NFL's stance on concussions and players response to aim at the legs

[Yehoodi]

I understand what you mean but say you have steven jackson going all speed and the only thing in front of him is a CB. no way he doesnt go low...he just neesd to not go directly to the knee.

 

I hear you too . . . but you could aim for the hip/high thigh area and if things change you will unlikely end up hitting the knee as movements will not be that much . . . also one could go below the knee and go off center with your helmet to the side and wrap the lower legs with your arms . . . the knees are injured with a helmet, torso or shoulder hitting the knee . . . tackling below the knew with arms should unlikely cause any major damage . . .

 

it is just a tough thing either way . . . but I would prefer a broker tackle or two per game, than a knee injury every 6th game or so . . .

[Mameluc]

I hear you too . . . but you could aim for the hip/high thigh area and if things change you will unlikely end up hitting the knee as movements will not be that much . . . also one could go below the knee and go off center with your helmet to the side and wrap the lower legs with your arms . . . the knees are injured with a helmet, torso or shoulder hitting the knee . . . tackling below the knew with arms should unlikely cause any major damage . . .

 

it is just a tough thing either way . . . but I would prefer a broker tackle or two per game, than a knee injury every 6th game or so . . .

i was actually thinking of that...can the strike zone be defined as not kneeds not head. so if a player wants to go low he has to wrap the legs not contact the knee with shoulder/helmet?

[Yehoodi]

i was actually thinking of that...can the strike zone be defined as not kneeds not head. so if a player wants to go low he has to wrap the legs not contact the knee with shoulder/helmet?

 

yes that what I was thinking . . . now there may be a forearm injury here and there, but I think that would be a rare case, the only time I have seen a forearm injury is a hit on the thigh, if you aim your arms at the shins of a move legs I can t see an big chance for injury . . . surely the offensive player can hop over a diving defender . . . but as I stated earlier will take a missed tackle over possible injuries to either player . . .

 

the problem is the culture if leading with your helmet and shoulder, both of which are solid and can cause injury . . .

 

it would be nice to fine a happy medium . . .perhaps like you mentioned early . . . you can go low if the player sees you but not if he does not . . . altho not my preferred rule, but it would eliminate defenders diving at an blind offensive player . . .

[oldunclemark]

So this debate has been going on and off for a while, but more and more players are responding to the NFL's stance against H2H contact by aiming at the players legs to avoid penalties or fines.  Hits by DJ Swearinger on Dustin Keller capture the tension between avoiding fines and shifting the problem from one debilitating injury to another. 

 

The way the rule reads now, there's no rules for aiming low, and the H2H hits, while on paper may have clear guidelines, in application, it has resulted in incongruent enforcement, not to mention fines are inconsistent.  Many tackles aimed at the chest get H2H penalties simply because of how the WR/RB shift their body in a split second.  So I can see Swearinger's point of view that it's easier to avoid going at the chest.  But at the same token, is it really necessary to aim at the knees?

 

Any ideas on the middleground? Rule modifications?

The guy who took out Keller's knee just lied.

 

He could have hit him in the chest..just don't do it with your head.

 

Who teaches hitting with the top of your head??   Players do it because they wnat to.

 

Bottom line...when the NFL players are crying about outlawing head contact hits at the SAME time when they are suing the NFL over the effects of head contact hits..they are as close to total hypocrisy as you can get.

 

Players must change the way they hit...it may take years,.,.but they do not have a choice..

 

Or.....try tackling.

 

The hit on keller was a dirty play but he didn't do it because of fear of fine. He just was afraid to tackle a big guy

[-JJ-]

_{I bet they won't lead with the head if they go back to leather helmets.}

[oldunclemark]

Agreed. Keller was in no position to get enough drive on that particular play to break free. While Keller does have a size edge on DJ, Swearinger's momentum was more than enough to make the play by wrapping up.

That's the best point. It was an easy tackle....

 

the defensive back made a bad hit and then made up an excuse..

[SteelCityColt]

Doesn't apply in this case as the Keller had his back turned and wasn't running full pelt at the defender, but if that was the case you'd have to fairly dumb to target the knees helmet or not. A guy at full sprint's knees in your face hurt a lot. That's why we were taught, head to one side of their waist and then wrap up and drop to bring them down. Safe and efficient way to bring down any runner (if you could catch them!). 

 

Sorry to go on about Rugby again, but it reminds me of spear tackling, which was also a contentious issue that got banned. Again if you pulled it off it made you look bigger and meaner and was a highlight hit, but frankly was dangerous as sin. Picking a guy up and dumping him on his neck/head is a paralysis waiting to happen, and it wasn't too great for the tackler if he tried to do it to a guy who was too heavy for him . What's worse is there wasn't really a tactical reason to tackle like this, again it was all for show. 

 

Example of what I mean: 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6xxo75RkCw

 

I like the idea of a tackle box/area of where you can hit guys, but it's going to lead to contentious decisions having to be made by the officials, and I can see receivers/runners altering their carrying style to take advantage and draw flags from the D.

 

For me what's lacking in professional sports these days is peer policing,

[BrentMc11]

ha, youre reading to much into it   , I was merely saying it was a pretty good post and i was agreeing with it, giving you a thumbs up.

It was hilarious...I loved it actually

[Jason_]

 

 

Bottom line...when the NFL players are crying about outlawing head contact hits at the SAME time when they are suing the NFL over the effects of head contact hits..they are as close to total hypocrisy as you can get.

 

 

 

You do realize that the ones suing over the effects of head contact hits are NOT the same players that are crying about outlawing head contact hits right?  That kinda rules out hypocrisy. ;)

 

I do agree with some of the rest of what you said though.

[House]

You do realize that the ones suing over the effects of head contact hits are NOT the same players that are crying about outlawing head contact hits right? That kinda rules out hypocrisy. ;)

I do agree with some of the rest of what you said though.

Yet.

[Iron Colt]

Take away their helmets, and see how willing to throw their bodies around like missiles most of these players will be.

You dont even have to do that. Do away with the facemask like Joe Paterno said. That would solve a lot of this. Too dramatic? Ok, only one bar then.