http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/72771/big-tens-carollo-talks-new-targeting-policy
This is getting ridiculous.......it's football not finesse ball........it just leads to defenses not being able to defend and giving all the help to the offenses in football......it is going to be sad when the first player gets ejected due to this new rule and it more than likely will be a key player and will impact the game way more than it should.....I can just see it now bc Dave "blind as a bat" Whitvoet will be the one to make the call and it always seems like Christian Bryant or CJ Barnett have gotten helmet to helmet calls a lot in their years at OSU.....can't wait for 105k strong to "boo" like we have never heard before when this hinders our defense next year....
It will change once it causes Bama to lose a game.
"YOLO" = I'm about to do something extremely ignorant/stupid & I need an excuse to do it.
Thread over.
"Success - it's what you do with what you got" - Woody Hayes
Exactly Thread is over nothing more here to say or read.
Because they wouldn't let me go for 3!
Woody Hayes 1913-1987
Player safety is big, especially for kids. I understand the qualms, but there's no reason to go for a hit to the head. I have no problems with this rule, if you aim high, a personal foul isn't enough when you could seriously injure someone (and it could be easily avoidable). For college kids, I have no problem at all with this rule change.
Carlos Hyde (the hit he put on the return man) and Christian Bryant both would've been ejected this last year due to the rule, and both could be avoided with self control. You can hit someone in the chest and still deliver a big hit.
All these rules will do is lead to more and more lower leg injuries and blown out knees.....bc even the hits directly in the chest look like they are helmet to helmet and are being called as well......it's football.....people who play and or want to play assume the risks......if they need them to sign waivers and what not that preclude from suing ie the nfl then they must do it that way but putting more and more on the officials just leaves way to much judgment in their hands and leads to a lot of bad/missed/inconsistency in the way games and penalties are officiated
You're complaining about inconsistency, not safety. These are not professional entertainers, they are kids.
They are not kids they are young adults. They know exactly what they are getting themselves into including the risks that are involved. Nobody is forcing them to play the game. They are making that choice on their own. It is sad to see players get hurt like this, but they only have themselves to blame.
These "kids" are sent to Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. to fight, and sometimes sacrifice their lives, for our country.
These young men are not kids. They've made a rational, adult decision to play football. Yes, we should ensure that there is a constant effort made to protect their safety, both in the short & long term. But when you're playing football, that can only reasonably go so far. I'm not saying that people should be able to knock each other's blocks off without consequence. I think a 15 yard penalty sends the message that dirty plays are unacceptable. But football's football, injuries are going to happen. How many times per fall Saturday / Sunday do you see terrible 15 yard "unnecessary roughness" flags that would NEVER have been called 10 years ago? The pendulum has swung too far towards the "cautious" side, in my opinion, and it appears to be swinging further still.
Brady Hoke's reaction to the Urban Meyer hire: "Not good."
Hmm maybe if players just tackled properly we'd avoid more head injuries? Saying that "It's footbaw, and it's fizcal", while pounding down Natty Light is just ignorant. It can be physical, but it should also be played properly. You know why Bryant gets flags? Because he doesn't form tackle. He goes out there and goes for all of these big hits where he's throwing his head or shoulder into another guy's head or chest. Look at rugby, you have a bunch of physical freaks, just like you do in football, playing without helmets, and the rate of head injuries is lower. What exactly is wrong about suspending a player for an illegal hit?
Agreed 100%. It's not hard to hit someone in the chest.
I hope its not just that black and white because if it is whoever came up with that rule never played football I mean the game is moving so fast that you can't "form tackle" all the time
When someone shows you who they are believe them! In other words piss a good friend off and see what they really think about you.
What exactly do they do in rugby? And what did they do from the 1910s to the 1970s? (excluding the Steelers/Raiders if we're discussing tackling across all levels of football, as those teams were filled with dirty tacklers).
They smacked their heads against each other. Football has been a head to head sport for as long as its been played. This is such bullshit-I'm really starting to get annoyed. The problem isn't these once or twice a game 'kill shots' people are trying to outlaw. But whatever, lets run with it. Let's say that these hits get outlawed and lets say the even more unlikely scenario of players actually following the rule takes place-so safeties, corners, linebackers, tight ends, and wide outs-and the occasional back out of the backfield are all now safe from the vicious, un protected hits. Good.
