James Harrison explains his concerns about safety rules

[SteelerEmpire]

Posted by Mike Florio on May 30, 2011, 11:44 AM EDT

AP
As the NFL continues to implement the ultimate safety procedures via a lockout that ensures players won’t be in harm’s way because they aren’t allowed on the field, Steelers linebacker James Harrison has elaborated on his concerns regarding the league’s ongoing tweaking of rules aimed at protecting players.

LINK: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/30/james-harrison-explains-his-concerns-about-safety-rules/

[fansince'76]

Harrison agrees with the need to protect the players, but he says the players understand that there are certain risks inherent to playing football. “[W]hen it comes down to it, it’s an assumption of risk that you take when you play the game,” Harrison told NFL Live. “If it’s not worth it to you, then you get out of it.”:applaudit:

Exactly. And the same sentiment can be applied to all the pansies in the media who squawk every time there's an injury that the pussification of the rules are really meant to placate (example: see the massive media uproar and subsequent witch hunt regarding Harrison's "headhunting" and the midseason "fines fest" it generated after the first Browns game last season). In other words, if the hitting involved in a typical NFL game (played the RIGHT way - blatantly dirty play should be punished) is too violent for you and offends your delicate sensibilities, then go watch golf instead.

[Chidi29]

:applaudit:

Exactly. And the same sentiment can be applied to all the pansies in the media who squawk every time there's an injury that the pussification of the rules are really meant to placate (example: see the massive media uproar and subsequent witch hunt regarding Harrison's "headhunting" and the midseason "fines fest" it generated after the first Browns game last season). In other words, if the hitting involved in a typical NFL game (played the RIGHT way - blatantly dirty play should be punished) is too violent for you and offends your delicate sensibilities, then go watch golf instead.

And if Harrison really doesn't like the rules, then he doesn't have to play. The rules are clearly being stated ahead of time this year. As he said with the assumption of risk in playing, there is a known assumption of risk in breaking the rules if he chooses to do so.

And I still don't think Harrison understands some of these rule changes based on his comments.

[fansince'76]

And if Harrison really doesn't like the rules, then he doesn't have to play. The rules are clearly being stated ahead of time this year. As he said with the assumption of risk in playing, there is a known assumption of risk in breaking the rules if he chooses to do so.

And I still don't think Harrison understands some of these rule changes based on his comments.

I clearly stated that blatantly dirty play should be punished. I'm just getting tired of watching incidental hits being fined one week, and then watch something five times as bad NOT get fined the following week. I happen to agree with Harrison that the officials themselves are clearly confused about what to call and what not to call and when. Do you really think all these rules changes are making the game better, Chidi? If you do, I have to respectfully disagree. If you really want to completely eliminate the possibility of head trauma, then you need to go all the way and outlaw contact, making it literally flag football. And as far as making the game safer is concerned, legislating the game to the point where players have to think two or three times before hitting someone instead of just playing the damn game is actually making the game less safe. The emphasis on newer and farther reaching safety rules has passed the point of diminishing returns, IMO.

[Chidi29]

I clearly stated that blatantly dirty play should be punished. I'm just getting tired of watching incidental hits being fined one week, and then watch something five times as bad NOT get fined the following week. I happen to agree with Harrison that the officials themselves are clearly confused about what to call and what not to call and when. Do you really think all these rules changes are making the game better, Chidi? If you do, I have to respectfully disagree. If you really want to completely eliminate the possibility of head trauma, then you need to go all the way and outlaw contact, making it literally flag football. And as far as making the game safer is concerned, legislating the game to the point where players have to think two or three times before hitting someone instead of just playing the damn game is actually making the game less safe. The emphasis on newer and farther reaching safety rules has passed the point of diminishing returns, IMO.

I've always said that I want the rules to be enforced more consistently. The fact that this is being done over the offseason will help that.


But other than that, Harrison shouldn't be complaining. At least not publicly. If he wants to privately talk about it when he wants to, go for it. But doing so publicly doesn't do him any good. These are the rules and he has to comply with them, not fight with the NFl every step of the way.

Like I've said, some of these new rules actually are helping the defense.

The NFL has not banned all helmet contact. It's still legal if the person is clearly a ballcarrier. And from the NFL's point of view, they're in a tough position. There is a lot of pressure from outside sources, like Congress, to make the game safer.

[fansince'76]

Like I've said, some of these new rules actually are helping the defense.

Gotta disagree. How about the new standards for a "defenseless receiver" that will essentially force a defensive back to hold up and sit and wait until a receiver catches the ball and begins to run with it as opposed to attempting to dislodge the ball as soon as it's caught? I fail to see how that's going to help defenses. In other words, if Polamalu makes a play like the one below next year, he gets tagged for 15? Sorry, but that's BS. It's also no secret that more rule changes than not the NFL has enacted historically have been with the intent to increase scoring. In other words, to help offenses.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiesEs4M6Pc

[Chidi29]

You can still hit a player in the act of him making a catch. Remember that the defenseless receiver rule applies to not hitting someone in the helmet or neck while he can't protect himself. It's the reason why Harrison's hit on MM last year was a penalty but the hit on Cribbs wasn't flagged. Cribbs was a ballcarrier.

If you tackle the way you're taught, stay low and drive through with your hips, you're fine. That hit by Troy appears to still be legal this year. The rule is to discourage launching which has added risks to an already dangerous game.

As I've said a bunch on here, hitting a QB's helmet this year does not automatically mean a personal foul. If it's an accidental grazing, the ref is allowed to let it go. That's good news for a player like James Harrison although he doesn't seem to understand the rule at all.

Just like James said, if you don't like the rules, don't play.

[Craic]

:applaudit:

Exactly. And the same sentiment can be applied to all the pansies in the media who squawk every time there's an injury that the pussification of the rules are really meant to placate (example: see the massive media uproar and subsequent witch hunt regarding Harrison's "headhunting" and the midseason "fines fest" it generated after the first Browns game last season). In other words, if the hitting involved in a typical NFL game (played the RIGHT way - blatantly dirty play should be punished) is too violent for you and offends your delicate sensibilities, then go watch golf instead.

Thing is, I very seldom see any attempt at a good form tackle in today's NFL. It seems almost everyone is more worried about getting on ESPN than on the fundamentals of tackling. The last really good form tackle I remember, James Harrison's hit on Ed Reed about 4 years ago on that Monday night game where we destroyed the Ravens.

I think that's why I have started turning a deaf ear to complaints about the fines. It's very simple. Attempt a form tackle and 99 percent of the time, there will be no fine regardless. I don't know why players can't play for the game, instead of playing for ESPN.

[Nadroj 20]

The only thing with these "rules" are they are not clear cut rules that are easy to enforce and follow. They leave way too much for the refs to interpret when they are out on the field calling the game. Players like Harrison will never be given the benefit of the doubt because of his history.

If it was a rule change like for example....WR are now only required to have one foot in bounds to make a catch..then that is a clear cut rule that everyone can easily enforce and follow and there is no problems.

Rules like these will hurt some teams and possibly help others, because lets face it will depend on the crew calling the game and who is playing.

[stillers4me]

James Harrison is a DPOY. I'm sure he understands the rules better than most of us do.

