Taking The Pulse Of BRB: The NFL’s New "Violent Hits" Policy
Something that seems to be sweeping the nation and sports talk radio the past couple of weeks is the NFL's new "Violent Hits" policy. After Steelers linebacker James Harrison decided it was his job to try to become the first NFL serial killer a couple of Sundays ago, the mighty Commissioner Goodell decided it was time to begin punishing players for "headhunting" and intentionally trying to hurt "defenseless" players. Therefore, instead of the usual sum of money the players would give back to the league as a penalty, now they will be facing possible game suspensions with no pay.
This has of course divided the NFL fan base on where they stand on this decision, including the BRB staff. Some feel that it was the right decision and something must be done to protect these guys. While others, including myself, feel that this is still football and we need to let these guys play.
I'll explain after the jump...
I can't speak for the others, but this is why it bothers me. Look at the big hit that Falcons corner Dunta Robinson laid on Eagles wideout DeSean Jackson. Yes, it was a huge hit. But to say he was "headhunting" is a stretch. I know everyone here likes to pile on Dunta, but put that aside for a second. I watch every Falcons game, being from ATL and all, and by now I am sure most of you have seen the hit. It was a bang-bang play and Robinson hit Jackson on the shoulder pad and they both went down for a few minutes. When they got to their feet, both players inquired whether one another if they were okay. That's football, right? But a couple of days later, Dunta gets hit with a $50,000 fine for an "Illegal Hit" and it gets made well known that in the future a hit like that will result in a suspension.
Let me reiterate that I have no problems with the league making rules to protect its players. I was completely in favor of the league protecting quarterbacks from low hits after the one that knocked Carson Palmer's career off track back in 2006. But I think this one is just ridiculous.
Hitting a defenseless receiver? Really? It's football! Do you think Lynn Swann or Drew Pearson whined about being "defenseless?" I realize that it is a different game today than it was back then, but to a good chunk of fans it feels like we are well on our way to this becoming flag football. You already see way too many QB scrambles for big plays because players are afraid to wrap up and tackle for fear of a fine or penalty. Now we're going to have receivers that will elude tackles, or worse they will be hit low. We're going to see a lot more ACL and knee injuries on wideouts due to this rule change.
Also, why is it a problem for defensive backs to lower their helmets when going for a hit, yet running backs are encouraged to lower their helmets? It just doesn't make sense to me. God, why not just bring back the leather helmets already. Oh, and one more thing: If the NFL is so against these kinds of hits, why do they continue to profit off of selling photos of said illegal hits? That sounds pretty damn hypocritical to me...
Now, this is just my opinion and not the opinion of Battle Red Blog as a whole. I realize I sound like I am trying to have it both ways by saying, "I understand, but..." and perhaps I am. But the one thing that gets me up and excited for football is seeing the wood brought on someone. Sure, that sounds barbaric, but we've known that about football for many many years. Why should it change now?
What do you think guys? What side of the debate are you on?
62 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The problem with this discussion...
…is that regardless of which side you take, you get put in the most extreme position possible by whoever is taking the other side. So your choice is to either be characterized as:
1) Not valuing human life and wanting the NFL to become a modern day Coliseum complete with dead bodies being dragged off the fields… or…
2) Wanting them to wear skirts and flag belts, change all the team colors to pastels and pipe in show-tunes to the games.
I don’t want anyone to die or suffer permanently life-changing injury for my entertainment. I know, I know, it’s big of me, but that’s just how I roll… I’m a giver.
However, these guys aren’t getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and in some cases MILLIONS of dollars to assume the same level of risk that I do waddling my fat butt into a desk job every day. It’s been pointed out and I think accurately so, that you don’t see these kinds of injuries in Rugby games where the equipment hasn’t been “tweaked” to the point of providing a shell on the players bodies that provides a false sense of invincibility. Perhaps the solution IS to make them more vulnerable.
However, after the ATROCIOUS refereeing that went on this weekend, I don’t want to rely on their making a split second, subjective ruling on “intent” which is all this is going to be. They flagged Dunta because it LOOKED bad, not because of any illegality on the hit.
Between this watering down of the game and the impending strike, I would suggest that we all stop fixating on the negatives surrounding our 4-2 Texans and just enjoy the moment, ‘cuz we may be in for a LOOONG dry spell and even then what comes back may not resemble what we’ve grown to love.
by DilloTex on Oct 25, 2010 9:51 AM CDT reply actions 3 recs
Rec'd for the show-tunes comment. I LOL'd.
