NFL Might Suspend Players for Violent Hits

[aceinthehouse]

And what about the "devastating hit" on Vick?

The Vick sandwich? That was devastating...Does Hall and Rogers get suspended for hurting vick?

I think this is a terrible rule and will change football forever imo..

What happens when Commercial money maker Troy Palamalu leads with his helmet? Will they just..."let that go" because of who he is?

But guys like Landry get suspended...?

And what about Lorenzo or Sellers devastating blows on Special teams that we see every game that destroys the Kick/Punt returner? Will Alexander get suspended...?

Does Fletcher get suspended for that nice hit the other night that caused that fumble on the return?
That was devastating?

It's getting out of hand...
Not the hits,but the rules imo

[aceinthehouse]

Oh...and in case any of you are curious...?

I just heard...Jeremy Jarmon would have been suspended for the hit on Aaron Rodgers.
Even though he was not flagged for it,he was fined for it and would face suspension..

Enjoy..
great...blah

[aceinthehouse]

Yea,this is going to be a witch hunt...

This is a quote by "Soup"

I was listening to Chicago radio, for obvious reasons, they had john clayton on and he talked about it. There will be a couple deciding factors that will make a ref or whomever makes the decision to eject or suspend a player. One is if the hit is an obvious helmet to helmet which causes a player to get injured like the Djax hit, the other is a hit on defenseless players.

He said the NFL will not start to really enforce the rules until next season after they talk about how to enforce it. During this season they will only suspend players if its an obvious hit like the Djax example. But he did say the NFL will make a list of head-Hunters and ask personnel to talk with these guys. I don't know if Landry would be on that list.

They brought up two Redskin hits, the one where Fletcher hit the colts running back, Clayton said that is legal because its unavoidable and the player didn't intentionally do it. The other was the hit to Aaron Rodgers hit by Jarmon. Clayton said only if its an obvious hit and the player is severely injured. He stressed the words "obvious" and "severely injured".

take it for what its worth....

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by aceinthehouse

And what about the "devastating hit" on Vick?

The Vick sandwich? That was devastating...Does Hall and Rogers get suspended for hurting vick?

I think this is a terrible rule and will change football forever imo..

What happens when Commercial money maker Troy Palamalu leads with his helmet? Will they just..."let that go" because of who he is?

But guys like Landry get suspended...?

And what about Lorenzo or Sellers devastating blows on Special teams that we see every game that destroys the Kick/Punt returner? Will Alexander get suspended...?

Does Fletcher get suspended for that nice hit the other night that caused that fumble on the return?
That was devastating?

It's getting out of hand...
Not the hits,but the rules imo

Guy's the rules are not changing. The only thing that will change is how they deal with hits to the head and neck of a defenceless player. The rule is there and all they want to do is add teeth to the rule. So if you go up and hit a WR going for the ball in the head or neck area with your head and/or shoulder then its allready illegal now. The hit on Vick was legal because he was a runner at the time. Also the media has added the word "devastating hits" to this to make it sound better in their news story.

[Sportsgod]

*Huge hits are all part of the game. Outlawing them would be eliminating hockey fights. Not going to happen.......

[SmootSmack]

Who's "Soup"?

And, in my opinion, we got lucky on that Jarmon hit. It looked clearly like hlelmet to helmet to me. I think so long as you don't lead with your helmet you should be ok. Wrapping up is the more fundamental way to do it, but really it's the knock out shots that cause the turnovers. I think more is being made of this right now than will actually come out of it.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Who's "Soup"?

And, in my opinion, we got lucky on that Jarmon hit. It looked clearly like helmet to helmet to me. I think so long as you don't lead with your helmet you should be ok. Wrapping up is the more fundamental way to do it, but really it's the knock out shots that cause the turnovers. I think more is being made of this right now than will actually come out of it.

I hope you're right SS. I certainly understand why leading with your helmet is illegal and agree that it should be...but clean violent hits are a big part of why I love football so much. I've heard a lot players say this is the only place they can assault someone and not be arrested for it. It's part of the game and a big part of the attraction for me.

[MTK]

Let's see how they enforce it before we get our panties in a wad.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Who's "Soup"?

And, in my opinion, we got lucky on that Jarmon hit. It looked clearly like hlelmet to helmet to me. I think so long as you don't lead with your helmet you should be ok. Wrapping up is the more fundamental way to do it, but really it's the knock out shots that cause the turnovers. I think more is being made of this right now than will actually come out of it.

Well on the Mike & Mike show this morning who ever they had from the NFL said any hit to the head and neck area of a defenseless player will get looked at. They are not just talking about WR's he also mentioned other hits to head of defenseless players. Like after a int. and a player jogging down the field and someone takes one of those cheap blocks to the head. The only thing i really heard that I did not know was hitting a defenseless player in the head with your shoulder and forearm is an illegal hit.

[DIEHARD1980]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

There goes Landry.

Lol, that was my first thought.

[Alvin Walton]

Yea, now its my Aunt Martha's NFL.

[aceinthehouse]

BTW..The NFL is full of crap...

Saying there doing it for the Safety of the Players....
If this were true,then they would draw back their push for an 18 game schedule...

With all the injuries we are having,the last thing they need to be doing is adding 2 more games during the season.

Why don't they crack down on players wearing the required uniform?
You wouldn't believe how many players don't wear Knee pads like RB's and WR's because it slows them down?

I was taught and required as a young player to always wear those things,as much as I hated them...But they do protect the knees..

These players can marrch on to te field without them and nothing is said..
Why don't they crack down on that,instead of what color your socks are?
Or the players wearing diamond stud necklaces during games that don't belong?

The NFL doesn't care about anything, but there image..(see big ben and favre)
And money!

It's that simple..

[CRedskinsRule]

Well, you could argue the crackdown on dangerous hits is specifically because they know the 18 game schedule is coming, and so they need to make sure their best players aren't getting season ending injuries.

Don't know that that is their rationale, but it makes sense to me.

[aceinthehouse]

BTW...
Merriweather who had the head-to-head hit on heap where he actually was trying to hurt him and was flagged for it and knocked heap out of the game was fined $50,000.

Harrison who knocked out Cribbs in a legal and non-flagged devastating hit was fined $75,000
Nobody has been suspended at the moment.

You guys still love their interpretation now?
Told ya..

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well, you could argue the crackdown on dangerous hits is specifically because they know the 18 game schedule is coming, and so they need to make sure their best players aren't getting season ending injuries.

Don't know that that is their rationale, but it makes sense to me.

Thy really only make a stink about it when offensive skill position players get hurt.

I saw an interesting piece on this situation, I think it was before the Monday Night game and they made some interesting observations.
Steve Young said that some of the rule changes to encourage more offense and in turn more passing is partially to blame for this situation. Before the rule changes most Qb's went back to pass on average of 20 to 30 times. Now it is not unusual for them to throw it 30 to 40 times. This exposes QB's and receivers to more opportunities to be put in a defenseless position. I agree with it. The NFL owners unknowingly helped create this problem.

Another point was there are now more teams since expansion and not enough quality QB's to go around. Inaccurate QB's that throw a high ball over the middle are exposing their receivers and are partly to blame as well. I agree with this point. If a QB is reckless with his ball placement to a reciever over the middle, especially when he throws it late, he is exposing the receiver.

Nobody but the greedy owners want to increase the schedule to 18 games, it is a really bad move. The owners, most of who have never played in the NFL or played organized football period are passing rules that they do not understand the full results or outcome of the rule changes. Players and coaches should be the only ones on the rules committee. Owners should not because they have a financial bias that can not be denied.