Suspensions going to be handed out for this moronic new NFL rule

[Bears4Ever_34]

If you all were watching MNF tonight, I guess the league is announcing that they are going to make a new rule effective immedietly that you will be suspended for a "Devastating" hit or a "Blow to the head." There having a big debate about it now on ESPN. This is a joke, a flat out joke. You can't legislate hitting in football. Now everything that these guys have been taught about hitting they can no longer do. So basically the next time Urlacher comes and lights up Roy Williams across the middle he's going to get suspended, even if he doesn't make contact with the helmet. If this crap goes on for more than this year I might give up watching the NFL. What this is is a total overreaction from a weekend where quite a few players were hit hard. This is not football anymore and it's going to cost one of our players because of it which ultimately could effect our playoff chances if one of these guys are out for a game or two because of a stupid idiotic rule. I guess Earl Bennett would then be suspended because of his hit on the punter which was a perfectly legal hit but it's a "Devastating" hit. I can't say enough bad things right now about whoever made up this stupid rule. I'm so pissed off, I can't imagine how mad these players are.

 

What's your guys' take on this?

['TD']

If you all were watching MNF tonight, I guess the league is announcing that they are going to make a new rule effective immedietly that you will be suspended for a "Devastating" hit or a "Blow to the head." There having a big debate about it now on ESPN. This is a joke, a flat out joke. You can't legislate hitting in football. Now everything that these guys have been taught about hitting they can no longer do. So basically the next time Urlacher comes and lights up Roy Williams across the middle he's going to get suspended, even if he doesn't make contact with the helmet. If this crap goes on for more than this year I might give up watching the NFL. What this is is a total overreaction from a weekend where quite a few players were hit hard. This is not football anymore and it's going to cost one of our players because of it which ultimately could effect our playoff chances if one of these guys are out for a game or two because of a stupid idiotic rule. I guess Earl Bennett would then be suspended because of his hit on the punter which was a perfectly legal hit but it's a "Devastating" hit. I can't say enough bad things right now about whoever made up this stupid rule. I'm so pissed off, I can't imagine how mad these players are.

 

What's your guys' take on this?

 

It sounds fine to me. Too many people are getting hurt, how many concussions have you heard of the last 3 or 4 weeks. If anything, I think it's more of a turf issue than the hits for the most part. But the suspension i think will come more off the helmet to helmet ones that gave 2 people a concussion this week from their collision.

[Bears4Ever_34]

This is the way the NFL has been played for years, this rule will absolutely have no effect at all with the number of concussions. Matt Millen made a great point tonight, with the way NFL players are taught to hit (That being hitting the center of the chest and exploding upwards towards the helmet, this rule is just going to make more players go low for tackles which then will create more career ending knee injuries and also concussions. Most defensive players suffer their concussions because they make contact with a knee to the helmet when they go low.

[jason]

It's knee jerk pussification of the league. Period. Anyone who disagrees either hasn't played, has forgotten how the game is played, or has personal stake in the concussion business (i.e. Hoge, Waddle).

 

Helmet to helmet? I'm fine with that. Suspend it.

"Devastating hit?" If that's fined, they might as well break out the flags.

 

Fine this:

 

 

Don't fine this:

[Guest TerraTor]

 

In that case, we should suspend the entire offensive line and TEs

[balta1701-A]

It's knee jerk pussification of the league. Period. Anyone who disagrees either hasn't played, has forgotten how the game is played, or has personal stake in the concussion business (i.e. Hoge, Waddle).

Gimme a break, pussification? "Yeah, I didn't want to have my brain turned to mush by 5 years playing WR. Pussy!"

 

How would you feel if the Bears lost a game or two because they lost say, Hester, on a hit like that, and their punt return game was hampered? Or even further, how would you feel if next week, Hester's career ended on a hit like that?

 

You can do a hard hit without causing a concussion, and Hell, most of the hard hits are ineffective methods of actually tackling a guy anyway since you're not wrapping the guy up in the process.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Gimme a break, pussification? "Yeah, I didn't want to have my brain turned to mush by 5 years playing WR. Pussy!"

