i have a problem with this in the fact that some of these hits are just going to happen by the physics of the game. It's not like a guy has time to change position and anticipate how the other player is going to position himself so that they can avoid a head to head collision. This was the case with the Robinson hit imo. It's such a bang-bang play, what other move could he have made. Merriweather though was blatant, and could merit for a suspension if anything
Absolutely, I just hope the league realizes this. Surely they can't and won't be so naive about the issue. Maybe a helmet redesign is in order. I won't pretend to be a helmet engineer but maybe if the helmet was built with a dual-shell structure -- the outer shell being spring-loaded against an inner shell -- with added padding throughout can help. It'd reduce on the whiplash and violent force on impact I think. I'd draw a picture or something but I'm on my phone. I think you guys can get the idea though.
Joe Paterno suggests they should get rid of the facemasks http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...-facemask-He-doesn-t-think-t?urn=ncaaf-278329
Read it again. The NFL will blame individual players when the problem originates from the system. That is a cop out. To blame employees when the employer set the ground rules for behavior is taking the easy way out.
I agree, in soccer it's known as a hospital pass - a ball that is placed perfectly between two players such that for both to go for it is going to require them to commit to a big collision. Thus far the focus is on the defenders making big hits, but you've also got to ask the question of the quarterback - is he blameless in a hit such as Robinson's? He has put the receiver in a position where in order to catch the ball he is guaranteed to get demolished, is that really the right throw to make?
So according to the ermmm NFLs rules, this hit (@1:11) will now be deemed as illegal. In fact, John Connor AKA The Terminator will be 100% illegal. [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvmbPh49Jo[/YOUTUBE]
Mark Schlereth just did a great job on sportcenter in showing how potentially unfair this rule can be. Say a receiver is coming across the middle, and a defender is about to meet him with a hard, textbook hit, effectively getting the defender's helmet on one side of the receiver and wrapping with the arms ... what's the receiver's natural reaction to an oncoming shot, TUCK YOUR HEAD! so now the receiver tucks his head and thus the defender (having no time to adjust) hits him helmet-to-helmet despite not meaning to do so. that's a penalty?
That's one thing I've been saying too. These guys are moving so fast it only takes a tiny bit of movement to completely change the point of impact. I worry that there will be undeserved ejections, fines and suspensions. I worry that players will fake injuries to bait ejections. I worry that players will be more apprehensive to the point that it changes the game and turns incompletions into completions and tackles into broken tackles. I think they should have taken a look at this in the offseason and used a more well defined process that looked at all the information available and analyzed the pros and cons of different solutions rather than make a big reactionary change based on one bad week.
no, because now they are forcing the entire system to rethink their strategy. nobody was suspended retroactively, so they are giving the entire system a starting point from where to change. but as far as the fines being levied to the players and not the coaches, ultimately, as individuals we are responsible for our own behavior.
yeah ... you have to expect that some players will be suspended for unjustified reasons. Either they are gonna crack down WAY too hard, or this rule will be way too subjective. Will they really suspend those star players? sounds like it would lead to more criticism ... either way i don't think it's good for the league
did they fine Woodhead even though he got a penalty? no. so obviously they are reviewing the plays and determining the validity of punishment based on the review. their execution of punishment from last week reveals a clear rational and honest approach to calls made on the field, so it is paranoia based on nothing to believe that won't continue. the league wants to protect the players brains, even if some don't want to. to do that the heads must be off limit and players must make a clear attempt to be avoiding it. if a player ducks at the last moment and his head crashes into a shoulder that was already in position, that will be obvious and there is no reason to believe the league is so blinded by the fear to protect that they will ignore that.
In an extreme version of this, Anquan Boldin met Eric Smiths head in an undirected hit, (unintentional) Smith still got the fine, but it was unintentional, how could he have avoided it? Rhodes knocked his head towards Smiths. So there we have another anomaly to add in as well. Harry Carson sums things up well:
Robinson was fined for a hit that didn't appear to be helmet to helmet to me. He was trying to separate the receiver from the ball and there was a violent collision.
I think the issue with the NFL is that they want players to be more deliberate in their actions. they want the game to be about tackling, not running through a player. they are clearly attempting to change the game to make it more of a skill game. I'm okay with that. in regards to the oft-used rationalization that the game has always been violent and about collisions, that doesn't justify why it should continue to be that way. all entities start dangerous and then regulations make them safer, so something being dangerous at one time isn't a justification for its continual danger. hell, the average workplace used to be dangerous, with women locked in buildings with no escape, and many burned to a crisp. should the government have simply said working is dangerous, that's just the way it is; you want to work you accept the danger? of course not, and neither should the NFL. they want it safer and to reduce the violence, and thus the long term effect of the collisions.
There are many reasons why a system might fail. Sometimes it's personnel, sometimes management, or sometimes the machinery. You look at all the reasons why a system could have a problem. You do not take knee jerk reactions and point your finger at the most vulnerable. You check the whole system. Just because you singled out the easiest and most vulnerable doesn't mean you solved the problem. *
Do they have any evidence to suggest these changes will in fact make the game safer? That's one of the big problems I have with this whole thing - they did it at the drop of a hat after one bad week without a full investigation. I could make an argument that requiring players to wear a specific type of mouth guard (not currently required) would be a more effective solution, but it would be a faulty argument without any data to go by.
I don't think many people are going to dispute that reducing the severity of impacts to the head will reduce damage to the brain. but you are more than welcome to do so if you like. luckily for the NFL, they posses the authority to take the common sense approach to such a dynamic without having to shuffle their feet and allow it to continue while they compile statistics to satiate fans.
