• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

NFL to suspend players for devastating hits?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
jlb1705

jlb1705

hipster doofus
Bookie
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/10/18/violence.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

I didn't see a thread on this yet, and figured there were some strong opinions on this.

I watched the debate on ESPN last night after MNF, and had a few thoughts of my own:

  1. Apparently the irony of a couple quarterbacks - the most pampered and protected players in the game - so vociferously opposing the legislation of violent hits escaped Steve Young and Trent Dilfer last night.
  2. Both QBs had good points about how it reached this point though: Young pointed out that the increase in ultra-violent hits is the result of poor QB play and inexperience WRs. More players are being hung out to dry, and more opportunities are being created for violent hits because teams are passing more than ever. Dilfer pointed out that defenses have become more complex than when Young played - and that it's impossible for QBs these days to prevent QBs from hanging players out to dry because it's more difficult these days for even the best QBs to read defenses as well as the quarterbacks of the past were able to.
  3. Stuart Scott provided an anonymous quote from a man who is a former player and current assistant coach who basically said that nobody is "sentenced" to play in the NFL - it is a privilege and players do so of their own volition, knowing of the violence and its possible consequences.
Given #2 and #3, my initial opinion is that this is treating the symptoms and not the underlying cause. Big hits have been around since the start of the game. People like to point to the "highlight culture" as promoting violence in the game, but really they had their start long before then. The real reason behind big hits is not just to get noticed, but to send a message - that if you try that strategy/play/move again, you're gonna get fucked up. It's supposed to discourage your opponent from making a big play in his own right. It's supposed to separate the men from the boys - you're either tough enough to take it, or you don't go across the middle like that again.

The real problem, is that while the hits are becoming more violent and more frequent, the message in the hit is not getting across. Teams are passing more, putting more pipsqueak WRs on the field and throwing across the middle or in other dangerous situations. The real problem is that coaches, and indeed the players themselves place a higher value on their paycheck and on their participation than they do in their own health. And like the anonymous assistant coach said, these guys are all volunteers, so how can you really legislate that?

While I don't think the violence can or should be legislated out of the game, I think something needs to be done about the malice. There were several big hits this week that prompted this renewed debate, and in a few of them I saw malice, not just violence. For a moment in a few of those, it ceased to be just a game. Instead of just making a play, it looked to me like a player was more focused on using his body and his equipment as a weapon against another person. I do think something has to be done about those situations.

It made me wonder, baseball players do a pretty good job of policing themselves. I don't see anything like that taking place in the NFL. Was there ever a time where the players themselves took care of a guy who crossed the line? In baseball, if a guy gets out of line he can expect to have a fastball heading right at him at the first good opportunity. Maybe football needs a little bit of that kind of justice.

Imagine this: Do you think some of the violence would be curbed if they knew there would be retaliation? If a linebacker hits your teammate and knocks him unconscious, why not find a good opportunity to chop block that cocksucker and blow out his knee? Maybe next year when he's back on the field he'll just wrap up and make the tackle instead of using the crown of his helmet to turn your teammate into a drooling lump of a human being?

In conclusion, I think it all comes down to the players. If they want the game to be less violent, it should be up to them and not Roger Goodell. They're the ones who can police this. They're the ones who can tell their QB to stop hanging them out to dry. It's not on the fans or the media or our hunger for violent highlights. It's about the players and what they're willing to go through for glory, fame and/or money.
 
jlb1705;1796229; said:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/10/18/violence.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

I didn't see a thread on this yet, and figured there were some strong opinions on this.

I watched the debate on ESPN last night after MNF, and had a few thoughts of my own:

  1. Apparently the irony of a couple quarterbacks - the most pampered and protected players in the game - so vociferously opposing the legislation of violent hits escaped Steve Young and Trent Dilfer last night.
  2. Both QBs had good points about how it reached this point though: Young pointed out that the increase in ultra-violent hits is the result of poor QB play and inexperience WRs. More players are being hung out to dry, and more opportunities are being created for violent hits because teams are passing more than ever. Dilfer pointed out that defenses have become more complex than when Young played - and that it's impossible for QBs these days to prevent QBs from hanging players out to dry because it's more difficult these days for even the best QBs to read defenses as well as the quarterbacks of the past were able to.
  3. Stuart Scott provided an anonymous quote from a man who is a former player and current assistant coach who basically said that nobody is "sentenced" to play in the NFL - it is a privilege and players do so of their own volition, knowing of the violence and its possible consequences.
Given #2 and #3, my initial opinion is that this is treating the symptoms and not the underlying cause. Big hits have been around since the start of the game. People like to point to the "highlight culture" as promoting violence in the game, but really they had their start long before then. The real reason behind big hits is not just to get noticed, but to send a message - that if you try that strategy/play/move again, you're gonna get fucked up. It's supposed to discourage your opponent from making a big play in his own right. It's supposed to separate the men from the boys - you're either tough enough to take it, or you don't go across the middle like that again.

The real problem, is that while the hits are becoming more violent and more frequent, the message in the hit is not getting across. Teams are passing more, putting more pipsqueak WRs on the field and throwing across the middle or in other dangerous situations. The real problem is that coaches, and indeed the players themselves place a higher value on their paycheck and on their participation than they do in their own health. And like the anonymous assistant coach said, these guys are all volunteers, so how can you really legislate that?

While I don't think the violence can or should be legislated out of the game, I think something needs to be done about the malice. There were several big hits this week that prompted this renewed debate, and in a few of them I saw malice, not just violence. For a moment in a few of those, it ceased to be just a game. Instead of just making a play, it looked to me like a player was more focused on using his body and his equipment as a weapon against another person. I do think something has to be done about those situations.

It made me wonder, baseball players do a pretty good job of policing themselves. I don't see anything like that taking place in the NFL. Was there ever a time where the players themselves took care of a guy who crossed the line? In baseball, if a guy gets out of line he can expect to have a fastball heading right at him at the first good opportunity. Maybe football needs a little bit of that kind of justice.

Imagine this: Do you think some of the violence would be curbed if they knew there would be retaliation? If a linebacker hits your teammate and knocks him unconscious, why not find a good opportunity to chop block that cocksucker and blow out his knee? Maybe next year when he's back on the field he'll just wrap up and make the tackle instead of using the crown of his helmet to turn your teammate into a drooling lump of a human being?

In conclusion, I think it all comes down to the players. If they want the game to be less violent, it should be up to them and not Roger Goodell. They're the ones who can police this. They're the ones who can tell their QB to stop hanging them out to dry. It's not on the fans or the media or our hunger for violent highlights. It's about the players and what they're willing to go through for glory, fame and/or money.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, I suppose they could allow fighting in a similar fashion as the NHL does. That would be the only way I could see the players policing themselves, because if it becomes a hit-fest then all the skill guys will get killed and all that will be left are OLBs and fullbacks (on all the rosters, not just the Browns, who design it that way :lol:). Guys like Gretzky were protected because the heavyweights were allowed to protect them and pummeled the shit out of anyone who hit them...the NFL would have to allow some sort of the same thing.

As far as the QBs go, I also saw the irony last night, but then again, I can see why the NFL does it. It is a QB-driven league like it never used to be in the 60s and 70s and even more than it was in the 80s and 90s, so they are protecting their viewership. I agree they are pampered, but look at all the QBs who still get hurt. Not only will playing all the backups lead to more guys getting killed over the middle, but who wants to watch Indianapolis and their 3rd string QB play San Diego with some guy they picked up on the waiver wire during the AFC Championship game?
 
Upvote 0
This is as ridiculous as the "excessive celebration" penalties the NCAA was going to make refs enforce this year. It's now a totally subjective classification. And it fails to take into account that:

1. Dirty hits have almost always been punished by the NFL. In recent years, helmet to helmet hits, horsecollars and "going low" on QBs have been added to list of personal foul penalites. To suggest the NFL hasn't been trying to protect its players is silly.

2. There are legitimately big hits and always have been in football. Catching a player off balance, perfect timing with a tackle, a stumbling offensive player gets hit by a square defender running fast...etc
Nothing is dirty about these hits! But because it's likely the offensive player will be knocked backward and the crowd will "oohhh!" - they'll be penalized....its dumb.
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705;1796229; said:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/nfl/10/18/violence.ap/index.html?eref=sihp

I didn't see a thread on this yet, and figured there were some strong opinions on this.

