Hitting people in the head

[oldunclemark]

There was a hit in the Sunday night game between New England and San Diego where Brandion Brownwer was

ruled for targeting a 'defenseless receiver'

....The ref called it helmet to helmet which was a mistake but the result was what should have been.

Not to pick on Browner because DBs on every team do it but is there a reason that players insist that hits to opposing players heads are 'good hits'. Isnt the intent of hitting a receiver in the head to knock him momentarily unconscious and separate him from the ball.? That's not how football was intended to be played. You are supposed to hit people low..Wauist high...ankles. Knees.

..And even if you disagree, does everybody understand that hits to the head symbolize head trauma which not only causes health ills later but convinces parents to keep their kids out of football.?

Does anybody think the sport of football can prosper at all levels with increasing bigger, faster and stronger people flying into each other's heads?

[Valpo2004]

There was a hit in the Sunday night game between New England and San Diego where Brandion Brownwer was

ruled for targeting a 'defenseless receiver'

....The ref called it helmet to helmet which was a mistake but the result was what should have been.

Not to pick on Browner because DBs on every team do it but is there a reason that players insist that hits to opposing players heads are 'good hits'. Isnt the intent of hitting a receiver in the head to knock him momentarily unconscious and separate him from the ball.? That's not how football was intended to be played. You are supposed to hit people low..Wauist high...ankles. Knees.

..And even if you disagree, does everybody understand that hits to the head symbolize head trauma which not only causes health ills later but convinces parents to keep their kids out of football.?

Does anybody think the sport of football can prosper at all levels with increasing bigger, faster and stronger people flying into each other's heads?

 

What's needed for the sport to prosper is an audience.  As long as the audience is there worshiping the sport and it's players there will always be plenty of wiling players to sacrifice their bodies in order to gain the approval of the crowds and the financial and social benefits that come with it.

 

They will change the rules in order to make it safer but it will never be completely safe.  This won't matter too greatly.

 

The social and financial benefits of playing the sport will always draw a lot of players.

[oldunclemark]

Hitting folks in the head may indeed be good for ratings and there may always be players willing to take head trauma for bucks (boxing proves that)

..but make the argument to parents who watch the NFL that football is safe when their favorite player is laid out on the field or kills himself in his retirement years (Junior Seau, Dave Duereson) due to head trauma..

....the future is kids..and less and less kids are playing football if reports are to be believed

[Valpo2004]

Hitting folks in the head may indeed be good for ratings and there may always be players willing to take head trauma for bucks (boxing proves that)

..but make the argument to parents who watch the NFL that football is safe when their favorite player is laid out on the field or kills himself in his retirement years (Junior Seau, Dave Duereson) due to head trauma..

....the future is kids..and less and less kids are playing football if reports are to be believed

 

There has been a slight down turn, but I don't think it's enough to have much of an effect.

[Synthetic]

Doesn't matter though if it's dirty or not.

 

A game that consists of men slamming thy body unto another body over and over, yeah...you're going to have some bad looking violence out there. That's just how Throwball works.

 

The league is not going to be able to reduce stuff like this from occurring. They jokingly do this every few years "look we want to act classy!" like with the helmet to helmet contact rule, not going to fix anything, we still are having major concussions even without that, and the league will turn around and lie about that like they always have. 

[HtownColt]

There won't ever be a shortage of football players in any level of football except for maybe little league. Once the kids are old enough to make their own decision if they want to play football or not the parents can't stop them. As long as they stay coached to play the game the right way

[BloodyChamp]

I've been waiting on this topic to come up again (assuming this discussion was had before I arrived...it had to have). I think they need to go back to the rules as we know them now minus the triggerhappy refs. Not just this rule but most rules that we complain about have been rules for years. The difference of this era is the fact that the refs throw flags at anything that even looks like a penalty. If it's a bang bang play, let it go. If a defender targets a WR, call targeting. If a defender merely leaves hit feet, don't call targeting.

 

I realize that concussions keep going up. The answer to that isn't more rules or penalties. I actually think that's the problem. To much damage control causes more damage. If to many guys are bailing water from a sinking ship, they'll stumble over each other and spill all of the water in their buckets. 

 

Obviously football is more complex than the example I just used but the Kirk Cousins hit is an example. If he didn't think he was safe from a hit he wouldn't have been just standing on the field during a play. Then there is what these rules are doing to football on the game level alone (stat inflation, fundamentals of the game becoming a lost art, etc) but that's another post.

 

Meanwhile ask any player if they'd rather take a helmet to the knee than to the head. 

