NFL Week 7

[jersey cubs fan]

Haha, I'm right down the street from that canal, the thing is filthy. I'm guessing no one sat next to him when he was processed.

 

I love that you are responding to abuck's post.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion about the new "hit rule."

 

Blatant, dirty headshots where a defender launches himself and hits the ballcarrier in the head absolutely should be punished. However, it sounds like they're going to fine legal hits that are "too violent" or vicious. If that's the case, this rule sucks.

 

I don't think it sucks. I'd prefer actual tackling instead of just launching heads into people. That is dumb and dangerous football.

[Soul]

Yeah, I fear flags flying with the Ref announcing a 15 yard penalty because a hit was "too destructive" or "too hard" or some nebulous non-defined thing that someone decided they didn't like all of a sudden.

 

Nobody wants to see players get hurt but I thought we already had a definition of penalized hits coming from headshots or after the ball has already passed the receiver and the defender hits him anyway.

 

This seems like a knee jerk reaction that is going to have fairly wide-ranging effects around the league. I'm not what the answer should be, but I don't think it's something that should be decided because someone in the NFL offices didn't like what he saw on Sportscenter last weekend.

[Banedon]

I dont' think it'll last. I think it's a publicity thing to try to satisfy Congress, who has been "investigating" concussions. Over time, I think the enforcement will wane.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, I fear flags flying with the Ref announcing a 15 yard penalty because a hit was "too destructive" or "too hard" or some nebulous non-defined thing that someone decided they didn't like all of a sudden.

 

Nobody wants to see players get hurt but I thought we already had a definition of penalized hits coming from headshots or after the ball has already passed the receiver and the defender hits him anyway.

 

This seems like a knee jerk reaction that is going to have fairly wide-ranging effects around the league. I'm not what the answer should be, but I don't think it's something that should be decided because someone in the NFL offices didn't like what he saw on Sportscenter last weekend.

 

I don't think they are making a new rule, they are just changing enforcement. Some guys scoffed at the yardage/money penalty. But a suspension might change things.

[Banedon]

I don't think they are making a new rule, they are just changing enforcement. Some guys scoffed at the yardage/money penalty. But a suspension might change things.

 

Yep. The rules are the same.

 

James Harrison is threatening to retire...haha....

 

"I'm going to sit down and have a serious conversation with my coach [Wednesday] and see if I can actually play by NFL rules and still be effective," Harrison told Tony Bruno of FOX Sports Radio. "If not, I may have to give up playing football. . . . I really truly hope it's something that can be done. But the way that things were being explained to me [Tuesday] and the reasoning for it, I don't feel I can continue to play and be effective and, like I say, not have to worry about injuring someone else or risking injury to myself."

[olboi]

Officials have no business getting involved in this type of thing. Slippery slope and all that.

 

Mike Carey asked the coaches to take meaningless timeouts in the MNF game so espn could get in some more commercials. What else will referees do to help ad revenues? Phantom penalties to encourage change of possessions? Help big markets?

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Jeff-Fisher-was-asked-to-call-timeouts-for-MNF-c?urn=nfl-278323&post_comment=1&success=1

[Soul]

Yeah, I fear flags flying with the Ref announcing a 15 yard penalty because a hit was "too destructive" or "too hard" or some nebulous non-defined thing that someone decided they didn't like all of a sudden.

 

Nobody wants to see players get hurt but I thought we already had a definition of penalized hits coming from headshots or after the ball has already passed the receiver and the defender hits him anyway.

 

This seems like a knee jerk reaction that is going to have fairly wide-ranging effects around the league. I'm not what the answer should be, but I don't think it's something that should be decided because someone in the NFL offices didn't like what he saw on Sportscenter last weekend.

 

I don't think they are making a new rule, they are just changing enforcement. Some guys scoffed at the yardage/money penalty. But a suspension might change things.

 

If it's a headshot or something that happens after the ball is gone, then I'm all for it. And I agree there have been too many cases where guys just headhunt and nobody calls them on it, or the punishment is laughable.

 

My understanding is that this will involve something more -- something where refs can throw a flag for a "dangerous" hit. I'd just like a solid definition of what that is, that's all.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Looking back, the only hit I think should have been flagged and fined is Meriweather's. Robinson's didn't look like he led with his helmet, and Harrison tried blasting the dude with his forearms while the receiver was going down to make the catch.

[jersey cubs fan]

Officials have no business getting involved in this type of thing. Slippery slope and all that.

 

Mike Carey asked the coaches to take meaningless timeouts in the MNF game so espn could get in some more commercials. What else will referees do to help ad revenues? Phantom penalties to encourage change of possessions? Help big markets?

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Jeff-Fisher-was-asked-to-call-timeouts-for-MNF-c?urn=nfl-278323&post_comment=1&success=1

 

That didn't happen, it was a joke.

[erik316wttn]

I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion about the new "hit rule."

 

Blatant, dirty headshots where a defender launches himself and hits the ballcarrier in the head absolutely should be punished. However, it sounds like they're going to fine legal hits that are "too violent" or vicious. If that's the case, this rule sucks.

 

I don't think it sucks. I'd prefer actual tackling instead of just launching heads into people. That is dumb and dangerous football.

 

Ok, the "destructive" hits part sucks, IF the hit is a clean but violent one.

 

I would hate to see a DB or Linebacker get fined and/or suspended for a hard but clean hit on a WR just as the ball gets there caused by just trying to jar the ball loose and therefore negate the catch. That's just basic football strategy.

[treebird]

i can't believe how willing people are to let football players ruin their later years in the name of awesome hits or whatever.

 

hit a guy with your helmet, you're out of the game. that should be the rule. i'm sorry if it's not old-timey enough for you, but the old-timey people were wrong and we need to be right.

