-
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!
- Thread starter exhawg
- Start date
Jake
Once a Buckeye, always a Buckeye
‘17 The Deuce Champ
Fantasy Baseball Champ
'18 The Deuce Champ
What began as a rule to stop players from intentionally going after the head of another player - which I support - has devolved into two helmets touching each other, especially if one of those players is a quarterback.
The automatic ejection is too harsh, especially given the subjective nature of some of these calls. Make it like a yellow card in soccer. If you get a second one you're out of the game, and the entire next one.
The automatic ejection is too harsh, especially given the subjective nature of some of these calls. Make it like a yellow card in soccer. If you get a second one you're out of the game, and the entire next one.
Upvote
0
Still don’t get how a near always penalizing and ejecting of the defender is “encouraging safer play”..,..99% of targeting calls are accidental bang bang football plays.....most of which where the offensive player dips their head into the helmet to helmet contact. Which creates a unrealistic expectation for the defender to super human like adjust himself in a split second.
Upvote
0
Buck I in Mich
Behind Enemy Lines
This. And have you ever seen a running back flagged for targeting when they lower their helmet and shoulder pads into a defender? I mean they usually have more momentum than the defender who is “breaking down”. The remedy is to insert the word “intent”. A good sign is when someone “launches”. Hockey got this right years ago.
Upvote
0
Also, so. Are they going to make someone in the Clemson camp explain how Lawrence magically bypassed the standard concussion protocol after all that? If we are doing things by the book here.
Upvote
0
Buckeneye
I lead, you follow.
Here is the rugby style technique of tackling being taught by coaches today.
Now since it isn't possible in the game of football to ask your opponent to slow down and/or hold still, this level of leverage is simply irrational. Worth keeping in mind the only real similarity between rugby and football is the tackle. The games, the speeds, the players, the pursuit angles, etc etc can be wildly different. It also doesn't include QB's or receivers who may feel pressure and begin to give themselves up a moment before impact thus bringing their helmets (which are considerably large outside of the framework of the head itself) into potential contact with yours.
Do keep this in mind, if the young man in blue is wearing a helmet... wouldn't you suppose the 'crown' is leading here despite the strike zone?
Like I said, I'm cool getting rid of outright spearing and launching. But what Wade did last night was football and 10 years ago openly celebrated. Sure, it was "targeting". But targeting and how it is applied in 2019 is complete and total bullshit. The rule needs a serious 'going over'.
Now since it isn't possible in the game of football to ask your opponent to slow down and/or hold still, this level of leverage is simply irrational. Worth keeping in mind the only real similarity between rugby and football is the tackle. The games, the speeds, the players, the pursuit angles, etc etc can be wildly different. It also doesn't include QB's or receivers who may feel pressure and begin to give themselves up a moment before impact thus bringing their helmets (which are considerably large outside of the framework of the head itself) into potential contact with yours.
Do keep this in mind, if the young man in blue is wearing a helmet... wouldn't you suppose the 'crown' is leading here despite the strike zone?
Like I said, I'm cool getting rid of outright spearing and launching. But what Wade did last night was football and 10 years ago openly celebrated. Sure, it was "targeting". But targeting and how it is applied in 2019 is complete and total bullshit. The rule needs a serious 'going over'.
Upvote
0
The problem with targeting in football is the same as the problem with drug laws in real life - the lawmakers are trying to use "criminal" penalties to solve what is essentially a health care problem.
Yes, violent intentional blows to the head should be penalized in football, just like drug trafficking should be penalized in society. But putting drug users in jail does nothing to solve the problem of drug abuse. Similarly, penalizing/ejecting players for incidental, non-violent, unintentional, often mutual, often uncontrollable helmet-to-helmet contact does nothing to solve the problem of concussions/CTE in football. The way to solve the health care problems in football is through health care solutions, namely better equipment, not through penalizing something that realistically can never be removed from the game.
If the health care issues associated with football (concussions/CTE) are so dire, then the only other option would be to ban football altogether. Which, I presume, would be about as realistic and successful as banning drugs altogether.
Yes, violent intentional blows to the head should be penalized in football, just like drug trafficking should be penalized in society. But putting drug users in jail does nothing to solve the problem of drug abuse. Similarly, penalizing/ejecting players for incidental, non-violent, unintentional, often mutual, often uncontrollable helmet-to-helmet contact does nothing to solve the problem of concussions/CTE in football. The way to solve the health care problems in football is through health care solutions, namely better equipment, not through penalizing something that realistically can never be removed from the game.
If the health care issues associated with football (concussions/CTE) are so dire, then the only other option would be to ban football altogether. Which, I presume, would be about as realistic and successful as banning drugs altogether.
Upvote
0