[amfootball]

There was a hit in the Sunday night game between New England and San Diego where Brandion Brownwer was

ruled for targeting a 'defenseless receiver'

....The ref called it helmet to helmet which was a mistake but the result was what should have been.

Not to pick on Browner because DBs on every team do it but is there a reason that players insist that hits to opposing players heads are 'good hits'. Isnt the intent of hitting a receiver in the head to knock him momentarily unconscious and separate him from the ball.? That's not how football was intended to be played. You are supposed to hit people low..Wauist high...ankles. Knees.

..And even if you disagree, does everybody understand that hits to the head symbolize head trauma which not only causes health ills later but convinces parents to keep their kids out of football.?

Does anybody think the sport of football can prosper at all levels with increasing bigger, faster and stronger people flying into each other's heads?

I have no issue with the flags for hits to the heads/defenseless receivers BUT Browner's hit was not to the head. An interception occurred on the play because of the hit and the Pats ran it back for a TD. It was a game change, game altering play. The score would have given NE the lead after struggling all game on offense. Had the Pats lost the game, I can guarantee that call would be the talk all this week. The league NEEDS to implement reviews for these types of calls. If they have them for turnovers and scoring plays then they need to do them for these hits. College reviews them because the player will get ejected for the hit so they review them. The NFL needs to do the same. The point of every play is to get the call right and that is why we have replay.

[MJD42]

There was a hit in the Sunday night game between New England and San Diego where Brandion Brownwer was

ruled for targeting a 'defenseless receiver'

....The ref called it helmet to helmet which was a mistake but the result was what should have been.

Not to pick on Browner because DBs on every team do it but is there a reason that players insist that hits to opposing players heads are 'good hits'. Isnt the intent of hitting a receiver in the head to knock him momentarily unconscious and separate him from the ball.? That's not how football was intended to be played. You are supposed to hit people low..Wauist high...ankles. Knees.

..And even if you disagree, does everybody understand that hits to the head symbolize head trauma which not only causes health ills later but convinces parents to keep their kids out of football.?

Does anybody think the sport of football can prosper at all levels with increasing bigger, faster and stronger people flying into each other's heads?

There is no easy solution. Football is a game where one imposes his will against another. I don't think most fans have issues with seeing hits to the head get flagged but often the refs get it wrong and that is infuriating. They need to be reviewed. I don't blame the refs for throwing the flag as they have to if they suspect a hit to the head but when they get them wrong they need to be corrected.

[GoPats]

The call on Browner was bunk... when you watch the replay, he CLEARLY tilted his head out of the way and made the hit almost completely with his shoulder into the TE's chest/shoulder. It was a violent hit anyway, and the way the player's head snapped back made it look even worse. I mean, Browner did everything that you're supposed to do, that you're taught to do. He turned, lead with his shoulder, didn't leave his feet, and laid a good, clean hit on him. The penalty was all about Browner's rep, IMO. 

 

There's no way to get around these issues in football. Trying to eliminate head injuries from the sport is like trying to swim without getting wet. Players seem to understand the possible consequences but, like many would, they are willing to assume the risks for the fame and fortune that comes with an NFL career. These are huge men, incredible athletes, running around at near super-human speeds and smashing into each other. Concussions will happen - it's more about treating them, and making players go through all the proper protocols to get back out on the field. Obviously no one wants to see retired players dealing with all sorts of problems, so managing their health a little better than the league did in the past is the key moving forward. It's all you can really do given the nature of the sport. 

[oldunclemark]

Its not about Browner....like I said...

..and most concussions don't come from DBs hitting WRs..they come from other collisions

But those are the acts that are seen on TV by parents.....

Youth football numbers are down significantly. You have to force players to hit people mid-body, in the thigh, knee or ankles or to tackle as you should be taught..Pro players want to hit each other high....we cant deny that.

They celebrate those hits and the injuries dealt out.....Only the hugely naïve deny that

...If you deny that youth numbers are down, there's no problem..

..but if its true...then you have to stop pros from hitting in the head or head area..because mom and dad aren't going to have little Billy Bob play a sport where being knocked unconscious is a 'good hit'

What would stop pro players from hitting high?

..or your pipeline of players starts to dry up

[BOTT]

I have no issue with the flags for hits to the heads/defenseless receivers BUT Browner's hit was not to the head. An interception occurred on the play because of the hit and the Pats ran it back for a TD. It was a game change, game altering play. The score would have given NE the lead after struggling all game on offense. Had the Pats lost the game, I can guarantee that call would be the talk all this week. The league NEEDS to implement reviews for these types of calls. If they have them for turnovers and scoring plays then they need to do them for these hits. College reviews them because the player will get ejected for the hit so they review them. The NFL needs to do the same. The point of every play is to get the call right and that is why we have replay.