[Chidi29]

The only thing with these "rules" are they are not clear cut rules that are easy to enforce and follow. They leave way too much for the refs to interpret when they are out on the field calling the game. Players like Harrison will never be given the benefit of the doubt because of his history.

If it was a rule change like for example....WR are now only required to have one foot in bounds to make a catch..then that is a clear cut rule that everyone can easily enforce and follow and there is no problems.

Rules like these will hurt some teams and possibly help others, because lets face it will depend on the crew calling the game and who is playing.

The rules will probably never be 100% clear cut because it is a lot more objective than whether or not a player had one foot inbounds. You could show someone a hit on a player; one would call him defenseless, one would say he was able to protect himself.

But it doesn't mean you get rid of the rule entirely. This is a benefit of the rules being updated in the offseason. There will be time for players to talk to the refs, to talk to the league, and see in their mind, what is malicious and what is illegal.

These rules are being put into place to stop idiots like Brandon Merriweather who try to seriously injure other players. The league is trying to enact strict rules to stop this kind of conduct. Is it because of a true Mother Theresa kind of caring about the players? Probably not. They do want to keep players away from serious harm, but it's a liability and cover your own butt decision. It always has been. Player safety has always been increased and it always will be. That's the way it goes.

You knw what else will hurt Harrison in the benefit of the doubt? Calling the league "idiots". Harrison, like Mendenhall, should just shut up.

[SteelerEmpire]

Thanks J..."Finally" someone opens a perspective on the subject that makes sense !

[Nadroj 20]

The rules will probably never be 100% clear cut because it is a lot more objective than whether or not a player had one foot inbounds. You could show someone a hit on a player; one would call him defenseless, one would say he was able to protect himself.

But it doesn't mean you get rid of the rule entirely. This is a benefit of the rules being updated in the offseason. There will be time for players to talk to the refs, to talk to the league, and see in their mind, what is malicious and what is illegal.

These rules are being put into place to stop idiots like Brandon Merriweather who try to seriously injure other players. The league is trying to enact strict rules to stop this kind of conduct. Is it because of a true Mother Theresa kind of caring about the players? Probably not. They do want to keep players away from serious harm, but it's a liability and cover your own butt decision. It always has been. Player safety has always been increased and it always will be. That's the way it goes.

You knw what else will hurt Harrison in the benefit of the doubt? Calling the league "idiots". Harrison, like Mendenhall, should just shut up.


I did make the comment in the thread were Harrison said that the league was idiots, that he probably shouldn't be making that kind of comment so I 100% agree about that. When you have a target on your back, don't make it bigger.

I just hate seeing the inconsistency and more and more rules will just make it worse and worse IMO. I do like that this stuff is going on in the offseason...maybe that will help? I just feel like it won't and then teams are going to be hit with stupid punishments and it may have all been a matter of being unlucky.

[X-Terminator]

Thing is, I very seldom see any attempt at a good form tackle in today's NFL. It seems almost everyone is more worried about getting on ESPN than on the fundamentals of tackling. The last really good form tackle I remember, James Harrison's hit on Ed Reed about 4 years ago on that Monday night game where we destroyed the Ravens.

I think that's why I have started turning a deaf ear to complaints about the fines. It's very simple. Attempt a form tackle and 99 percent of the time, there will be no fine regardless. I don't know why players can't play for the game, instead of playing for ESPN.

Problem is, if you attempt a "form tackle," you can also be flagged if the referee thinks you're "driving the player into the ground." Or don't you remember Woodley getting flagged for that against the Raiders last year?

Let's face it, the league is being pussified, and if you're happy with that, well then so be it. The league wants video game scores every week, and they'll do whatever it takes.

[Chidi29]

I did make the comment in the thread were Harrison said that the league was idiots, that he probably shouldn't be making that kind of comment so I 100% agree about that. When you have a target on your back, don't make it bigger.

I just hate seeing the inconsistency and more and more rules will just make it worse and worse IMO. I do like that this stuff is going on in the offseason...maybe that will help? I just feel like it won't and then teams are going to be hit with stupid punishments and it may have all been a matter of being unlucky.

Actually, having less rules can be just as bad. Creates a lot more grey area and makes it more subjective since there isn't as much in the rulebooks to follow.

[Nadroj 20]

Actually, having less rules can be just as bad. Creates a lot more grey area and makes it more subjective since there isn't as much in the rulebooks to follow.

Well in that case just leave the rules alone like I wish they would have in the first place.

[Chidi29]

I did make the comment in the thread were Harrison said that the league was idiots, that he probably shouldn't be making that kind of comment so I 100% agree about that. When you have a target on your back, don't make it bigger.

I just hate seeing the inconsistency and more and more rules will just make it worse and worse IMO. I do like that this stuff is going on in the offseason...maybe that will help? I just feel like it won't and then teams are going to be hit with stupid punishments and it may have all been a matter of being unlucky.

And you're right about the idiots part.

Let's say someone on this forum came on and disagreed with a topic. They came in, called the opposers "idiots" and said they had no respect for the other side. That person would be laughed out of here and not taken seriously.

It's tough to take Harrison seriously when he himself is acting like an idiot.

[Chidi29]

Well in that case just leave the rules alone like I wish they would have in the first place.

Not a practical option. Player safety is always going to increase especially as we learn more and more about concussions.

The NFL is really in a lose-lose situation.

Don't add rules? Congress, the NFLPA, and the fans hate you for not trying to stop the head trauma that is occuring in sports, possibly creating a direct link to players deaths.

Add rules? The fans and players hate you for "wussifying" the game. And the fans make Hitler references.

[Nadroj 20]

And you're right about the idiots part.

Let's say someone on this forum came on and disagreed with a topic. They came in, called the opposers "idiots" and said they had no respect for the other side. That person would be laughed out of here and not taken seriously.

It's tough to take Harrison seriously when he himself is acting like an idiot.

True that. I do wish he would just be quiet.

It is one thing to voice your opinion and another to call someone an idiot who is already watching every move you make on the field. Please do not make it worse!

[Nadroj 20]

Not a practical option. Player safety is always going to increase especially as we learn more and more about concussions.

The NFL is really in a lose-lose situation.

Don't add rules? Congress, the NFLPA, and the fans hate you for not trying to stop the head trauma that is occuring in sports, possibly creating a direct link to players deaths.

Add rules? The fans and players hate you for "wussifying" the game. And the fans make Hitler references.


I know if I was on the field I would be thinking about these rules basically all the time. Hoping that I did not just possibly get my team in trouble because of an iffy hit. They are all humans they have to be thinking about the possible consequences of an illegal hit don't they?

[Chidi29]

And when I hear that, I just want to tune him out.

Especially when he clearly shows a lack of understanding in the new rules.

[Chidi29]

I know if I was on the field I would be thinking about these rules basically all the time. Hoping that I did not just possibly get my team in trouble because of an iffy hit. They are all humans they have to be thinking about the possible consequences of an illegal hit don't they?

And what does the NFL do when someone asks, "Why didn't you do anything to stop the deaths of Chris Henry or Dave Duerson? Why didn't player safety come first?"

[Chidi29]

And again, a lot of these rules are supposed to eliminate malicious hits. Any player doing that is doing it intentionally. so yes, the players should be thinking about avoiding that during the course of a game.

