GOoDell's new field turf recomendation

[Yasgur's Farm]

http://images.bedbathandbeyond.com/assets/product_images/230/12513616838292P.JPG
Fans accross the country will race to buy the NFL official chalk and stone set.

[Beebe's Kid]

...remember to try the veal!

[MikeInRoch]

Will it take someone dying on the field to satisfy you?

[Ingtar33]

Will it take someone dying on the field to satisfy you?

apparently.

[DraftBoy]

Will it take someone dying on the field to satisfy you?

No because then its just the exception not the rule.

[Yasgur's Farm]

Speaking of exceptions to the rule... I don't recall 1 single NFL player ever getting killed in a game in the entire history of the league.

Now, I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that using a never happened occurance to support one's argument is fundamentally flawed.

Edit... Chuck Hughes of the Lions is the only player in NFL history who died (1971) during a game. He suffered a heart attack.

[Buffalogic]

Speaking of exceptions to the rule... I don't recall 1 single NFL player ever getting killed in a game in the entire history of the league.

Now, I could be wrong here, but it seems to me that using a never happened occurance to support one's argument is fundamentally flawed.Maybe you could use that one dimensional thinking if the speed and the size of the players didn't progress so much. It's obvious the hits now are more violent and more explosive than ever before. If this continues it's only a matter of time before somebody dies on an NFL field which the league can't have and will try everything to avoid.

[Yasgur's Farm]

http://www.buffalosportshallfame.com/2005/pics/thehit.jpg
It's football

[cookie G]

http://www.buffalosportshallfame.com/2005/pics/thehit.jpg
It's football

And that's not a helmet to helmet hit.

[Yasgur's Farm]

I'm not questioning helmet to helmet... I have zero issue with upholding the rule book. My problem is that hits, defined as clean by the rule book, are subject to fines and suspensions.

That's my only issue. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

[Yasgur's Farm]

BTW... Mike Stratton was leading with his helmet.

[Ingtar33]

I'm not questioning helmet to helmet... I have zero issue with upholding the rule book. My problem is that hits, defined as clean by the rule book, are subject to fines and suspensions.

That's my only issue. I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.


Rule 12-2-7G bans "using any part of a player's helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily," as well as states clearly that "violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent."

This rule calls for a 15yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct, and it applies equally to both the offense and defense.

Its just never called

[SquishDaFish]

I dont remember the old timers complaining of being hit. Yea the dirt hits need to stop but the protecting the QBs like all the Brady rules are getting out of hand. Put a red jersey on them and have it two hand touch.

[Yasgur's Farm]

Rule 12-2-7G bans "using any part of a player's helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/hairline parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily," as well as states clearly that "violent or unnecessary use of the helmet is impermissible against any opponent."

This rule calls for a 15yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct, and it applies equally to both the offense and defense.

Its just never called
Again... I have no issue with illegal hits. I fully understand the leading with the helmet rule... As I've stated in this and other threads.

That said... This change goes beyond the rules leaving players to continually guess how their hit will be interpreted. It's much too gray.

[mrbojanglezs]

I agree with coach sal that it should NOT be labeled helmet to helmet, these collisions happen all the time its hard to avoid sometimes AND SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL


However, leading with your head where you are lunging with your head forward is different AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL

The distinction needs to be made.


IMO I was fine with harrisons hit....looked clean just a hard hit got to be ready for that if your a WR

[billz83]

and what happens when the player on offense duckz his head for an incoming hit and because he ducked his head it becomes a helmet to helmet hit...and now this is automatically the defenders fault?!?! this is absolutely ******ed..

[DraftBoy]

Again... I have no issue with illegal hits. I fully understand the leading with the helmet rule... As I've stated in this and other threads.

That said... This change goes beyond the rules leaving players to continually guess how their hit will be interpreted. It's much too gray.

What change specifically beause it sounds like you're not understanding the change?

They are not making legal hits now illegal, they are simply putting more emphasis on enforcing the rules they have in place as well as now fining and suspending players for illegal hits.

[k-oneputt]

The only hit that was somewhat dirty this past weekend was the Merriwether one, imo.
The rest of those hits have been happening for the last 40 yrs.
I actually think it was worse in the 70's and 80's.
They have way more rules protecting players then they ever did in those years.

[Mahdi]

and what happens when the player on offense duckz his head for an incoming hit and because he ducked his head it becomes a helmet to helmet hit...and now this is automatically the defenders fault?!?! this is absolutely ******ed..
This is where the problem occurs. Most ball carriers lower their head before contact in order to protect their ribs and chest. Where then should a defender hit the ball carrier?

If they start going even lower and taking out the knees and shins it will be seen as dirty.

No one wants to see a helmet to helmet collision, my point is that it is bound to happen once in a while outside the control of the players.

Massaquoi did lower his head before the hit and had he not done that Harrison's shoulder would have hit him in the mid section.

[dasaybz]

I dont remember the old timers complaining of being hit. Yea the dirt hits need to stop but the protecting the QBs like all the Brady rules are getting out of hand. Put a red jersey on them and have it two hand touch.
This is completely ****ing stupid.

Did the old timers even know what a concussion was?

[MikeInRoch]

I dont remember the old timers complaining of being hit.

Well, you won't hear them any more either, since so many of them are disabled or just killing themselves because of the brain damage they received.

[cookie G]

BTW... Mike Stratton was leading with his helmet.

Right shoulder, actually.

[DraftBoy]

Right shoulder, actually.

Pictures tell a 1,000 words and your's are 100% right. This is the issue right here though. Most fans have no idea what a proper tackle even looks like.

[dasaybz]

Most fans have no idea what a proper tackle even looks like. Ya, OK.

Give me a break.

[Yasgur's Farm]

What change specifically beause it sounds like you're not understanding the change?

They are not making legal hits now illegal, they are simply putting more emphasis on enforcing the rules they have in place as well as now fining and suspending players for illegal hits.It's the wording that I'm seeing coming out of the NFL... It suggests that all hard hits will be evaluated and could result in fines and/or suspensions regardless of being legal according to the rule book.

If they are simply talking about enforcing existing rules (or even adding a few others) that's outstanding. If you think about it, they could even be liable if they've been neglecting to enforce them.

But I believe they are attempting to reserve the right to pass judgement and penalty as they see fit... REGARDLESS OF THE RULES. That may be comparable to me getting fined if I T-bone a car that runs a red light.

I don't know... Maybe I'm reading into it... But I don't think so.

[cookie G]

Pictures tell a 1,000 words and your's are 100% right. This is the issue right here though. Most fans have no idea what a proper tackle even looks like.

Maybe. Players know what a proper tackle is though. But the money shot looks better than a good, wrap up tackle.

But the way I see it, whether they contemplate a rule change or simply enforce the rules more stringently...is it really going to wreck the game?

Did the elimination of the clothesline tackle make the game less violent? In a way maybe, but it didn't change the fact that it is a violent game.

Did the elimination of crackback blocks or chop blocks on D linemen make it a less violent game? In a way, but it will remain a violent game.

Unless they eliminate helmets and shoulder pads altogether, behemouths will continue to collide at full force, and there should be enough collisions to satisfy anyone's bloodlust.

Trying to protect players' most vulnerable parts of their bodies doesn't magically tranform the game into 2 hand touch.