NFL's Devasting Hit Rule

[WadeWilson]

As most of you know, the NFL will now begin suspending players for "devastating" hits. I personally find the rule to be ridiculous but I'm curious to know what others think about it. I understand that the NFL is trying to minimize the player's chances of receiving a crippling hit, but this is football, and it's a violent sport. If people don't want to take the chance of getting hurt then don't put on the pads and play. No one is forcing these grown men into playing the game. It's already gotten so bad that they might as well put a dress on the QB with all of the rules safeguarding them. What's next, flag football?

Please discuss.

Is This New NFL "Devastating Hits" Rule Enforceable?
Written by Michael Felder
Tuesday, 19 October 2010 14:12

The NFL as you've surely heard by now, is going to take a major step in discipline by suspending players involved in "devastating hits." Normally we stick to our stomping grounds of college football but given both college football's mirroring of the NFL in recent rule changes and our on going dialogue with regards to concussions we felt this would be a good spot to offer some thoughts on the situation. Especially should we see this trickle down into the college game in the coming years.

People, as is so often the case, are skewed too polar on this issue. Team This is Wussification is screaming that this will ruin the game while team Get Serious about Safety wants to outlaw hitting folks and change the nature of the game all together. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Personally, my opposition of the rule is to the vague verbiage and the addition of more judgement calls into the sport. Referees have enough on their plate now, adding more 50-50 subjective calls only creates more chance for them to make a crucial mistake.

Hochuli

That said something has to be done; players have to be protected from themselves and if this is the path that the NFL is taking they need to do it right and that, as it stands now seems impossible. There are a myriad of variables in every "devastating hit" scenario and for this plan to be successful they must attempt to identify these constantly changing aspects in order to pare them down to the minimum observations. Too many variables crowds the pool and makes for ineffective enforcement.

Read more for what variables make enforcement difficult...

So Many Variables?

While I'm sure folks could point to plenty of scientific formulas and other minutia that are way above my comprehension level I'm going to stick to football in this discussion and a few variables that I know and understand very well; physical attributes, body positioning and effect. Originally I was only referencing size when I thought about physical attributes, however, speed and strength belong in that category as well since a player such as James Harrison, who is only listed at 6' 242 lbs, packs a wallop due to his pure power.

Physical Attributes must be brought into account when you begin this discussion because the rule, as it has been discussed, sure places a lot of importance on "how a hit looks" to folks. We'll start with the Dunta Robinson hit from this past weekend on DeSean "I weigh 175 lbs soak and wet" Jackson. It was a punishing blow, didn't appear dirty to me, but it was a quite "devastating" hit by all accounts. However, had Robinson unloaded in that same fashion on his former team Andre Johnson (6'3" 228lbs) perhaps the Texans' wide out gets up, looks at Robinson laying knocked out himself, but continues playing in that football game.

In the case of James Harrison's blow on Mohamed Massaquoi (6'2" 204lbs) if we substitute the WR for a Brandon Jacobs (6'4" 264lbs) and does anyone's view of the situation change?

The point here is two-fold.

First is the simple acknowledgment that size does have a bearing on our views of the severity of a hit but in reality the type of hit shouldn't be altered due to size. A hit coming with bad intentions and against the rules is a hit against the rules regardless of what it looks like due to size disparities. In other words players are taught to hit every player as hard as they can. Whether Harrison or Robinson are hitting a tight end, a 3rd down scatback or a wide receiver they're going to go full tilt, size discrepancy just makes it ugly.

Which brings us to the second point of the size issue, if the way plays look and the "devastating" nature of seeing smaller offensive players be destroyed is where the issue you lies the rule is essentially asking safeties, corners, linebackers and defensive linemen to "size players up" before they make their tackles. Determining if another player is "too small" for them to hit acceptably or if a guy is "big enough" for them to truly unload on through contact.

Asking guys to dial down speed at impact is, worst case scenario, asking for them to get hurt and best case scenario putting defenses at a severe disadvantage; see Mathias Kiwanuka on Vince Young when the NFL went uber-protective of quarterbacks.

Size is a major component of what makes a hit appear to be "devastating" but body positioning is as well. No one cringes or freaks out over a running back and a linebacker meeting face to face in the A-gap. No one goes ape over a defensive end slamming into a guard after a stunt. No, those "ooohs" and "ahhhs" are reserved for the high flying acrobatics that almost always occur down the field or crossing the middle. So much of this issue is being blamed on the defensive players "launching" themselves at the ball carrier. The idea of guys going for the kill shot or leaping to make a play on the receiver in the air. While I don't condone the use of the crown of the helmet, that's where spinal injuries come from, I do think there's a difference between diving and jumping to separate man from ball and the generic term of launching.

