We are not watching football anymore

[Bier Meister]

Correct. They are overly aggressive - so much so that they will intentionally commit holding, pass interference, you name it... they get away with it more times than they're penalized for it, so it's worth the risk. Plus, their defense is SO good WITHOUT this that even if they give up some penalty yardage, they can still stop you cold.

 

 

this is exactly right

[detlef]

The NFL was so much closer to a good solution to the problem before they started calling penalties every time a defender's hand brushed a QB's helmet.

 

They'd let them play and then fine the players when game film showed malicious intent or reckless behavior. All they had to do was stiffen the fines and include suspensions, and the problem would be solved.

 

Why didn't this work before? Because people are stupid. We complained, "It wasn't bad enough to draw a flag, so why should dude get fined?" Imagine how pissed people would be if they applied that same stupid logic and a guy actually missed playing time?

 

But, that's best way to police the game. Let them play. Obviously, if someone does something particularly bad and an official catches it, throw the flag and punish them if the film confirms it. But err on the side of leniency in terms of throwing flags and punish the crap out guys when film shows they lined a dude up and took him out with bad intent.

 

And, again, punish them with suspensions, right away. Up to and including full season and possibly lifetime suspensions for repeat and/or egregious offenders. James Harrison, for instance, should not be in the league any longer.

[BA Baracus]

 

 

If you notice that the receiver followed the ball trying to catch it, making him fall forward at the moment of impact. Bush, the safety was leading with his shoulder and had the receiver stayed upright he would have been hit squarely in the chest. There is no way the safety could change his contact point. Besides, a few years ago that hit would have been praised, by the announcers, the fans, and his teammates for laying the wood and sending a message to the Hawks that they came to play today. Slowing it down you can see contact was made on the upper left shoulder sending the receivers head back but no helmet contact.

 

That was a textbook "de-cleater" as Madden would have pointed out. Ohhh the good ole days. Receivers use to have to think twice about catching balls over the middle and hits like that would pay dividends later on in the game in the form of alligator arms. No more I guess. I just don't see how the game can adjust to the rules of "hit but not too hard". I agree with calling PF for spearing and head hunting but hard hits that only make the guys head snap back or this defenseless receiver crap is BS. No such thing as a defenseless receiver, all he has to do is step away from the ball. Simple. You won't get hit if you don't try to catch it. If you try to catch it, your not defenseless. Your putting yourself in harms way. The only defenseless receiver are the ones on the sideline or on the bench. Go after one of those guys then yes, PF and I'm all for it.

 

He should have tried to tackle the receiver rather than kill him. No arms extended to wrap up is pitiful tackling fundamentals.

[Cowboyz1]

He should have tried to tackle the receiver rather than kill him. No arms extended to wrap up is pitiful tackling fundamentals.

 

 

Come on that's like telling a dog not to lick his chops before throwing him the bone your showing him. You get your arms broken coming in that hard. 10 out of 10 safeties with a good full speed shot coming from center field, make the same hit.

[flemingd]

Come on that's like telling a dog not to lick his chops before throwing him the bone your showing him. You get your arms broken coming in that hard.

 

 

So the WR is a pansy if he can't take a boom headshot but a safety shouldn't be expected to wisk his widdle awrm?

[rajncajn]

So the WR is a pansy if he can't take a boom headshot but a safety shouldn't be expected to wisk his widdle awrm?

 

 

Just a question, would you consider that hit as a head shot? Not arguing one way or the other, I just think it would add insight to your line of thinking and I do realize that different people will see things differently. I personally would not for a few reasons. I don't think the intent was there to attack the head. It looked to me that Bush led with his shoulder into the chest of Harvin. He didn't drive up into him like you would typically see a true "headshot" and it looked more to me that the helmet contact was more a result of momentum than intent. Again, that said, regardless of the intent, it was by rule an illegal hit & was correctly called. he'll probably get a fine as well and deservedly so. As much as it sucks, the players just have to get used to these new rules and learn to somehow adjust their target area. Seeing how quickly that play happened, I can see how difficult it would have been to hit Harvin any lower without shooting his knees out from under him. Bush is already bent down running at full speed, it would have to be damn difficult to target such a small window with a player running at full speed in the opposite direction. What really sucks is what Bush truly would have needed to do in order to avoid the penalty in that situation is allow Harvin the opportunity to catch the ball and take at least one step before trying to hit him.

