League will start suspending players for....
Michael
It will be a foul to light another guy up ???
What exactly is wrong with a devastating hit ??? This is not "helmet
to helmet". This is a new item that they are introducing. Are you
not supposed to lay devastating hits on the other players ??? They are
talking about changing the game. Why not just put a red shirt and
flags on the players ???
Glenn Greenstein
This is not what I heard at all, what they want to make a foul is
using the helmet as a weapon even if it isn't helmet to helmet.
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dc12b00b-19c7-4d1b...@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
There is only one rational answer. Over the last couple of decades, maybe
even less than that, the size and speed of the players has gotten way out of
hand. You simply can not play the game as we know and understand it with
guys this big and not have "devastating" results. If they had ever done
anything about steroids in the beginning some of this would not be
happening. We could have a lot of taller players who did not approcach 400
pounds. The "bigger, faster, stronger revolution" seemed like a great idea
and it was not thought out very well, now they are reaping the results of
those decisions. I don't see any way around this at all. Either they will
change the game, or someone will get killed. This is very interesting if
you view it from a perspective of social change. Again, I suggest a good
read, "How Football Explains America" by Sal Palantonio.
papa.carl44
"Glenn Greenstein" <lex...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d48e2355-8d9b-45fb...@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
That's what I heard too...and if you have ever played the game, and even
coached it you can realize how absurd that is. Your head is attached to
your shoulders, you can not hit without having the helmet involved. This is
going to mandate a lot of arm tackling and a whole lot of shoulder injuries.
You CAN NOT tackle without your head being involved in the process.
MZ
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>> That's what I heard too...and if you have ever played the game, and even
>> coached it you can realize how absurd that is. Your head is attached to
>> your shoulders, you can not hit without having the helmet involved. This is
>> going to mandate a lot of arm tackling and a whole lot of shoulder injuries.
>> You CAN NOT tackle without your head being involved in the process.
>
> cut back when the runner has the outside& the runner cuts back& now
> the tackler's helmet is involved?
>
> I think it makes more sense to worry about the ball carrier's head but
> whatever they do it requires solid officiating.
...Something that the league doesn't have. This will be a nightmare.
Maybe it can be done, but not with this group of clowns.
Michael
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> :)
>
> WTF are you talking about?
John... I have been listening to 1050 ESPN all morning. Tom Waddle
was interviewd also and they spoke about TWO THINGS. Helmet to helmet
and "devastating" hits. Two things... Not kidding. They were
commenting on how the new policy could "change the game". They also
spoke about the gray area as far as devastating hits go. Either 1050
ESPN needs the meds or you are not up to speed. I did not mistake
what they were saying. They want to limit violent hits.
Glenn Greenstein
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
I think they can help things by widening the field. More room will
negate some of the size and speed factor.
Michael
you can look at this from so many different angles... they can do
more to protect the players... IMHO, they can make better equipment.
i also follow drag racing and have participated myself in the
"sportsman" classes. recently, a few high profile drivers in the pro
classes were killed in accidents. the nhra shortened the track from
1/4 for the nitro classes while they looked into things. new helmets
were developed and so were new safety features for the cars. you cant
tell me for one moment that football helmets can not be researched and
made to absorb impacts better. on the other hand, it is a high risk
profession and the players know that. they are not being forced to
play the game. if you dont want saliva on your hands dont become a
dentist. if you dont want to get your head stoved in, dont become a
boxer or a pro ball player. they need a balance of both. do more to
protect the players, but also agree that football includes brutality
and pain. you cant sanitize it. you are supposed to beat the shit
out of people and make them regret and worry about doing something
productive for their team. you can limit speeds and hits on wr's and
so on, but nothing will help guys in the trenches other than better
gear. it is looking more and more that those guys are at more of a
risk simply because they make contact on every single play. no
contact, no football...
John C TX
> Michael, my typos are more clear than your post. You didn't mention a
> radio report, cite an article so I had no clue what had you agitated.
>
> There are no new rules. The focus seems to be on head shots and to
> prevent head & neck injuries. Devastating hits are the problem as long as they are
> legal. I didn't see the Merriweather hit but Robinson's hit on
> Jackson should result in a suspension.
>
> Here is the clarification from the NFL
>
> http://tinyurl.com/29mclym
Michael
>
> > > :)
>
> > > WTF are you talking about?
>
> > John... I have been listening to 1050 ESPN all morning. Tom Waddle
> > was interviewd also and they spoke about TWO THINGS. Helmet to helmet
> > and "devastating" hits. Two things... Not kidding. They were
> > commenting on how the new policy could "change the game". They also
> > spoke about the gray area as far as devastating hits go. Either 1050
> > ESPN needs the meds or you are not up to speed. I did not mistake
> > what they were saying. They want to limit violent hits.
