• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

ESPN: NFL to Announce Suspensions for Hits

I'm with you LL, to a point anyway. On the one hand, I don't want to see guys seriously hurting each other...including concussions. OTOH, I think they're going way overboard with this. I saw those hits and the only one that looked suspension worthy was Merriweather's IMHO. In fact I might even go so far as to say that was a dirty hit, as he clearly seemed to intentionally use his helmet as a weapon. I'd much rather the suspensions be handed out on a case by case basis.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
Agreed Yus. The hit on DeSeanna was rough, but not dirty. Kids are taught from a very young age to separate the player from the ball. That's the intent. It drives me nuts that they keep lumping in Fletcher's hit with Merriweather's and the rest which is preposterous.

The NFL needs to work on developing safer equipment, starting with the helmet. Then they wont have to worry about trying to change the players' mindset that they have had since grade school.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
I don't have an issue with the idea in principle. I honestly believe that there is something of an issue with it as athletes today are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before and the hits are more dangerous than ever.

However, Millen has the right of it though. The rule needs a strong, easily understandable definition. Without it, we have yet another rule that is open to interpretation in a game that really has too many of those already. What one officiating crew lets go, the next calls a penalty. If there is a threat to the NFL today, this is it. I don't want to see it become FIFA where officiating is a joke and rules like this only make that possibility more likely.
 
Abolish helmets. With the helmets the players have today they launch themselves at each other thinking they will be protected. The hard helmet itself becomes a weapon.

Take away helmets and I guarantee players will stop lauching themselves like that.
 
Goaldeje said:
The NFL needs to work on developing safer equipment, starting with the helmet. Then they wont have to worry about trying to change the players' mindset that they have had since grade school.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
Click to expand...
A good idea but unfortunately the physiology of our brain boxes means the best that could be achieved is a limited decrease in the risk of concussion. I've heard the no helmets idea and as crazy as it sounds, that or the old school leather helmets might just have the intended effect, i.e. decreased risky behavior. The $64k question though is whether it would result in fewer head and/or other injuries. My gut says :no:
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
I pretty much agree with Yusuf - I'm not opposed to changes to improve player safety - but this does smack of a knee-jerk politically correct decision. For God's sake - it's not like we haven't known that hits like those we saw Sunday could occur, and in fact occur almost every weekend.

Couple of other points - I keep hearing all of this talk about the hits 'not being necessary if NFL players learned to tackle'. That's a total red herring of an argument. I say so because if stopping forward progress were the only defensive goal - it might hold some water. But players aren't (contrary to conventional wisdom) 'launching themselves' at defenseless players to make the highlight reel. They're doing so because of the critical need to separate players from the ball. We call this phenomenon 'the turnover' - and it's a pretty damn important focus of defensive players everywhere. You can't mitigate that imperative with better tackling.

The 'no helmets' or going back to leather headgear is an interesting idea - but this ain't the 1930's. The players running around the field today are monsters by comparison and the game today is played with a much higher level of abandon than it was back in the day. The emphasis on the passing game puts typically smaller receivers at higher risk of blind collision than existed back then as well. I think going away from max protective headgear would only replace head injuries cause by helmet to helmet hits with ones caused by inadvertent collisions with less-protected heads.
 
One point on eliminating helmets: it sounds good for getting players not to lead with their heads, however it would remove protection from players hitting their heads against the ground. As we've seen, many of the concussions are from the force of players heads hitting the turf. Without any protection, I imagine the number and severity of concussions from players hitting their heads against the ground would increase.
 
A agree that this is basically the systematic pussification of the league the same way the QB contact rules and things like the spearing calls on D linemen for "launching" ala Bruce Smith do. I also agree that no helmets would curtail this immediately. There's a big caveat though...I would bet a year's pay that Mike Utley's injuries pale in comparison to what we'd see with no helmets. We'd see some folks die and as much as I don't want the pussification to happen the way it has in many ways, I also am not interested in seeing anyone die for entertainment purposes. Take away helmets and we'll have not just paralyzed, but dead players.
 
Stink verbalizes everything I have to say about these new fines & suspensions in this video clip, and goes on to show why he's one of the very few I take seriously from ESPN anymore:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5706132

Also, I love his idea of an organized protest - get everyone to come out and play 2-hand touch for a game. That would be hilarious and would probably have an impact.
 
Goaldeje said:
James Harrison mulling retirement from Steelers bc of new fines?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5706748

Have to say I'm on the players side on this one, buuuuuttt, this seems a little drama queen-ish to me.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
Click to expand...