Guess who's still at risk? The same guys that are at risk today, were at risk yesterday and will be at risk tomorrow-The guys who still hit their heads sub-concussivley each and every play. Like when all 5 lineman hit 4 D Lineman and a blitzing linebacker-with proper form, mind you. If you were to take a running start and hit and plow into your bedroom wall head first, odds are you'd get pretty jacked up....if you stood at your wall and moderately banged it against a wall for 3 hours on every Sunday for 16 Sunday's for 10 years, guess what happens too?
Or when a running back goes through the hole and lowers his head.
Or when a QB catches an errant head slap from an out of control defender.
Or when a corner makes a tackle and the guy he tackles lands on his head.
None of those hits are going to cause a concussion but all of them combined are going to lead to CTE because here is the ugly secret all these safety proponents are ignoring-Football is dangerous. Its a game played by violent, increasingly faster and bigger men who are asked to hit each other.
William, its over simplification to assume teaching proper rugby tackling form fixes anything. Its a fine anecdote people want to use because it sounds easy-start at the earliest level, teach kids how to lower a shoulder and drive through a target-but as kids turn to teens and teens turn to college kids and college kids get drafted, everyone gets faster and the chance of lining someone up properly and throwing a shoulder into them are exponentially less each level of play you go up. Rugby is not nearly as fast as a football game, its just a false promise of a way to make the game safer. I'm not sure what highlights you watched but in the early days of the NFL, guys weren't down until they were dead and buried. You left the Eagles, Bears, Packers, and Lions off of that list-as well as every other team that played in that era. Guys were penalized for far less-the game was more violent then....
Football is a dangerous game. No rule change can affect that-now please don't insult my intelligence and swing it in the other direction and say it should be made lawless. I'm not saying that either...but as is the norm with these-the over all point of player safety has been missed. Football can not be made safer. Admit its dangerous. Inform the participants of the risks and stop trying to outlaw hits that don't always happen while ignoring the ones that are 1) causing the problems and 2)happen multiple times per play and can not legislated away.
Chris Henry should have changed the way we all look at football. The guy was never diagnosed with a concussion but still was found to have CTE....it isn't these hits. Outlawing them is a fundamental miss.
I'll address one last point..."Look at rugby, you have a bunch of physical freaks, just like you do in football, playing without helmets, and the rate of head injuries is lower."
Find me an international or club rugby team that marches out at10-15 guys who are 6'5 and above and 290 and above. Then find me the same team that has anywhere from 5 to 9 guys who are about 6'3 and weigh in at 255 and can run sub 4.6 40's. Finally on that same roster of athletes, find me 200 pounders who can run sub 4.4's and I'll listen to your rugby comparison. It is an awful comparison. No sport in the world comes close to combining speed and size in its participants like football.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
Good discussion, Brewster.
I'd like to see a rigorous health study doing apples-to-apples comparisons between rugby and (American) football - injury rates, etc. As you suggest, we'd need to compare elite athletes in one sport versus elite athletes in another.
It seems like rugby advocates end up suggesting that, because college kids who play club rugby and then go out after the game for pints of craft brew tend not to have rates of serious injuries, etc., that's supposed to be evidence supporting the idea that rugby is safer than football.
Thank you, Brewster. It seems like they (NFL and NCAA) are saying "if we eliminate these major hits that everyone notices, then judges, juries, and fans will believe we've done our part in making the game safer".
Unfortunately, like you mentioned, it doesn't work that way. Recent article looked at blood levels of auto-antibodies in football players that DID NOT suffer from concussive hits. They found that more numerous and forceful (but still sub-concussive) hits are risk factors for premature neurodegeneration.
It makes me wonder sometimes how excited I should really be to watch football games.
Here's the thing man-you should still love it. Its a great game and an exciting sport. But it has to be accepted by players (they have) fans (some haven't) and execs (They wont) that its a violent dangerous game. When you watch it with the idea that these guys are choosing 8-13 years of glory over 80 years of longevity, it makes it easier to swallow. Its a scary game but one that all parties involve know is dangerous-even though only a few have openly acknowledged it.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
I think you make some very good points, but I also think it is over reaching to state that football cannot be made safer. I'm not saying that this change is 100% going to do so, but I personally don't have a problem with the governing bodies trying things out to do so.