[X-Terminator]

And again, a lot of these rules are supposed to eliminate malicious hits. Any player doing that is doing it intentionally. so yes, the players should be thinking about avoiding that during the course of a game.

Really? I'll remember you said this the first time a Steeler gets fined for a hard, clean hit that happens to injure a player. Or the first time a Steeler gets fined for a "headshot" when it would have been a clean hit had the receiver or back NOT put himself in a vulnerable position, such as ducking.

The bottom line is there are way too many gray areas where this is concerned. It is NOT cut and dried, and defensive players ARE going to be affected negatively by these rule changes. Der Kommissar wants more offense, and whatever he has to do to cripple defenses to make it happen, he'll do it. He's shown repeatedly that he does not give a damn about player safety given his incessant push for an 18-game season.

[Nadroj 20]

This may seem redundant but I would say they chose to play a very physical sport and are responsible for that choice. I am not opposed to player safety whatsoever. It is something that is very important.

I hate the inconsistency of how the safety issues and calls on the field are. Like I said earlier maybe it will be better but I would hate to think this year is going to be the example year and teams will get hit hard with fines.

Also if you noticed I'm focusing more on the possible team punishments. I'm already used to players being fined and stuff because of last year, that'll happen right or wrong, but how much hell will be raised when the first team gets fined? It'll be a mess and that is what the already "hated" NFL doesn't need.

So I guess I have more of a problem with the possible punishments and not the actual rules themselves...(which im still not thrilled with)

[Chidi29]

Really? I'll remember you said this the first time a Steeler gets fined for a hard, clean hit that happens to injure a player. Or the first time a Steeler gets fined for a "headshot" when it would have been a clean hit had the receiver or back NOT put himself in a vulnerable position, such as ducking.

The bottom line is there are way too many gray areas where this is concerned. It is NOT cut and dried, and defensive players ARE going to be affected negatively by these rule changes. Der Kommissar wants more offense, and whatever he has to do to cripple defenses to make it happen, he'll do it. He's shown repeatedly that he does not give a damn about player safety given his incessant push for an 18-game season.

I realize that no matter what rules you put in, players will get hurt. It's football, after all. But the malicious hits add an extra layer of danger. Hits like this one that should, and were, punished severely.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2iGzAJIHX8&feature=related

That is the main reason for these rules if you ask me. To eliminate this as best as possible. Because it should be outlawed and those who break that rule should face harsh consquences.

It will never be cut and dried, there's no way to do that, but the fact the rules are being laid out in the offseason will give players more time to understand the rules.

Goodell pushing for an eighteen game season? Please. He's doing no such thing. Does he want one? Yes. But he's willing to do without it. He's shown that repeatedly.

[Chidi29]

This may seem redundant but I would say they chose to play a very physical sport and are responsible for that choice. I am not opposed to player safety whatsoever. It is something that is very important.

I hate the inconsistency of how the safety issues and calls on the field are. Like I said earlier maybe it will be better but I would hate to think this year is going to be the example year and teams will get hit hard with fines.

Also if you noticed I'm focusing more on the possible team punishments. I'm already used to players being fined and stuff because of last year, that'll happen right or wrong, but how much hell will be raised when the first team gets fined? It'll be a mess and that is what the already "hated" NFL doesn't need.

So I guess I have more of a problem with the possible punishments and not the actual rules themselves...(which im still not thrilled with)

I'm not entirely thrilled with the team punishment either but I doubt we see it used often, if at all. The NFL made the change to be able to suspend a player for malicious hit last season and how often did we see that?

[Nadroj 20]

I'm not entirely thrilled with the team punishment either but I doubt we see it used often, if at all. The NFL made the change to be able to suspend a player for malicious hit last season and how often did we see that?

True. But suspensions aren't beneficial to the league...money is..they can't suspend a team but its easy to lay down a fine, I'm hoping you are right but scared that it isnt the case.

And we saw a LOT of fines last season. Some in cases where a flag was not even thrown (if I remember correctly)

[Chidi29]

True. But suspensions aren't beneficial to the league...money is

And we saw a LOT of fines last season. Some in cases where a flag was not even thrown (if I remember correctly)

The owners and players are fighting over ten billion dollars.

Do you think a $10,000 fine is really going to be the motive?

Besides, the money doesn't go to the league. It goes to charity.

"Player fine money is used to support retired player programs, as well as other charitable causes as agreed upon between the NFL and NFL Players Association," said David Krichavsky, the NFL's director of community affairs. "Every letter notifying the player of a fine indicates where the fine money goes. I have gotten feedback from players who don't like writing the check to the NFL, but they are pleased to know it does not go back into our coffers but to charitable organizations."

http://examiner.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16188:where-does-the-fine-money-go&catid=61:ap-sports&Itemid=220

[Nadroj 20]

The owners and players are fighting over ten billion dollars.

Do you think a $10,000 fine is really going to be the motive?

Besides, the money doesn't go to the league. It goes to charity.

"Player fine money is used to support retired player programs, as well as other charitable causes as agreed upon between the NFL and NFL Players Association," said David Krichavsky, the NFL's director of community affairs. "Every letter notifying the player of a fine indicates where the fine money goes. I have gotten feedback from players who don't like writing the check to the NFL, but they are pleased to know it does not go back into our coffers but to charitable organizations."

http://examiner.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16188:where-does-the-fine-money-go&catid=61:ap-sports&Itemid=220

Wow I learned something new today.

I get what your saying about that amount of money being insignifigant, it is. So you got me there.

I just hope you are correct and it is something we won't have to deal with. I think it will cause more problems then it will help matters. Hope I am wrong

[Chidi29]

I really don't think it'll be an issue. I admit I was frustrated at times last year, mostly with the inconsistent rulings, but we were still a top defense and made it to the Super Bowl. If the rules were really hurting defenses, we wouldn't have gone that far.

Plus, one of the rule changes this year actually helps the defense. Don't forget that.

[tube517]

Goodell pushing for an eighteen game season? Please. He's doing no such thing. Does he want one? Yes. But he's willing to do without it. He's shown that repeatedly.

I think it is his misrepresentation that the fans want it is what pisses me off. Pushing for more games and more money? I expect that from this doofus. Saying that the fans want it? :rofl2:

[X-Terminator]

I realize that no matter what rules you put in, players will get hurt. It's football, after all. But the malicious hits add an extra layer of danger. Hits like this one that should, and were, punished severely.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2iGzAJIHX8&feature=related

That is the main reason for these rules if you ask me. To eliminate this as best as possible. Because it should be outlawed and those who break that rule should face harsh consquences.

It will never be cut and dried, there's no way to do that, but the fact the rules are being laid out in the offseason will give players more time to understand the rules.

Goodell pushing for an eighteen game season? Please. He's doing no such thing. Does he want one? Yes. But he's willing to do without it. He's shown that repeatedly.

I have no problem punishing hits like that. Blatant fouls should always be punished severely. What I DON'T want to see are more flags thrown and more fines for the hits I specified above. Basically, being punished for playing tough, hard, physical football. I hate to bring the NHL into this, but they are doing the same thing with their very selective and inconsistent enforcement of existing rules and creating confusion on what is or is not a legal hit. The result? Players being ejected and/or fined for otherwise clean hits that cause injury, or players being injured from hits when they clearly put themselves in a vulnerable position. The NFL is headed down this same slippery slope, and pretty soon you're going to have an unwatchable product and fans will tune out in droves. I highly doubt that's what the league wants when they've already pissed off the fans with the lockout.