>
> radio report, cite an article so I had no clue what had you agitated.
>
> There are no new rules. The focus seems to be on head shots and to
> legal. I didn't see the Merriweather hit but Robinson's hit on
> Jackson should result in a suspension.
>
> Here is the clarification from the NFL
>
> http://tinyurl.com/29mclym
john... the radio show made it clear. im not saying they had their
facts correct but they did talk about "devastating" hits as a separate
article from "helmet to helmet". like the "defenseless" receiver
rule. as far as fines for helmet to helmet contact... i still like my
idea best.
for incidental helmet to helmet contact
the guy that gets hit gets to takes a free shot at the player that hit
him using a wiffle ball bat.
for intentional helmet to helmet contact.
the guy gets to use a baseball bat
for the most "devastating" of hits.
the offender has to remove his helmet and the guy that got hit uses a
lead pipe. one caveat... if the guy that got hit is out cold, he
loses his chance to asses the penalty.
what do you think
John C TX
It seems the clarification from the NFL was to eliminate the term
devastating hits that was used earlier.
What do I think? I am glad you are on your meds.
:)
This is easy. On the blatant, egregious acts, suspend them & fine
them. You can do it after the fact.
MZ
I think that would make it worse...
MZ
> On Oct 19, 11:47 am, Michael<mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 12:12 pm, John C TX<johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>
>>>>> Michael, did you go off you meds again?
>>
>>>>> :)
>>
>>>>> WTF are you talking about?
>>
>>>> John... I have been listening to 1050 ESPN all morning. Tom Waddle
>>>> was interviewd also and they spoke about TWO THINGS. Helmet to helmet
>>>> and "devastating" hits. Two things... Not kidding. They were
>>>> commenting on how the new policy could "change the game". They also
>>>> spoke about the gray area as far as devastating hits go. Either 1050
>>>> ESPN needs the meds or you are not up to speed. I did not mistake
>>>> what they were saying. They want to limit violent hits.
>>
>>> Michael, my typos are more clear than your post. You didn't mention a
>>> radio report, cite an article so I had no clue what had you agitated.
>>
>>> There are no new rules. The focus seems to be on head shots and to
>>> legal. I didn't see the Merriweather hit but Robinson's hit on
>>> Jackson should result in a suspension.
>>
>>> Here is the clarification from the NFL
>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/29mclym
>>
>> john... the radio show made it clear. im not saying they had their
>> facts correct but they did talk about "devastating" hits as a separate
>> article from "helmet to helmet". like the "defenseless" receiver
>> rule. as far as fines for helmet to helmet contact... i still like my
>> idea best.
>>
>> for incidental helmet to helmet contact
>>
>> the guy that gets hit gets to takes a free shot at the player that hit
>> him using a wiffle ball bat.
>>
>> for intentional helmet to helmet contact.
>>
>> the guy gets to use a baseball bat
>>
>> for the most "devastating" of hits.
>>
>> the offender has to remove his helmet and the guy that got hit uses a
>> lead pipe. one caveat... if the guy that got hit is out cold, he
>> loses his chance to asses the penalty.
>>
>> what do you think
>
> It seems the clarification from the NFL was to eliminate the term
> devastating hits that was used earlier.
>
> What do I think? I am glad you are on your meds.
>
> :)
>
> them. You can do it after the fact.
How, exactly, does one define "blatant" and "egregious"? Even the best
officials couldn't be able to pick those out.
Was Meriweather trying to intentionally hurt (his friend) Todd Heap? Or
was he just trying to make a big hit (like the one Chung made earlier
which directly caused an incompletion on a key 3rd down)?
I'm with Michael on this. No matter how you slice it, it's bad for
football. Good for player safety? Maybe. But I think at some point,
we all have to sit down and come to grips with the fact that football is
a violent sport and lots of these guys are going to have long lasting
effects and there's very little that can be done about it without
destroying the game.
Glenn Greenstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't see how it could. The players are bigger and faster than they
were in the days of leather helmets, but they are playing on the same
size field, they need more room because they are biiger and faster. It
would be a safer enviorrment.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
i dont know... it sounds like it makes sense on paper but... it is so
subjective. if jim leonhard makes a bit of contact by accident, he
gets suspended. if one of the steelers goes head hunting the
officials pull their puds while it makes the highlight reelz and the
steelers are lionized for being a physical team.
Ron
Stewart Scott, Matt Millen and Steve Young had the release during the
MNF post game show, and "devastating hits" was in the release.
In fact, MM and SY got into an argument over the wording of
"devastating hits".
Sounds to me like Ray Anderson is now backpedaling.
Michael
ahhh... looks to be a language snafu that started all the heated
reaction to the "change the rules" policy that never was...