Meriweather

Lumping them all in does a disservice to the defense. Is a safety getting off the hash a step too late diving to make a play considered launching? Should he just let the receiver catch the football since he can't run up to bat the ball down in time? Is a linebacker jumping to hit a crossing tight end on a high thrown ball launching? Should he let him catch it and land so as not to leave his feet?

As a defensive back I was taught two things that are in direct disconnect with this idea; separate man from ball AND if he does catch it make him think twice about doing it again. If you're letting guys land or not allowed to dive to collision a receiver at the moment the ball hits his hands how can you get those two objectives accomplished?

Without even taking into account falling and ducking by the offensive or defensive parties it is pretty clear the NFL is going to have their hands full with this aspect of the rule. Where does the "good football play" end and the "devastating hit" sequence begin?

The last variable is one that appears to have the biggest influence on the NFL and fans in general; effect. For this rule to work they must not legislate based upon size, they will struggle to determine malicious vs good football in body positioning but most importantly they cannot allow effect to dictate their rulings. For the implementation of this rule a hit can be no more violent because Player A is knocked out while in same situation Player B pops up off the turf. While effects vary the nature of the hit and delivery of the blow does not change.

In an effort to draw a parallel; horse collar tackles were outlawed due to the numerous knee, lower leg and ankle injuries people were sustaining. In that same vein helmet to helmet contact and spearing have been banned due to spinal injuries as well as head and neck trauma. The penalty for the horse collar tackle doesn't escalate during a game if a player breaks his ankle, it is still a personal foul 15 yard penalty from the spot. So too should the penalty for a malicious helmet to helmet collision remain the same regardless of if the hit player gets up and continues playing the game or is carted off the field.

The fact is there is so much gray, too much gray it seems. Even with all of the replays, the multiple and reverse angles, the super slow motion and the high definition every case is going to be examined through 100 different lenses. What one person sees as a clearly malicious shot by a safety on a streak route another person is going to call good football. What one review official thinks is a poor attempt at a tackle another review official is going to see as a "message sent" to the opposition that the middle of the field is closed for business.

With the NFL moving in this direction let's just hope that they've got a strong committee making these rulings. A group of people who've got experience in the game; on both sides of the ball, in the locker room, field and front office because these suspensions are going to be critical for teams pushing for playoff positioning or jockeying for the final wildcard slot.

And should we see this trickle down into the college game let's hope our conference commissioners are already looking into how to make this work.

[PQ]

Having never played the game passed the simple high school level, I can only speak to what I see.

The small levels of football I did play it wiuld be hard to follow the rules they are trying to impliment.

I don't have an answer.

My gut tells me that if you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen. But my brain asks the question "When do we finally become ancient Rome?"

The head to head rule is a good rule if it were judged correctly. Fact is the head is on top of our shoulders. Our eyes are in our head. You can't hit with only the shoulder all the time when you have a big ass helmet on top. Usually the defender curls and the helmet to helmet is a result. If the safety, CB or LB tries to judge the offensive players intention, he will miss a lot of tackles and be replaced.

So then you get what I call the dumbest winner. The guy who is more willing to take the chance, wins. Like that honda accord on the interstate who wants you to race. He is willing to do 100 MPH in a 65 zone to win. You are not. So he wins. He can afford to, or is willing, to get caught. So, he usually wins.

Now you have REAL headhunters out there on Sunday. The scrupulous players won't take the chance, and the dummies will. IMO, you create an even greater risk.

I got no answer. But I know they better step in before the union or the Gov. does.

[WadeWilson]

Originally Posted by PQ

The small levels of football I did play it would be hard to follow the rules they are trying to implement.

My gut tells me that if you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen. But my brain asks the question "When do we finally become ancient Rome?"

The head to head rule is a good rule if it were judged correctly. Fact is the head is on top of our shoulders. Our eyes are in our head. You can't hit with only the shoulder all the time when you have a big ass helmet on top. Usually the defender curls and the helmet to helmet is a result. If the safety, CB or LB tries to judge the offensive players intention, he will miss a lot of tackles and be replaced.

Now you have REAL headhunters out there on Sunday. The scrupulous players won't take the chance, and the dummies will. IMO, you create an even greater risk.

I didn't play defense (WR) but it does seem it would be hard to alter the way you were taught to play and have played for all of these years.

Not only will it affect some players tackling efficiency but it will reduce the turnovers some defenders once forced. Some defenders sole reason for a bone crushing hit is it jar the ball loose. It will be interesting to see how it changes things.

You made some good points Randy. There are those players who seem to take great pleasure in headhunting. Those players will be dealt a harsher punishment than those who aren't repeat offenders. Harrison from the Steelers comes to mind.

