Big Hits- Big Deal, or Overreaction?

hawkfaninTX

hawkfaninTX

Well-Known Member
I DVR college football live, and they (as others have) discussed the unfortunate injury to the Rutgers player and the circumstances that lead up to it.

Explain to me why this comes to a surprise to some?

You chose to play a very dangerous game. You chose to play defense that calls for even more dangerous hits than the average player. Basic injuries happen every game, so how could you not expect "life threatening" injuries to happen every once and a while?

I even remember being forced to read the "helmet" manual when I first strapped up my first year of contact football. The problem here is that there has been very little "life threatening" injuries in recent years. Every year in baseball a pitcher gets dinged from a 150+ mph line drive off a hitter, Do they alter anything to prevent this from occurring again?-(distance to mound is still 60'6" and the bat weight/length limitations haven't changed) absolutely NOT! You chose to pitch you moron, it is to be expected, albeit at a very small percentage.

This is another example of the pu$$ification of America, a caller into CowTURD this morning made a great point on this subject: The biggest growing demographic of NFL football is women, and what woman would want their pu$$y son to get hit like that? While this may have a postive effect for another sport i am fond of (soccer=much safer), but football is and always will be my #1.

which way do you lean??
 


Personally, it seems like the number of potentially life-threatening hits have been increasing, both in quantity and intensity. Sooner or later, somebody IS going to get killed out there if things continue on their current track.

The advancements in helmet technology has likely been a factor in the increased use of the helmet as a weapon. If there were just leather helmets again, we wouldn't be seeing head-to-head hits like we do currently. The technology has seemingly given players a false sense of security. The advancements are necessary to better protect players from the incidental traumas that occur in the course of the game (banging your head off the turf), but are NOT designed to protect players from ballistic missile impacts.

I'm all for big hits, I love them too. But there is a line, one that is being crossed much too frequently in this day and age. Personally, I draw that line just after hits like the one Sheldon Brown put on Reggie Bush back in the 2007 playoffs. That's more than physical enough to excite the masses, and it was a very clean play. But hits like those put out by Brandon Meriweather, Dunta Robinson, and James Harrison this past weekend are deadly, far moreso than the typical play.

Even look at the hit on Colin Sandeman in the Michigan State game last year. That was extremely frightening, watching him lie on the ground with his arms stiff as a board and twitching. Those hits are finding their way into the college game now that they've saturated the NFL. How long before high school players start giving and receiving such hits regularly?

Helmet to helmet hits, and deliberate hits to the head while leading with the shoulder, are deadly. It's one thing to be risking serious knee injuries, muscle tears, etc. when playing football. But most of the hits we see involve defensive players launching themselves at that 9-11 lb thing above the shoulders. That's not necessary to make a physical hit that wows the crowd.
 


more and more, players are dying at a younger age and suffering from post concussion issues.

Guys that played in the nfl many years...they must be ******* too, eh? Matt bowen....*****? You can tell him that.

Then you admit you like soccer? Talk about pussification!
 


I think the biggest issue is the fact people are leading with their head. I remember when I was taught to tackle we were told to put our face right in their chest. Duh, that is going to lead to major injuries. We had a local HS player break his neck last Friday and is paralyzed from the neck down. I agree we have to do something to lessen the risk - mainly the head to head shots. Do we want to legislate tackling out of football, of course not.

You speak of baseball - they have done things to make it safer for the fielders. Wood bats are become more common in some leagues. First and third base coaches (when they are players) have to wear helmets, and many teams/leagues have the batter wear a facemask.

I believe their is a middle ground - good tackling does not need to be taking the players head off. Good tackling is getting low and wrapping up.
 


did you complain about a horse-collar tackle at all? why is clothes-lining someone illegal? oh because it increases the risk for injury? oh okay.

helmet to helmet hits are dumb for both parties involved. its no different than being flagged for chop blocking, another play that causes injury.

you can play this game cleanly and still make big hits. i don't think a negative word would have been said about james harrison's hit had he made contact a little lower on the body than what he did. you're telling me it wouldn't have been impressive had he hit him in the rib cage and pretty much broken him in half? why go to the head?
 


I am not a big fan of the launch tackle. However, there are times when it will be necessary.
1. On the goal line when the runner goes Wegher on you.
2. Defending against a player who is trying to get in at the pylon.
Etc.

But I don't ever like the launch hit just to make the big hit. Each of the hits the last weekend seemed more for effect than to make a good football play.

So, I would put in a stipulation regarding the actions of the offensive player. If the guy jumps at you and is leading with his helmet, that is his fault.
 
Last edited:


Scotttyd said:
I think the biggest issue is the fact people are leading with their head. I remember when I was taught to tackle we were told to put our face right in their chest. Duh, that is going to lead to major injuries. We had a local HS player break his neck last Friday and is paralyzed from the neck down. I agree we have to do something to lessen the risk - mainly the head to head shots. Do we want to legislate tackling out of football, of course not.