And I can agree with the rest of what you wrote. Which is why I will be accused of taking both sides. I just think this is going to end up being a big mess.
This line could have saved me all that typing, pretty well says it...
I just think this is going to end up being a big mess.
And I'm surprised that I haven't see this anywhere else because its dead on...
We’re going to see a lot more ACL and knee injuries on wideouts due to this rule change.
After they realize this is happening and rule out hits below the waist, making a legal tackle will be kinda problematic.
Let’s go through the thought process for a defensive back:
“CRAP! He caught it! Gotta’ get there!”
“Uh-oh ease up, don’t want to get suspended.”
“Better aim low so he can’t duck into the tackle.”
“Oh wait… need to raise up some so I don’t hit him below the waist…”
“CRAP! He’s BY ME!!!”
“Gotta’ get him!!!”
“Oh… wait… can’t horse-collar him…”
“Well… there he goes…”
by DilloTex on Oct 25, 2010 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
I'm all for the new enforcement as long as it is reasonable
if it is an obviously illegal and vicious hit the guy should get suspended. I’m hoping this doesn’t take away the intensity it just keeps the hits to the chest and hips instead of the head or legs.
Depending on the first big fines and possible suspensions the NFL hands out will set the tone for here on out. If the NFL gives the first suspension for a pretty light hit then its going to hurt the NFL as a whole. If it takes them all season to hand out a suspension everything will be fine.
You Have been banned from Stampede Blue
"inciting readers to get me fired is a quick ticket to banning" - BBS
Comment that got me banned:
You can send your complaints to dhalprin123@gmail.com
by JustAJ on Oct 25, 2010 10:15 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
This is all I need to know about that policy

I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but you appear to be unarmed.
by The Night Owl on Oct 25, 2010 10:17 AM CDT reply actions 2 recs
After watching the Browns vs Saints game
I’m reconsidering my disgust towards Rob Ryan. That looked like a well coached defense, plus they got 2 Pick Sixes from a D-Lineman, not to mention he was the mastermind when the Raiders had a very good defense. Any chance we could possibly look at Rob Ryan to replace Frank Bush?
I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but you appear to be unarmed.
What disgust?
I mean he has raider taint all over him, but he coached some good defenses in Oakland.
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something." -Robert Heinlein
http://www.accessorizeyourvehicle.com/
Well, I did say screw hiring him if he's on the Browns & they're terrible
but I’m starting to see, like the the post Super Bowl Raiders, that the defense ain’t the problem in Cleveland.
I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but you appear to be unarmed.
by The Night Owl on Oct 25, 2010 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions
Well the Oilers did have Buddy Ryan
Wonder if we did hire him he’d take a swing at Rick Dennison? It would already be a better example of an attacking defense than Frank Bush ever attempted.
I am a visionary, I am a genius, and now I am angry! Now help me find my pants!
by UprootedTexan on Oct 25, 2010 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I really think a lot of people are overreacting
Especially some of the players. We don’t really know yet how zealously all this is going to be applied. It remains to be seen if this actually changes anything, or if it happens so infrequently that its basically a non-issue. I’m pretty much expecting it to be at least somewhat of a non-issue.
I think Dunta’s fine is unfortunate and I hope he wins his appeal.
by WhiskeyR on Oct 25, 2010 11:24 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
We don’t really know yet how zealously all this is going to be applied
Their retroactive 50k fines, and then the wave of 5k fines don’t count? Right now its going to be super zealous.
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something." -Robert Heinlein
http://www.accessorizeyourvehicle.com/
Not really
I’ll be the first to admit I don’t follow these things very closely and don’t have a good handle on the semantics of player fines – so correct me if I’m wrong here – but I don’t see what is “retroactive” about these fines other than the BRB headline calling them that. A search of the article and the word isn’t even in there.
It appears the hits happened on Sunday, then fines happened during the week. When do the fines usually come? Are the fines more than usual?
fines are usually levied around Tuesday
but I’m sure they went over the games very closely to make the example of this week. In two weeks we’ll have forgotten anything ever went down
You Have been banned from Stampede Blue
"inciting readers to get me fired is a quick ticket to banning" - BBS
Comment that got me banned:
You can send your complaints to dhalprin123@gmail.com
Retroactive as in
on Monday the declared a new policy, and applied that policy retroactively to the games played on Sunday.
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something." -Robert Heinlein
http://www.accessorizeyourvehicle.com/
I believe that is right
the rules have been on the books for a long time, they’re just going from not enforcing them to bringing down the hammer on them.