And if you really think that Goodell isn't incessantly pushing for an 18-game season, then you're either naive or you haven't been paying attention. He's been pushing hard for it for over a year now, and he hasn't shown any signs of giving up the fight despite opposition from damn near everyone. All he wants is the money, and everyone else be damned.

[X-Terminator]

I really don't think it'll be an issue. I admit I was frustrated at times last year, mostly with the inconsistent rulings, but we were still a top defense and made it to the Super Bowl. If the rules were really hurting defenses, we wouldn't have gone that far.

Plus, one of the rule changes this year actually helps the defense. Don't forget that.

Yeah, it only took them how many years to realize that an inadvertent tap on a QB's helmet shouldn't be a penalty? Sorry, but I ain't impressed. All they did was eliminate something that should have never been enforced in the first place.

[Chidi29]

I think it is his misrepresentation that the fans want it is what pisses me off. Pushing for more games and more money? I expect that from this doofus. Saying that the fans want it? :rofl2:

Maybe the fans do want it. I'm sure some do...maybe he's mostly referring to the season ticket holders.

Personally, I don't mind it.

[Chidi29]

I have no problem punishing hits like that. Blatant fouls should always be punished severely. What I DON'T want to see are more flags thrown and more fines for the hits I specified above. Basically, being punished for playing tough, hard, physical football. I hate to bring the NHL into this, but they are doing the same thing with their very selective and inconsistent enforcement of existing rules and creating confusion on what is or is not a legal hit. The result? Players being ejected and/or fined for otherwise clean hits that cause injury, or players being injured from hits when they clearly put themselves in a vulnerable position. The NFL is headed down this same slippery slope, and pretty soon you're going to have an unwatchable product and fans will tune out in droves. I highly doubt that's what the league wants when they've already pissed off the fans with the lockout.

And if you really think that Goodell isn't incessantly pushing for an 18-game season, then you're either naive or you haven't been paying attention. He's been pushing hard for it for over a year now, and he hasn't shown any signs of giving up the fight despite opposition from damn near everyone. All he wants is the money, and everyone else be damned.

I don't want that either. But I don't think that is the intention of these rules. None of the new rules I've seen discourage hits like that. Their goal is to take out the overly violent hits in an already violent, dangerous sport.

I think you're not very informed. Three things.

The league could have implemented an eighteen game schedule without the unions' consent under the rules of the old CBA.

DeMaurice Smith said right before the lockout that the league had yet to present a proposal with an eighteen game schedule. Apparently wasn't too big of a focal point for the league.

The league said they would compromise. Play sixteen games for the next season or two and then revisist the issue. They also would not go to eighteen games unless the union signed off on the idea.

Oh yeah, the NFL is very selfish.

[Chidi29]

Yeah, it only took them how many years to realize that an inadvertent tap on a QB's helmet shouldn't be a penalty? Sorry, but I ain't impressed. All they did was eliminate something that should have never been enforced in the first place.

I agree with you there. But at least they realized it was an issue and corrected the problem.

[Aussie_steeler]

And what does the NFL do when someone asks, "Why didn't you do anything to stop the deaths of Chris Henry or Dave Duerson? Why didn't player safety come first?"

I am intrigued Chidi as to why you would use Chris Henry as an example??

He died as the result of a family dispute and a car accident where he sustained grave injuries IMO???

His family donated his organs for research and six months later they identified that he had chronic encephalopathy disease due to the cumulative effect of hits sustained during his football career and life.

He did not die as the result of his C.E.D. by my reckoning thus I cannot see how the NFL is responsible for his death.

Is your take different???

[Chidi29]

I am intrigued Chidi as to why you would use Chris Henry as an example??

He died as the result of a family dispute and a car accident where he sustained grave injuries IMO???

His family donated his organs for research and six months later they identified that he had chronic encephalopathy disease due to the cumulative effect of hits sustained during his football career and life.

He did not die as the result of his C.E.D. by my reckoning thus I cannot see how the NFL is responsible for his death.

Is your take different???

Based on my understanding, the C.E.D. contributed to his poor decision-making that led to his death. Maybe I'm misinformed on that.

Either way, the more we find out about this degenerative brain condiitons, the more pressure and blame the NFL will get for not doing enough to prevent it.

[X-Terminator]

I don't want that either. But I don't think that is the intention of these rules. None of the new rules I've seen discourage hits like that. Their goal is to take out the overly violent hits in an already violent, dangerous sport.

I think you're not very informed. Three things.

The league could have implemented an eighteen game schedule without the unions' consent under the rules of the old CBA.

DeMaurice Smith said right before the lockout that the league had yet to present a proposal with an eighteen game schedule. Apparently wasn't too big of a focal point for the league.

The league said they would compromise. Play sixteen games for the next season or two and then revisist the issue. They also would not go to eighteen games unless the union signed off on the idea.

Oh yeah, the NFL is very selfish.

I don't think I'm misinformed at all, and think that you are just buying into whatever Kommissar Goodell feeds you. First of all, the league did not and could not implement an 18-game schedule without consent because they knew if they did, the NFLPA would have taken them to court since they were the ones who opted out of the CBA. Besides, there wasn't any talk about a longer regular season until the past year. Why all of a sudden did Goodell begin his push? Take 3 guesses, and the first 2 don't count. Second, they haven't submitted a proposal with an 18-game schedule because they know the players would be steadfastly against it, and as such they are trying to manipulate public opinion in order to put pressure on them to agree to the proposal when they do submit it. That ties in to your third point as well, which is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. If they were truly serious about their compromise, they (meaning Goodell) would not continue to try to sway fan opinion to supporting his cause.

At least you agree the league is very selfish, or at the very least uncaring about anything but the bottom line.

[tube517]

Maybe the fans do want it. I'm sure some do...maybe he's mostly referring to the season ticket holders.

Personally, I don't mind it.

The fans don't want to pay the same price for a preseason game. He's been trying to spin that into an 18 game reg season schedule angle in his conference calls. Don't get the two mixed up. It's part of his agenda.


EDIT: I see X-T already answered this in the preceeding post.

[Chidi29]

I don't think I'm misinformed at all, and think that you are just buying into whatever Kommissar Goodell feeds you. First of all, the league did not and could not implement an 18-game schedule without consent because they knew if they did, the NFLPA would have taken them to court since they were the ones who opted out of the CBA. Besides, there wasn't any talk about a longer regular season until the past year. Why all of a sudden did Goodell begin his push? Take 3 guesses, and the first 2 don't count. Second, they haven't submitted a proposal with an 18-game schedule because they know the players would be steadfastly against it, and as such they are trying to manipulate public opinion in order to put pressure on them to agree to the proposal when they do submit it. That ties in to your third point as well, which is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. If they were truly serious about their compromise, they (meaning Goodell) would not continue to try to sway fan opinion to supporting his cause.

At least you agree the league is very selfish, or at the very least uncaring about anything but the bottom line.

No, the league could have gone eighteen games last season while still under the old CBA.

Goodell pointed out that the league already has the right to impose an 18-game schedule -- and keep four preseason games for each team -- under the current labor agreement with the players.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5497448

They could have done it prior to any season before the CBA expired even though they opted out in 2008.