With a defenseless receiver I don't think it matters if it's helmet to helmet. He hit him with his shoulder in the head/neck area......if you drop/ball up your arms and hit a defenseless receiver that high it's going to get called.

While I agree that the league needs to make these plays reviewable, I thought that was just a dumb play by Browner.

[amfootball]

With a defenseless receiver I don't think it matters if it's helmet to helmet. He hit him with his shoulder in the head/neck area......if you drop/ball up your arms and hit a defenseless receiver that high it's going to get called.

While I agree that the league needs to make these plays reviewable, I thought that was just a dumb play by Browner.

He did not hit him in the head at all. He lowered his shoulder and hit him in the chest. It was up high in the chest but it was the chest not the head or neck. He did not lead with his helmet either. By the rule, it was not a foul but because his head snapped back from impact it was called. If he had him in the head, the receiver would have had a concussion no doubt and he didn't.

[BOTT]

He did not hit him in the head at all. He lowered his shoulder and hit him in the chest. It was up high in the chest but it was the chest not the head or neck. He did not lead with his helmet either. By the rule, it was not a foul but because his head snapped back from impact it was called. If he had him in the head, the receiver would have had a concussion no doubt and he didn't.

It's the head and neck AREA. They have made it pretty clear that type of hit is going to get flagged....and I'm all for it.

[amfootball]

It's the head and neck AREA. They have made it pretty clear that type of hit is going to get flagged....and I'm all for it.

How is the chest the head and neck area?

[B~Town]

He did not hit him in the head at all. He lowered his shoulder and hit him in the chest. It was up high in the chest but it was the chest not the head or neck. He did not lead with his helmet either. By the rule, it was not a foul but because his head snapped back from impact it was called. If he had him in the head, the receiver would have had a concussion no doubt and he didn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA42VrqGKd4

 

Please explain how this is not to the head neck area and is a legal hit ?

 

This is a legal hit

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc6AsjYuZ9w

[BOTT]

How is the chest the head and neck area?

The area right under the neck. They have indicated time and time again they are going to throw the flag on this type of hit...people might as well accept it.

[amfootball]

The area right under the neck. They have indicated time and time again they are going to throw the flag on this type of hit...people might as well accept it.

Then they need to change the writing of the rule to say chest if it is the area under the neck.

[BOTT]

Then they need to change the writing of the rule to say chest if it is the area under the neck.

That's what "area" is for. Plus, it appears his shoulder works it's way up to the bottom of his helmet anyway. Easy call in IMO.

[amfootball]

That's what "area" is for. Plus, it appears his shoulder works it's way up to the bottom of his helmet anyway. Easy call in IMO.

I didn't think so. It was close though. I really think there should be a review of those types of plays.

[oldunclemark]

But how the game is officiated is another subject..

Players intentionally hit high...regardless of what the ref calls....

would you have your kid play an the game prosper it that continues.

Fans enjoy the knockout hits and players love to deliver brain trauma..

...but would you encourage your son to play..knowing what it will do to his head.

Or do we outlaw ALL hits to the head

[Moncrief]

Well I'll just add in my 3 cents. Some time ago IIRC there was a report involving a couple defensive players and their stance on the whole issue of concussions. Basically it led to the conclusion that players would much rather have a concussion than have reconstructed knees.

[BloodyChamp]

Yep ^

[oldunclemark]

The future of the game isn't up to today's players feelings..anyone who would rather e hit in the head than the knee isn't thinking

straight...That's the crazy logic that scares parents

A Bloomberg poll released Monday said that 50% of parents would not want their kids to play football..

...a poll can be made to say anything...

...but nobody would even take such a poll on basketball or baseball.

Guys like Kurt Warner and Lebron have said they wouldn't want their sons to play football..due to the concussion risks.

Do we have to forcibly change the game..eliminating ALL hits to the head and neck..intent or not....

..so youth are still allowed to play by their moms and dads. or do we wait until high schools consider dropping the sport?

[BloodyChamp]

Why do people keep going back to children? We'll get children to quit playing football soon as we get them to quit doing drugs and having unprotected sex.

[amfootball]

The future of the game isn't up to today's players feelings..anyone who would rather e hit in the head than the knee isn't thinking

straight...That's the crazy logic that scares parents

A Bloomberg poll released Monday said that 50% of parents would not want their kids to play football..

...a poll can be made to say anything...

...but nobody would even take such a poll on basketball or baseball.

