Rodger Hitler Godell is a moron/Vicious hits (merged)

#51
#51
milohimself said:
What's weak? The NFL should not do anything about head injuries because they've profited off of them? Where is the logic in that? Preferring that an organization continue a backwards way of thinking because they've benefited from it and changing directions would be hypocritical is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

There were dangerous head injuries ten years ago and the NFL was living off the big hard hits that unfortunately can lead to brain damage. This isn't something that just started happening Sunday. It's gone on for decades and it's what football was. Now suddenly it can't be football anymore. That's the very definition of being hypocritical
 
#53
#53
volfanbill said:
and I already established that headshots were bad, but Robinson's hit and the second hit by Harrison were just hard hits. I'd throw someone out of the game and suspend them at least two more for head shots. But that's not what this argument is about. everyone agrees that headshots are bad, but laying people out with clean hits is just a part of the game, and it was just as dangerous for Chris Carter to run across the middle 15 years ago as it is today.
Click to expand...

I don't think Robinson should be fined.

However, that hit gave Jackson his 2nd concussion in under a year and also a concussion to the inflicter of the hit. Again, while clean, a hit that results in concussing both players involved has to end.
 
#55
#55
DC Vol said:
I don't think Robinson should be fined.

However, that hit gave Jackson his 2nd concussion in under a year and also a concussion to the inflicter of the hit. Again, while clean, a hit that results in concussing both players involved has to end.
Click to expand...

concussions are unfortunate, but you can't really stop them from happening under the premise of football. There's no way to determine how or even if your head is going to hit the turf in such a way that your brain gets jostled around and you wind up with a concussion.
 
#56
#56
volfanbill said:
Pay attention to the argument. Two of the four hits last week that led to this argument weren't helmet to helmet. And one of the two that was helmet to helmet sure looked unintentional. They are calling for hard hits to be fined and suspended. Maybe some research will help you before you delve into more of this conversation.
Click to expand...
I agree with the NFL in so far as this: It is pretty clear that instituting suspensions for "egregious" hits, as the NFL terms them, is going to lead to a solid reduction in devastating blows that leads to guys getting carted off the field. And this doesn't necessarily mean helmet to helmet, it could just be leading a tackle with the helmet at all. This is what they're trying to cut down on:

Rutgers DT Eric LeGrand Suffers A Devastating Spinal-Cord Injury

This ain't your daddy's NFL, but guess what? His NFL ain't his grandaddies' NFL where rules were changed to keep players from getting killed on a regular basis. The game keeps changing.
 
#57
#57
The thing about the Eric LeGrand situation is that it was made during what seemed to be a fairly routine play.

I don't think you can really cut down on that.
 
#58
#58
volfanbill said:
concussions are unfortunate, but you can't really stop them from happening under the premise of football. There's no way to determine how or even if your head is going to hit the turf in such a way that your brain gets jostled around and you wind up with a concussion.
Click to expand...

Jay Cutler comes to mind
 
#59
#59
If the NFL was really serious about all this, instead of mandating some artificial limit on how hard you could hit somebody, they could reduce some of the padding that the players wear. That seems like a bad idea, but it would force players to wrap up more, instead of throwing themselves at other players.
 
#60
#60
Le Grand pretty much led with his helmet and it's really unfortunate what happened to him. again, you'll get no complaints from me about headshots, leading with the helmet etc. But hard hits are part of the game. The Robinson hit is a prime example. Concussions and injuries are going to happen, but it's part of it.
 
#61
#61
volfanbill said:
There were dangerous head injuries ten years ago and the NFL was living off the big hard hits that unfortunately can lead to brain damage. This isn't something that just started happening Sunday. It's gone on for decades and it's what football was. Now suddenly it can't be football anymore. That's the very definition of being hypocritical
Click to expand...

Simply put, the players in the NFL are enormously faster, stronger, etc than they were decades ago. I'd be interested to see the number of brain/spinal injuries over the last 5 years compared to the number from 1980-1989.
 
#62
#62
nickknx865 said:
The thing about the Eric LeGrand situation is that it was made during what seemed to be a fairly routine play.