"devastating" should have been "flagrant" as it relates to helmet to
helmet. nothing tragic here... someone just stepped on their own dick
is all
Coach Lon
No one will disagree that tackling in the league is at an all time
low. Hitting (legally and illegally) has become the norm in most
games now. Leading with your helmet as a weapon has become a serious
problem; so serious in fact that it is trickling down to college, high
school, preps and pee wee. The NFL is the beacon for all these
organizations, and the coaches must take a harder and broader approach
to how these actions are designed. The league and it's players must
walk a fine line with respect to this issue. Replay may play a role
too according to something Peter King posted this morning regarding
personal fouls as they relate to helmet to helmet contact, like the
Leonard hit in the Broncos game, which on replay clearly showed was a
legal hit.
Ron
Here is a snippet of a conversation/debate that was about 5 minutes
long. Trent Dilfer was also involved in this debate from the ESPN
studio. Wish I could find the entire video.
Ron
Funny, this was never a problem when Ronnie Lott, Steve
Atwater, .et .al were playing.
Ron
Here is the release and the debate from the MNF post game show.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5702673&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines
Harlan Lachman
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
I urge you both to listen to the Mike and Mike in the morning highlights.
The league is out of its mind. There are no plans to distinguish between
intent and an offensive player repositioning himself (e.g., ducking).
There is no distinction between a helmet to helmet launching by the Pats
Brandon M, and the shoulder of Leonhard.
Worse, officials are encouraged to throw players out of the game at the
time of infringement. Can you imagine Leonhard taken out of the game for
a bad call.
Golic was not a happy camper and if you listen to the sections by M Hoge
and Carter and then listen to the section with the league's Anderson you
will get a sense of how deeply out of touch the NFL is and how (bad)
officiating will become even more likely to determine winners and losers
and playoff teams.
harlan
MZ
I don't see how it would be safer. It wouldn't slow the game down any
more. If anything, it would speed it up.
MZ
Sometimes the difference between a clean shoulder and a dirty helmet is
bad aim. Or geometry.
I'm in the minority that thinks players already avoid leading with the
crown of their helmets, generally. Paralysis is worse than suspensions,
so there's already a good reason for them not to do it. I don't buy
that players are going out there trying to injure fellow players.
Sometimes, facemask to facemask is called helmet to helmet. Sucks.
Make smaller helmets maybe?
Michael
> On 10/19/2010 3:24 PM, Harlan Lachman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "papa.carl44"<papadotc...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Michael"<mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
WTF ??? please go watch some highlights of Chuck Ceicel, Tatum,
Atwater, Concrete Charlie, Night Train, etc and tell me that are not
interested in causing injury
> Sometimes, facemask to facemask is called helmet to helmet. Sucks.
> Make smaller helmets maybe?- Hide quoted text -
make the game more interesting and let them use clubs and pipes :-)
John C TX
X-No-Archive: Yes
> I urge you both to listen to the Mike and Mike in the morning highlights.
>
> The league is out of its mind. There are no plans to distinguish between
> intent and an offensive player repositioning himself (e.g., ducking).
> There is no distinction between a helmet to helmet launching by the Pats
> Brandon M, and the shoulder of Leonhard.
>
> Worse, officials are encouraged to throw players out of the game at the
> time of infringement. Can you imagine Leonhard taken out of the game for
> a bad call.
>
> Golic was not a happy camper and if you listen to the sections by M Hoge
> and Carter and then listen to the section with the league's Anderson you
> will get a sense of how deeply out of touch the NFL is and how (bad)
> officiating will become even more likely to determine winners and losers
> and playoff teams.
>
> harlan
Harlan go back to this link I posted earlier.
Mike & Mike's piece was at the height of hysteria following the first
comment by the league about devastating hits.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:fI6dndy8e-zJSCDR...@giganews.com...
As for safety...somebody needs to go back and look at injury stats before
all the cage face guard stuff...how happy are all these pretty boys going to
be with broken noses, no teeth, stitches in their face etc. ? And....you
will have lots of knee injuries and shoulder and arm injuries. You simply
can not tackle without using your head and if it becomes completely
subjective we are dommed...officials will decide the outcome of any game
they so wish to.
papa.carl44
"Glenn Greenstein" <lex...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f606ffa-3872-4aa6...@g13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Then make the field smaller...they can't get up the speed to carry out the
"devastating" hits.
papa.carl44
On Oct 19, 10:24 am, "papa.carl44" <papadotc...@nospamverizon.net>
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:dc12b00b-19c7-4d1b...@t8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > devastating hits ??? Are you kidding me ???
>
> > It will be a foul to light another guy up ???