Would the NFLPA been upset about it? You bet. Which shows that the NFL is trying to compromise and not bully their way around to get what they want (all the time, at least). They're doing something they could legally do, something they want to do, but haven't and won't until the other side agrees to it. Otherwise, they won't do it at all.

That is what compromise is all about. I give and you give.

This is something that Goodell wants so yes, he's going to try to convince fans and players that his line of thinking is correct. He's perfectly well within his rights in doing that. You can advocate something that may seem unpopular. As long as he isn't forcing it, and he isn't, then I don't see what the issue is.

[st33lersguy]

Harrison makes valid points. It is good for him to explain his concern for the rules rather than plainly call the rule makers idiots

[LLT]

No, the league could have gone eighteen games last season while still under the old CBA.

Goodell pointed out that the league already has the right to impose an 18-game schedule -- and keep four preseason games for each team -- under the current labor agreement with the players.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5497448

They could have done it prior to any season before the CBA expired even though they opted out in 2008.

Would the NFLPA been upset about it? You bet. Which shows that the NFL is trying to compromise and not bully their way around to get what they want (all the time, at least). They're doing something they could legally do, something they want to do, but haven't and won't until the other side agrees to it. Otherwise, they won't do it at all.

That is what compromise is all about. I give and you give.

This is something that Goodell wants so yes, he's going to try to convince fans and players that his line of thinking is correct. He's perfectly well within his rights in doing that. You can advocate something that may seem unpopular. As long as he isn't forcing it, and he isn't, then I don't see what the issue is.

The whole 18 game fiasco was a political misfire on the part of Roger Goodell. He saw dollar signs in an extra two games so he laid the groundwork by "making the game safer". He thought that he could outsmart the average fan, but the odor of hypocrisy has permeated the court of public opinion.

This is a man without ethics. ANYONE who uses the tragedy of the tornadoes in Alabama to quell the expected boos and cat calls on day one of the draft....then use American soldiers on day two of the draft for the same selfish reasons...is a man without the intestinal fortitude and morality to head this league.

I have ZERO respect for this politician and puppet.

[Chidi29]

The whole 18 game fiasco was a political misfire on the part of Roger Goodell. He saw dollar signs in an extra two games so he laid the groundwork by "making the game safer". He thought that he could outsmart the average fan, but the odor of hypocrisy has permeated the court of public opinion.

This is a man without ethics. ANYONE who uses the tragedy of the tornadoes in Alabama to quell the expected boos and cat calls on day one of the draft....then use American soldiers on day two of the draft for the same selfish reasons...is a man without the intestinal fortitude and morality to head this league.

I have ZERO respect for this politician and puppet.

I don't think player safety is directly related to his wanting for an eighteen game season. Player safety has always been a huge issue and the league has continued to try and make it safer and safer.

I don't have to respect him to agree with this particular point.

[LLT]

I don't think player safety is directly related to his wanting for an eighteen game season. Player safety has always been a huge issue and the league has continued to try and make it safer and safer.

I don't have to respect him to agree with this particular point.

On that point we disagree. I have no doubt that Goodell could foresee that the biggest obstacle he would face in adding two games to the season would be player safety. His attempt to change the basic foundation of the game was in the name of revenue and not for player safety.

All this has blown up in his face and he now is using the tried and true Nazi practice of repeating a lie long enough for people to believe it.

"The FANS want 18 games.....The FANS want 18 games....The FANS want 18 games...."

[Nadroj 20]

No, the league could have gone eighteen games last season while still under the old CBA.

Goodell pointed out that the league already has the right to impose an 18-game schedule -- and keep four preseason games for each team -- under the current labor agreement with the players.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5497448

They could have done it prior to any season before the CBA expired even though they opted out in 2008.

Would the NFLPA been upset about it? You bet. Which shows that the NFL is trying to compromise and not bully their way around to get what they want (all the time, at least). They're doing something they could legally do, something they want to do, but haven't and won't until the other side agrees to it. Otherwise, they won't do it at all.

That is what compromise is all about. I give and you give.

This is something that Goodell wants so yes, he's going to try to convince fans and players that his line of thinking is correct. He's perfectly well within his rights in doing that. You can advocate something that may seem unpopular. As long as he isn't forcing it, and he isn't, then I don't see what the issue is.

Good points, that is interesting. I did not know that Goodell could have done it whenever he wanted and if that is the case I respect the fact he chose not to, despite clearly being in favor of an 18 game schedule.

My problem is what he is doing now by trying to say the fans want the 18 game schedule. He doesnt know that, there is no way he truly can. Also if he wants to do this it is contradicting all of his safety concerns because adding two more games will do more harm then good as far as the players bodies are concerned.

So I disagree with the 18 game schedule and for all his reasoning behind wanting it, but if he was able to implement it ealier and he did not, is true...I'm glad he has decided to not do so.

[Chidi29]

On that point we disagree. I have no doubt that Goodell could foresee that the biggest obstacle he would face in adding two games to the season would be player safety. His attempt to change the basic foundation of the game was in the name of revenue and not for player safety.

All this has blown up in his face and he now is using the tried and true Nazi practice of repeating a lie long enough for people to believe it.

"The FANS want 18 games.....The FANS want 18 games....The FANS want 18 games...."

Those are things I think any commisioner have done.

Push for more games
Increase player safety in terms of rules and equipment

It's not like we've always been at sixteen. We used to play ten regular season games. There used to be six, maybe even eight I'm not sure, preseason games.

Any commish would have done this. Not just the ones you guys think is the next Hitler, a lovely comparison.

[Chidi29]

Good points, that is interesting. I did not know that Goodell could have done it whenever he wanted and if that is the case I respect the fact he chose not to, despite clearly being in favor of an 18 game schedule.

My problem is what he is doing now by trying to say the fans want the 18 game schedule. He doesnt know that, there is no way he truly can. Also if he wants to do this it is contradicting all of his safety concerns because adding two more games will do more harm then good as far as the players bodies are concerned.

So I disagree with the 18 game schedule and for all his reasoning behind wanting it, but if he was able to implement it ealier and he did not, is true...I'm glad he has decided to not do so.

The length of the season doesn't really conflict with the rules that Goodell is implementing. The rules in place are to eliminate violent hits. The length of season doesn't matter, sixteen, eighteen games. It's about discouraging a particular behavior, dirty hits. You can get rid of that no matter how many games the season is.

[Nadroj 20]

The length of the season doesn't really conflict with the rules that Goodell is implementing. The rules in place are to eliminate violent hits. The length of season doesn't matter, sixteen, eighteen games. It's about discouraging a particular behavior, dirty hits. You can get rid of that no matter how many games the season is.

Yes but the reason for getting rid of dirty hits is so people do not get hurt. That is the only reason they are trying to eliminate them. If it was not an issue of player safety then it would not matter.

Yet a longer season gives more opportunity for those dirty hits to happen. It just doesn't make sense to me.

The rules I'll live with, no matter how much I want to complain, I can deal with them. But it will be harder to deal with them if on top of that, 2 more games are added.

[Chidi29]

Yes but the reason for getting rid of dirty hits is so people do not get hurt. That is the only reason they are trying to eliminate them. If it was not an issue of player safety then it would not matter.

