How Soft is the NFL Becoming?

[A-Husker-4-Life]

This appears to be a clean hit and a very good one at that.. What do you guys think? Should Roger Goodell just put flags on the players and call it good.

Broncos rookie safety Rahim Moore defends devastating hit on Bills receiver Donald Jones - Shutdown Corner - NFL*Blog - Yahoo! Sports

[Logan]

I don't need to click the link to have my answer:

It's not.

[gstelmack]

Not soft, it's a lack of fundamentals. It's a focus on hitting the guy high and hard, which risks injury, on the off-chance you knock the ball loose, rather than focusing on making the tackle which involves wrapping him up much lower. No one wants to tackle anymore, instead they want to "Jack Him Up" to make the ESPN highlight reel.

[Blackadar]

I understand why it was flagged, but I don't think that it should be flagged. Per the rule, the "defenseless receiver" can't be hit in the head. Moore's shoulder hits Jones' head. It's a legitimate flag.

But I don't agree with the rule. To me, that's just a bang-bang play. WR goes up and DB hits him to dislodge the ball. Each was trying to do their job and there was nothing particularly malicious about it. It just so happened that Jones didn't get a really good jump and they happened to collide.

To paraphrase Jack Lambert, they're putting skirts on these players. Football is a tough game and they're taking much of the toughness out of it. They say it's in the name of player safety, but they don't even mandate the best helmets or mouth guards out there, so the player safety thing seems like a lot of bunk. It's really to limit liability. By limiting the hits, the NFL can say they took precautions in case of a lawsuit.

I really blame slo-mo. Slo-mo makes an instant play look like it took seconds and so stuff gets picked apart. So we can watch James Harrison hit Josh Cribbs in the helmet and slow it down enough that people might think he was headhunting, but in the half-second it really happened all that took place was they both lowered their heads at the same time - one to duck under a tackle and the other to come in low since the other guys were high.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Not soft, it's a lack of fundamentals. It's a focus on hitting the guy high and hard, which risks injury, on the off-chance you knock the ball loose, rather than focusing on making the tackle which involves wrapping him up much lower. No one wants to tackle anymore, instead they want to "Jack Him Up" to make the ESPN highlight reel.

It's not a lack of fundamentals. You're taught to jack him up in practice and in games. That dislodges the ball, creates turnovers and gets into the mind of the WR. You don't earn a spot on a roster by letting the guy catch the ball and then wrapping him up. You earn a spot by hitting the guy so hard that he doesn't catch the ball in the first place. You learn this from playing Pee Wee football and it's reinforced when you're competing for a roster spot for the very first time (Jr. High/High School).

This is nothing new. I remember a reporter asking the question back to a pro DB in the 1970s which he'd rather have, an int or a hard hit. The DB said the hit, because he knew that his man would then short arm passes and run poorer routes after that. So again, this isn't anything new - your ESPN theory doesn't hold much water.

FYI, it's only a lack of fundamentals if you go for the kill shot and miss.

[Julio Riddols]

I don't understand why they dont make the outer shells of the helmets and pads soft. Not anything like a pillow, but something softer than hard plastic would seemingly stop a lot of the the jarring that goes on during and after a hit. Sure the *pop* sound would be gone, but I would like to think it would take a lot more to mess a guy up after that. Most of the head issues seem to come from knees to the head or the way a players head slams into the ground after a hard hit.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I don't understand why they dont make the outer shells of the helmets and pads soft. Not anything like a pillow, but something softer than hard plastic would seemingly stop a lot of the the jarring that goes on during and after a hit. Sure the *pop* sound would be gone, but I would like to think it would take a lot more to mess a guy up after that. Most of the head issues seem to come from knees to the head or the way a players head slams into the ground after a hard hit.

I don't know if they could do that now with different materials, but they tried in the past (70s, 80s and 90s). The softer material caused helmets to "stick" when they collided and that caused twisting of the neck.