 

How would you feel if the Bears lost a game or two because they lost say, Hester, on a hit like that, and their punt return game was hampered? Or even further, how would you feel if next week, Hester's career ended on a hit like that?

 

You can do a hard hit without causing a concussion, and Hell, most of the hard hits are ineffective methods of actually tackling a guy anyway since you're not wrapping the guy up in the process.

Agree. When Cutler got a concussion, I saw the season flash before my eyes.

[balta1701-A]

Agree. When Cutler got a concussion, I saw the season flash before my eyes.

There's another good one. Take a look at Justin Morneau, he had a non-serious looking impact in baseball and he missed 1/2 of the season, in no small part because he's had concussions before. Guys like Troy Aikman have had their careers end on concussions that take years for the symptoms to go away, and sometimes they never do. You think Gaines Adams's death hurt the Bears, how would the Bears do if Cutler took another blow from a guy launching at him and dealing him a career-threatening concussion? Now that he's had one, the chances of another one have gone way up, as have the chances of a more serious one.

[flea]

missed this & posted it in the sports section

 

No problem with head to head shots but devestating hits is going to have to be defined a lot more. You can't just say devestating hits & leave it to the judgement of the refs

[flea]

Meriweathers hit was disgraceful, see nothing wrong with the other one

[jason]

Gimme a break, pussification? "Yeah, I didn't want to have my brain turned to mush by 5 years playing WR. Pussy!"

 

How would you feel if the Bears lost a game or two because they lost say, Hester, on a hit like that, and their punt return game was hampered? Or even further, how would you feel if next week, Hester's career ended on a hit like that?

 

You can do a hard hit without causing a concussion, and Hell, most of the hard hits are ineffective methods of actually tackling a guy anyway since you're not wrapping the guy up in the process.

 

Yes. Pussification. Hard hits are part of football. Period. What's next? Is the RB not allowed to duck his head when running ball? Will all hits have to come between the shoulders and the stomach?

 

Concussions are a horrible side-affect of incredibly massive, muscle-bound men running into each other at full speed. IT'S FOOTBALL. Altering the very essence of football too much is a massive change that will either ruin the NFL, or cause players to hold up for fear of fines (which is stupid).

 

BTW - If Hester goes down, I would not be happy. But I wouldn't be upset about it if it was a legal hit that just crushed him. Part of the game. You have to separate the rose-colored glasses from your face to properly view this issue. The videos I posted above state my case. If they fine the hit on Desean Jackson, then it's a pussification of the game.

[jason]

Agree. When Cutler got a concussion, I saw the season flash before my eyes.

 

Your agreement in this case, if you're comparing it to Cutler's situation, is ignorant.

 

Cutler got hit repeatedly, and none of them were cheap shots. Hell, none of them were even "devastating" shots like the one Desean Jackson took. It was just accumulation, and his head bouncing off the ground.

 

Does it suck to watch a Bear go down to injury? Yes. Is it part of the game? Absolutely.

[jason]

Maybe you guys prefer this:

 

 

 

 

Or maybe this:

[balta1701-A]

Your agreement in this case, if you're comparing it to Cutler's situation, is ignorant.

 

Cutler got hit repeatedly, and none of them were cheap shots. Hell, none of them were even "devastating" shots like the one Desean Jackson took. It was just accumulation, and his head bouncing off the ground.

 

Does it suck to watch a Bear go down to injury? Yes. Is it part of the game? Absolutely.

Just because concussions happen other ways doesn't mean you need to allow a method that does nothing but get people injured to continue.

 

Simple question in reply...can you watch the hit by Merriwether of the Patriots on Todd Heap and honestly tell me you don't think that was a cheap shot? That hits like that are at another level that really should be dealt with? That Todd Heap is a pussy?