I don't think you can really cut down on that.
Click to expand...
He was leading with his helmet, though. That's the problem.

nickknx865 said:
If the NFL was really serious about all this, instead of mandating some artificial limit on how hard you could hit somebody, they could reduce some of the padding that the players wear. That seems like a bad idea, but it would force players to wrap up more, instead of throwing themselves at other players.
Click to expand...
Your point that vastly improved safety equipment is contributing to this is a good one. Better equipment makes the players more fearless.

volfanbill said:
Le Grand pretty much led with his helmet and it's really unfortunate what happened to him. again, you'll get no complaints from me about headshots, leading with the helmet etc. But hard hits are part of the game. The Robinson hit is a prime example. Concussions and injuries are going to happen, but it's part of it.
Click to expand...
Go back and look at it. It's pretty clear that Robinson tucked his head and aimed squarely at DeSean Jackson's chin. Hits like that are exactly the kind that can't be going on. The prime example from this weekend for me is Brandon Merriweather's shot on Todd Heap.

DC Vol said:
Simply put, the players in the NFL are enormously faster, stronger, etc than they were decades ago. I'd be interested to see the number of brain/spinal injuries over the last 5 years compared to the number from 1980-1989.
Click to expand...
Probably less since the rules have changed so drastically since then.
 
#64
#64
volfanbill said:
concussions are unfortunate, but you can't really stop them from happening under the premise of football. There's no way to determine how or even if your head is going to hit the turf in such a way that your brain gets jostled around and you wind up with a concussion.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% about Robinson's hit and with big hits and concussions in general. Robinson is nothing more than a victim of circumstance and giving the right hit on the wrong weekend.

This happened on the same weekend with 3 other helmet-helmet hits that all resulted in concussions (5 concussions resulting from 4 total hits) and a culmination of a season that has already seen a huge number of concussions (total of at least 10 in just the first and last week combined).
 
#65
#65
I don't like the rule at all unless it's intentional helmet to helmet. The rules of the game already gave the offense a distinct advantage and now this adds to it. But does anyone think that rbs or any other ball carrier should get the same punishment for lowering their head? IMO it should go both ways.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#66
#66
You definitely need to look at it. Robinson went for the body and momentum brought him up. It was a clean hit
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#67
#67
VolBuck24 said:
I don't like the rule at all unless it's intentional helmet to helmet. The rules of the game already gave the offense a distinct advantage and now this adds to it. But does anyone think that rbs or any other ball carrier should get the same punishment for lowering their head? IMO it should go both ways.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

no, the rule is clear about ball carrirers not being protected. it only pertains to "defenseless" receivers and persuers.

btw, they are not changing any rules, just going to enforce them more strictly.
 
#68
#68
8FGUz.jpg


Enormous hit on a defenseless receiver? Yes. Should that have incurred a penalty on the field? Yes.

Should it have been fined? No.
 
#69
#69
DC Vol said:
8FGUz.jpg


Enormous hit on a defenseless receiver? Yes. Should that have incurred a penalty on the field? Yes.

Should it have been fined? No.
Click to expand...

That looks like more shoulder than helmet to me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#71
#71
kev20 said:
no, the rule is clear about ball carrirers not being protected. it only pertains to "defenseless" receivers and persuers.

btw, they are not changing any rules, just going to enforce them more strictly.
Click to expand...

They said helmet to helmet and devastating hits. I think they backed off the devastating hits thing, but they don't warrant a suspension or the kind of fines that were handed down monday.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#72
#72
If you simply have a real threat of suspensions out there, then it will cause players to work more on reducing the kind of hits that cause serious injury.
 
#75
#75
VolBuck24 said:
That looks like more shoulder than helmet to me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Jackson was clearly a defenseless receiver and Robinson laid him out. What happened was the Falcons got penalized 15 yards for the hit. That's where it should have ended.

It wasn't a malicious helmet-helmet hit but it quite clearly had the intent to inflict an enormous hit on Jackson. Is that wrong? I don't think so, but, with so many concussions so far this year Robinson's hit is a victim of circumstance.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top