There are 180 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

James harrison suspended

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Hyperbole much?

Is it? We've seen how protected the QB is in the pocket, now apparently the same rules apply on the run, as well. Harrison lead with his shoulder trying to tackle a RUNNER. In the course of the collision, his helmet pushed up into McCoy's facemask. He didn't lead with the helmet, he didn't launch into him either, and McCoy wasn't defenseless. By that ruling, any QB with some mobility should be able to roll out on a scramble, lower his head like a FB trying to get the tough yards, and draw a 15 yard penalty almost every time.

I've said it many times before: Roger Goodell should not be in that position, and needs to go. The NFL commisioner should be someone that has played the game before. The refs, should also be people that have played before. Everyone talks about how big and fast the newer players are, and how much more dangerous the game is becoming. But nobody sees the flip side of that - asking a 260 pound LB who runs a 4.4 to be able to run full speed, and stop on a dime or have perfect body control. With officials that had game experience, they would understand things like momentum and be able to apply some common sense.
  • BobS
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,282
The reason for the rule changes is because it is now pretty obvious how concussions and other head trauma effect players long after their careers are over. Back in the pre 1980 anything goes era for hitting there wasn't enough data to realize the long term damage guys were doing to each other. I hope all of you guys calling the NFL close to lingerie football care somewhat about player safety.
Originally posted by BobS:
The reason for the rule changes is because it is now pretty obvious how concussions and other head trauma effect players long after their careers are over. Back in the pre 1980 anything goes era for hitting there wasn't enough data to realize the long term damage guys were doing to each other. I hope all of you guys calling the NFL close to lingerie football care somewhat about player safety.

Player safety should always be paramount. We are only now hearing about the many former players who have suffered dementia from repeated head trauma. The smoking gun has been found and cannot be ignored. If the results change the way the game is played to some degree, so be it.
Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by BobS:
The reason for the rule changes is because it is now pretty obvious how concussions and other head trauma effect players long after their careers are over. Back in the pre 1980 anything goes era for hitting there wasn't enough data to realize the long term damage guys were doing to each other. I hope all of you guys calling the NFL close to lingerie football care somewhat about player safety.

Player safety should always be paramount. We are only now hearing about the many former players who have suffered dementia from repeated head trauma. The smoking gun has been found and cannot be ignored. If the results change the way the game is played to some degree, so be it.

I agree to an extent, but most of these new rules totally ignore how the game is played (not to mention physics). Simply put, it isn't always possible to change the position of your body when committing to a tackle. Anyone that's actually played football knows this. Once your body is set in motion, that's it. Also, the position of the ballcarrier isn't taken into account either. A good example of that is if a running back lowers his head in anticipation of being tackled, they are not flagged for initiating contact with the defender's helmet. In fact, I've seen the defender flagged in a lot of those cases (which just doesn't make sense).

Same deal with horse collar tackles. I see this a LOT when defenders are returning interceptions. They get grabbed by the back of their collar, wrestled down, and it's NEVER flagged (assuming it's even supposed to). And on a personal note, I have a hard time believing that all of this is out of genuine concern for players, when the same governing body is all for making them play additional games and increasing the number of short week (Thursday) games. I suspect the real motive is not keeping players healthier long term, but keeping them healthy for right now so the league doesn't lose ratings, revenue, or whatever.

The selective enforcement of the rules seem to support that.

EDIT: Grammar
[ Edited by baltien on Dec 16, 2011 at 2:27 PM ]
  • BobS
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,282
Originally posted by baltien:
I agree to an extent, but most of these new rules totally ignore how the game is played (not to mention physics). Simply put, it isn't always possible to change the position of your body when committing to a tackle. Anyone that's actually played football knows this. Once your body is set in motion, that's it. Also, the position of the ballcarrier isn't taken into account either. A good example of that is if a running back lowers his head in anticipation of being tackled, they are not flagged for initiating contact with the defender's helmet. In fact, I've seen the defender flagged in a lot of those cases (which just doesn't make sense).