 

 

I will of course grant that it's possible that the NFL will enforce this rule stupidly or too stringently, and people who shouldn't be suspended could get in trouble, but that doesn't mean that hits like the one above should be responded to with a small fine. Cheap shots like that can and do end people's careers, and it's not pussification to stop those.

[madlithuanian]

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

It's knee jerk pussification of the league. Period. Anyone who disagrees either hasn't played, has forgotten how the game is played, or has personal stake in the concussion business (i.e. Hoge, Waddle).

 

 

 

Helmet to helmet? I'm fine with that. Suspend it.

 

"Devastating hit?" If that's fined, they might as well break out the flags.

 

 

Fine this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't fine this:

 

 

[madlithuanian]

My general take is that flagrant fouls must be called and I have no problem ejecting a player. In fact, many should be ejected that haven't been in the past.

 

In the examples this week...I think the Heap/eriweather one is a flagrant that must see Meriweather ejected. However, I don't see the Robinson/Jackson one as such. That's just football.

 

These guys are paid ridiculous sums of money to play this game. They will probably experience some kind of health issue as the get old, and a few very unlucky ones, when they are younger. The league and all concerned do a very good job of protecting as best as possible given the nature of the game. To me, this is no different than stuntmen, daredevils, high risk jobs (high rise work, oil rigs, crab fishermen,...all those jobs pose higher than normal risk than office work.) Usually higher risk jobs are result in higher pay. It is a trade off the men that work those jobs are willing to take. The NFL is no different.

 

I hate when guys get hurt. But, I love big hits. Don't we all? I just like it when the guy can get up and get back in the huddle...

 

If you all were watching MNF tonight, I guess the league is announcing that they are going to make a new rule effective immedietly that you will be suspended for a "Devastating" hit or a "Blow to the head." There having a big debate about it now on ESPN. This is a joke, a flat out joke. You can't legislate hitting in football. Now everything that these guys have been taught about hitting they can no longer do. So basically the next time Urlacher comes and lights up Roy Williams across the middle he's going to get suspended, even if he doesn't make contact with the helmet. If this crap goes on for more than this year I might give up watching the NFL. What this is is a total overreaction from a weekend where quite a few players were hit hard. This is not football anymore and it's going to cost one of our players because of it which ultimately could effect our playoff chances if one of these guys are out for a game or two because of a stupid idiotic rule. I guess Earl Bennett would then be suspended because of his hit on the punter which was a perfectly legal hit but it's a "Devastating" hit. I can't say enough bad things right now about whoever made up this stupid rule. I'm so pissed off, I can't imagine how mad these players are.

 

What's your guys' take on this?

 

[balta1701-A]

In the examples this week...I think the Heap/eriweather one is a flagrant that must see Meriweather ejected. However, I don't see the Robinson/Jackson one as such. That's just football.

One thing worth noting is...it's actually bad football. It looks cute on the highlight reels when you nail a player hard, but that's a really crappy tackling method.

 

Give y'all an example. Guys like Urlacher and Briggs are considered excellent linebackers, yet I can't recall very many/any instances of them taking cheap shots on exposed recievers. Same thing with guys in the Bears' secondary; Tillman, Brown when he was there, etc. The guys on the Bears do something fundamentally different here. They try to tackle people.

 

When you're launching yourself head first at a guy with your arms at your side, you're not making a legitimate effort to tackle the guy. It's a terrible way to tackle a player; if the player sees you coming at all, he steps to the side and you miss, or at best you get a glancing blow, and he can still run another 30 yards. The reason why we see these types of cheap hits focusing on the QB and the WR is that they're the only guys who are put in a position where they can't see it coming; they're turning away from straight efforts to advance the ball and thus their blind side is exposed. If you try to tackle Chris Johnson with a big helmet first hit, he's going to the end zone and you're going to look stupid.

 

If you actually want to tackle a guy, you don't launch yourself at him, you keep your head up and get your arms forward so that your arms get around the guy. The Bears defense does this very well and I'd say they have to be well coached at some level to do it. They may miss a tackle because they're trying to strip the ball, but they're not missing a tackle because they want a good highlight.