Yet a longer season gives more opportunity for those dirty hits to happen. It just doesn't make sense to me.

The rules I'll live with, no matter how much I want to complain, I can deal with them. But it will be harder to deal with them if on top of that, 2 more games are added.

Again though, we've gone from more and more regular season games and the sport hasn't fallen apart like some are making it out to be if we go to eighteen.

[Nadroj 20]

I like 16 games and it has to stop somewhere. If we keep doing it then in 50 years we will be playing a 28 game schedule..lol

I understand it has happened obviously, but just because it has happened before isnt the best excuse to keep doing it. Like I said, I feel there has to be a stopping point... so where is it? To me 16 is it.

[Chidi29]

I like 16 games and it has to stop somewhere. If we keep doing it then in 50 years we will be playing a 28 game schedule..lol

I understand it has happened obviously, but just because it has happened before isnt the best excuse to keep doing it. Like I said, I feel there has to be a stopping point... so where is it? To me 16 is it.

It would seem like eighteen is the stopping point since the schedule has always been apart of a twenty game season including preseason and regular season games.

[Chidi29]

I want to make one thing clear.

I don't feel strongly one way or another about an eighteen game season. Won't be mad if there is or is not one.

I do realize that this is inevitable and will happen. I'm just glad the NFL isn't bullying its way to get to that point.

[Nadroj 20]

taking away preseason games is a negative too...less in game situations to see the young guys in action.

so technically its still "20" games instead of 4, 16 it'll be 2, 18. am i correct?

Cause then the preseason games being taking away becomes an issue as well.


I do understand like with any situation that not everyone will be satisfied, but I do hope the majority is satisfied.

[Craic]

Problem is, if you attempt a "form tackle," you can also be flagged if the referee thinks you're "driving the player into the ground." Or don't you remember Woodley getting flagged for that against the Raiders last year?

Let's face it, the league is being pussified, and if you're happy with that, well then so be it. The league wants video game scores every week, and they'll do whatever it takes.
That penalty is also easy to avoid. Either you use the other players body to break your fall, which is driving him to the ground, or you try to break your own fall, which is not driving him to the ground. Granted, there is some interpretation there as well. That is why I said 99% of the time.

And what I am not happy with, are forty and fifty year old men killing themselves, killing others, dying of brain diseases, etc. from a child's game. I don't buy the "It's their choice" argument because choice vs. consequence has LONG been decided. Consequence outweighs choice in this society. When it is deemed harmful, it is stopped. I don't even have the choice to ride a bicycle without a helmet. So the issue is not them making the choice to play.

I'm sorry. I just don't think that "pussifying the league" is a good argument considering we've had to watch Justin Strzelczyk, Mike Webster, Terry Long, Andre Waters, Chris Henry, Dave Duerson, all suffer with it and either directly cause, or be a direct contributor to their deaths. That list, by the way, is just the tip of the iceberg.

My entertainment is not as important as someone else's life. I am happy with THAT stance. If you're comfortable with the thought that some of our players are literally killing themselves for our entertainment, then fine. But personally, like I said before, I think their life is more valuable then my entertainment. Hits to the head are dangerous. Very dangerous.

Something needs to be done. Personally, I agree with some of the players that say the league is being complete hypocritical about the issue. But that does not negate the fact that it needs to be dealt with.

BTW, I think you know me well enough to know I like a good hard hit as well as the next guy. Heck, I have laid people out, and been laid out as a teenager playing hockey. I know the exhilaration a hard hit causes, though not at all on this level. I would imagine that you've probably played contact sports and do as well. But where is the line? When does it become wrong to cheer for things that are causing death? And there is NO doubt that aggregate hits are causing it. Is it ok when the death comes in 30 years, 20 years, 10 years, 5 years, 1 years, 6 months? 1 month? a week? At some point. There is no difference between 30 years, and 1 week. They both have the same result. It needs to be addressed. Now. (IMO-and I am married, which means my opinion is usually wrong 90% of the time anyway).

(X-Term, Just read back over this... and can't find a way to say it with the force I want, but not in the tone that seems to come out. I don't mean any offense if it causes any... just can't find a way to say it differently tonight).

[fansince'76]

And what I am not happy with, are forty and fifty year old men killing themselves, killing others, dying of brain diseases, etc. from a child's game. I don't buy the "It's their choice" argument because choice vs. consequence has LONG been decided. Consequence outweighs choice in this society. When it is deemed harmful, it is stopped. I don't even have the choice to ride a bicycle without a helmet. So the issue is not them making the choice to play.

I'm sorry. I just don't think that "pussifying the league" is a good argument considering we've had to watch Justin Strzelczyk, Mike Webster, Terry Long, Andre Waters, Chris Henry, Dave Duerson, all suffer with it and either directly cause, or be a direct contributor to their deaths. That list, by the way, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Then it seems that there are one of two choices: either go to playing flag football or disband the league. Because those are about the only ways you are going to reduce the chances of head trauma in the NFL to zero.

I think a better option to the endless passage of new safety rules (whose effectiveness at this point is questionable at best (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/28/nfl-injuries-up-2010_n_815592.html)) is to mandate that players wear the "dorky" and demonstrably safer outer-padded helmets (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/101026_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl) like Mark Kelso, Don Beebe and Steve Wallace wore, and say to hell with the players' vanity. If Goodell and company would do that, then IMO, they would finally be showing a genuine interest in increasing player safety for once instead of simply trying to placate the media and I for one would stop complaining about the nonstop rules changes.

[LLT]

That penalty is also easy to avoid. Either you use the other players body to break your fall, which is driving him to the ground, or you try to break your own fall, which is not driving him to the ground. Granted, there is some interpretation there as well. That is why I said 99% of the time.



It is impossible to change momentum. In those cases in which your can square up and have the opportunity for the perfect form tackle, your argument has merit. But in the other 95% of the plays in which you are engaged by a blocker...see the runner out of your peripheral vision...or have to plant and drive in another direction...the opportunity to change momentum doesnt exist. You are going to land where gravity takes you. Those are the bang-bang plays that players are trying to explain to Goodell ...yet he does not have the experience or knowledge to understand the concept.


And what I am not happy with, are forty and fifty year old men killing themselves, killing others, dying of brain diseases, etc. from a child's game. I don't buy the "It's their choice" argument because choice vs. consequence has LONG been decided. Consequence outweighs choice in this society. When it is deemed harmful, it is stopped. I don't even have the choice to ride a bicycle without a helmet. So the issue is not them making the choice to play.

I'm sorry. I just don't think that "pussifying the league" is a good argument considering we've had to watch Justin Strzelczyk, Mike Webster, Terry Long, Andre Waters, Chris Henry, Dave Duerson, all suffer with it and either directly cause, or be a direct contributor to their deaths. That list, by the way, is just the tip of the iceberg.

My entertainment is not as important as someone else's life. I am happy with THAT stance. If you're comfortable with the thought that some of our players are literally killing themselves for our entertainment, then fine. But personally, like I said before, I think their life is more valuable then my entertainment. Hits to the head are dangerous. Very dangerous.

The problem with that...is that the only way to change the rules is to change the fundamental aspect of the game. PERIOD.

