NFL's Devasting Hit Rule

[PQ]

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.

That's what Professional sports are for.

Originally Posted by MaddogZ28

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.

Back when #1 played #17 and #2 played #19?

Nah..... BCS is what brought me back to college football. (didn't hurt that OU got good again. lol)

College football has grown more than EVER since the BCS came in.

And it's been pretty good to OU.....



But bot.........

It will be interesting to see what happens from here out.

I guess if you can't find QBs that can play, then just make it easier for them.

[CamaroSkooter]

I don't get it. The players that hit/get hit the hardest are the ones making the most money. Call it hazard pay and be done with it.

I know it's not the players who are really all that concerned with the hits, it's the players UNION. The union has run out of legitimate issues, so now they're going to complain about anything and everything just to remain a relevant institution.

While I fully expect that the protective equipment these guys wear to play the game will continue to get better at protecting what it's supposed to over time, the new rules they're implementing or the old rules they're now going to harshly enforce are ruining the aspect of the game that makes it a real man's game.

Does the NFL want the game of football to end up like soccer and have people flopping all over the place? This is just rediculous.

[Dr Jkel]

OK here goes my opinion on the two topics. NFL Hits and BCS

First is the hits. It seems like a little common sense should be used. Everyone knows what they are looking at. The hits that it seems they are trying to alleviate are the "un-called for" hit. You know they ones, the ones where someone is set up to take a big shot, receiver laid out, guy running across the middle etc......

BUT I Pose this question for thought and discussion. What about special teams? We have all seen where a runner reverses his field of running and seen these " BLOCKS'' that de-cleated the defender. Is this OK? Is it ok because the guy doing the damage is on offense?

Look a couple of week back when Andrew Luck, a QB, laid out a defender after he had thrown an interception, basically he hit him straight up but laid him out. This same hit would have gotten a flag if it would have been done to him. I know that is college but the same pricipal.

Look at a couple of years back when Kurt Warner got demolished after he threw a pick, really a cheap shot but nothing happened to the person who laid him out.

We have all seen the hits the NFL is talking about, the ones where the person leaves their feet and acts like a missle, launching with their heads, un-called for shot, if you will.

If they would worry more about steroids this would slowly decrease this issue , why you ask. Look at these guys 6'5", 265 lbs and runs a 4.4 forty and can lift a building.


Now to the wonderful BCS. Being a fan of the last team to win the BCS, the 2009 BCS National Champion Alabama Crimson Tide, I do not like the BCS and here is why.

Boise State and TCU. The media is in love with these two teams and trying their best to put them in the BCS Title game. Their votes are reflecting it, ESPN is advertising basically for these teams and that is a joke.

There is no way under God's green earth that Boise St, TCU, Utah etc... could play a schedule that is consistent with the SEC, Big 12, Pac-10, Big 10, probably the ACC and Big East and contend. Look at these conferences they usually play at least 6 to 8 conference games.

BS, TCU, Utah could not play week in and week out in any of the conferences and WIN. Let's take a few of the conferences.

I'll take my beloved SEC. Everyone claims that the SEC has BAD Teams and they always bring up Vandy, Kentucky, Miss State to name a few. I will bring up Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina.

Alabama lost to SC, Kentucky beat SC, Florida housed Kentucky, Alabama housed Florida. LSU beat Florida but baely beat Tennessee. Week in week out every team in the SEC has a real chance to lose because of the level of play.

Take the Big 12. Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, Texas Tech etc...

None of these teams , Utah, Boise, TCU could survive this type of scheduling and be consistently good, or undefeated.

Look at Alabama. Alabama has had some of the best recruiting classes in the past few years. They are talented beyond belief, they have a great coach, excellent facilities, depth and they still lost a game. Sure they were undefeated last year, but that was one year. Take Florida with Tebow, Look a Texas with Colt McCoy, Auburn with Cam Newton, Alabama with Ingram and Richardson, Oklahoma with Bradford, all great team, all have had great seasons, but very few, one, was undeafeated. Why ? Because of the leagues they play in.

This does not even take into consideration the Pac-10, USC, Oregon, Cal, Stanford or in the East Miami, Florida State, WV, Wisconsion, Ohio State the lsit could go on and on.

Look at Boise's schedule they played a mediocre team in Virginia Tech and barely won, imagine if the next 11 weeks they played 7 other top teams. Undeafeated , I think not.

The BCS is trying to give the NC to Boise because of one football game 4 or 5 years ago when they beat Oklahoma. Yes they won, but look at history. Alabama got smoked by Utah and that team went on the win the BCS the following year, does that mean Utah would have won it. NOT, same thing with Boise just because they beat Oklahoma once means nothing.

I am actually hoping that Boise State makes it to the Title game and plays either Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Oklahoma, Oregon I believe people are sick and tired of hearing about Boise and want to see them get stomped so all this will go away. Boise could not hang with either of these teams. Once every 5 years or so does not make them a great team.

The only way I will publically support Boise St is if they solicate the SEC, Pac 10, Big 12 to play and gets turned down. People always say that no one wants to play Boise St, which partly is true because people don't want to go to Boise and play. Why? Because of money, Boise hold what 35000. Alabama holds 100000, Texas holds what 90000 ( unsure about that ) but alot more than 35000 or so. There is no financial benefit to play a team like that away.

If Boise seriously wants to be considered then they should have the same mentality as Fresno St, Anyone Anywhere Anytime. Start scheduling an Alabama, Auburn, Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, Ohio State etc.....play the big boys and either have success or shut up already but you can not play one top 25 team a year and be considered for a National Championship.