[Julio Riddols]

Ah.. That makes sense.. But you would think there has to be a lot safer stuff out there by now that players could surely wear different fabric, different style of helmet, something. Back in the days of "fat pads" this didn't seem to be such a problem. It seemed only a few concussions happened in a year in the late 80's-early to mid 90's.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

Ah.. That makes sense.. But you would think there has to be a lot safer stuff out there by now that players could surely wear different fabric, different style of helmet, something. Back in the days of "fat pads" this didn't seem to be such a problem. It seemed only a few concussions happened in a year in the late 80's-early to mid 90's.

That's more of the inability/unwillingness to diagnose concussions rather than the number sustained.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

it's a lack of fundamentals. It's a focus on hitting the guy high and hard, which risks injury, on the off-chance you knock the ball loose

Originally Posted by Blackadar

It's not a lack of fundamentals. You're taught to jack him up in practice and in games. That dislodges the ball, creates turnovers

Considering the incredibly high winning percentage of teams who win the turnover battle since the beginning of football, anything that creates the potential for a turnover should be taught as a fundamental part of the game.

[spleen1015]

I think in some situations, the offensive player needs to be penalized. That's not the case with the video highlighted above, but there was a play in another game this weekend.

A pass was thrown to a RB and the defender was clearly going low for the tackle. At the last minute, the RB lower his head, causing a head to head collision. The defender got flagged. The head to head was caused my the RB, IMO. He didn't need to lower his head.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Considering the incredibly high winning percentage of teams who win the turnover battle since the beginning of football, anything that creates the potential for a turnover should be taught as a fundamental part of the game.

The jackup right after the completion does not generally create turnovers, it creates incompletions.

I'll buy Blackadr's "makes the WR scared" reason, but then I'm in to football for the chess match not the hitting so it doesn't bother me to see this sort of move blacklisted.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

A pass was thrown to a RB and the defender was clearly going low for the tackle. At the last minute, the RB lower his head, causing a head to head collision. The defender got flagged. The head to head was caused my the RB, IMO. He didn't need to lower his head.

Agreed.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Agreed.

It does seem offensive players are taking advantage of the 'no hit to the head' rule. I wonder if offensive coaches are now preaching the tactic as a way to gain an easy 15 yards?

Yes the NFL is getting soft. It's a violent game that's slowly dying due to safety concerns. Ten years from now, we probably won't recognize the pro game.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

The jackup right after the completion does not generally create turnovers, it creates incompletions.

A good hit resonates pretty well. You'll see a bad pattern or a short arm later, which leads to ints.

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'll buy Blackadr's "makes the WR scared" reason, but then I'm in to football for the chess match not the hitting so it doesn't bother me to see this sort of move blacklisted.

Making the WR scared is part of the chess match. You might as well be watching touch football otherwise IMO.

[DanGarion]

I don't see it as ours to question the protection of another person's safety in sport.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I don't see it as ours to question the protection of another person's safety in sport.

The question is, is the primary motivation protecting the players, or protecting the star players and creating more offense because that's good for business and what the fans pay $$$ to see.

Like a couple of people noted above, why is it not just as dangerous for a RB to lower his head and obliterate a tackler? How many more concussions/neck injuries result from that kind of play

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Making the WR scared is part of the chess match. You might as well be watching touch football otherwise IMO.

How about just trying to make a play on the ball? If you've been beaten to the point where you're not in position to get your hand up and disrupt the WR from catching the ball, maybe the match should be considered lost. In order for the linked play to take place as it did, the OL had to prevent the DL from getting to the QB, the WR had to beat the CB off the line of scrimmage, and the QB had to deliver the pass in the right spot where the free defender couldn't get his hands on the ball. If just one of those battles isn't won by the offense, the "blow up" hit isn't necessary.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

A good hit resonates pretty well. You'll see a bad pattern or a short arm later, which leads to ints.



Making the WR scared is part of the chess match. You might as well be watching touch football otherwise IMO.

PING Randy Moss.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I don't see it as ours to question the protection of another person's safety in sport.

Really? So if the NFL goes to touch football or NASCAR establishes a speed limit of 65 MPH, it's not the customer's place to question it?