>
> > What exactly is wrong with a devastating hit ??? This is not "helmet
> > to helmet". This is a new item that they are introducing. Are you
> > not supposed to lay devastating hits on the other players ??? They are
> > talking about changing the game. Why not just put a red shirt and
> > flags on the players ???
>
> There is only one rational answer. Over the last couple of decades, maybe
> even less than that, the size and speed of the players has gotten way out
> of
> hand. You simply can not play the game as we know and understand it with
> guys this big and not have "devastating" results. If they had ever done
> anything about steroids in the beginning some of this would not be
> happening. We could have a lot of taller players who did not approcach 400
> pounds. The "bigger, faster, stronger revolution" seemed like a great idea
> and it was not thought out very well, now they are reaping the results of
> those decisions. I don't see any way around this at all. Either they will
> change the game, or someone will get killed. This is very interesting if
> you view it from a perspective of social change. Again, I suggest a good
> read, "How Football Explains America" by Sal Palantonio.
you can look at this from so many different angles... they can do
more to protect the players... IMHO, they can make better equipment.
i also follow drag racing and have participated myself in the
"sportsman" classes. recently, a few high profile drivers in the pro
classes were killed in accidents. the nhra shortened the track from
1/4 for the nitro classes while they looked into things. new helmets
were developed and so were new safety features for the cars. you cant
tell me for one moment that football helmets can not be researched and
made to absorb impacts better. on the other hand, it is a high risk
profession and the players know that. they are not being forced to
play the game. if you dont want saliva on your hands dont become a
dentist. if you dont want to get your head stoved in, dont become a
boxer or a pro ball player. they need a balance of both. do more to
protect the players, but also agree that football includes brutality
and pain. you cant sanitize it. you are supposed to beat the shit
out of people and make them regret and worry about doing something
productive for their team. you can limit speeds and hits on wr's and
so on, but nothing will help guys in the trenches other than better
gear. it is looking more and more that those guys are at more of a
risk simply because they make contact on every single play. no
contact, no football...
Racing helmets are safer....the problem is they are designed for a "one
time" use...one hit, impact and the helmet is through, that technology does
not work for football helmets. The entire core of the game is brutality and
hitting...that is a fact, if you want it "safe" then you have to change the
core of the game. It has always been dangerous and guys were killed in the
game throughout it's existence. The NCAA is a response to that level of
violence. When will they address some of the issues related to the use of
enhancements etc? I laugh when I hear about all the investigations of
baseball and football skates on it. If they let DB's hit receivers coming
off the line it would help a lot, right now the O is getting free to go
places they never went in the game before. Why don't they think of that?
Michael
wrote:
> "Glenn Greenstein" <lexa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
no... let the players use lead pipes... they wont have to lead with
their heads to cause harm and pain.
papa.carl44
All I know is when I played in college and for two years after that it was
all about hurting someone, and I'm damn sure the cheap shots I took were not
about telling me "Hello".
papa.carl44
"Ron" <BigEL...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9cd4c66d-2f03-4887...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Your assessment that tackling is almost non-existent and knocking a guy out,
off his feet, blowing him up or whatever they call it is in vogue...I
believe that is because of the size and speed of all involved.
MZ
Never heard of 'em. :p Welcome to this century, Michael. Or, as I
call it, the "it's just business, man" era of the NFL.
MZ
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>> How, exactly, does one define "blatant" and "egregious"? Even the best
>> officials couldn't be able to pick those out.
>
>
> That video is tough to find online but I saw it on TV.
>>
>> Was Meriweather trying to intentionally hurt (his friend) Todd Heap? Or
>> was he just trying to make a big hit (like the one Chung made earlier
>> which directly caused an incompletion on a key 3rd down)?
>
> did.
>
> It doesn't matter if intentions were not to hurt him his actions did
> and did it illegally. What I saw from Merriwaether was foul play. He
> he could have hit him with his shoulder. He could have avoided the
> head.
>
>> I'm with Michael on this. No matter how you slice it, it's bad for
>> football. Good for player safety? Maybe. But I think at some point,
>> we all have to sit down and come to grips with the fact that football is
>> a violent sport and lots of these guys are going to have long lasting
>> effects and there's very little that can be done about it without
>> destroying the game.
>
> Robinson& Merriweather's hit were dirty.
Dirty? Give me a break. Careless, possibly. It hasn't seemed to occur
to anyone here that Meriweather just isn't a very good player, and he's
a notoriously shitty tackler who's been benched and is trying to add a
physical dimension to his game but doesn't know how. But "dirty"
implies that you're trying to do harm. I don't buy it. Especially when
you consider that the two guys in question are friends and hang out off
the field.
