hits, or even all hits on defenseless recievers. I'm talking about when players launch themselves with the crown of their helmets at a defenseless receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh4dy15 Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Did you see the highlight? He was clearly not headhunting. It was a perfectly legal tackle. Its not Robinson's fault Jackson is tiny. That is a textbook way to tackle a receiver crossing the middle of the field. Knock the guy on his a$$ and let him know he cant run freely in the middle of the field without paying the price. First of all thats not a tackle at all, it's a HIT. I actually think that hit was debateable too, i dont know if their was intent to injure anyone there but he got his punishment anyway because he hurt himself too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 So what changed? You just stated yourself that was already the rule. If you think the NFL was built on helmet to helmet hit on defenseless receivers and enjoy seeing that than you got bigger problems then worrying about a rule change. These are still ****in people man, theyre not invincible and those hit at the speed these player are moving are dangerous and could paralyze players. And please understand I'm not talking about all hard hits, or even all hits on defenseless recievers. I'm talking about when players launch themselves with the crown of their helmets at a defenseless receiver. It's a horsesh*t rule and if they enforce it that's what we'll be watching. Butkus, Lane, Nitschke, Blount... those guys weren't spearing people, but they sure hit a ton of "defenseless" players. I have said it repeatedly. I have no problem with outlawing and enforcing leading with your helmet, but some of this will be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.05f3dc52804d5fd84cf09ccfcd7bd10b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.