You Have been banned from Stampede Blue
"inciting readers to get me fired is a quick ticket to banning" - BBS
Comment that got me banned:
You can send your complaints to dhalprin123@gmail.com
The suspensions....
were NOT part of the initial policy.
With that said, no suspensions were handed out from last weekend were they?
Just my $.02
Even duct tape can't fix stupid
Does that open the door for Tank Tyler or another MLB
or maybe another TE?
I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but you appear to be unarmed.
by The Night Owl on Oct 25, 2010 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions
I guess my concerns are similar on the side of the flag football hating crowd...
A big, vicious hit can change the entire momentum of the game. You completely remove this long-standing tradition and facet of the game. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it demeaning of the game itself into flag or touch football, but we aren’t far from it should things continue down this path.
The NFL by way of these continued decisions is becoming more and more like the NBA. If you think back to the earlier years of the NBA, it was much more physical. Now, you have guys who don’t even get touched and they flop because they know the officials will call it. Or worse yet, you have guys like Kobe Bryant who intentionally make contact to get a foul.
If you think back just a single week to the KC game and the wonderful frame-by-frame breakdown of the P.I. call on Flowers…you’ll recall he flopped and tried to exaggerate the “push” in order to obtain an advantage. And thus…we have the NBA scenario.
Now, with vicious hits able to be suspended, we’re talking about a whole new level of precedence for defenses to become incapable of tackling or even worse afraid of hitting. There will still be collisions, but it’s going to become very difficult to tackle and simply just tackle.
What the league should’ve done was less of a cookie-cutter approach, lacking judiciousness when saying all hits like these, and take things on a case-by-case basis without a true public inquiry as to the nature of the reasoning behind a suspension or fine. I mean, if the NFL can have a completely atrocious drug-test failure and appeals process where the public isn’t given any knowledge of what’s what, why should the hit policy/injury policy be any different?
by Fuzion on Oct 25, 2010 11:36 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Get back to tackling
and stop the big hit insanity. I’d prefer to see a good solid “pop, wrap and roll” than these stupid big hits that usually result in an injury or a breakaway for a TD. It’s not good for the players, fans, teams, owners, league to have anyone get injured to the point of missing games, seasons, careers. A good clean hit and tackle, doesn’t have to involve launching, head on collisions, or off balance, bone snapping, torso twisting, trench digging demolitions that stop the game for 10 to 20 minutes while they get the cart / ambulance.
I’m all for them going back to leather helmets and seeing a sport of athletic talent combined with physical explosiveness and endurance rather than the gladiator direction this thing has been headed for years. I do think the league’s fines are overreacting, but they need to get this in check before people get killed out there.
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I will not!" ~ General Patton (should be Frank Bush's motto)
by MeMongo on Oct 25, 2010 12:00 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
Good solid tackling
Won’t get you on Sportscenter, though. I think that’s a big part of why there are so many players who go for the huge hit rather than tackle. Chicks dig the leveling tackle the same way that they dig the long ball.
I am a visionary, I am a genius, and now I am angry! Now help me find my pants!
by UprootedTexan on Oct 25, 2010 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I would gladly
Accept millions of dollars to be concussed to the point of senility, provided that said senility would not occur until at least the age of 40.
In all seriousness though, to me this is just a PR ploy by the league. Give it a few weeks and things will go back to normal because the policy is, in my eyes, purposely ambiguous. They’ll put it in place and then trot it out now and again when something like this happens. Don’t see it changing the game.
Except what good is it to have millions of dollars
If you can’t remember what you did with them on account that your brains have been turned into mashed potatoes from numerous concussions?
I am a visionary, I am a genius, and now I am angry! Now help me find my pants!
by UprootedTexan on Oct 25, 2010 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Kind of Like
A life of waking up and thinking you must have had a good time by the evidence in the room, but you don’t remember anything
"I want you guys to pair up in groups of three and then line up in a circle." - Bill Peterson former Oilers Coach
by Barryfromtexas on Oct 25, 2010 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Honestly..
I love the big hits… I love saying OOOOOOO… being a Middle Linebacker in HS, I was usually the one who delivered that hit on blitzes and gap assignments. I will admit that i have concussed a few individuals, but it was never a helmet to helmet. On the note of the Coliseum, we should bring back the gladiators, using death row inmates and lifers… it will be one way to lessen the prison population… but hey that is just me. I am a sick fuck. I blame it on Agent orange and my small pox vaccine the army gave em.
