Originally Posted by Dodens Grav
Your point is understood just fine. However, all parties universally recognize that there are certain hazards that come with the sport. Other sports like hockey also have rules that relate to whether or not a player is "defenseless", so to speak. Eliminating all helmet to helmet contact is just not feasible without literally completely changing the sport, at which point every single person on this forum would be whining. The rules on defenseless players do attempt to eliminate what are typically the most egregious and severe helmet to helmet collisions, and are also usually the more avoidable ones. It's not like a linebacker flowing to a hole and lowering his shoulder, only to be met head to head by a tailback battering ramming himself into the defense to convert a crucial 3rd down. With that in mind, I'll answer what I assume your broader question is: No, I don't think that it's hypocritical for the league to say that it's fine to not penalize helmet to helmet hits against runners.
No, it's inconsistent and ineffective. Hypocritical
is selling framed photos of big hits and injury moments on NFL.com's gift shop, as they did with the Massaquoi hit last year and are currently doing with Ben's ankle and Colt McCoy sitting dazed on the ground after the Harrison collision.
I disagree that it would not possible to penalize all helmet-to-helmet hits. Tackling has gotten worse over the decades, not better. I think it would be refreshing to see good, sound tackling being reinforced both in the rules and in the coaching. Wrap up, don't blow up.