[MaddogZ28]

See this really bothers me. Doesn't this seem like a bit of knee jerk reaction to a bad weekend? it does to me. Decisions, of any kind, should never be made in the heat of the moment if that can be avoided. Wait until the offseason to make major rule changes like this so that cooler heads, reasoning, and research can prevail over rhetoric and unsubstantiated fear.

Not too long ago there were some serious talks in the Boxing world about requiring head gear for boxers or outlawing punches to the head altogether because a couple boxer's died in freak incidents. Luckliy, cooler heads prevailed and no hasty, stupid decisions were made.

Now for a more subjective take...

One major change i can see this rule making, in addition to the aforementioned "wussification of the game" (and america in my opinion) is that this will really help out offenses around the league and encourage more passing. This is of course what the NFL has been trying to do for years and is/has been encouraging non stop.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by MaddogZ28

See this really bothers me. Doesn't this seem like a bit of knee jerk reaction to a bad weekend? it does to me. Decisions, of any kind, should never be made in the heat of the moment if that can be avoided. Wait until the offseason to make major rule changes like this so that cooler heads, reasoning, and research can prevail over rhetoric and unsubstantiated fear.

I wish they would knee jerk react to the college playoff right after the final BCS results come out.

Originally Posted by MaddogZ28

Not too long ago there were some serious talks in the Boxing world about requiring head gear for boxers or outlawing punches to the head altogether because a couple boxer's died in freak incidents. Luckliy, cooler heads prevailed and no hasty, stupid decisions were made.

Good point. And last I checked, bull riding is still done. Maybe it should be play, or gtfo...............

Originally Posted by MaddogZ28

One major change i can see this rule making, in addition to the aforementioned "wussification of the game" (and america in my opinion) is that this will really help out offenses around the league and encourage more passing. This is of course what the NFL has been trying to do for years and is/has been encouraging non stop.

I think that would only seperate the good teams even further from the bad ones. Which is exactly opposite of what the NFL wants. They are all about parity. I know I don't want to see game lines where someone is favored by 20+ and the over unders reach 70+.

[MaddogZ28]

Originally Posted by PQ

I think that would only seperate the good teams even further from the bad ones. Which is exactly opposite of what the NFL wants. They are all about parity. I know I don't want to see game lines where someone is favored by 20+ and the over unders reach 70+.

I agree with that absolutely. But i think it would decrease parity by helping out teams who have strong passing offenses and good quarterbacks. The NFL has already bent over for strong QB/Passing teams, this will only help them more.

[2010 SSRS]

the NFL is ruining the NFL, all these new rules are going to just ruin the game, let them play football the way is was supposed to be played, the hits they should eliminate are the ones like the Patriots Merriweather put on Todd Heap, that was a lousy cheap shot the way he launched himself helmet first.

[WadeWilson]

Originally Posted by MaddogZ28

I agree with that absolutely. But i think it would decrease parity by helping out teams who have strong passing offenses and good quarterbacks. The NFL has already bent over for strong QB/Passing teams, this will only help them more.

The league is catering more to an offensive style game than defensive.

[justmeron]

Going to be interesting. They were saying they will have to teach the players to hit lower instead of the chest area. I understandy what they are trying to do but at the same time I hope they do not take away from the sport we have always loved.

[Steve Dallas]

Originally Posted by PQ

I wish they would knee jerk react to the college playoff right after the final BCS results come out.
Good point. And last I checked, bull riding is still done. Maybe it should be play, or gtfo...............

I think that would only seperate the good teams even further from the bad ones. Which is exactly opposite of what the NFL wants. They are all about parity. I know I don't want to see game lines where someone is favored by 20+ and the over unders reach 70+.

I'm probably one of the few people left that is totally against a college playoff system.

I'm a traditionalist, and miss the days before the BCS when the Rose Bowl was Big 10 vs. Pac 10. Now it's all about the money. I loved the bowl system of the past, and didn't feel the overwhelming need to have a definitive #1 team.

That's what Professional sports are for.

As far as the topic of this thread, I played Strong Safety, and was taught to hit people coming across the middle. Hard. Seperate from the ball. I never speared or led with my head, but my goal was to knock the crap out of the receiver.

I don't think that should change.

[PoorMansCamaro]

I'm not 100% sure what this new rule is. I was under the assumption that it was just a rule against leading with the helmet. Which has been a rule for a very long time. It just wasn't enforsed that much, and only until recently we've been seeing more and more head-to-head hits. Which shows signs of poor technique in the first place. I've played football from 6th grade until my senior year. Played on both sides of the ball, and I can tell you that there is absolutely no reason for anyone to hit with top of their helmet, or "spearing".