Huh? Why are you comparing rugby and old school football. The game moves a lot faster than rugby and of course there would be less injured players ppl without equipment aren't going to tackle or be as aggressive with guys in equipment. No matter what you think football in the 70 was just as dangerous as it is today it's just more documented today.
Have you ever played football?
When someone shows you who they are believe them! In other words piss a good friend off and see what they really think about you.
Too many players lead with their helmet. It is time to put a stop to it.
Actually, you kind of have to lead with your helmet to do it right, just not the crown of it. Head back, facemask up, and see what you are hitting. You should tackle with your face and chest, not your shoulders.
Bingo.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
You forgot that your head goes to the side just before contact (ideally on the football if possible). That's how it's always been taught. You tackle with your shoulder. That's why football players wear shoulder pads, you deliver blows with the shoulder. If you do it as you describe you put yourself at risk to get paralyzed.
I'm sorry, but I've coached high school football for quite some time now. Turning your head to the side and using your shoulder is not the proper way to tackle. Now if coming in at an angle you do put your head in front of the ball carrier. And I promise you if you hit with with your head up, you do not run a risk of getting paralyzed. That is absolutely wrong. Your head will go backwards a long way. It is when your head gets shoved down (forward) or even compressed in that neck injuries occur. And that normally only happens with poor tackling form.
These plays must be reviewable. Just like in college basketball, when they review a foul to see if it was flagrant. Flagging a player because of a hit to the head is one thing, but ejecting him is on a different planet. They should review and see if there is malicious intent. Did the player lower his head, leave his feet, etc. Like it or not, these hits are sometimes unavoidable. Flag the player, make sure it wasn't intentional, and move on with the game.
I somewhat agree with you...
But on the other hand, there are already enough stops in play to review close calls. I'm not sure there's a common middle ground though.
Also, I feel like it's a lot easier to judge intent on a basketball court than a football field.
I agree, I hate stoppages as much as anybody. But I would rather this be right. By intent, I want them to look things like did the WR duck his head, or did the defensive player launch himself, etc.
I'm still debating these issues in my head.
If we were to support such a rule change, though, I'm not sure that it makes sense to confine sanctions to cases involving malicious intent. For example, if a tackler had no malicious intent, but his form was so poor ("sloppy") as to create a relatively high risk of head injury to himself and/or his opponent, that probably also warrants any relevant sanctions.
Of course, I suspect it'd be very difficult sometimes to differentiate between malicious intent versus sloppiness, per se, but - on principle at least - I don't think malicious intent covers all scenarios.
frankly this is a good thing it will make DBs actually learn to tackle. if anything this gets us away from the potential of a kid dying on the field due to a blow to the head, which is my greatest fear.
All about safety and want to discourage leading with head but do not like the rule. Reason being it still has a lot of room for judgement and error. The game moves too fast. I've seen a lot of calls where the offensive player made a move that didn't give the defensive player a choice. Of course, that is with replay, which makes my next point. I would be in favor of a review during the week and possible suspensions for the following week. Throw the flag, and save ejections and suspensions until after review. This would also discourage headhunting against weaker opponents when a better opponent might be on tap for the following week. As it is, there stands to be a lot of controversy, and inconsistency. Look at the celebration rule ... We were penalized 3 times in 2010 against ScUM for flashing the "O" on our gloves when every other team in the country was doing it that year.
I read an article discussing these changes and one of the people involved with the changes emphasized that this penalty is for "targeting" the head. Obviously that is a bit of a gray area, especially at full speed, but he also said that Clowney's hit on V. Smith was legal. He didn't lead with his helmet and he didn't target Smith's head. He wrapped him up and took him down. Sure their helmets touched and it looked bad because Smith's helmet went flying, but as long as they are sticking with that type of approach I am okay with the rule. They recognize that there may be contact between helmets without a penalty, it is more focused on the cases where safeties leave their feet and don't even attempt to use their arms when trying to light up a receiver coming across the middle.
http://www.elevenwarriors.com/forum/football/2013/02/ejection-for-illegals-hits-coming
"I'm One Bad Buckeye, and I approve this message."
What about when an offensive player (particularly a running back) lowers his head to avoid being tackled? Is he targeting the head trying to run over a defender? It's just like there is a difference between a stiff arm and an offensive face mask, but that never gets called.
Brewstersmillions has it right. These rules don't fix anything.