[bud29]

I'd agree that his intent probably was not to hit the head, as Harvin lowered himself a bit after dropping the ball. However, he still hit him in the head, so I would also agree that it was a correctly called penalty.

 

I think many of these DBs need to remember their peewee days and "heads up football." Lowering your head makes clean hits look more malicious (creating some very questionable helmet-to-helmet calls, and worst of all, reigniting this thread). Also, in this particular play, I think Bush *might* have had a shot at picking the ball off had he kept his head up, not just zeroed in on the hit. Just my .

Edited January 14, 2014 by bud29

[flemingd]

Just a question, would you consider that hit as a head shot?

 

He hit the WR in the helmet. I'm not sure what else you could call it He clearly wasn't trying to make a form tackle.

[rajncajn]

He hit the WR in the helmet. I'm not sure what else you could call it He clearly wasn't trying to make a form tackle.

 

 

To me, there is a difference between actually attacking the head and incidental contact to the head. Form tackle or not, there's nothing wrong with laying into another player with the shoulder pad and just because their helmets collide doesn't make it a head shot. Had Bush hit him the same exact way, only with his arms around Harvin, it still would have been a penalty for all of the same reasons. Helmet contact would have been made and Harvin would have still been considered "defenseless."

 

Here's a concussion video with several examples of what I would consider directional shots to the head, or "headshots":

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NNT8lhqbPw

 

In nearly all of the examples where a defensive player is hitting a receiver, the defensive player leads with the helmet, makes helmet-to-helmet contact directly and drives up through the receivers head.

Edited January 14, 2014 by rajncajn

[BeeR]

Come on that's like telling a dog not to lick his chops before throwing him the bone your showing him. You get your arms broken coming in that hard. 10 out of 10 safeties with a good full speed shot coming from center field, make the same hit.

 

Sorry that's weak. And so are his arms if that's the reason.

[flemingd]

To me, there is a difference between actually attacking the head and incidental contact to the head.

 

Tell that to the guy eating his steak from a blender. This is the entire crux of the rule - it doesn't matter if it's incidental or not. Play under control and avoid that contact. If you don't you'll hit the system. This isn't like a guy that trips over someone else's feet that they are willing to accept occasionally - no on is eating their own gun over repeatedly falling down. The headshots are too egregious an impact to allow under any circumstance.

 

Had Bush hit him the same exact way, only with his arms around Harvin, it still would have been a penalty for all of the same reasons. Helmet contact would have been made and Harvin would have still been considered "defenseless."

 

How can you say that, then follow it up with this:

 

 

Form tackle or not, there's nothing wrong with laying into another player with the shoulder pad and just because their helmets collide doesn't make it a head shot.

 

That's exactly what makes it a headshot. Shot -> head = headshot. Otherwise it would be a chestshot. Or an armshot. If you're very unfortunate, a nutshot. None of those are illegal though, and none of them are known to be nearly so likely to potentially cripple the guy before he turns 50.

[BA Baracus]

Come on that's like telling a dog not to lick his chops before throwing him the bone your showing him. You get your arms broken coming in that hard. 10 out of 10 safeties with a good full speed shot coming from center field, make the same hit.

 

 

And 10 out of 10 safeties get a penalty.

 

He tucked his arms, lowered his head, and turned himself into a missile to launch into Harvin. Had he attempted to make a tackle, he would have seen Harvin and probably wouldn't have hit him in the head.