I was always taught that you want the screws on the top of the facemask to be on the ball when tackling, and to wrap up the ball carrier. It's all about fundamentals and tackling the ball carrier, rather than trying to just punish him by hitting him in the head.

I really don't see anything really changing, other than less helmet-to-helmet collisions. I think the NFL is being more stern about a very serious situation, and the media is blowing it way out of proportion.

[WadeWilson]

Here is another good article I read pertaining to the subject. Some say it won't affect the game, and it may not, but I still believe it will have some defensive players reevaluating how they engage an opponent and where they should hit them. That split second of "thinking" about the tackle could be the difference in a tackle for a loss and a missed tackle.


NFL Set to Review Rule On 'Devastating Hits': How Big Is Too Big?
By
Colin Bennett
on October 19, 2010


Everyone loves a big hit. Except, it would seem, the NFL.



After an off-season that featured a detailed discussion about brain injury and long term effects on player's health resulting from head-to-head collisions, NFL executive Ray Anderson told ESPN, "We are trying to get our players to not initiate contact on defenseless players including defenseless receivers to the head or neck area with the forearm the shoulder or the helmet. We're trying to get that out of the game."

This came as a more immediate reaction to the rash of concussed players throughout the regular season thus far. The rule on unnecessary roughness—especially the sections pertaining to defenseless players—will most likely be enforced with steeper fines and possibly suspensions.

The announcement has sparked a deep debate amongst current and former NFL players, physicians, coaches, broadcasters and fans. Some see it as a necessary step towards keeping players safer and healthier throughout their careers. Others think it is an example of NFL executives overstepping their boundaries with excessive legislation.

Facts are facts: head-to-head shots are dangerous and can have lingering, life changing effects on everyone involved. There are numerous stories of NFL alumni who have been effected by this type of injury both during their career, and suffered side effects after retirement. So the question of physical safety should not be a piece of the argument, and I would not posit that anyone has downplayed that aspect of the rule change.



There are, however, certain aspects of the announcement that have people confused. Ray Anderson initially used the term 'devastating' to describe some of the tackles and hits the NFL was looking to get to rid of. No one is quite sure what the on-field definition of 'devastating' is, including—I imagine—Ray Anderson.

This rather vague description has many people rightfully confused and concerned that some of the excitement of football is set to be legislated out of the game. I believe this will not be the case.

The NFL owes a great deal of its success to adaptability. The league has always been very good at allowing new rules to come forward, and making a dedicated effort to figure out how they can be fit in to the game and phased out if they are not working. Look at instant replay and the shove-out rule. One rule worked, and has stayed; the other is gone. The game constantly moves forward, and when the official announcement on helmet-to-helmet shots come forward, I believe it will continue in that fashion.

That is not to say that there are not concerns. The fact of the matter is, you cannot coach physics. These NFL players today are built like thoroughbreds, and when they start moving, I can imagine it's fairly hard to stop. So the idea that devices beyond their control—momentum and inertia—will cause players to sit games, is suspect to me.

Hopefully, the emphasis will be put on flagrant and intentional penalties of this nature.

Furthermore—and I am not one to casually throw out the role model argument—changing this rule will hopefully have a trickle down effect into lower forms of football. Being on both ends of 'devastating hits' in my less-than-illustrious football career, I can say that no one wants to be clocked in the helmet when they aren't expecting it. Changing this rule in the professional level could begin to change the culture of the big hit. When high school and college players go for the highlight hit, dangerous things can and do happen.

There is simply no argument that can be sensibly made in favor of hits like this when children and young adults are concerned. Young players look to professionals to see how the game is played, and this is one aspect of the game that should not be emphasized.

The NFL has a right to protect their investment. The League depends on high caliber players to continue to stay atop the professional sports world. So putting a rule in place like this is ensuring a higher standard of play for a longer period of time. People may say that 'this is the way the game is played' or 'they know what they are signing up for', and they are correct.

But football also used to be played with no helmets and no forward pass. And it is true that NFL players know the risks of the game, but when that inevitable end point reaches an NFL field—a player dies as a result of a jarring hit—would you still say the same things if there was no effort made to prevent it?

[PoorMansCamaro]

^great read. thanks!

[MaddogZ28]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

I'm probably one of the few people left that is totally against a college playoff system.

I'm a traditionalist, and miss the days before the BCS when the Rose Bowl was Big 10 vs. Pac 10. Now it's all about the money. I loved the bowl system of the past, and didn't feel the overwhelming need to have a definitive #1 team.

I agree.

I'm not a fan of the BCS but im not in favor of a playoff system either. What i really liked was the old system! Back when new years day really meant a lot.