Well guys, here we go again.

Merryweather spouting off about how evidently he has to ruin guys' careers by going after their knees since he is no longer allowed to hit them in the head.

Really? Gasp!

What happened to the tackling techniques that these players learned in youth football? Coaches sure as hell are not teaching the kids to "hit" that way. As a matter of fact, they are taught to "tackle."

The NFL has very few guys who can tackle now; about the only ones who can are the guys on the line, as they really have no choice as they are in close quarters.

Why have there been so many long runs in the NFL? Because these clowns go for the big hit instead of tackling the guy.

Now, back to the subject.

There is an area that is just below the jaw and above the knees, i.e., midsection. THAT'S where a tackle is (supposed) to be made. Now, if the ball carrier ducks and gets hit in the head, so be it; if the guy goes up in the air and gets hit in the knees, so be it. A tackler's aim should be in the midsection. You guys don't have to come back at me and tell me about the speed of the game, how hard it is to aim because of that speed, etc., etc. I get all that.

That's where an official's/league's judgement comes into play. A tackler is going in the right area and something happens where the ballcarrier is hit in the head or in the knees, then that's the way it goes. As long as the tackler is aiming at the right area, whatever happens after that is all good and fair.

This nonsense of "If I can't hit him in the head then I guess I'll have to take his knees out" is a bunch of bull.

Merryweather's problem is that he launches himself into the ballcarrier's head. He even knocked himself out of a game by doing that.

Stupid!

"If I can't hit him in the head then I guess I'll have to take his knees out."

Stupid, foolish, assinine comment. There's a lot of body between the head and the knees to tackle.

I disagree. I think it's both. Yes, there is the big hit desire but let me ask you this.

What penalty is more likely to be called, a high hit or a low hit?

We saw first hand how a discretionary referee call can cost you a game.

Just open your mind to this thought for a second. You are a player. They tell you to tackle the mid section of the body. But too often, the ball carrier will duck his head so now your midsection hit becomes a hit on the helmet. You are gambling.

But if you go low, no way you get that penalty.

And be logical! The reason that our peewee coaches told us to go for the middle and not low is that when you go for the knees, you can get faked out. They used to tell us, "Go for the middle because the eyes lie to you and the feet are too quick but he can't move the middle."

Unfortunately, the NFL thinks like you. They are so convinced that every team has a bounty system that they are too quick to penalize a high hit. Of course, every new law brings about unintended consequences as is true in the legal world so is also true in football.

They are so hysterical about helmet to helmet that knees are going to suffer. I'd like to have Dustin Keller as well as the next guy but this is what you're going to get when you pass laws like the helmet to helmet contact.

ChyrenB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I disagree. I think it's both. Yes, there is the
> big hit desire but let me ask you this.
>
> What penalty is more likely to be called, a high
> hit or a low hit?
>
> We saw first hand how a discretionary referee call
> can cost you a game.
>
> Just open your mind to this thought for a second.
> You are a player. They tell you to tackle the mid
> section of the body. But too often, the ball
> carrier will duck his head so now your midsection
> hit becomes a hit on the helmet. You are
> gambling.
>
> But if you go low, no way you get that penalty.
>
> And be logical! The reason that our peewee
> coaches told us to go for the middle and not low
> is that when you go for the knees, you can get
> faked out. They used to tell us, "Go for the
> middle because the eyes lie to you and the feet
> are too quick but he can't move the middle."
>
> Unfortunately, the NFL thinks like you. They are
> so convinced that every team has a bounty system
> that they are too quick to penalize a high hit.
> Of course, every new law brings about unintended
> consequences as is true in the legal world so is
> also true in football.
>
> They are so hysterical about helmet to helmet that
> knees are going to suffer. I'd like to have
> Dustin Keller as well as the next guy but this is
> what you're going to get when you pass laws like
> the helmet to helmet contact.

*******************************************

Chryen - As we are all aware (Merryweather said it very clearly) that a hit to the head draws fines, penalties, and possible suspension. No call on the knees. Will the rules be revised? I don't know.

But, all these guys (including Merryweather) know damn well that this game is there livelihood; why in hell would a player want to take away a guy's livelihood just because he isn't allowed to launch himself and take a guy's head off? What, he is Mr. Macho because he can take a hard, solid shot at a guy's head who isn't even looking the majority of the time? Wow, real tough guy. Think if that receiver was able to come down with the ball and had a little time that he couldn't fake the defender right out of his jock if it was one-on-one? I, personally, don't applaud those hits where there is a bunch of defenders around a ball carrier and one of them comes in with a "jacked up" hit.

Please re-read what I said in para 8. I am sure you can agree with me on that, as you also skimmed over that in your comment.

It's all BS...the rules have swung too far from center. Helmet to helmet always gets a flag no matter how it happens...

Soon, after a few more players get hurt there will also be flags for going low too.

Teams also don't teach tackling as much or practice it much because players don't like it and it causes injuries in camps and practices.

It's all about money and offensive output...

Cap I read your paragraph 8 but did you read my paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 which were directly responsive to that.

I think like anything else there are a few a holes who do that but I think the majority of hits are low because the guys DON'T want a fine and they only get their PAYCHECKS if they stop the runners.