Even if the was a playoff with 8 team or 16 teams. At a minimum they would have to play 3 top teir teams. Does anyone think the would win. I think Not. My final point about this is look at Alabama last year. They did have a play off system. They played a real game Auburn team, played a team in Florida with Tebow, that everyone in the nation thought was the best team, maybe ever and then played a Texas Team witha starting QB that was what 45-2. He did get hurt and who knows how that comes out but the point is Boise could not have run that gauntlet and won. JMHO

[blkngldbabe]

If a player is possibly going to get a stiff fine or suspension if the player they are hitting lowers their head at the last moment...players are just going to lower the strike zone. More than a few NFLers have said they would rather be foggy for a day or two than have their knee decimated. Makes alot of sense.

[CamaroSkooter]

Darrell K Royal - Texas Memorial Stadium supposedly has a seating capacity of 100,119. But they managed to pack in 101,437 people for the Texas-UCLA game this season.

The BCS is a slobbering love-fest between those who can vote and the big schools around the country. But, this thread is about the NFL "devastating hit" rule, so I won't get into the BCS rant like someone above me did

I fully agree that there are some collisions that are simply uncalled for and players should be dealt with harshly. But I think the NFL is going just a little too far past what's necessary in this situation.

Football is a collision sport. There are going to be some big collisions because there are some big dudes out there. That's why everyone watches the game. We don't watch it to see guys get hurt, but we sure as heck don't watch it to see a bunch of cupcakes running around either. I liken it to why people watch NASCAR. They're not really interested in seeing a car make left turns all day, they're watching it for the wrecks. They don't want to see anyone get hurt, but the wrecks sure are spectacular.

The players get paid millions of dollars because the collisions that occur out on the field are part of the entertainment value of football. Sure a lot of us enjoy the strategy of the game as well, but the collisions are what make the game authentic. Without that, we're just watch the WWE with a ball... oh wait, that was tried...

[rmpackers]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are right. This is not a "new" rule. The officials have had the ability to eject a player for a flagrant helmet hit for the last three years. It has never been used. The rules just need to be enforced to some degree of common sense.

[WadeWilson]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

I fully agree that there are some collisions that are simply uncalled for and players should be dealt with harshly. But I think the NFL is going just a little too far past what's necessary in this situation.

Football is a collision sport. There are going to be some big collisions because there are some big dudes out there. That's why everyone watches the game. We don't watch it to see guys get hurt, but we sure as heck don't watch it to see a bunch of cupcakes running around either. I liken it to why people watch NASCAR. They're not really interested in seeing a car make left turns all day, they're watching it for the wrecks. They don't want to see anyone get hurt, but the wrecks sure are spectacular.

The players get paid millions of dollars because the collisions that occur out on the field are part of the entertainment value of football. Sure a lot of us enjoy the strategy of the game as well, but the collisions are what make the game authentic. Without that, we're just watch the WWE with a ball... oh wait, that was tried...

Very well said and I agree. I don't want to see anyone carted off the field and find out they've been paralyzed, but I also don't want to watch a 3 hour game of two hand touch or flag football. I know it's not to that extreme yet but you get what I'm saying. There is a fine line they're straddling with this rule. Helmet to helmet hits aside who determines what makes a hit devastating? To me it's just pure conjecture on their part. The league can't KNOW a defender's intentions at that moment of impact. Was he trying to hit him hard enough to jar the ball loose or was his intent something worse?

I also agree with what rmpackers posted about the league needs to use common sense when trying to enforce this rule. I really am curious to see how this affects the way defenders approach the game.

[PoorMansCamaro]

Hopefully this will cause Harrison to second guess himself and misses a few tackles this weekend.

[WadeWilson]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

Hopefully this will cause Harrison to second guess himself and misses a few tackles this weekend.

[20Camaro11]

I am enjoying this thread. It must be difficult to find the middle ground that encourages good hard play, but at the same time protects the players from themselves. Some of the old retired players are now devastated with different problems because of concussions they had in their 20's and 30's. The NFL and NFLPA have correctly decided they can't willingly let people cause long term damage to their melon. Maybe Coach Ditka has it right, change the helmet so that it doesn't allow players to take those kind of shots.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by Shardik2SS

Very well said and I agree. I don't want to see anyone carted off the field and find out they've been paralyzed, but I also don't want to watch a 3 hour game of two hand touch or flag football. I know it's not to that extreme yet but you get what I'm saying. There is a fine line they're straddling with this rule. Helmet to helmet hits aside who determines what makes a hit devastating? To me it's just pure conjecture on their part. The league can't KNOW a defender's intentions at that moment of impact. Was he trying to hit him hard enough to jar the ball loose or was his intent something worse?

I also agree with what rmpackers posted about the league needs to use common sense when trying to enforce this rule. I really am curious to see how this affects the way defenders approach the game.

Exactly. Rules should be objective, not subjective. The NFL is teetering very close to subjective territory with the wording of these "rules" and that's never good for any sport.

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

Hopefully this will cause Harrison to second guess himself and misses a few tackles this weekend.

Silver lining? I think so

[3 SS's]

bottom line...this rule should only apply to late intentional spearing type hits.....but it won't

[Milk 1027]

Stupid rule.
I won't even waste my time writting a huge post. It's just stupid
Stupid stupid stupid.






















ugh





























stupid.....