I call :bsflag: on Harrison. But it is becoming apparent the players are upset by this over reaction by the NFL. I liked what the guys over at NFL.com had to say in the link I attached. More so, I like Stinky's rant. Browns' LB, Fujita wonders how this could have been established in the middle of the season and the players were not even able to participate in the decision.

The NFL is my favorite TV/Live game to watch. I love college football too, but not as much. It is unfortunate that there are so many injuries, but it is football. There was an argument that people want to see the "Stars" on the field. They want to protect the players. What they were saying is we don't care about Joe Schmoe, but if Desean Jackson gets hurt, then we have to do something.

I gotta admit, as I was watching the Sunday game between NE and Baltimore, after the Suggs v Brady argument, I wanted to see Suggs knock Brady senseless. I don't want to see some dirty late hit, or even Suggs launching to knock Brady's head off, but I did want to see a hard hit by Suggs to shut pretty boy up!

Who among us was not filled with joy as Dexter Manley knocked Danny White out of the 83 Championship?

Thank you Rodney Harrison! If you had just kept your mouth shut, football would likely remain football!
 
Thanks for the link, of Stink, Mr. Lanky.

He really pimp slapped the NFL. And, deservedly so.
 
Elephant said:
I call :bsflag: on Harrison. But it is becoming apparent the players are upset by this over reaction by the NFL. I liked what the guys over at NFL.com had to say in the link I attached. More so, I like Stinky's rant. Browns' LB, Fujita wonders how this could have been established in the middle of the season and the players were not even able to participate in the decision.

The NFL is my favorite TV/Live game to watch. I love college football too, but not as much. It is unfortunate that there are so many injuries, but it is football. There was an argument that people want to see the "Stars" on the field. They want to protect the players. What they were saying is we don't care about Joe Schmoe, but if Desean Jackson gets hurt, then we have to do something.

I gotta admit, as I was watching the Sunday game between NE and Baltimore, after the Suggs v Brady argument, I wanted to see Suggs knock Brady senseless. I don't want to see some dirty late hit, or even Suggs launching to knock Brady's head off, but I did want to see a hard hit by Suggs to shut pretty boy up!

Who among us was not filled with joy as Dexter Manley knocked Danny White out of the 83 Championship?

Thank you Rodney Harrison! If you had just kept your mouth shut, football would likely remain football!
Click to expand...

on board with ya. gotta wonder if this is gonna have long term impact on fan allegiance to the game. on the other hand...they're probably thinking "we've made huge changes in the rules over the last 10 yrs and fanbase (= profits) has continued to grow. low risk."

my big question: how are fans going to react when one of these penalties impacts the outcome of a crucial game? if it's not an obvious effort to injure...all H is gonna break loose.
 
Only on one side, Al. Fans of the team benefiting from the penalty or ejection will be thrilled.

The NFL is living proof that the laws of physics are alive and well.
 
fansince62 said:
on board with ya. gotta wonder if this is gonna have long term impact on fan allegiance to the game. on the other hand...they're probably thinking "we've made huge changes in the rules over the last 10 yrs and fanbase (= profits) has continued to grow. low risk."

my big question: how are fans going to react when one of these penalties impacts the outcome of a crucial game? if it's not an obvious effort to injure...all H is gonna break loose.
Click to expand...


You mean like when we lost to GB a few years ago b/c of a bull**** motion penalty? Yes, still bitter. Every ****ing time I watch a game and see a motion penalty that isn't called, actually. :twitch:

The therapy is helping though.

Some.

Anyway, I think the changes are the right thing to do. Seems to me that we say we watch for the hits, but more of us are watching for gambling purposes than ever before, and we wanna see offense. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a defensive slugfest as much as the next guy, but I think by and large, the fans want to see scoring.
 
Goaldeje said:
You mean like when we lost to GB a few years ago b/c of a bull**** motion penalty? Yes, still bitter. Every ****ing time I watch a game and see a motion penalty that isn't called, actually. :twitch:
Click to expand...

Thanks for RAISING MY BLOOD PRESSURE THIS MORNING!! :tantrum:
 
Lanky Livingston said:
Thanks for RAISING MY BLOOD PRESSURE THIS MORNING!! :tantrum:
Click to expand...


I'm just glad I'm not the only one. I swear, every game I watch now I see one or two motion penalties that should be called.

Oh yeah though. The one against us? Shouldn't have been called...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top