It's like gun control.Never mind, don't get me started on that. The guess the point I'm making is when a dog gets fleas, shooting the dog is not the proper treatment.Oh man... Don't open that can of worms
I agree. This is lame. What about the 100s of times per year offensive and defensive linemen ram into each other?
A man who gets it.
But people want to think those aren't as damaging as the kill shots-and individually, they probably aren't. But a guy who takes a safety's best shot over the middle is going to be hurting right away while the linemen don't feel the ill effects until long after their careers are over. The study of Mike Webster's brain kicked off a lot of this safety concern and Webster never took one of those kill shots-he played Center. What he did do, however, was constantly bang his head against someone else's head every play of his long career. His brain was mangled as the result.
You really want to impact these types of hits? Outlaw zone defenses. Think about it-its really only in the zone defenses when the safety's have the freedom to attack a 'defenseless' player because of the angles at which they can go after people. Force everyone to play a man scheme and there will be exponentially less of these hits people think are such a scourge to football and its players. Personally, I think its a more logical step than outlawing part of the game that helped contribute to the NFL's notoriety but pundits will say they don't want to fundamentally alter the game. Which of course is bull shit. They want to cover their own asses because they can't come out and say "Yes, this game is dangerous" thanks to the lawsuits they are all facing. So instead, we get force fed the idea that somehow these people are taking the most dangerous major sport this side of Boxing\MMA and attempting to make it safer. Child Please.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
What constitutes a head hit that deserves an ejection will be at the referees' discretion obviously, and I would imagine they're not going to adhere to this rule verbatim, otherwise 8-10 players every game would get ejected every single game because of the reasons stated above. Then the quality of the game will be affected and I would imagine the TV people won't be too happy about that. Who would want to watch that?
The question I have is this. Since it's a discretionary call, what happens when a head coach gets on the bad side of a ref (like we all see happen) and that ref will start watching the hits more carefully and eject that team's best player(s) because they had it in for the coach? The ref can easily say, "You want to yell at me, fine. I'll eject your best linebacker because his head grazed another player's head on a tackle." Legally, the ref can do that and nobody can say anything.
If the refs do follow this rule to the letter and 10 players a game are being ejected the media outcry will be huge. Bigger than the NFL replacement refs that's for sure.
"Sherman ran an option play right through the south" - Greatest.Civil.War.Analogy.Ever
Remember that these are kids, not professionals. Their safety comes first, your entertainment and complaints come second. The effect on the game will not be pervasive if there is consistency.
If you have a problem with protecting student athletes from injury, then I don't know what I can tell you. The "assumption of risk" is there, sure. But if an injury can be prevented by forcing players to tackle properly, I have no problem with it. There are more important things than football (and the potential effect on the game).
Let's take dissect the OP's complaint:
-This is getting ridiculous.......not really, it makes sense to protect student athletes, the opportunity cost of protecting them is much higher than the potential effect on games.
-it's football not finesse ball........I agree, make them hit hard-legally. It's already illegal, this just adds extra deterrent.
-it just leads to defenses not being able to defend and giving all the help to the offenses in football...So you're saying helmet to helmet is a way a huge part of the way defenses defend? Not at all. It's not hard to tackle legally and it will not affect a majority of plays. Of course there will be the less than 1% of plays that it affects, but that's a cost worth having for safety.
-it is going to be sad when the first player gets ejected due to this new rule and it more than likely will be a key player and will impact the game way more than it should...If they make an illegal hit, they should be removed from the game. One player does not make a team (unless it's Ted Ginn Jr.)
-I can just see it now bc Dave "blind as a bat" Whitvoet will be the one to make the call and it always seems like Christian Bryant or CJ Barnett have gotten helmet to helmet calls a lot in their years at OSU...If they hit high, they will deserve to be removed. If they tackle properly, they won't be removed
-Can't wait for 105k strong to "boo" like we have never heard before when this hinders our defense next year....And we'll be cheering when they kick out opposing players. It goes both ways.
Conclusion: Player safety outweighs potential game effect. It will not be pervasive and will affect less than 1% of plays, where the player goes high (see Carlos Hyde). But if the players know they shouldn't go high, and should tackle by leading with the head against the chest, there will be less helmet to helmet contact.
It will not be pervasive and is worth the rule change. It will not affect a defenses' ability to defend, that's absolutely ludicrous. We just must hope for consistency.