 

The real bad ones are poor technique and they really don't succeed unless they hurt someone.

[madlithuanian]

I do generally agree. But, I have seen the huge hits with appropriate wrapping-up as well... It's just rarer and usually comes from LB's rather than D backs... Becasue, d-back notoriously aren't good tacklers barring the few Bob Sanders, Mike Brown, Polamalu types...

 

 

 

One thing worth noting is...it's actually bad football. It looks cute on the highlight reels when you nail a player hard, but that's a really crappy tackling method.

 

Give y'all an example. Guys like Urlacher and Briggs are considered excellent linebackers, yet I can't recall very many/any instances of them taking cheap shots on exposed recievers. Same thing with guys in the Bears' secondary; Tillman, Brown when he was there, etc. The guys on the Bears do something fundamentally different here. They try to tackle people.

 

When you're launching yourself head first at a guy with your arms at your side, you're not making a legitimate effort to tackle the guy. It's a terrible way to tackle a player; if the player sees you coming at all, he steps to the side and you miss, or at best you get a glancing blow, and he can still run another 30 yards. The reason why we see these types of cheap hits focusing on the QB and the WR is that they're the only guys who are put in a position where they can't see it coming; they're turning away from straight efforts to advance the ball and thus their blind side is exposed. If you try to tackle Chris Johnson with a big helmet first hit, he's going to the end zone and you're going to look stupid.

 

If you actually want to tackle a guy, you don't launch yourself at him, you keep your head up and get your arms forward so that your arms get around the guy. The Bears defense does this very well and I'd say they have to be well coached at some level to do it. They may miss a tackle because they're trying to strip the ball, but they're not missing a tackle because they want a good highlight.

 

The real bad ones are poor technique and they really don't succeed unless they hurt someone.

 

[jason]

Just because concussions happen other ways doesn't mean you need to allow a method that does nothing but get people injured to continue.

 

Simple question in reply...can you watch the hit by Merriwether of the Patriots on Todd Heap and honestly tell me you don't think that was a cheap shot? That hits like that are at another level that really should be dealt with? That Todd Heap is a pussy?

 

 

I will of course grant that it's possible that the NFL will enforce this rule stupidly or too stringently, and people who shouldn't be suspended could get in trouble, but that doesn't mean that hits like the one above should be responded to with a small fine. Cheap shots like that can and do end people's careers, and it's not pussification to stop those.

 

You clearly didn't read (or just simply ignored) my replies after you read the word "pussification." I said that head-to-head cheap shots like the one on Heap should be penalized. The others, the "devastating" hits, are just part of football. Go up top, reread my posts.

[jason]

My general take is that flagrant fouls must be called and I have no problem ejecting a player. In fact, many should be ejected that haven't been in the past.

 

In the examples this week...I think the Heap/eriweather one is a flagrant that must see Meriweather ejected. However, I don't see the Robinson/Jackson one as such. That's just football.

 

These guys are paid ridiculous sums of money to play this game. They will probably experience some kind of health issue as the get old, and a few very unlucky ones, when they are younger. The league and all concerned do a very good job of protecting as best as possible given the nature of the game. To me, this is no different than stuntmen, daredevils, high risk jobs (high rise work, oil rigs, crab fishermen,...all those jobs pose higher than normal risk than office work.) Usually higher risk jobs are result in higher pay. It is a trade off the men that work those jobs are willing to take. The NFL is no different.

 

I hate when guys get hurt. But, I love big hits. Don't we all? I just like it when the guy can get up and get back in the huddle...

 

Very good point. This is a risk vs. reimbursement situation.

Easier, safer, more secure job = generally less pay

Harder, dangerous, volatile job = generally more pay

 

Them's the breaks.

[jason]

One thing worth noting is...it's actually bad football. It looks cute on the highlight reels when you nail a player hard, but that's a really crappy tackling method.