Guys like Kurt Warner and Lebron have said they wouldn't want their sons to play football..due to the concussion risks.

Do we have to forcibly change the game..eliminating ALL hits to the head and neck..intent or not....

..so youth are still allowed to play by their moms and dads. or do we wait until high schools consider dropping the sport?

I don't know what the latest stats are but there is not enough of a ground swell yet in the youth arena to make drastic chances I don't think. The safety rules we are seeing are not to get kids to play football but in response to the lawsuit by the players. Football is still the number one sport by a mile in this country so I can't see that taking a hit anytime soon ...

[King Colt]

The numbers support ever increasing numbers of parents that are not allowing their kids to play football. Concussions are one thing but someone ought to take a look at what remains of players knees after they hang it up. Wheel chairs are part of their wardrobe. While head wounds are the subject why then does hockey stand back and allow to guys to whale on each others heads for 1-2 minutes before "rescuing" them?

[BOTT]

The numbers support ever increasing numbers of parents that are not allowing their kids to play football. Concussions are one thing but someone ought to take a look at what remains of players knees after they hang it up. Wheel chairs are part of their wardrobe. While head wounds are the subject why then does hockey stand back and allow to guys to whale on each others heads for 1-2 minutes before "rescuing" them?

Because hockey sucks

[IndySouthsider]

Teach football without helmets. New Hampshire football a powerhouse program in FCS is currently teaching tackling without helmets. Nobody wants to mess up there face.

[Narcosys]

I didn't think so. It was close though. I really think there should be a review of those types of plays.

Let's review everything that affects the Patriots.

[SilentHill]

Teach football without helmets. New Hampshire football a powerhouse program in FCS is currently teaching tackling without helmets. Nobody wants to mess up there face.

 

Until you get the person with the already messed up face that just doesn't care.

[Yehoodi]

I was not a fan of the call and glad it did not affect us in the game . . . at the same time we got a benefit of a call like that against Cleveland last year late in the game on a TD caught by Edelman . . . it did not benefit us from a stand point or reversing a pick 6, it just gave us 15 yards on the kickoff which ended up being an onside kick by us . . .

 

I am not bothered by having a buffer zone beyond just the head . . . but at the same time it would not bother me if the NFL did not have a buffer zone and made plays like that reviewable . . .

 

Sometimes there are hits that are designed to send a message more so that trying to dislodge the ball . . . but at times there are hits that are designed much more so to dislodge the ball like Browner's hit and the one on Edelman last year . . . so if the NFL wanted to make a hit like these reviewable so the ref can see it not at game speed, as it can look worse at game speed, then I am for it . . .

[sportsworld33]

Until you get the person with the already messed up face that just doesn't care.

 

Exactly!  There's always that knuckle head and hot head dirty cheap shot artist.  And some coaches teach their players to take a cheap shot once and a while against the opposing team.

[crazycolt1]

What's needed for the sport to prosper is an audience.  As long as the audience is there worshiping the sport and it's players there will always be plenty of wiling players to sacrifice their bodies in order to gain the approval of the crowds and the financial and social benefits that come with it.

 

They will change the rules in order to make it safer but it will never be completely safe.  This won't matter too greatly.

 

The social and financial benefits of playing the sport will always draw a lot of players.

I totally agree. All of us can have a number of opinions on hitting in football but we also must keep in mind that the human body was not designed to play football. The head can not protect itself and the knee is not made to make the moves that football players make. Injuries will always be a part of football. No matter the amount of rules that are made is going to change that.

[rock8591]

[ColtsBlueFL]

{snipped content}

 

Meanwhile ask any player if they'd rather take a helmet to the knee than to the head. 

 

Of course the would. That is their job/paycheck.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/01/27/nfl-players-injury-survey-knee-head-concussions/4918341/

 

Then after they survive a long career riddled with head shots, they then resort to-

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/23/us-nfl-concussions-idUSKBN0FS00R20140723

 

So the NFL, based upon the above plus items such as this research- (of which one is represented below) -

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/23/us-nfl-concussions-idUSKBN0FS00R20140723

 

Have sided with the head shot rules and would rather reduce life altering conditions vs. career threatening.  It's the way it is, and will continue to be.  Because they say concussion are now going back down. -

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/30/nfl-says-concussions-down-13-percent-in-last-year/

 

and of course, they need a better defense in court in any future lawsuits over brain damaged ex-players.

[amfootball]

Bottom line: These calls can be game changers and need to be reviewed.

[BloodyChamp]

These rules have helped reduce concussions about as much as war crimes have reduced war.