People seem to think that there is a happy middle ground in regulating the way the game is played. There isn't. Football, by its very nature, is controlled aggression. To eliminate the violence of the game is to change the game at a fundamental level. You can no more regulate "violence" in football than you can regulate it in boxing.

No one wants to see 50 year old men killing themselves or living with brain damage issues...but the answer to the safety issue has to be in a standardization of equipment....not in a changing of the rules. There are helmets being worn by some athletes that have proven to reduce concussions...but the league does not mandate their use. There are pads that some players wear ...that others dont because they are not mandated by the league.

Using the boxing analogy....Goodell would be telling the boxers to not "punch as hard"..."only hit the opponant on the arm and shoulder area"....but fail to mandate that the boxers wear headgear or mouthpieces. In fact...he would be asking them to have less down time between boxing matches (while failing to mandate proper equipment)...and fine the boxers for punches to the head even though he doesnt mandate the headgear!!!



Something needs to be done. Personally, I agree with some of the players that say the league is being complete hypocritical about the issue. But that does not negate the fact that it needs to be dealt with.

BTW, I think you know me well enough to know I like a good hard hit as well as the next guy. Heck, I have laid people out, and been laid out as a teenager playing hockey. I know the exhilaration a hard hit causes, though not at all on this level. I would imagine that you've probably played contact sports and do as well. But where is the line? When does it become wrong to cheer for things that are causing death? And there is NO doubt that aggregate hits are causing it. Is it ok when the death comes in 30 years, 20 years, 10 years, 5 years, 1 years, 6 months? 1 month? a week? At some point. There is no difference between 30 years, and 1 week. They both have the same result. It needs to be addressed. Now. (IMO-and I am married, which means my opinion is usually wrong 90% of the time anyway).

Something DOES need to be done...and it should be in the on going investement of high tech protective equipment and the standardization of that equipment. Not in the hypocritical changing of the rules while trying to convince the public that THEY want two more games a season.

[X-Terminator]

That penalty is also easy to avoid. Either you use the other players body to break your fall, which is driving him to the ground, or you try to break your own fall, which is not driving him to the ground. Granted, there is some interpretation there as well. That is why I said 99% of the time.

So basically, you're saying that a player has to run at full speed, make a classic form tackle at a high rate of speed, and then somehow set the player/QB down gently while you're still moving at a high rate of speed? How is that even possible? And what, exactly, is the defensive player supposed to do? Slow down and NOT hit him? I can certainly understand the confusion on what the rules actually are if you can make the exact tackle you and the league wants and STILL get flagged for it.


And what I am not happy with, are forty and fifty year old men killing themselves, killing others, dying of brain diseases, etc. from a child's game. I don't buy the "It's their choice" argument because choice vs. consequence has LONG been decided. Consequence outweighs choice in this society. When it is deemed harmful, it is stopped. I don't even have the choice to ride a bicycle without a helmet. So the issue is not them making the choice to play.

I'm sorry. I just don't think that "pussifying the league" is a good argument considering we've had to watch Justin Strzelczyk, Mike Webster, Terry Long, Andre Waters, Chris Henry, Dave Duerson, all suffer with it and either directly cause, or be a direct contributor to their deaths. That list, by the way, is just the tip of the iceberg.

My entertainment is not as important as someone else's life. I am happy with THAT stance. If you're comfortable with the thought that some of our players are literally killing themselves for our entertainment, then fine. But personally, like I said before, I think their life is more valuable then my entertainment. Hits to the head are dangerous. Very dangerous.

Something needs to be done. Personally, I agree with some of the players that say the league is being complete hypocritical about the issue. But that does not negate the fact that it needs to be dealt with.

BTW, I think you know me well enough to know I like a good hard hit as well as the next guy. Heck, I have laid people out, and been laid out as a teenager playing hockey. I know the exhilaration a hard hit causes, though not at all on this level. I would imagine that you've probably played contact sports and do as well. But where is the line? When does it become wrong to cheer for things that are causing death? And there is NO doubt that aggregate hits are causing it. Is it ok when the death comes in 30 years, 20 years, 10 years, 5 years, 1 years, 6 months? 1 month? a week? At some point. There is no difference between 30 years, and 1 week. They both have the same result. It needs to be addressed. Now. (IMO-and I am married, which means my opinion is usually wrong 90% of the time anyway).I have never disagreed with any of that, and don't like to see players dying prematurely any more than you do. But do we have to ruin the spirit and integrity of the game to achieve that end? On top of that, and as FS stated above, there is absolutely no way you are going to completely eliminate head contact unless you ban hitting and turn it into flag football. So what they need to do is severely punish the deliberate head hits, STOP punishing players for playing tough, physical football that may ultimately result in an incidental head hit, and mandate changes to equipment to increase player safety, as LLT mentioned. That way, they do not have to completely pussify the game as they are trying to do right now. The "Great Kazoo" helmets and double-sided mouthpieces would go a LONG way toward reducing concussions.


(X-Term, Just read back over this... and can't find a way to say it with the force I want, but not in the tone that seems to come out. I don't mean any offense if it causes any... just can't find a way to say it differently tonight).No offense taken! :thumbsup:

[SMR]

The whole 18 game fiasco was a political misfire on the part of Roger Goodell. He saw dollar signs in an extra two games so he laid the groundwork by "making the game safer". He thought that he could outsmart the average fan, but the odor of hypocrisy has permeated the court of public opinion.

This is a man without ethics. ANYONE who uses the tragedy of the tornadoes in Alabama to quell the expected boos and cat calls on day one of the draft....then use American soldiers on day two of the draft for the same selfish reasons...is a man without the intestinal fortitude and morality to head this league.

I have ZERO respect for this politician and puppet.

Great post LLT!

:salute:

[tube517]

This is a man without ethics. ANYONE who uses the tragedy of the tornadoes in Alabama to quell the expected boos and cat calls on day one of the draft....then use American soldiers on day two of the draft for the same selfish reasons...is a man without the intestinal fortitude and morality to head this league.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Chidi29]

taking away preseason games is a negative too...less in game situations to see the young guys in action.

so technically its still "20" games instead of 4, 16 it'll be 2, 18. am i correct?

Cause then the preseason games being taking away becomes an issue as well.

I do understand like with any situation that not everyone will be satisfied, but I do hope the majority is satisfied.

Yes, two preseason games would be taken away. Which I'm not thrilled about. I actually enjoy the preseason.

Which is why I'm fairly indifferent to the idea of an eighteen game schedule.

[Chidi29]

As for the helmet comments, I understand your point, but the NFL has put in a lot of money and research into new helmets and how they help reduce concussions. It seems like it's tough for them to get hard evidence which they really need when the league is fighting them enough as it is.

They have been doing a lot research, working with the NFLPA too.

Article that talks a lot about their research.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4792868

The first round of the NFL's helmet testing, done from October to December at Halstead's lab and a lab in Canada, looked at how two helmet models made 10 years ago and present-day models responded to blows at various angles and speeds, up to about 22 mph.

Here's an article showing a joint study by the NFL and NFLPA.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81943916/article/league-players-union-release-details-of-helmet-safety-study

The results of an independent study commissioned by the NFL and the NFL Players Association show modern helmets meet all national safety standards, though it stressed that no helmet can prevent concussions and more studies are necessary.


