Originally Posted by ricardisimo
That doesn't make any sense. If it's incumbent upon the runner to protect his own head, and it's his responsibility to avoid the helmet-to-helmet contact, why isn't the runner ever fined for the contact when it happens, instead of the defender?
The other thing that doesn't make any sense is using the phrase "good old fashioned common sense" in reference to the NFL administration. Common sense would dictate eliminating all helmet-to-helmet hits, at least if your stated goal is to reduce head injuries. Instead, you cannot lead with your helmet, except in prime time, and on the third Thursday of every month, unless it's a handsome QB you're aiming at, and his arm is moving forwards or into his jock strap, or he's dating someone who is attractive, or...
Your scenario only applies if the runner aims at the defender's head, I would think, but I guess the argument would be that the runner has a defensive posture and that all defensive players are not defenseless players by definition. Only defenseless players are protected from helmet to helmet collisions, so defensive players can get knocked around all they desire because they are in a position to defend and protect themselves, so the onus, again, is on themselves to protect themselves just as it is for a runner.
The "common sense" was in reference to the logic behind what I said specifically, since what I originally said was described as "a load of BS".