Same deal with horse collar tackles. I see this a LOT when defenders are returning interceptions. They get grabbed by the back of their collar, wrestled down, and it's NEVER flagged (assuming it's even supposed to). And on a personal note, I have a hard time believing that all of this is out of genuine concern for players, when the same governing body is all for making them play additional games and increasing the number of short week (Thursday) games. I suspect the real motive is not keeping players healthier long term, but keeping them healthy for right now so the league doesn't lose ratings, revenue, or whatever.

The selective enforcement of the rules seem to support that.

EDIT: Grammar
I agree, many a time the ball carrier lowers his head after the defender has already committed, and all the ref sees is a helmet to helmet hit and assumes the defender caused it. Easy solution to that is to review all personnel foul penalties. It may slow the flow of the game down, but it will eliminate drives being extended when they should not be, especially by punters who flop when someone breathes on them.
Originally posted by baltien:
Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by BobS:
The reason for the rule changes is because it is now pretty obvious how concussions and other head trauma effect players long after their careers are over. Back in the pre 1980 anything goes era for hitting there wasn't enough data to realize the long term damage guys were doing to each other. I hope all of you guys calling the NFL close to lingerie football care somewhat about player safety.

Player safety should always be paramount. We are only now hearing about the many former players who have suffered dementia from repeated head trauma. The smoking gun has been found and cannot be ignored. If the results change the way the game is played to some degree, so be it.

I agree to an extent, but most of these new rules totally ignore how the game is played (not to mention physics). Simply put, it isn't always possible to change the position of your body when committing to a tackle. Anyone that's actually played football knows this. Once your body is set in motion, that's it. Also, the position of the ballcarrier isn't taken into account either. A good example of that is if a running back lowers his head in anticipation of being tackled, they are not flagged for initiating contact with the defender's helmet. In fact, I've seen the defender flagged in a lot of those cases (which just doesn't make sense).

Same deal with horse collar tackles. I see this a LOT when defenders are returning interceptions. They get grabbed by the back of their collar, wrestled down, and it's NEVER flagged (assuming it's even supposed to). And on a personal note, I have a hard time believing that all of this is out of genuine concern for players, when the same governing body is all for making them play additional games and increasing the number of short week (Thursday) games. I suspect the real motive is not keeping players healthier long term, but keeping them healthy for right now so the league doesn't lose ratings, revenue, or whatever.

The selective enforcement of the rules seem to support that.

EDIT: Grammar

There will never be equity in the assessment of penalties, however that should not stop the league from trying to protect players in the most dangerous situations.
The horse collar tackle is a good example. Though in place to prevent injury, it is not the same as head-to-head.

Short-term injury prevention will necessarily prevent long-term health issues. To me, it doesn't matter what the ultimate motive of the league happens to be as long as player safety can be improved.

As you said, there are certain dynamics about the game that necessitate chances of injury. However, when someone like Harrison becomes a repeat offender, it is clear that an action must be taken.
Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by baltien:
Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by BobS:
The reason for the rule changes is because it is now pretty obvious how concussions and other head trauma effect players long after their careers are over. Back in the pre 1980 anything goes era for hitting there wasn't enough data to realize the long term damage guys were doing to each other. I hope all of you guys calling the NFL close to lingerie football care somewhat about player safety.

Player safety should always be paramount. We are only now hearing about the many former players who have suffered dementia from repeated head trauma. The smoking gun has been found and cannot be ignored. If the results change the way the game is played to some degree, so be it.

I agree to an extent, but most of these new rules totally ignore how the game is played (not to mention physics). Simply put, it isn't always possible to change the position of your body when committing to a tackle. Anyone that's actually played football knows this. Once your body is set in motion, that's it. Also, the position of the ballcarrier isn't taken into account either. A good example of that is if a running back lowers his head in anticipation of being tackled, they are not flagged for initiating contact with the defender's helmet. In fact, I've seen the defender flagged in a lot of those cases (which just doesn't make sense).

Same deal with horse collar tackles. I see this a LOT when defenders are returning interceptions. They get grabbed by the back of their collar, wrestled down, and it's NEVER flagged (assuming it's even supposed to). And on a personal note, I have a hard time believing that all of this is out of genuine concern for players, when the same governing body is all for making them play additional games and increasing the number of short week (Thursday) games. I suspect the real motive is not keeping players healthier long term, but keeping them healthy for right now so the league doesn't lose ratings, revenue, or whatever.