Fans are drama queens. Everybody watches too much WWF. They think guys
are going to hit other guys with steel chairs when the ref turns his
back. Players will make mistakes...all the time, and hopefully
tightening up certain rules can help keep them from making some
mistakes. But the problem I see is that the NFL thinks that they can
eradicate something, and they can't. And the game will suffer in their
quest to do so.
Ron
You've never of Steve Atwater or Jack Tatum? What about Lester Haynes,
Ronnie Lott or John Lynch? All big hitters that played in the
secondary.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
ray lewis ??? he's not trying to ko people ??? dunta robinson ??? no
intent there ???
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
i still think they should let players use metal pipes...
MZ
You didn't see the emoticon?
MZ
KO people, or injure them?
It's one thing to deliver a crushing blow (which every single player on
the field should be trying to do, btw). It's another thing to deliver a
cheap shot.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
a good solid club or metal pipe would really add some spice to the
game...
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
Well said...and the League is pandering to people who do not remotely
understand the game. Anybody who thinks you can control these hits
completely has NEVER played the game to any extent.
John C TX
> "MZ" <m...@nospam.void> wrote in message
Papa you are telling me that Merriweather could not stop in time and
had to go in with his helmet? That what Robinson did is something you
would have coached?
MZ
>
> I have watched the play several times now. He certainly was trying to
> hit his head. He saw that the ball was not caught. If Heap was
> cement pillar he could have avoided him. He certainly is within the
> rules if he takes him out but use your shoulder.
John, your QB rule about cement pillars doesn't apply here. He's
supposed to hit him. What was illegal wasn't the hit, it was his aim.
>> Fans are drama queens. Everybody watches too much WWF. They think guys
>> are going to hit other guys with steel chairs when the ref turns his
>> back. Players will make mistakes...all the time, and hopefully
>> tightening up certain rules can help keep them from making some
>> mistakes. But the problem I see is that the NFL thinks that they can
>> eradicate something, and they can't. And the game will suffer in their
>> quest to do so.
>
> The game has suffered through many bad rule changes from the
> handcuffing of DB's, through the ridiculous helmet to helmet when a
> lineman's face mask ends up in a QB's, to the Brady rule where players
> are restricted to an area on the QB the size of a washcloth on a QB's
> body but these aren't new rules they are current rules.
That's like saying applying the death penalty for shoplifting is ok
because it's not a new rule, it's a current rule. Suspensions are
serious business. I'm fine with them flagging a player on the field for
not exhibiting proper technique and potentially injuring someone because
of it. But I think suspensions and fines should be reserved for blatant
acts or for cheating -- like taking steroids, sticking your hands in
someone's facemask, or videotaping other teams. :)
papa.carl44
"John C TX" <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:71610e3c-033b-4aa1...@i5g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
MZ, sorry BS. Dirty, foul play, whatever you want to call it.
I have watched the play several times now. He certainly was trying to
hit his head. He saw that the ball was not caught. If Heap was
cement pillar he could have avoided him. He certainly is within the
rules if he takes him out but use your shoulder.
> Fans are drama queens. Everybody watches too much WWF. They think guys
> are going to hit other guys with steel chairs when the ref turns his
> back. Players will make mistakes...all the time, and hopefully
> tightening up certain rules can help keep them from making some
> mistakes. But the problem I see is that the NFL thinks that they can
> eradicate something, and they can't. And the game will suffer in their
> quest to do so.
The game has suffered through many bad rule changes from the
handcuffing of DB's, through the ridiculous helmet to helmet when a
lineman's face mask ends up in a QB's, to the Brady rule where players
are restricted to an area on the QB the size of a washcloth on a QB's
body but these aren't new rules they are current rules.
So solve a lot of this right away....take the handcuffs off the D
backs...let them beat up on a receiver off the line and until the ball is in
the air...then most of this will be a moot subject.
--
papa.carl44
No....I didn't see either of those hits. I'm saying a LOT of helmet to
helmet calls are not at all intentional. And....if someone thinks they are,
they do not have a remote idea of what this game is like. If youu notice I
did not refer to those two incidents at all. It is a general statement and
applies to most likely the majority of the calls...you can not tackle or hit
without your helmet getting involved. BTW....the way tackling used to be
taught was ALWAYS lead with the front of the face guard and let your head
slide to one side or the other. That was deemed the safest for the tackler
not getting his neck broken for decades.
Harlan Lachman
<7ad6b0ce-80c1-433c...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
John C TX <johnc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > i dont know... it sounds like it makes sense on paper but... it is so
> > subjective. �if jim leonhard makes a bit of contact by accident, he
> > gets suspended. �
>
> I don't think that is what they are saying. The flag against Leonhard
> was a bad call. He hit his with his shoulder and there was minor
> contact following that. I think they will look at each case.