Initially I thought it was going to be a posting making reference to the team and coaching staff having their heads so far up their asses they blew their knees out

Something should be done about inadvertent helmet-to-helmet hits. If you're aiming at a runner's midsection and he drops down, it should not be a penalty. Just wait until ballcarriers figure out that if they're about to be tackled and it's a critical play, they can always drop and put their helmet right in the path of the defender's helmet... instant penalty and 1st down.

gofins60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Something should be done about inadvertent
> helmet-to-helmet hits. If you're aiming at a
> runner's midsection and he drops down, it should
> not be a penalty. Just wait until ballcarriers
> figure out that if they're about to be tackled and
> it's a critical play, they can always drop and put
> their helmet right in the path of the defender's
> helmet... instant penalty and 1st down.


Simple solution. Outlaw helmets!!

gofins60 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Something should be done about inadvertent
> helmet-to-helmet hits. If you're aiming at a
> runner's midsection and he drops down, it should
> not be a penalty. Just wait until ballcarriers
> figure out that if they're about to be tackled and
> it's a critical play, they can always drop and put
> their helmet right in the path of the defender's
> helmet... instant penalty and 1st down.


You're right, that's another problem gofins. I've made this same point before.

The reality of the situation is that football is an inherently dangerous game and you might have to flip a coin as to whether God would tell you that football OR BOXING was more dangerous.

I don't believe that players try to injure other players because once a guy is laid out of the field and the ambulance comes, you see ALL THE PLAYERS ON BOTH TEAMS KNEELING IN PRAYER.

The reality is that the game is dangerous and once you institute such STUPID RULES AS HELMET TO HELMET contact, you are always going to have inadvertent penalties in which
1) there was no intent or
2) the victim actually was responsible for lowering HIS helmet as the defender tried to go for his mid section.

Bottom line is I think the penalty should be abolished.

captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I disagree. I think it's both. Yes, there is
> the
> > big hit desire but let me ask you this.
> >
> > What penalty is more likely to be called, a
> high
> > hit or a low hit?
> >
> > We saw first hand how a discretionary referee
> call
> > can cost you a game.
> >
> > Just open your mind to this thought for a
> second.
> > You are a player. They tell you to tackle the
> mid
> > section of the body. But too often, the ball
> > carrier will duck his head so now your
> midsection
> > hit becomes a hit on the helmet. You are
> > gambling.
> >
> > But if you go low, no way you get that penalty.
> >
> > And be logical! The reason that our peewee
> > coaches told us to go for the middle and not
> low
> > is that when you go for the knees, you can get
> > faked out. They used to tell us, "Go for the
> > middle because the eyes lie to you and the feet
> > are too quick but he can't move the middle."
> >
> > Unfortunately, the NFL thinks like you. They
> are
> > so convinced that every team has a bounty
> system
> > that they are too quick to penalize a high hit.
>
> > Of course, every new law brings about
> unintended
> > consequences as is true in the legal world so
> is
> > also true in football.
> >
> > They are so hysterical about helmet to helmet
> that
> > knees are going to suffer. I'd like to have
> > Dustin Keller as well as the next guy but this
> is
> > what you're going to get when you pass laws
> like
> > the helmet to helmet contact.
>
> *******************************************
>
> Chryen - As we are all aware (Merryweather said it
> very clearly) that a hit to the head draws fines,
> penalties, and possible suspension. No call on the
> knees. Will the rules be revised? I don't know.
>
> But, all these guys (including Merryweather) know
> damn well that this game is there livelihood; why
> in hell would a player want to take away a guy's
> livelihood just because he isn't allowed to launch
> himself and take a guy's head off? What, he is Mr.
> Macho because he can take a hard, solid shot at a
> guy's head who isn't even looking the majority of
> the time? Wow, real tough guy. Think if that
> receiver was able to come down with the ball and
> had a little time that he couldn't fake the
> defender right out of his jock if it was
> one-on-one? I, personally, don't applaud those
> hits where there is a bunch of defenders around a
> ball carrier and one of them comes in with a
> "jacked up" hit.
>
> Please re-read what I said in para 8. I am sure
> you can agree with me on that, as you also skimmed
> over that in your comment.

****************************************************

Yes, I did read your paragraphs, Chryen, and I said in my post that if the defender is going for the mid-section and the ball carrier lowers his head, then no matter how he gets hit, it will be a legal hit. That's where the referees will have to make judgement calls, and we all hope they make the correct call.

My problem with the helmet-to-helmet is the way Merryweather does it...he almost always launches himself. A helmet-to-helmet hit can (almost) always be avoided. I really think, despite the problems the league is having with concussions, that it wouldn't be such a big deal if these idiots didn't launch themselves.

There's not much that can be done about concussions; even with all these rules and penalties, concussions are still happening. I don't buy it that these guys are saying well, if I can't go for the head, I guess I will just have to take out the knees. Come on guys, you are professionals--tackle like you were taught. Of course, "tackle" is a word that is very foreign to many of the pros nowadays.

As for the youth leagues, what is it that Goodell is emphasizing? Now, I personally think teaching that type of tackling is a little silly. How many times is a defender going to be lined up against a ball carrier so he can tackle him like that? Rare! You bring the guy down any way legally possible (tackle, not hit).

Don't know if you were referencing me when you said that the league "thinks like me." I don't think guys are going out and intending to injury another player. But when a player states that he can't hit the guy in the head anymore, therefore he will have to take out his knees....why can't these guys say that they will aim at the torso?

Anyway, I guess I am done.

I'd rather have head.

My opinion. Of course.

BNF.