[Banedon]

I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion about the new "hit rule."

 

Blatant, dirty headshots where a defender launches himself and hits the ballcarrier in the head absolutely should be punished. However, it sounds like they're going to fine legal hits that are "too violent" or vicious. If that's the case, this rule sucks.

 

I don't think it sucks. I'd prefer actual tackling instead of just launching heads into people. That is dumb and dangerous football.

 

Ok, the "destructive" hits part sucks, IF the hit is a clean but violent one.

 

I would hate to see a DB or Linebacker get fined and/or suspended for a hard but clean hit on a WR just as the ball gets there caused by just trying to jar the ball loose and therefore negate the catch. That's just basic football strategy.

 

They backed off the "destructive" hits thing. There's a lot of bad info floating around out there.

[erik316wttn]

I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion about the new "hit rule."

 

Blatant, dirty headshots where a defender launches himself and hits the ballcarrier in the head absolutely should be punished. However, it sounds like they're going to fine legal hits that are "too violent" or vicious. If that's the case, this rule sucks.

 

I don't think it sucks. I'd prefer actual tackling instead of just launching heads into people. That is dumb and dangerous football.

 

Ok, the "destructive" hits part sucks, IF the hit is a clean but violent one.

 

I would hate to see a DB or Linebacker get fined and/or suspended for a hard but clean hit on a WR just as the ball gets there caused by just trying to jar the ball loose and therefore negate the catch. That's just basic football strategy.

 

They backed off the "destructive" hits thing. There's a lot of bad info floating around out there.

 

If that's the case, then good. Then I have no problem with that rule.

[SouthSideRyan]

I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion about the new "hit rule."

 

Blatant, dirty headshots where a defender launches himself and hits the ballcarrier in the head absolutely should be punished. However, it sounds like they're going to fine legal hits that are "too violent" or vicious. If that's the case, this rule sucks.

 

If that happens, it won't happen for long. The Players union will be pissed and already enough crap to figure out before next season starts.

 

Shouldn't the players union be more concerned with their players living a normal life past 50 than fines against individual players?

[Guest]

i can't believe how willing people are to let football players ruin their later years in the name of awesome hits or whatever.

 

hit a guy with your helmet, you're out of the game. that should be the rule. i'm sorry if it's not old-timey enough for you, but the old-timey people were wrong and we need to be right.

 

 

We let people ruin their later years by letting them smoke too. Maybe education could be better, but shouldn't it be up to the individual if they want to trade a potentially long and healthy life for one with the fame and money that the NFL provides?

 

The problem is that people have their post-football careers ruined by clean and dirty hits alike. That and there is a ton of gray area between what could be a clean/healthy tackle and one that would be ejection worthy.

[jersey cubs fan]

i can't believe how willing people are to let football players ruin their later years in the name of awesome hits or whatever.

 

hit a guy with your helmet, you're out of the game. that should be the rule. i'm sorry if it's not old-timey enough for you, but the old-timey people were wrong and we need to be right.

 

 

We let people ruin their later years by letting them smoke too. Maybe education could be better, but shouldn't it be up to the individual if they want to trade a potentially long and healthy life for one with the fame and money that the NFL provides?

 

The problem is that people have their post-football careers ruined by clean and dirty hits alike. That and there is a ton of gray area between what could be a clean/healthy tackle and one that would be ejection worthy.

 

There's also a ton of black and white and people largely ignore them with bogus "slippery slope" and "pussification" defenses.

[SpongeWorthy]

I don't ignore it. I just don't think there is a ton of black and white. The Dunta Robinson hit, for example, was firmly in the gray area if you ask me. Not ejection worthy even based on the new enforcement guidelines.

 

It is completely unrealistic to say that you can't EVER lead with your helmet unless you want to say that you can never dive at a ball carrier to make a tackle.

[jersey cubs fan]

It is completely unrealistic to say that you can't EVER lead with your helmet unless you want to say that you can never dive at a ball carrier to make a tackle.

 

You shouldn't dive head first at a ball carrier to make a tackle.

[SpongeWorthy]

Dives, by definition, are head first. If you can show me how one would dive at a ball carrier without his head being in front of his body I'll reconsider. Maybe we can start drop kicking ball carriers.

[Banedon]

Are running backs allowed to dive at the goalline headfirst? They might hit someone. Will they get ejected? Suspended?

[SpongeWorthy]

Also, football is almost always played with forward body lean. That alone is going to put your helmet ahead of your body on a lot of plays. A lot of helmet to helmet or helmet to body contact is from using proper form and is mostly incidental.

[jersey cubs fan]

Dives, by definition, are head first. If you can show me how one would dive at a ball carrier without his head being in front of his body I'll reconsider. Maybe we can start drop kicking ball carriers.

 

You shouldn't dive at players to make tackles. It's very risky. If you choose to do so then you are liable for the punishment that can come about as a result of your reckless action. There's no reason to dive, people do it for the theater of the big hit. It's unnecessary, but fun.

[SpongeWorthy]

Well you should dive if it's the only way to make a play.

 

You see a receiver burning up the sidelines and a safety whose only option to push him out of bounds or tackle him is to dive and I'll show you a safety whose ass is sitting on the bench on the next drive.

 

lol, what sport are you watching where dives are unnecessary

[jersey cubs fan]

Well you should dive if it's the only way to make a play.

 

You see a receiver burning up the sidelines and a safety whose only option to push him out of bounds or tackle him is to dive and I'll show you a safety whose ass is sitting on the bench on the next drive.

 

lol, what sport are you watching where dives are unnecessary

 

They are unnecessary. They are fun and make for good show but completely unnecessary, not counting diving for the ball of course.