>
>
> >if one of the steelers goes head hunting the
> > officials pull their puds while it makes the highlight reelz and the
> > steelers are lionized for being a physical team.
>
>
> --
John, the failure of this analysis is that the morons at the NFL want to
encourage game officials, the same bozos who miss call after call, to
have the right to determine games by making in-game, bad judgements that
result in one team losing a key player because the official blew the
call and did not check the replay.
At a minimum, no one should be allowed to be ejected without reviewing
the tape in the booth.
But really, it seems to me if they want to eject players, it makes more
sense to do so after the fact, when the league can review the film, talk
to officials, and even the players or coaches.
harlan
Michael
<SNIP>
> Racing helmets are safer....the problem is they are designed for a "one
> time" use...one hit, impact and the helmet is through, that technology does
> not work for football helmets.
Race helmets are much better for protecting the brain from injury due
to suddent impacts. Especially the ones that they have been using
recently in the pro ranks of drag racing. The innertia that you are
dealing with in racing is much greater than football. Yes... You have
to chuck the helmet out afer an impact. Tell me the NFL is poor.
They can afford a new helmet for each guy after a substantial impact.
You dont have to swap out helmets for minor contact. Only serious
blows. After a big hit to the head... and that should not happen too
often, the player goes and gets a new helmet. They should keep a
bunch on hand for each player.
MZ
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>> had to go in with his helmet? That what Robinson did is something you
>> would have coached?
>
>
> Merriweather
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb1CmHk9GK0
>
> Robinson
>
> Less time to change but he lead with his head.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmsAdwm7LHQ
>
>>
>> No....I didn't see either of those hits. I'm saying a LOT of helmet to
>> helmet calls are not at all intentional.
>
>
>> And....if someone thinks they are,
>> they do not have a remote idea of what this game is like. If youu notice I
>> did not refer to those two incidents at all. It is a general statement and
>> applies to most likely the majority of the calls...you can not tackle or hit
>> without your helmet getting involved. BTW....the way tackling used to be
>> taught was ALWAYS lead with the front of the face guard and let your head
>> slide to one side or the other. That was deemed the safest for the tackler
>> not getting his neck broken for decades.
>
> makes sense& keeps the neck straight& strong. Turning your face
> away actually weakens the neck like twisting a finger.
>
> In the other football, for years, we were taught to keep your head
> behind the tackler as opposed to "across the bow". You also have to
> wrap but they are different games with different rules. The tackled
> player has to release the ball so you generally only fought for every
> inch near the goal line. The game has changed now& they tackle
> higher across the chest but still have to wrap-- they are preventing
> the tackler from passing. The wrapping would end most of this.
>
> I hate it when the D makes the perfect form tackle on a QB and the
> facemask slides up the chest to the QB's helmet& a flag is thrown.
> What is safer, that play or a QB getting hit in the back?
>
John,
Bull-oney. Wrapping would make it just as bad. Because the tackling
that papa is talking about, which used to be called "textbook", now
often results in helmet-helmet or helmet-facemask contact, especially
when you're tackling someone shorter than you (eg running backs and
receivers).
Basically, the only way to avoid helmet-helmet with certainty is to go
low. This isn't dangerous?
This ain't pansy-ball, guys. Safety is important, but you can only take
so much away until you ruin the game. And I think we're going past that
point this decade.
The best thing you can do is
1) Let bump and run prevail to slow down the game in space.
2) Have a common sense strategy on limiting concussed players.
Problem solved? Nope. There will always be a problem. But this will
be far more effective and entertaining than switching to two-hand touch.
MZ
"It�s a dangerous game, it really is. I think we all signed up to this
game knowing that it�s dangerous. I know Rodney Harrison did too, and I
heard some of Rodney�s comments about the style of play. Nobody wants to
see anybody get hurt. That�s not why we play the game, but we also know
that the physical nature of this sport is that people do get hurt. We
all have gotten hurt, everybody in this locker room. I�ve had four, five
surgeries. It�s just part of what you�re signing up for."
MZ
> did is the problem. To steal a line from the great jurist I can't
> define it but I know it when I see it.
>>
>> Basically, the only way to avoid helmet-helmet with certainty is to go
>> low. This isn't dangerous?
>
> the guy making the tackle.
>>
>> This ain't pansy-ball, guys. Safety is important, but you can only take
>> so much away until you ruin the game. And I think we're going past that
>> point this decade.
>
> what they the rules are as they did two years ago. Smith got no
> warning two years ago as his warning was Goodell's letter.
John, "reminding them" (ie more strict enforcement) IS a rule change.
Just like Polian's rule changes from 5 years ago. They were technically
not rule changes, but come on...they were rule changes. When you change
the punishment for something, you're effectively changing the rule.