I watched the debate on ESPN last night after MNF, and had a few thoughts of my own:

  1. Apparently the irony of a couple quarterbacks - the most pampered and protected players in the game - so vociferously opposing the legislation of violent hits escaped Steve Young and Trent Dilfer last night.
  2. Both QBs had good points about how it reached this point though: Young pointed out that the increase in ultra-violent hits is the result of poor QB play and inexperience WRs. More players are being hung out to dry, and more opportunities are being created for violent hits because teams are passing more than ever. Dilfer pointed out that defenses have become more complex than when Young played - and that it's impossible for QBs these days to prevent QBs from hanging players out to dry because it's more difficult these days for even the best QBs to read defenses as well as the quarterbacks of the past were able to.
  3. Stuart Scott provided an anonymous quote from a man who is a former player and current assistant coach who basically said that nobody is "sentenced" to play in the NFL - it is a privilege and players do so of their own volition, knowing of the violence and its possible consequences.
Given #2 and #3, my initial opinion is that this is treating the symptoms and not the underlying cause. Big hits have been around since the start of the game. People like to point to the "highlight culture" as promoting violence in the game, but really they had their start long before then. The real reason behind big hits is not just to get noticed, but to send a message - that if you try that strategy/play/move again, you're gonna get [censored]ed up. It's supposed to discourage your opponent from making a big play in his own right. It's supposed to separate the men from the boys - you're either tough enough to take it, or you don't go across the middle like that again.

The real problem, is that while the hits are becoming more violent and more frequent, the message in the hit is not getting across. Teams are passing more, putting more pipsqueak WRs on the field and throwing across the middle or in other dangerous situations. The real problem is that coaches, and indeed the players themselves place a higher value on their paycheck and on their participation than they do in their own health. And like the anonymous assistant coach said, these guys are all volunteers, so how can you really legislate that?

While I don't think the violence can or should be legislated out of the game, I think something needs to be done about the malice. There were several big hits this week that prompted this renewed debate, and in a few of them I saw malice, not just violence. For a moment in a few of those, it ceased to be just a game. Instead of just making a play, it looked to me like a player was more focused on using his body and his equipment as a weapon against another person. I do think something has to be done about those situations.

It made me wonder, baseball players do a pretty good job of policing themselves. I don't see anything like that taking place in the NFL. Was there ever a time where the players themselves took care of a guy who crossed the line? In baseball, if a guy gets out of line he can expect to have a fastball heading right at him at the first good opportunity. Maybe football needs a little bit of that kind of justice.

Imagine this: Do you think some of the violence would be curbed if they knew there would be retaliation? If a linebacker hits your teammate and knocks him unconscious, why not find a good opportunity to chop block that [censored] and blow out his knee? Maybe next year when he's back on the field he'll just wrap up and make the tackle instead of using the crown of his helmet to turn your teammate into a drooling lump of a human being?

In conclusion, I think it all comes down to the players. If they want the game to be less violent, it should be up to them and not Roger Goodell. They're the ones who can police this. They're the ones who can tell their QB to stop hanging them out to dry. It's not on the fans or the media or our hunger for violent highlights. It's about the players and what they're willing to go through for glory, fame and/or money.
Click to expand...
I have been watching NFL football for a long time and it seems like it has only been in the past few years that guys have taken to trying to maim another player by going at their heads. Really, the only time that it really came to the forefront of the NFL was the hit by Tatum on Stingley. Before that, I truly cannot remember a guy being hit in the manner that players are hitting other players in the past few years.

Retaliation by another NFL player is pretty difficult. You can go at the guy's knees but it is really difficult to injure someone intentionally by going at their legs unless you get them on a perfect shot. It is much easier to retaliate in MLB or any other professional sport.

I don't know why more guys are getting hit violently because that's certainly didn't happen for a long long time in the NFL. I don't know maybe it's because more crossing patterns are being run these days and guys are more exposed.

I think if the NFL started suspending players for violent hits that would certainly tone down the number a little but it will not bring it to an end. Everyone knows that NFL player can afford a $25,000 fine and it means very little to their paycheck. Game suspensions are the only thing that is going to stop some of these hits because that's when it starts affecting the entire team.
 