[gspot]

He should have tried to tackle the receiver rather than kill him. No arms extended to wrap up is pitiful tackling fundamentals.

 

 

Oh, so I guess we just let the receivers catch balls now?

[BA Baracus]

Oh, so I guess we just let the receivers catch balls now?

 

 

No, we don't let receivers catch balls. You can still hit a guy hard and knock a ball loose without putting your chin in your chest and blindly launching at him.

 

It is really so bad to ask that professional football players use proper technique???

[Papajohn]

Oh, so I guess we just let the receivers catch balls now?

 

 

Nope, just the Cowboys

[HowboutthemCowboys]

 

 

Nope, just the Cowboys

 

bassturd

[rajncajn]

Tell that to the guy eating his steak from a blender. This is the entire crux of the rule - it doesn't matter if it's incidental or not. Play under control and avoid that contact. If you don't you'll hit the system. This isn't like a guy that trips over someone else's feet that they are willing to accept occasionally - no on is eating their own gun over repeatedly falling down. The headshots are too egregious an impact to allow under any circumstance.

 

How can you say that, then follow it up with this:

 

That's exactly what makes it a headshot. Shot -> head = headshot. Otherwise it would be a chestshot. Or an armshot. If you're very unfortunate, a nutshot. None of those are illegal though, and none of them are known to be nearly so likely to potentially cripple the guy before he turns 50.

 

It DOES matter if it's incidental or not in regards to it being an egregious and/or intentional foul. Helmets collide all the time during tackles, I would bet they do on the majority of tackles. You can't call every time two players helmets collide a "headshot" and that's what you are doing here. Concussions are going to happen in the NFL whether you like it or not, whether intentional or not. What the NFL should be trying to limit is the directional hits to the head, not every hit to the head. If Bush had hit him with his arms wrapped around him and their helmets still collided, then how would that be any different than this hit?

[flemingd]

It DOES matter if it's incidental or not in regards to it being an egregious and/or intentional foul. Helmets collide all the time during tackles, I would bet they do on the majority of tackles. You can't call every time two players helmets collide a "headshot" and that's what you are doing here.

 

That's not at all what I'm doing. I'm calling it a headshot when the DB sets his sights, lowers his head, braces his entire body for contact, and makes contact with the receiver's head. How do you extrapolate this to infer I mean all contact between two helmets?

 

Concussions are going to happen in the NFL whether you like it or not, whether intentional or not. What the NFL should be trying to limit is the directional hits to the head, not every hit to the head.

 

Um, that's exactly what they have done. They aren't penalizing when two OL butt heads at the goal line. Heck they aren't even penalizing when the DB blows the WR up - if he's been given a chance to get into a defensible position. Anyone that has played football knows the difference. If you see it coming, you hunker down, get drilled in the head, usually not a big deal. You don't, and you get laid out, you're seeing stars for the next few days.

 

If Bush had hit him with his arms wrapped around him and their helmets still collided, then how would that be any different than this hit?

 

It wouldn't. You yourself have already stated this:

 

Had Bush hit him the same exact way, only with his arms around Harvin, it still would have been a penalty for all of the same reasons. Helmet contact would have been made and Harvin would have still been considered "defenseless."

[sausagekingchi]

What Bush was doing there was going for the big hit to break the play up and that is where he went wrong. He could have done things differently and avoided the penalty and still broke the pass play up or potentially intercepted the ball as a previous poster pointed out - this happens ALL the time in the NFL. There are times when it is obvious that some guys are literally out there to hurt another player and those guys should be thrown out of league IMO (yeah I'm looking at you Brandon Meriweather). Bush was not trying to intentionally hurt Harvin IMO, but what Bush is at fault for doing is going for a big hit instead of making a more sound defensive play on the ball. If he had attempted to attack the ball while it is in flight rather than try to separate the ball from the receiver there would have been no penalty, no concussion and no fine.