FWIW, I was against the Smith suspension when it happened.
>> The best thing you can do is
>>
>> 1) Let bump and run prevail to slow down the game in space.
>
> fine
>> 2) Have a common sense strategy on limiting concussed players.
>
> You get knocked out then you sit for 21 days. Good luck with them
> embarcing that one.
I think there's a better chance of enforcing that one than there is of
NFL officials getting helmet to helmet right.
>> Problem solved? Nope. There will always be a problem. But this will
>> be far more effective and entertaining than switching to two-hand touch.
>
> That is hyperbole.
Of course it is! :) But even you can't deny that we're going down the
path of softening the game. In your view, when does it become too much?
MZ
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
>> game knowing that it�s dangerous. I know Rodney Harrison did too, and I
>> heard some of Rodney�s comments about the style of play. Nobody wants to
>> see anybody get hurt. That�s not why we play the game, but we also know
>> that the physical nature of this sport is that people do get hurt. We
>> all have gotten hurt, everybody in this locker room. I�ve had four, five
>> surgeries. It�s just part of what you�re signing up for."
>
> year?
I'm borrowing Brady's words here. I'm not holding him up as someone
who's consistent.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
Amen ! Allow D backs to hit receivers as long as the ball is not in the
air...anywhere on the field....and then make O lineman block with their
shoulders and bodies bringing the game at the LOS low again. Those two
measures slow the game in space down a lot. Yes, it will kill a lot of the
wide open passing. It is a question of decisions, do you want the wide open
speed game with a dead player, or do you want to preserve the essence of the
game and still have it be football? Then....do what was done at lesser
levels of the game in many places for years...if you even looked dazed, you
sit and only a doctor decides if you go back no matter how much you claim to
be OK. That crap, that the NFL has allowed trickles down too....and way too
many college and high school players get away with going back in. They can
also go to the padding on the outside of helmets, it was proven to work, but
looked ugly, and was a cost factor. They also need to do more
standardization with helmets using what is safest, not what feels good. If
they are going to play 18 game seasons, they are going to need to keep more
guys healthy, these changes could help.
papa.carl44
X-No-Archive: Yes
Mark, helmets touching is not the issue. What Merriweather & Robinson
did is the problem. To steal a line from the great jurist I can't
define it but I know it when I see it.
>
> Basically, the only way to avoid helmet-helmet with certainty is to go
> low. This isn't dangerous?
No, if done right it is much safer for both the guy with the ball &
the guy making the tackle.
_______________________________________________
Absolutely NOT....knees get taken out this way, heads get kicked and blasted
by pounding runners legs...not safe at all.
_____________________________________________________
>
> This ain't pansy-ball, guys. Safety is important, but you can only take
> so much away until you ruin the game. And I think we're going past that
> point this decade.
Again, they haven't changed the rules. They are reminding these guys
what they the rules are as they did two years ago. Smith got no
warning two years ago as his warning was Goodell's letter.
>
> The best thing you can do is
>
> 1) Let bump and run prevail to slow down the game in space.
fine
> 2) Have a common sense strategy on limiting concussed players.
You get knocked out then you sit for 21 days. Good luck with them
embarcing that one.
>
> Problem solved? Nope. There will always be a problem. But this will
> be far more effective and entertaining than switching to two-hand touch.
That is hyperbole.
--
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
Pefect example....there was nothing intentional or malicious about that...it
was bodies in motion and where they wound up.
_________________________________________________________________
papa.carl44
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>> So solve a lot of this right away....take the handcuffs off the D
>> backs...let them beat up on a receiver off the line and until the ball is
>> in
>> the air...then most of this will be a moot subject.
>
> athleticism & speed required to play w/o contact is small pool.
You'd go back to real CB's...actually playing football, and guys who could
tackle too.
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:34142ae8-5883-4f4b...@v20g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
<SNIP>
That stats don't agree with that. The worst head injuries are with linemen
and it is the cumulative blows over time that does it. O linemen would get
a new helmet on every play. They recently made it so the area around the
jawbone is not as tight, that was supposed to reduce the level at which the
head was concussed, the final results are out on that, but what we are now
seeing is a lot more helmets coming off. The entire race situation is
completely different. You don't have a roll cage around a player either and
the "accident" happens over and over. A racer only goes once if a while
before going back at it again. All that said, I'm sure they could build a
safer helmet in football. There was a period of time when the manufacturers
of helmets were dropping like flys...because of law suits. It is comples,
and I still think you can take the rules of the game back to where they once
were and it will slow the game down significantly and eliminate some of
these problems.
papa.carl44
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>> Absolutely NOT....knees get taken out this way, heads get kicked and
>> blasted
>> by pounding runners legs...not safe at all.