You speak of baseball - they have done things to make it safer for the fielders. Wood bats are become more common in some leagues. First and third base coaches (when they are players) have to wear helmets, and many teams/leagues have the batter wear a facemask.

I believe their is a middle ground - good tackling does not need to be taking the players head off. Good tackling is getting low and wrapping up.
Click to expand...

you ARE supposed to put your face in someones chest. this is because when you look at your target, your spine is curved rather than straight. the spine can absorb a much greater impact when it is is this position. thats just how the body was designed.

my parents gave me Dennis Byrd's autobiography when i was in high school and there is an entire chapter detailing his spinal injury and why it happened.
 


9YRPLAN said:
you ARE supposed to put your face in someones chest. this is because when you look at your target, your spine is curved rather than straight. the spine can absorb a much greater impact when it is is this position. thats just how the body was designed.

my parents gave me Dennis Byrd's autobiography when i was in high school and there is an entire chapter detailing his spinal injury and why it happened.
Click to expand...

I was taught to keep my head up so I can see the ball carrier, but not to put my face in their chest. You keep your head up, but put your SHOULDER into the guy's chest, and get your head outside of the ballcarrier's outside shoulder.
 


I'm all in favor of keeping players safe.

However, if you eliminate the head-to-head contact by only the defensive players you will see many more missed tackles and more points.

To be fair, they need to also flag a ball carrier for lowering his head (as opposed to his shoulder) and taking on contact.

It's like the rule where an offensive player can reach out and grab someone's facemask by "stiff-arming" or punching him without penalty.
 


hawkfaninTX said:
I DVR college football live, and they (as others have) discussed the unfortunate injury to the Rutgers player and the circumstances that lead up to it.

Explain to me why this comes to a surprise to some?

You chose to play a very dangerous game. You chose to play defense that calls for even more dangerous hits than the average player. Basic injuries happen every game, so how could you not expect "life threatening" injuries to happen every once and a while?

I even remember being forced to read the "helmet" manual when I first strapped up my first year of contact football. The problem here is that there has been very little "life threatening" injuries in recent years. Every year in baseball a pitcher gets dinged from a 150+ mph line drive off a hitter, Do they alter anything to prevent this from occurring again?-(distance to mound is still 60'6" and the bat weight/length limitations haven't changed) absolutely NOT! You chose to pitch you moron, it is to be expected, albeit at a very small percentage.

This is another example of the pu$$ification of America, a caller into CowTURD this morning made a great point on this subject: The biggest growing demographic of NFL football is women, and what woman would want their pu$$y son to get hit like that? While this may have a postive effect for another sport i am fond of (soccer=much safer), but football is and always will be my #1.

which way do you lean??
Click to expand...

Yes, football is a violent sport. No, risk for catastrophic injuries will never be completely gone. However, there are things we can do to prevent serious injuries from happening.

First of all, to say that there are "very little life-threatening injuries" is pretty stupid. While the chances you snap your neck on any given play are rare, any head or neck injury you face is potentially life-threatening. Repeated injuries more so. We are seeing now a greater number of former athletes with debilitating neurological problems thanks to the head and neck injuries they suffered when they were playing.

I'll admit that from what I've read, the incidence of catastrophic neck injuries (as the one suffered by Luther player Chris Norton and Rutgers player Eric LeGrand just last week, or Buffalo Bills player Kevin Everett) are on the decline since the time they were at a peak in the 70s. There hasn't been too many epidemiological data on the subject (or at least not that I've been able to find on PubMed in the short time I've searched), but there was a good paper on the topic of catastrophic spine injuries in football players in the time period from 1977 to 2001, which showed that in that time period, there were 223 catastrophic cervical cord injuries (mostly fractures/dislocations).
Cantu, Robert C., and Frederick O. Mueller. "CATASTROPHIC SPINE INJURIES IN AMERICAN FOOTBALL, 1977–2001." Neurosurgery 53.2 (2001): 358-63. Print.

That paper, along with several others I've read all showed that when it was measured, major head and neck injuries seemed to happen during games (understandable due to game speed and actual tackling) and approximately 70% of these injuries happen to the defense (again, they're the one's tackling). Specifically by position, defensive backs were at most risk, followed by linebackers.
Football Injury Prevention

And note that what I've listed above is the data for catastrophic cervical injuries (many with incomplete recovery). Doesn't take into account concussions or other more 'minor' head and neck injuries such as stingers and burners (such as the one Jeff Tarpinian is currently out with).