Interesting theory.

---

My biggest problem with the rule is that they're trying to legislate a bang-bang play and it's really not possible. It's one thing to say don't lead with your head - that's good football. It's entirely another to say not to hit a part of the body of another player, all the while that other player is moving and shifting in unpredictable ways. This all happens in a split second involving multiple players and it's just really not possible to comply. When you institute a rule that it's not physically possible to comply with 100% of the time, it's a bad rule.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Logan

How about just trying to make a play on the ball? If you've been beaten to the point where you're not in position to get your hand up and disrupt the WR from catching the ball, maybe the match should be considered lost. In order for the linked play to take place as it did, the OL had to prevent the DL from getting to the QB, the WR had to beat the CB off the line of scrimmage, and the QB had to deliver the pass in the right spot where the free defender couldn't get his hands on the ball. If just one of those battles isn't won by the offense, the "blow up" hit isn't necessary.

The ball wasn't caught, so by definition the play he made on the receiver was intended to disrupt the catch. The real problem here is in thinking that a player can alter his body in a split-second once the ball touches the receiver's hands and he drops it. Because in about .025 seconds, the tackler's got to figure out whether the ball is being caught or dropped. I don't have a problem with this hit simply because the receiver got his hands on the ball and the hit occurred nearly instantly at the same point he still would have been trying to secure the catch if he did his job. The DB has to presume a ball touching the receiver's hands is going to be caught, unless enough time has passed that he can see the ball drop and he has time to pull up.

If you can't break up a pass by hitting a receiver in the course of his attempting to make a catch, then there's no purpose for hitting in this game.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Logan

How about just trying to make a play on the ball? If you've been beaten to the point where you're not in position to get your hand up and disrupt the WR from catching the ball, maybe the match should be considered lost. In order for the linked play to take place as it did, the OL had to prevent the DL from getting to the QB, the WR had to beat the CB off the line of scrimmage, and the QB had to deliver the pass in the right spot where the free defender couldn't get his hands on the ball. If just one of those battles isn't won by the offense, the "blow up" hit isn't necessary.

If you think about your post, all you're saying is that if the defense can't make a play in the 2.3 seconds before the pass gets off, the offense should automatically win. It seems that your criteria for the defense to "win" on any given play is that the offense has to really screw up. Roll the rules back 30 years to where the blockers couldn't extend their arms and allowing the bump and run down the field and we might be on even terms again. But what you're describing is a track meet with helmets. That doesn't sound like a very interesting game to me.

And again, anyone who thinks this is really about safety is sorely deluded. It's about liability, not safety.

[britrock88]

My radical idea -- no helmets. See if players try to use their heads as battering rams once they don't have hard plastic shells sitting on top of them.

[JediKooter]

The game is just too fast to completely eliminate hits like that. Don't lead with your helmet, cool. Maybe don't lead with your shoulders anymore? I don't really have an answer or a solution. I mean, it's football, people are going to get hit hard, they are going to get hit when they aren't looking, they are going to get hit when trying to catch a ball or run with it. It's a contact sport.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by britrock88

My radical idea -- no helmets. See if players try to use their heads as battering rams once they don't have hard plastic shells sitting on top of them.

This is a great idea. But the NFL's image police would never go for it. Better a legion of retired players with invisible brain damage 15 years from now than the visceral image of one bloody broken nose on a Sunday afternoon.

[BrianD]

Maintaining the safety of the receivers used to be the job of the quarterback rather than the job of the D-back.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Maintaining the safety of the receivers used to be the job of the quarterback rather than the job of the D-back.

This is something that doesn't get said enough. At some point, the offensive teams need to be partly responsible for their players. This goes beyond receivers. If you don't want your QB getting hit, keep an extra blocker in.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I understand why it was flagged, but I don't think that it should be flagged.

Bingo.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is something that doesn't get said enough. At some point, the offensive teams need to be partly responsible for their players. This goes beyond receivers. If you don't want your QB getting hit, keep an extra blocker in.

Hi, my name is Jay Cutler and I approve this message.