 

It isn't easy for current players to make this change, especially when they have been given so much praise for laying out the big hits throughout their football lives, but it is very possible. If the penalties continue to pile up and players get fined these types of hits will fade away from the game. One thing players hate is losing money because it is the one thing they can't make up for once it is gone. Penalties on the field however don't necessarily have the same lasting impact because guys often feel they can make up for a bad play with a good one. Only fines and suspensions will truly change the culture and mindset of players from wanting to make a big hit versus making a good football play.

[rajncajn]

That's not at all what I'm doing. I'm calling it a headshot when the DB sets his sights, lowers his head, braces his entire body for contact, and makes contact with the receiver's head. How do you extrapolate this to infer I mean all contact between two helmets?

 

Um, that's exactly what they have done. They aren't penalizing when two OL butt heads at the goal line. Heck they aren't even penalizing when the DB blows the WR up - if he's been given a chance to get into a defensible position. Anyone that has played football knows the difference. If you see it coming, you hunker down, get drilled in the head, usually not a big deal. You don't, and you get laid out, you're seeing stars for the next few days.

 

 

You've really got me confused on your stance. What you just described is exactly what I was talking about when I said that it's OK for a DB to lay into the other player with the shoulder pad and incidental contact being made to the helmet as a result. That, I would not consider a head shot. I thought the Bush hit was no different other than the fact that he didn't give him the opportunity to brace for the impact and he made contact to the helmet of a player in a defenseless position. My stance is that the Bush hit would have been OK had the receiver been afforded the chance to make a "football move." Basically brace for the impact of the hit. Just to clarify, if a defensive back hits the receiver after he has taken a step or two, shoulder pad first into the chest and their helmets collide as a result of that hit then you are OK with that and it's not a head shot? And if the same hit is made on a defenseless player then that would be considered a head shot?

[flemingd]

You're overthinking this. It's a headshot when contact is made to the head. Headshot is a factual description. It's a shot, it hit the head. 2 + 2 does indeed = 4. If you are adding some insinuation of intent to injure, or illegality, or any other devious intentions, then just don't.

 

My original comment was the lunacy CB1 was spewing that the DB should be allowed to go all out against a (defenseless) WR but shouldn't be expected to take on a guy on even ground. 'Cause Buck Eighty Harvin is gonna break some bones!

[MustOfBeenDrunk]

I'm so confused ,,,,,, my name is schizophrenic and you guys got a problem ,, hehehehe

[rajncajn]

You're overthinking this. It's a headshot when contact is made to the head. Headshot is a factual description. It's a shot, it hit the head. 2 + 2 does indeed = 4. If you are adding some insinuation of intent to injure, or illegality, or any other devious intentions, then just don't.

 

Well that goes back to what I was saying before. By this statement it sounds like you consider any helmet to helmet contact when making a tackle as a head shot, regardless of any factors causing that contact.

 

The dictionary defines a headshot as "aimed at the head," which would also require intent. I didn't think that Bush intended to hit him in the head and it looked like he aimed for Harvins chest with his shoulder pad. That's why I'm saying I didn't consider it a headshot. However, given the fact that Harvin was in a defenseless position and there was helmet contact included, it was correctly called as a personal foul.

Edited January 15, 2014 by rajncajn

[rajncajn]

Is anyone else surprised at the lack of info from anyone (league, media etc) of the fact that Harvin was allowed back in the game after the hit by Bush? Especially given Harvin's history with head issues? I found one article that came out concerning this, but nothing at all since. The article raises some questions about whether or not the Seahawks truly followed the concussion protocol and here it is now several days later & the only thing people are talking about is whether he will make it back for the next game.

 

Percy Harvin injury: Seahawks WR ruled out after 2nd concussion test - SBNation.com

[whomper]

This is the real reason why football has become a slap and tickle fight

 

F you Jahvid Best. Playing dumb for a money grab.