From 1990 through 1999, there were 114,706 football players with neck injuries that went to the ER. A majority were contusions but a small number were dislocations/fractures and lacerations.
Neck injuries presenting to emergency departments in the United States from 1990 to 1999 for ice hockey, soccer, and American football

Concussion rates have increased in youths, especially those playing hockey and football. According to the NCAA, concussion rates in football have dropped, though they admit they still have to deal with underreporting.

If we focus on catastrophic cervical injuries, we see that a major reduction in injuries did occur when spearing and other 'dangerous' tackling methods were banned from the game. Education and awareness on proper tackling techniques that reduce the huge amount of force being focused on the cervical vertebra have also helped. Improvement in equipment technology is a split, IMO, as it may help better protect players, but I think has already make a sport that became faster from a talent level, become even faster.

Football dangerous sport. But that does not mean we can't attempt to make it a safer sport. Nor does it mean that by making it safer, we're necessarily making it a sport for '*******'. Note, I didn't need to add the $ signs to work around the filter.
 
Last edited:




As someone who is fortunate to not suffer from concussion related problems, yet anyway, I'm all for this. As research continues into permanent effects concussions have on people, especially the unreported ones in football players, anything they can do to reduce it is a good thing. If you've ever known someone who is suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia you know how hard it is to watch them decline. Research is beginning to show that repeated trauma to the brain can lead to early onset of those problems. Let me tell you this much, watching my father slowly decline due to his dementia is something I wouldn't wish on anybody. Seeing how he struggles with his declining mental abilities, plus the effect it has on my mother just sucks for everyone.
 


edr247 said:
Rather than editing my previous post, I'm just going to double post this.

Paterno, Ditka offer solutions to dicey hits - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Both Joe Pa and Mike Ditka think that if we got rid of facemasks we'd see more shoulder tackles, and less serious head and neck injuries.

Though, this begs the question...wouldn't it just as likely cause players to simply drop their heads and go in with the top of their helmets?
Click to expand...

I highly doubt it. To quote a line from House: "If you replace airbags with a machette pointing at the driver's neck, nobody would go over 3 miles an hour."

By removing facemasks, players wouldn't want to go anywhere near each other's heads, and they'd get back to fundamental tackling.
 


all i have to say is that it is just like when you smoke you know you are doing wrong, but people still do it to just be "cool" -can we fine these people? (especially the idiots that do it when carrying a child?)

People know how to tackle, but those that blatantly choose to hit flagrantly, those are the ones who should be penalized, or suspended if bad enough ( like in a dead ball or away from the play situation). IN LIVE ACTION the only penalty should be 15 yards, make the play reviewable where we could look for intent, if blatant than a dismissal from the game is given. If it appears to be a "natural" mistake, and/or unintentional hit then only the penalty is administered along with a warning for both teams (just like in baseball, do it a second time and your done). Unintentional hits like this happen all the time. Watch for coaches to be proactive about this as well. These type of penalties happen to find themselves into crucial situations when big $$ is on the line and bowl oportunities, Enough of the game is already decided by the whistle, lets not add to that.

If we are so worried about injuries we should require all players to wear all safety equipment, all to often players will not wear their knee pads etc. we could also just use flags......that would be entertaining.
 
Last edited:


hawkfaninTX said:
all i have to say is that it is just like when you smoke you know you are doing wrong, but people still do it to just be "cool" -can we fine these people? (especially the idiots that do it when carrying a child?)

People know how to tackle, but those that blatantly choose to hit flagrantly, those are the ones who should be penalized, or suspended if bad enough ( like in a dead ball or away from the play situation). IN LIVE ACTION the only penalty should be 15 yards, make the play reviewable where we could look for intent, if blatant than a dismissal from the game is given. If it appears to be a "natural" mistake, and/or unintentional hit then only the penalty is administered along with a warning for both teams (just like in baseball, do it a second time and your done). Unintentional hits like this happen all the time. Watch for coaches to be proactive about this as well. These type of penalties happen to find themselves into crucial situations when big $$ is on the line and bowl oportunities, Enough of the game is already decided by the whistle, lets not add to that.

If we are so worried about injuries we should require all players to wear all safety equipment, all to often players will not wear their knee pads etc. we could also just use flags......that would be entertaining.
Click to expand...

I think the only way to do it is to have league reviews and suspensions. Penalties and reviews of said penalties are difficult and time consuming. Though to enforce the rule for the incidental hits, you have to throw flags, because those plays don't warrant suspension, IMO. But the obvious ones like Meriweather's hit certainly do.
 


hawkfaninTX said:
all i have to say is that it is just like when you smoke you know you are doing wrong, but people still do it to just be "cool" -can we fine these people? (especially the idiots that do it when carrying a child?)
Click to expand...

The most intelligent post all day - albiet off topic a bit, but I would be all for the death penalty for somebody smoking around children/pregnant - harsh, yes, repeat offenders, no

ok back to the original discussion.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.


Latest posts

Share this page






Top