The selective enforcement of the rules seem to support that.

EDIT: Grammar

There will never be equity in the assessment of penalties, however that should not stop the league from trying to protect players in the most dangerous situations.
The horse collar tackle is a good example. Though in place to prevent injury, it is not the same as head-to-head.

Short-term injury prevention will necessarily prevent long-term health issues. To me, it doesn't matter what the ultimate motive of the league happens to be as long as player safety can be improved.

As you said, there are certain dynamics about the game that necessitate chances of injury. However, when someone like Harrison becomes a repeat offender, it is clear that an action must be taken.

The league could care less about the players safety. Due to the million dollar contracts, especially to the QB, the NFL made rules to protect the owners' investments. The player's safety is b******t.
Originally posted by Young2Rice:
Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by baltien:
Originally posted by dj43:
Originally posted by BobS:
The reason for the rule changes is because it is now pretty obvious how concussions and other head trauma effect players long after their careers are over. Back in the pre 1980 anything goes era for hitting there wasn't enough data to realize the long term damage guys were doing to each other. I hope all of you guys calling the NFL close to lingerie football care somewhat about player safety.

Player safety should always be paramount. We are only now hearing about the many former players who have suffered dementia from repeated head trauma. The smoking gun has been found and cannot be ignored. If the results change the way the game is played to some degree, so be it.

I agree to an extent, but most of these new rules totally ignore how the game is played (not to mention physics). Simply put, it isn't always possible to change the position of your body when committing to a tackle. Anyone that's actually played football knows this. Once your body is set in motion, that's it. Also, the position of the ballcarrier isn't taken into account either. A good example of that is if a running back lowers his head in anticipation of being tackled, they are not flagged for initiating contact with the defender's helmet. In fact, I've seen the defender flagged in a lot of those cases (which just doesn't make sense).

Same deal with horse collar tackles. I see this a LOT when defenders are returning interceptions. They get grabbed by the back of their collar, wrestled down, and it's NEVER flagged (assuming it's even supposed to). And on a personal note, I have a hard time believing that all of this is out of genuine concern for players, when the same governing body is all for making them play additional games and increasing the number of short week (Thursday) games. I suspect the real motive is not keeping players healthier long term, but keeping them healthy for right now so the league doesn't lose ratings, revenue, or whatever.

The selective enforcement of the rules seem to support that.

EDIT: Grammar

There will never be equity in the assessment of penalties, however that should not stop the league from trying to protect players in the most dangerous situations.
The horse collar tackle is a good example. Though in place to prevent injury, it is not the same as head-to-head.

Short-term injury prevention will necessarily prevent long-term health issues. To me, it doesn't matter what the ultimate motive of the league happens to be as long as player safety can be improved.

As you said, there are certain dynamics about the game that necessitate chances of injury. However, when someone like Harrison becomes a repeat offender, it is clear that an action must be taken.

The league could care less about the players safety. Due to the million dollar contracts, especially to the QB, the NFL made rules to protect the owners' investments. The player's safety is b******t.

I don't care to split hairs over this but sports medicine is something that runs hand in hand with the owners' investment. It doesn't matter WHY players are protected, it only matters that they are.

As an example, in the case of concussions, the helmet manufacturers have been pursuing safer helmets for years. Ironically, some of the best/safest have been rejected by the players. It took Aaron Rodgers two concussions to accept the helmet design he is using now. He "didn't like the feel" of the safer helmet initially. Since his concussions last season, he is now wearing a different one.


Someone may have a picture of it but Steve Wallace had a helmet back in the '80s that looked like a second shell had been placed over the top of his normal helmet. It was ugly but it was an example of trying to make things safer for players.
Speaking of James Harrison, I just found out that in a game vs. Baltimore in 2007, he had 10 tackles (9 solo), 3.5 sacks, 4 forced fumbles, and a pick he returned 20 yards. Greatest individual performance by a defensive player ever???
...