Good discussion, but you've used a few strawmen above:
Everybody on 11W would wish to protect student athletes from injury. The questions are A). Whether this rule change will effectively improve safety (i.e., will be efficacious)? And/or B). if any such rules changes are implemented in such ways as to be efficacious, to what extent can such improvements to safety can be achieved without fundamentally altering the nature of the game?
I'm not sure where I stand on those questions, and I appreciate the good points made in this thread on both sides. But you're doing well enough without ascribing to your opponents faux positions.
I think that we all are just concerned with how the rule will be enforced. A player that intentionally leads with the crown of his head should be punished. But helmet to helmet hits do occur sometimes regardless. Just like in boxing. Sometimes head-butts happen. The fighter doesn't get disqualified for it, unless he is doing it repetitively or it has been deemed he was doing it intentionally. A player getting ejected for something that was unavoidable is not an acceptable rule in my eyes.
To me changing the way people tackle isn't just about safety and as Brewstersmillions said won't eliminate all head trauma. It would make the game better to see people tackle the way they are supposed to.
Here's an easy fix for all of these lawsuits.
Write language (clear language, not fine print) in every player's contract that says they can not file suit against the NFL for injuries occurred during their career. Put it in there that it's part of the game and part of the risk.
If they don't want to sign, they don't have to. But they won't get their millions of dollars.
Do you think ANY player wouldn't sign that? I didn't think so.
I know this won't take care of the existing lawsuits against the NFL from players that wouldn't have this language in their contract... and I know it's not as easy as I said it, but I still think something like this can be done.
I also realize that this thread is about college but I'm looking at the bigger picture.
Make no mistake about it man, it all trickles down from the NFL.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
Helmet to helmet is too subjective. Clowney's hit on the TSUN's RB last season sent his helmet 20 yds down field. It should have been a penalty; no flag and the announcers and Sportcenter made love to it.
Imagine if Clowney were ejected for it. Would it have changed the momentum of the game?
why a penalty? it was a legal hit. perhaps smiths helmet was not strapped on right?
Yes, legal because no helmet-helmet on a RB. I guess RBs are a dime a dozen, so they're not protected.
Helmet to helmet contact =/= targeting the head.
It's going to be sad when a person gets ejected and it was the offensive player that initiated the helmet contact by lowering his head
One day, centuries from now, civilization is going to look back at the American culture football the same way we look back at the Roman culture of gladiators. Football is not good for the body, most especially the head. Those not in favor of rule changes protecting the head for the sake of entertainment really need to get with the times in the moral sense.
October 20th: National Kenneth Guiton Day
I'm all for making football safer but subjective rules like this are really putting the game in the officials hands too much. I agree with the poster above who likened this rule to the celebration rule. All it's going to take is one ref getting pissed off and boom, game over.
As a former college player, I can speak from experience that avoiding helmet to helmet contact is impossible. I would like to know how many people that are for this rule actually played at the college or pro level. And how many of these people have ever had a 250 pound missile that wants to rip your head off bearing down on them. I have a challenge for those of you who think that players can form tackle on each play. Turn your back to someone, turn around quickly and have them throw a nerf ball at your head. Your natural reaction will be to turn and lower your head and raise your hands. This is what happens on the football field. Players are reacting and their instincts take over. Expecting a form tackle each time and for players not to use their helmets is totally ridiculous.
I do know too, that there are guys on the football field that are dirty. Men who would like nothing more than to send you off the field on a stretcher. I don't think that there will ever be a rule to fix this. Football is violent game with violent players and "angry teams with angry coaches" who want to win. In my opinion, this is what makes football so great. The competition brings out the best and worst in us and makes do crazy things. You really want to stop helmet to helmet contact? Play flag football!
Upvote for you sir! Exactly right! Helmet to helmet cannot be prevented. That is why I said the plays have to be reviewed to see if the player launched, etc. The rule stinks, but if we have to have it at least try to make it fair so that people are not getting ejected for just playing the game.
The absolute worst part about this is the fact that the referees become an even bigger part of the game. This was a problem prior to this rule change. Much more now.
Loss of helmet was bad, but this will be much worser.But I'm afraid it's here to stay with stringent enforcement like we have never seen before.Offense sells tickets sunshine! GO BUCKS!
I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then.