>>
>> _____________________________________________________
>
> it is behind the force & not in front of it. You don't tackle at the
> knees you tackle at thigh. You drive through with your shoulder.
And runners are not standing still...they tend to move around a lot...two
bodies in motion usually equals a random result. BTW...the traditional way
was to always hit them in front of the direction they were going...that's
how they go backwards and that is how it has been taught for
decades.....only when the open field speeds with huge guys running the ball
did it change.....and knees always get hit when you go low. I don't care if
you hit the guy at the thigh...it brings the adjacent knee to an abrupt halt
and it changes direction :-)
Michael
wrote:
> "John C TX" <johnctxj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:b1200496-2d55-4987...@g18g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
i think the worst offender... repeat offender... a guy that makes a
habit out of going for the knees... is none other than the often
lionized troy palumalu... i guess that is more good tuff steeler
football... just like his pal harrison... when they play the jets, if
there is a single cheap shot by any of the squeelers, i hope the jets
use lead pipes on them... bench clearing with force multipliers in
hand. i'm wating in great anticipation of this game. i hope the jets
fucking murder one of them
Michael
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> > >> The best thing you can do is
>
> > >> 1) Let bump and run prevail to slow down the game in space.
>
> > > fine
> > >> 2) Have a common sense strategy on limiting concussed players.
>
> > > You get knocked out then you sit for 21 days. Good luck with them
> > > embarcing that one.
>
> > I think there's a better chance of enforcing that one than there is of
> > NFL officials getting helmet to helmet right.
>
>
>
>
> > >> Problem solved? Nope. There will always be a problem. But this will
> > >> be far more effective and entertaining than switching to two-hand touch.
>
> > > That is hyperbole.
>
> > Of course it is! :) But even you can't deny that we're going down the
> > path of softening the game. In your view, when does it become too much?
>
I would like it if the Jets used metal pipes on the Steelers comes
week 14. Which Jet do you think would be most likely to come on the
field with a foreign object ??? lolz...
papa.carl44
X-No-Archive: Yes
> And runners are not standing still...they tend to move around a lot...two
> bodies in motion usually equals a random result. BTW...the traditional way
> was to always hit them in front of the direction they were going...that's
> how they go backwards and that is how it has been taught for
> decades.....only when the open field speeds with huge guys running the
> ball
> did it change.....and knees always get hit when you go low. I don't care
> if
> you hit the guy at the thigh...it brings the adjacent knee to an abrupt
> halt
> and it changes direction :-)
I'd have to show you.
I have had this argument for years with football players & guys who
coach. Teaching players where to place their head is critical. If
you aim behind or, cheek to cheek (his ass & your face), you take the
fear out of the tackle in younger players, they are less likely to get
knocked out & if they hit air as opposed to what Nick B's kid at the
Citadel, who hit hip.
As for safety & effectiveness, you would have to see it done at full
pace as the videos show it at20%, but it rarely results in a knee
injury because as you driving him back you are tipping him over. Again
different sports but my argument is the 1/2 yard you give up can be
made up by a higher % of first tackles and that includes college &
pros, but that is my bias.
This is all done on face to face or angle tackles. It just occurred
to me what the NFL & we are talking about is when the players is an
indefensible position basically a pass catcher. You can still lead
with your shoulder, head to the side & up, & knock the living
daylights out of him.
No offense John....I've been taught be the very best, been to clinics and
one on ones with some of the best in college and the NFL....I coached for
over 25 years and played the game till after college. I think I know how to
tackle, have taught it, been taught it and understand the speed of the game
and how it affects the reality of what goes on and not someone's theory.
I've been in projects involving The Miami Project too. You go ahead and
start teaching kids to turn their heads away...and then explain to them why
they have a broken neck. If the ball carrier is someone bigger than me, I
may not attack him the same way....but then when that happens players like
Dion S. get attacked for being pussies. If you turn your head to the side,
while you "aim" with your shoulder (kind of a blind operation)...and the
target moves back toward you it is not going to be a good result. So how
does this "cheek to cheek" deal work with a head on tackle? And how do you
stop a guy moving away from you if you hit him with your force behind his
energy? The fact is....in all these years I've heard all this BS over and
over again and the same results come back as how to not get hurt, bull the
neck, keep your head up and straight, hit and slide. These other approaches
want a tackler to have better eye hand coordination than the QB throwing a
pass.
--
Michael
wrote:
<SNIP>
> No offense John....I've been taught be the very best, been to clinics and
> one on ones with some of the best in college and the NFL....I coached for
> over 25 years and played the game till after college. think I know how to
>tackle...
As far as tackling goes... What about foreign objects ??? In your
experience which are the best to take on the field ???
Michael
>
> --
a sensible answer to a nonsense question...