I heard Brian Cushing like to do it with girls in a really uncomfortable place and i am not talking about the back seat of a Volkswagen
Go Texans!
by Taco Joe on Oct 25, 2010 12:53 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs
Mike...
i knew you would be on my boat!
I heard Brian Cushing like to do it with girls in a really uncomfortable place and i am not talking about the back seat of a Volkswagen
Go Texans!
I am in Favor of
Reinstating duels to solve political problems myself.
"I want you guys to pair up in groups of three and then line up in a circle." - Bill Peterson former Oilers Coach
by Barryfromtexas on Oct 25, 2010 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Let's take that a bit further
Not just duels, but build enormous stadiums to host the duels, charge for admission and take all the money and use it to balance the budget!
/end George Carlin reference.
I am a visionary, I am a genius, and now I am angry! Now help me find my pants!
by UprootedTexan on Oct 25, 2010 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh... I'm LIKING THIS... rec'd ^ 100
It could SERIOUSLY reduce the rodent count in DC and increase the average level of marksmanship among the remainder. Win/Win.
If they took those convicts and made a real show out of "The Running Man"
It would destroy everything else on television.
TRue that...
I heard Brian Cushing like to do it with girls in a really uncomfortable place and i am not talking about the back seat of a Volkswagen
Go Texans!
I'm in agreement
I think the pendulum has to swing wildly both ways before a real solution can be found to help lower concussion rates in the NFL. I think the answer is out there, we just haven’t figured out quite what to do yet. Football is a violent sport yes, but it is not a sport of murderers meaning that headhunting is not within the rules of fair play. I think we tend to forget that players are human beings even though they make oodles of money, and they should be protected.
by TiEaB on Oct 25, 2010 1:48 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Fuck that.
Rugby players wear virtually no pads, have collisions every bit as violent as NFL collisions, and have virtually no problem with concussions. Why? Because the rules that govern rugby forbid players from tackling high and require them to wrap up the player they’re tackling, as opposed to merely slamming into them. Not that long ago, people used to consider that good technique in American football as well.
And if anybody considers rugby players wimps, well….
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
www.battleredblog.com
by tehGrindCrusher on Oct 25, 2010 2:27 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Also
To say that you don’t have a problem with the NFL making rules to protect the safety of its players and then complaining when the NFL makes a rule to protect the safety of its players is kind of self-defeating. Nomsayin?
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
www.battleredblog.com
by tehGrindCrusher on Oct 25, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions
tGC, I just can't buy your basic premise...
I really enjoyed the Rugby that I got to watch on my visit to London, but I just don’t buy that this is true:
Rugby players wear virtually no pads, have collisions every bit as violent as NFL collisions,
I tend to agree with your broader point, but I just didnt’ see anything in the games I watched to support saying that the collisions were equivalent. For one thing when the big boys were going after each other they were already interlocked and it more resembled a pushing contest than a collision. There were still some wooly-boogers when they broke out and everyone was running open-field, but still nothing like what I’ve seen in the NFL.
Just my .02 worth.
I've watched a lot of rugby, what with being married to a Welsh woman and all
And while the big collisions aren’t as frequent, they are there. The scrum (when the big guys are interlocked) is obviously a slow-moving experience, but if you watch enough rugby you’ll see a lot of big hits. And if you watch rugby league (which is a slightly different version that has twelve players instead of fifteen) you’ll see even more, with very few concussions.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
www.battleredblog.com
by tehGrindCrusher on Oct 25, 2010 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
But also
That’s kind of the point. The big hits aren’t as noticeable as those in the NFL because people are not tackling high or leading with their heads and are wrapping up the people they tackle.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
www.battleredblog.com
by tehGrindCrusher on Oct 25, 2010 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Actually, now that I think about it
I think you have a point. Rugby has plenty of violent collisions, but because of the rules, those collisions aren’t as violent as the most violent ones in the NFL.
But my larger point is that it is still a violent, full-contact game that no one in their right mind will say is played by wimps. Yet it does not have anything approaching the concussion problems that the NFL does.
I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.
www.battleredblog.com
by tehGrindCrusher on Oct 25, 2010 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
As a current rugby player who grew up playing football, I would like to offer my perspective.
I can tell you that rugby is an incredibly violent hard hitting sport. However, the thing about rugby I have found is you get more “hurt” than injured, at almost every level. Split lips, scrapes, bruises, cuts, cleated, kicked in the face, wind knocked out, and just general blood loss and damage to the body happen to every player, every game. But you see a lot less concussions, knee injuries, breaks, and serious damage. Quick Google-Fu brought up comparative concussion rates for high school rugby being around 5 per 1000 players per season, whereas high school football ran about 50 per 1000 players per season.