And as I'm sure you realize, no helmet is completely safe. The National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment has even said that some research can't be taken as completely correct because concussions are such a complex thing.

http://www.nocsae.org/MediaKit/NOCSAE%20Statement%20on%20Va%20Tech%20Rating%20Sys tem%20FINAL%2005%2010%2011.pdf

However, we caution against an over-reliance on any individual data point, rating or measurement which could lead to inaccurate conclusions or even a false sense of security that one helmet brand or model guarantees a measurably higher level of concussion protection than another for a particular athlete.


The last point to be made is that a hard look into concussions is new. We're just now uncovering all this information on just how severe they are. As we learn more and more, the standard for player safety will increase. Maybe including a mandatory helmet one day.

[Craic]

So basically, you're saying that a player has to run at full speed, make a classic form tackle at a high rate of speed, and then somehow set the player/QB down gently while you're still moving at a high rate of speed? How is that even possible? And what, exactly, is the defensive player supposed to do? Slow down and NOT hit him? I can certainly understand the confusion on what the rules actually are if you can make the exact tackle you and the league wants and STILL get flagged for it.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Watch Harrison's hit here (Turn off your sound, stupid song that's NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsxaNLKybyM. Completely legal, beautiful form tackle, no driving the guy to the ground. His arms are wrapped around him all the way down. But notice how the ground takes the impact of Harrison. The issue, IMO, is when you wrap a guy up, then situate your body so that you land directly on top of the guy without ANY attempt to break your fall, or slide to the side. In other words, a player PURPOSEFULLY keeps the player he's tackling in the most dangerous position for injury-an impact of 400 or more pounds plus momentum all driven through the tackled players body. That can be avoided every single play.


I have never disagreed with any of that, and don't like to see players dying prematurely any more than you do. But do we have to ruin the spirit and integrity of the game to achieve that end? On top of that, and as FS stated above, there is absolutely no way you are going to completely eliminate head contact unless you ban hitting and turn it into flag football. So what they need to do is severely punish the deliberate head hits, STOP punishing players for playing tough, physical football that may ultimately result in an incidental head hit, and mandate changes to equipment to increase player safety, as LLT mentioned. That way, they do not have to completely pussify the game as they are trying to do right now. The "Great Kazoo" helmets and double-sided mouthpieces would go a LONG way toward reducing concussions.
I do agree with you that head contact is an unfortunate part of the game. But I also believe that a premium has been placed on ESPN showcase hits, and that is not part of the game, nor the spirit of the game. Those kind of hits have really only come about the last 20 years. Go back and watch the 70's Steelers again, paying attention to tackling. Lambert almost always wrapped when he tackled.

And I think that IS a very big deal. Because when you wrap, your drive through a player, not up into a player like you do when your launch for a big hit.

I also disagree with you on equipment. Let me ask you a question. Are you more comfortable doing 70 miles an hour in a car with metal on all four sides, or on a ATV 4 wheeler with very little protection? The same principle applies here. The helmets and shoulder pads may well have lured the players into a false sense of security. Remove them, or go back to leather helmets. It'll only take a couple shots for EVERYONE to realize that it's quite painful. Hits to the head will decrease dramatically, IMO. Or at least, they might.


No offense taken! :thumbsup:
Good!

[Chidi29]

I have to disagree with you on one point Preacher though I agree with you as a whole.

The solution isn't to get rid of helmets. Getting rid of a safety measure to increase safety just sounds insane.

[Nadroj 20]

Helmets and pads must remain in place for those accidental hits to the head and stuff like that. Removing them isn't a possible solution at all IMO.

[Craic]

I have to disagree with you on one point Preacher though I agree with you as a whole.

The solution isn't to get rid of helmets. Getting rid of a safety measure to increase safety just sounds insane.
Honestly, I thought the exact same thing Chidi.
But then, studies have shown that the bare-knuckle boxing days were safer than the boxing glove days, because the glove gave protection to the hand, enabling the boxer to hit harder without feeling any pain.

When the Munich taxicab servic (http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter07.html)e gave half their taxi fleet anti-lock breaking, the involvement in accidents at a slightly higher rate, cornered sharper, used extremely hard breaking more often to decelarate, and drove faster.

In short, it seems that when better protection is introduced, it is soon negated by the feeling of safety and the increase in the dangerous activity. So the key then, is to remove the factor which has caused the increase-the original safety mechanism, because it is no longer safe. It is now a secondary cause of injury.

[X-Terminator]

That's not what I'm saying at all. Watch Harrison's hit here (Turn off your sound, stupid song that's NSFW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsxaNLKybyM. Completely legal, beautiful form tackle, no driving the guy to the ground. His arms are wrapped around him all the way down. But notice how the ground takes the impact of Harrison. The issue, IMO, is when you wrap a guy up, then situate your body so that you land directly on top of the guy without ANY attempt to break your fall, or slide to the side. In other words, a player PURPOSEFULLY keeps the player he's tackling in the most dangerous position for injury-an impact of 400 or more pounds plus momentum all drive through the tackled players body. That can be avoided every single play.

That's all well and good, but I wish I could find video of Woodley's hit on Campbell last year. He did exactly what you described, but yet, he was still flagged for roughing the passer. It was a total bullshit call for a perfectly clean hit. That is where I think we are headed, and it's going to do nothing but kill the game.


I do agree with you that head contact is an unfortunate part of the game. But I also believe that a premium has been placed on ESPN showcase hits, and that is not part of the game, nor the spirit of the game. Those kind of hits have really only come about the last 20 years. Go back and watch the 70's Steelers again, paying attention to tackling. Lambert almost always wrapped when he tackled.

And I think that IS a very big deal. Because when you wrap, your drive through a player, not up into a player like you do when your launch for a big hit. I remember a couple of guys named Ronnie Lott and Steve Atwater who used to blow guys up all the time. I think that is when you started seeing the trend toward the "ESPN showcase hits." If the league had the rules in place 25 years ago that they do now, Lott and Atwater would be paying fines that would make James Harrison's look like pocket change. And don't kid yourself - when Lambert played, the game was way dirtier than it is today, even with the wrap-up tackles. Spearing players on the ground, body slams, piledrivers, head slaps...you name it, they did it.

At any rate, I said I wanted to see the deliberate head hits legislated out of the game. I completely agree with you there. They are unnecessary and dangerous, and you are correct that it IS a big deal and is not in the true spirit of the game. At the same time, though, I still do NOT want to see the NFL turned into flag football. Let the boys play, and only punish them if they do something blatantly illegal, like Meriweather on Heap.


I also disagree with you on equipment. Let me ask you a question. Are you more comfortable doing 70 miles an hour in a car with metal on all four sides, or on a ATV 4 wheeler with very little protection? The same principle applies here. The helmets and shoulder pads may well have lured the players into a false sense of security. Remove them, or go back to leather helmets. It'll only take a couple shots for EVERYONE to realize that it's quite painful. Hits to the head will decrease dramatically, IMO. Or at least, they might. I won't go that far, but along with the helmets and mouthpieces, they can get rid of the body armor that the players wear and go to softer shoulder pads. The pads they wear today is about as hard as the helmets they wear, and when you get hit with those, it's like being hit with a brick going at 20mph. If you go to softer pads, you can still hit someone hard, but the impact is less on the player being hit.