Upvote 0
The helmets are supposed to protect players, not be used as weapons.

I'd like to see the helmet companies study putting some padding on the outside of all of the helmets. The helmet can have all of the current protection, but if it's feasible to add a half-inch of some padding to all of the helmets, it would take away a significant amount of the force of impact, and should lessen the number of injuries,

I know that Ditka said they could take the helmets off, but nobody is taking that idea seriously, and it shouldn't be. But why not add padding on the outside?

With all of the talk about helmet-to-helmet hits lately, I can't believe that I haven't seen the padding suggested yet.

As a side benefit, it would work well with the throwback uniforms.
 
Upvote 0
I have heard, but don't quite understand how this works, but all college players are supposed to wear a mouthpiece and this is supposed to cut down on concussions but in the NFL players do not have to wear this type of mouthpiece.

I think adding padding to the outside would not do much because it is the inside that absorbs the blow and how would this protect the neck which is even more of a worry. I am surprised that there have not been more neck injuries which might get the players attention.
 
Upvote 0
A bit off topic, but can anyone explain why the NFL has said the hit on Cribbs was legal? He took the snap, he was still behind the line of scrimmage...what makes him fair game for a blow to the head? Isn't he the quarterback in that play? If Peyton Manning was scrambling and took a hit like that, there's no chance in the world the defender plays in next week's game.
 
Upvote 0
The pussification of football continues. You don't want to get hit, play basketball.

Leading with the helmet has not only been illegal for some time, it's poor form tackling. You're supposed to see what you hit. Flagging a guy that happens to catch a part of the offensive players helmet on a good form tackle is absurd. It's a mans sport. For men.
 
Upvote 0
One of the few times that I've even partially agreed with Beano Cook was a couple of years ago when he said that going back to leather helmets would put an end to using your head as a weapon, and would still protect the player's head. That's probably not 100% true, but maybe a hockey style helmet could be the way to go. I've never played hockey, but their helmets look like they would protect a player when his head smacks the ground, but would be virtually useless as a weapon during a head-on collision.
 
Upvote 0
I'm all for punishing a player for using the top of their helmet (Harrison x2) to make a hit. That has been illegal since before I started playing so everyone is aware that you never hit someone with your head down. I don't mind it as much if the hitting player has their head up since most of your huge hits don't happen facemask first.
 
Upvote 0
Rodney Harrison was talking on NBC Sunday night about this and illustrated how big of a joke the illegality of helmet-to-helmet hits is. He said at the start of each season he set aside $50K for fines he planned to accumulate in the process of maintaining his rep as a dirty/vicious player. I think it's noteworthy that he used the words "maintaining his reputation" rather than "in the process of playing hard" or something along those lines.

Everybody says "it's already illegal" but it's a joke - there's no teeth to it. FWIW, Rodney Harrison said that said that the most effective thing would be to start suspending players - because it would cost them more than a fine (forfeiture of a game check) and that players don't want to let down their coaches and teammates by not being able to contribute.
 
Upvote 0
MolGenBuckeye;1796340; said:
A bit off topic, but can anyone explain why the NFL has said the hit on Cribbs was legal? He took the snap, he was still behind the line of scrimmage...what makes him fair game for a blow to the head? Isn't he the quarterback in that play? If Peyton Manning was scrambling and took a hit like that, there's no chance in the world the defender plays in next week's game.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that the explanation was that he was a "runner" and was being tackled. While I somewhat agree with you that he was at that time scrambling from the wildcat (formally called a tailback in the single wing), those are the NFL rules. The problem that I have with Harrison's hit on a Cribbs was that he was almost completely down and Harrison lead with his head right into Cribbs ear hole .


BUCKYLE;1796352; said:
The pussification of football continues. You don't want to get hit, play basketball.

Leading with the helmet has not only been illegal for some time, it's poor form tackling. You're supposed to see what you hit. Flagging a guy that happens to catch a part of the offensive players helmet on a good form : :shake: tackle is absurd. It's a mans sport. For men.
Click to expand...
It's not about being a man it's about playing the game correctly and not trying to injure a person for life trying to prove that you are a "man". If the person would tackle like he was taught when he first started playing football, this issue would not even come up.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top