Throwdowns > Closed

williewilliejuan said 03/14, 11:34 PM
They should ban all helmet-to-helmet contact because some guys got hurt? Why not ban contact altogether? I'm sure fewer players would get hurt. Make them play touch or flag football instead. That pesky running they do results in a lot of leg injuries. Maybe they could just walk briskly instead to avoid possibly pulling a hammy.

This is football we're talking about and football is a contact sport. While most reasonable football fans are supportive of sensible rules designed to increase the safety of players, at some point we have to step back and make sure we don't ruin the game in the process.

There are already rules in place to ban helmet-to-helmet hits against defenseless players. Certainly those rules can be tweaked to broaden the definition of "defenseless" or stiffen the penalties for repeat offenders. However, banning all helmet-to-helmet contact isn't the answer.

Banning all helmet-to-helmet contact would change the way the game is played. Linemen couldn't block the same. Linebackers couldn't stuff the hole the same on a running play. Players shouldn't have to play soft to avoid the possibility of making contact with another player's helmet. That isn't football

williewilliejuan said 03/15, 09:07 PM
Not many of us would take a "pro brain injury" stance on this issue. Unfortunately, the solution you suggest suffers from the same problems as most legislative responses to issues: it is overbroad and will cause too many unintended consequences.

Like you, I played football as a kid and was taught never to lead with the crown of my helmet or use my helmet as a weapon. However, my teammates and I also took great pride in the "stick marks" that accumulated on our helmets and viewed them as badges of our skill on the field. We did so because they were symbols of who was playing a lot - the cleaner your helmet, the less likely you got much playing time.

What we understood and the proponents of this rule apparently do not is some amount of helmet-to-helmet contact occurs on virtually every play, most of which is incidental. If we were to ban all helmet-to-helmet contact, there would either be a penalty on every play or people would have to radically change the way the game is played.

A better solution is to ban dangerous or intentional helmet-to-helmet contact, but leave incidental contact alone. Outright bans are rarely a good solution. A more measured approach is better.

williewilliejuan said 03/15, 10:48 PM
You must have been a defensive back when you played football, because you're backpedaling like a champ...

In your second argument, you said that the problem with the current rule is it is too subjective and the NFL needs a uniform rule to know when to penalize, suspend and fine players. Then, in your third argument, you say the officials should only call penalties for the most obvious and egregious occurrences. That sounds pretty subjective to me (it also sounds a lot like my argument).

If we only want officials to call a penalty for helmet-to-helmet hits that are dangerous or intentional, we should only outlaw hits that are dangerous or intentional. Crafting broad rules we don't expect the officials to follow doesn't make much sense. They should craft the rules to ban the specific behavior they want to enjoin.

The NFL already has rules in place to ban helmet-to-helmet hits against defenseless players. If they feel that the current interpretation omits some cases that should be banned, the correct course of action is to broaden the definition of defenseless player rather enacting a rule we don't expect officials to follow or would change the way the game is played.