any fine or suspension for browns phil taylor yet?

[steelersfan77]

The rules are the rules set forth by Adolph GODell.

Just like Hitler, there was no questioning it.

When were these rules written?

I still love it when somebody knocks the snout right out of another player. Love it. I endorse it. That's football. You don't want a concussion? You don't want to be a man? Find another profession. The CFL is looking for amatuers.

The National Fun League

[Dodens Grav]

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".

[12+88=6]

hanson from the eagles was fined. here is the link http://www.csnphilly.com/blog/eagles...096&feedID=704

i find this part interesting talking about trent cole....

"Cole was fined $15,000 for hitting Losman too low and also plans to appeal the league's decision. This is the second consecutive week Cole has been fined. He was fined $7,500 from the Seahawks game. He has been fined "four or five" times this season and said he has lost count of the amount of money he has been docked. "

4 or 5 times this season??? sounds like a repeat offender, where is his suspension?? the nfl needs to be consistent with it's punishments.

[ricardisimo]

Originally Posted by Dodens Grav

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".

I think you're missing my point. If the claim is that we want to reduce shooting victims, and the law says you cannot shoot anyone UNLESS they see it coming... just how seriously do we take the stated intentions of the bozos in charge?

[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.

[ricardisimo]

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.

[FOOTEupyourarse]

if "god"dell was all about player safety then why has he not implemented a rule which states that EVERY PLAYER MUST WEAR A PROTECTIVE MOUTHPEICE! mouthpeices are proven to reduce the chance of consussions! that should have been the first order of business but it wasnt, why?

[TRH]

it depends on WHO you hit, first of all. Don't even think about htting Aaron Rogers or Tom Brady with a good lick...any hard lick. It's going to be punished, legal or not. Or it seems to be numerous guys on the Packers roster now. I've watched a few of their games this year and its amazing the stuff the refs don't (won't) call on that team. On the other hand, you can hit Ben with a pretty hard nasty lick, unless its not a extremely blatant helmet-to-helmet and nothing will be called.
On defense, look the other way when a Ray Lewis drills someone (unless its something minor like a hold).

This stuff and mindset all started back in the "Michael Jordan era" of basketball, back when he could walk 10 steps with the ball and not get called. Thats when all this BS started about not calling penalties and illegals on "superstar" or well-known players.