There are a couple reasons why I think concussions (and season/career ending injuries in general) happen significantly less in rugby compared to football.
1. Almost all contact in rugby is one on one, face to face contact. You rarely get blindsided. You are very rarely in a position like a receiver over the middle where you are focused on catching a ball and someone lights you up. The rules of rugby essentially dictate that it is you running straight into the defenders, and as everyone is ready for contact, less people get hurt.
2. The rules of rugby REQUIRE you to wrap up. They also require you to tackle above the knees and below the neck. This is ingrained into everyone who has played rugby and it becomes a thing of instinct. Besides, diving at people generally results in you lying on the ground looking like an idiot while they score.
3. Everyone tackles with their shoulder (and therefore wraps up) because hitting with your head and no helmet HURTS SO BAD. Try it some time – you’ll only do it once. Hitting people in rugby hurts just as must as the guy getting hit, so few people are going to just throw themselves willy-nilly at the 270 lb lock running full steam at you. As you grow as a rugger, you learn to tackle smart, because good form hurts less and is remarkably better at bringing people down.
I will admit, I love big hits – in any sport. Reggie Bush getting KTFO’d by Sheldon Brown was one of the happiest moments in my life. But penalizing defenders for anything other than a blatant spear is ridiculous. As soon as any player on offense lowers their head to try and truck someone, that turns what would be a legal tackle into an illegal tackle and soon people while just dive at knees to save their hard earned dough. I really think that if the helmets and shoulder pads were scaled back into minimalistic protection that injuries would go down and tackling form would suddenly get better.
The strong do what they have to do; the weak accept what they have to accept
by Riott on Oct 25, 2010 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
The rules of rugby essentially dictate that it is you running straight into the defenders, and as everyone is ready for contact, less people get hurt.
Very important distinction. In Rugby you aren’t fighting for more yards when going into contact a lot of times(if not always), you are going into contact trying to set up a ruck or a maul for your teammates to come into, and to allow continued possession of the ball.
"Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something." -Robert Heinlein
http://www.accessorizeyourvehicle.com/
Thanks for the perspective, Riott...
The different types of injuries make sense given the equipment differences.
Rec'd and agreed
I think the pads and helmets have evolved too much (harder and more durable) that they do way more harm than good nowadays.
"Lord, beer me strength."
I kinda agree with everything you are saying
Except I’m not sure if Rugby actually does have virtually no problems with concussions. Random googling provides http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC155428/ this study, for example, of a couple of high school rugby teams, and found, well a problem with concussions (perhaps not at the level approaching football, all the usual caveats about relying on individual studies, etc). So … why think that Rugby has virtually no problems with concussions?
Definitely on board with the fines
There’s no way the NFL can, in good consciousness, allow there players to cause what is known to be a completely life changing mental issue without any repurcussions.
You can say whatever you want about it being good football, exciting to watch, yada yada yada. It’s gotten out of hand and it isn’t necessary for the game to be enjoyable and successful.
I also don’t buy the argument that if the players don’t care then the NFL should just let them do what they want. A player in the middle of his career clearly isn’t thinking about his life after football. That’s fine, but it’s the NFL who has to deal with their health care expenses after the fact. They’re protecting themselves as much as anything, and I can’t fault them for that either.
I think the rugby parallels are great, by the way.
Most of the Concussions
This year have been cause by the ground – not head to head contact
I think this is all posturing by the NFL.
on a side note… Is it just me? or does it seem like a player is losing his helmet on every other play? Surely this has got to be some kind of factor if those helmets come off that easy.
"I want you guys to pair up in groups of three and then line up in a circle." - Bill Peterson former Oilers Coach
I see allot of players....
that have the 4strap chin strap (which is most of them I think) with either one or both of the bottom straps not fastened. And that is at the snap of the ball, not during a time out or in the huddle.
Just my $.02
Even duct tape can't fix stupid
I saw Matthews THROW OFF his helmet in mid-pursuit yesterday...
I don’t know WHAT he was thinking or how he avoided a penalty.
Come to think of it,
This is why Barry Sanders retired prematurely.
I don’t know if im remember this right but he said something about defensive players nowadays slow you down and wait for another defensive player to come and knock the hell out of you instead of just tackling and taking you down themselves.
"Eff you mothereffer!"
-Bernard Pollard-

by 





