 

Give y'all an example. Guys like Urlacher and Briggs are considered excellent linebackers, yet I can't recall very many/any instances of them taking cheap shots on exposed recievers. Same thing with guys in the Bears' secondary; Tillman, Brown when he was there, etc. The guys on the Bears do something fundamentally different here. They try to tackle people.

 

I don't know if there is a "missed tackle" stat, or perhaps a number of broken tackles, but I've seen the Bears tackle just as bad as other teams in the league. Maybe even worse. I don't know what games you are watching. There have been numerous times that Briggs has gone for the hit over the form tackle.

 

When you're launching yourself head first at a guy with your arms at your side, you're not making a legitimate effort to tackle the guy. It's a terrible way to tackle a player; if the player sees you coming at all, he steps to the side and you miss, or at best you get a glancing blow, and he can still run another 30 yards. The reason why we see these types of cheap hits focusing on the QB and the WR is that they're the only guys who are put in a position where they can't see it coming; they're turning away from straight efforts to advance the ball and thus their blind side is exposed. If you try to tackle Chris Johnson with a big helmet first hit, he's going to the end zone and you're going to look stupid.

 

If you actually want to tackle a guy, you don't launch yourself at him, you keep your head up and get your arms forward so that your arms get around the guy. The Bears defense does this very well and I'd say they have to be well coached at some level to do it. They may miss a tackle because they're trying to strip the ball, but they're not missing a tackle because they want a good highlight.

 

The real bad ones are poor technique and they really don't succeed unless they hurt someone.

 

On this, you are generally correct. But I don't think Desean Jackson scored on the video above, nor will he score this upcoming week. Cause - Effect. If anything, Kolb should be fined and suspended for exposing his WR like that; he's an accomplice.

[balta1701-A]

In this, you are generally correct. But I don't think Desean Jackson scored on the video above, nor will he score this upcoming week. Cause - Effect. If anything, Kolb should be fined and suspended for exposing his WR like that; he's an accomplice.

So if you're playing a rival and there's no suspension for a hard hit other than a fine, why wouldn't you nail every guy you could? If you could knock Aaron Rogers out for a month, you'd kill Green Bay's chances at the division. Like you said...Jackson won't score the upcoming week. You take out Rogers with a cheap shot, and he can't throw any touchdowns the next few weeks.

 

Seems like there's a pretty big reward there for hurting someone, with no penalty that hurts your own team, and you just spelled it out.

[madlithuanian]

Not sure what you're arguing...blatant cheap shots are addressed currently. Like what Martin did to McMahon back in the day.

 

It's different when the play happens "in play" and is fast. It is tougher to prove premeditation, etc... Everyone tries to nail Favre, and nothing's seemed to work for 20 years.

 

So if you're playing a rival and there's no suspension for a hard hit other than a fine, why wouldn't you nail every guy you could? If you could knock Aaron Rogers out for a month, you'd kill Green Bay's chances at the division. Like you said...Jackson won't score the upcoming week. You take out Rogers with a cheap shot, and he can't throw any touchdowns the next few weeks.

 

Seems like there's a pretty big reward there for hurting someone, and you just spelled it out.

 

[balta1701-A]

Not sure what you're arguing...blatant cheap shots are addressed currently. Like what Martin did to McMahon back in the day.

 

It's different when the play happens "in play" and is fast. It is tougher to prove premeditation, etc... Everyone tries to nail Favre, and nothing's seemed to work for 20 years.

Isn't that pretty much what happened on the Heap play though? A blatant cheap shot for which the response is going to be a fine and not a suspension?

[madlithuanian]

Yes...that should have been a fine and suspention.... and ejection

 

But it was a little less clear than what Martin did to McMahon. I could see how a ref, during those few seconds, and depending on angle, may not have seen it. I'm not sure how it was seen and actually called, but today, that guy should be suspended.

 

 

Isn't that pretty much what happened on the Heap play though? A blatant cheap shot for which the response is going to be a fine and not a suspension?