As we all know American football is a violent sport. It’s one of the reasons we love it so much, right?
I remember becoming a fan of the NFL when I was about nine years old and even then I’d always prefer to see the big hits more than touchdowns.
If you were to ask me what’s more exciting, an offensive shoot-out or a tight defensive battle? I’ll answer with the latter.
To me there is nothing like seeing a big hit on a wide receiver catching the ball over the middle, or a linebacker flattening a running back looking for a hole.
Seeing it week-in-week-out had me hooked on the NFL as I was growing up, and to this day I still enjoy watching those teams with great defences.
But in the last few years I’ve been asking myself: is the NFL becoming too soft? We’ve seen the NFL make several rule changes that favour offences and encourage high scoring games, which of course is to make the NFL appeal to a wider audience.
Now I get that, I really do. However to a fan like myself who has followed the NFL almost religiously for over 25 years, I wonder if the NFL is moving away from the very reason I feel in love with it to begin with.
We see players fined thousands of dollars on a weekly basis for what the NFL considers to be ‘illegal’ hits. Now correct me if I’m wrong but we never saw this 10 years ago?
Of course now the issue of player concussions has become more and more common in recent seasons and no doubt the NFL is trying to protect itself from potential lawsuits.
However I’m glad to say that these fines the NFL dishes out doesn’t seem to stop defensive players laying big hits when the opportunity arises and I for one hope this continues.
A hot topic recently is the protection quarterbacks are getting. It seems a defensive player can’t even touch a quarterback seconds after he releases the ball without drawing a penalty, and in some case a large fine.
An example of this was the recent hit on New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees by San Francisco 49ers linebacker Ahmad Brooks.
Now, was it warranted? The rules say yes but for me I was actually shocked at the call, although maybe not as much as former Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis, who offered to pay half of Brooks’ fine, an offer Brooks has since declined.
If you was to ask me straight up, if quarterbacks protected too much by the NFL, my answer would be a resounding yes.
The era of smash mouth defensive football is being eradicated in favour of what some are calling ‘flag football’. Which is a statement that strikes as a little over the top in all honesty, but I can see where those people are coming from.
An often asked question is where exactly can you hit the quarterback? Can you hit him high? Nope. Can you hit him low? Nope. Can you hit him in the middle?
Well yes but it seems to be depending on when he is it and how he is it. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it?
With the NFL becoming a much faster game in recent years, it’s a tough ask to expect defenders to think about where they are hitting an opponent when he is flying at you at a considerable speed in most cases.
The NFL is now preaching safety and how important player safety is in today’s NFL, but I bet they don’t mind picking up these fines that are dished out to players on a weekly basis.
American football is a violent sport, people are going to get hurt and no matter what the NFL does that isn’t going to change.
Well unless they want to change the way the game is played altogether?
mushi
Guest
then you'd be wrong.... again.
mushi
Guest
happy feet you missed the point there I think, when he's saying faster pace in a discussion about hits and injures he is talking player movement not time lapsed. Also to nit pick - even then referring to time elapsed actually gives no indication of pace as you need another variable in there to say that the "pace" (as in amount covered per unit of time) was slower.
Jared
Roar Pro
The problem with just outlawing it is that it doesn't remove the problem. If a defensive back is beaten by a player and it's either give up a touchdown or take the 15 yard personal foul they will take the foul every time. Which means players are still potentially being put in harms way. It will be interesting to see if equipment does change down the track to potentially stop this occurring.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
You said by changing the uniform. It may be possible to redesign the way shoulder pads are built to avoid it. But then that may remove some other types of protection. A lot of the linemen have raised neck protection as part of those shoulder pads. So to remove something that could be grabbed you would have to take that away. Simpler to just outlaw grabbing that.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Slightly off the NFL topic, but following on from your NRL reference: People often talk about the NRL going soft, but in some ways it's gone the opposite. Sure spear tackles were once considered legitimate, but when I was a kid, a high tackle didn't have to be around the head to be considered a high tackle. In fact, there were high tackles which were ones getting too close to the neck, and then head-high tackles which were basically an instant send-off. These days, something is only a high tackle if it's around the head, and nobody is ever sent off. So in some ways they've gone soft, and in others have been ridiculously slack. It's all about trying to stop the ball by tackling around the ball. So if they went for the ball and the arm slipped off there and ended up grabbing around the throat it's considered an accident. They basically removed a lot of protection for players heads. Nobody gets sent off anymore. What they should do is ban contact with the head and bring back the send-off, but still allow things like shoulder charges. If a player can pull off a shoulder charge without making contact with the head then it's fine, but the moment they make any contact with the players head then they are off (plus suspended for a few games). If a player goes for the ball in a tackle but the arm slips off the ball and finishes up clotheslining the guys, then he's off. The result of this will be that players will need to learn proper techniques that can avoid the chance of making contact with the head.
Jared
Roar Pro
Can't is a strong word, I'm sure there is a few engineers and designers out there that could come up with some ideas to prevent it.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Can't do it. Part of the reason being that the collar is defined by the pads. Grabbing the back of the collar is grabbing the back of the whole shoulder pad construction.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
There is a suggestion that adding pads and helmets and things can actually increase the chance of injury. Because they are wearing all the pads they feel a bit more invincible and do things they'd never do if they weren't wearing the pads. One thing outlawed in recent years has been helmet first hits. In other words, just putting the head down and ramming your helmet into someone at speed. No way would they try that if they weren't wearing a helmet. The other big difference is that in Rugby codes, if you smash a player and they bounce off you and fall to the ground, but you aren't holding onto them, they can get back up and keep running. In American Football they are down in that situation. That means you can just aim up a big hit, you don't need a technique that involves holding onto the player. That combination can lead to the sorts of hits much more likely to cause serious, and long term injuries.
Jared
Roar Pro
That's a great point. Union and League basically abolished the collar tackle by changing of the uniform. I wonder if the NFL has thought to look into ways of achieving this with their uniforms.
allblackfan
Guest
PGNEWC, RU used to have this kind of tackle (called a collar tackle) but it was made illegal years ago. Rugby jerseys are designed nowadays that make such a tackle useless to attempt (largely by downsizing the collar!)
Jared
Roar Pro
Agreed, lowering the helmet and using the crown was ridiculous. Another big hit on the weekend which should never have been called was the one on Josh McCown, that was a fantastic hit that was legal and should not have been penalised.
Jared
Roar Pro
Just to nitpick, a typical NFL game only goes for 3 hours, the league try's very hard to ensure that games finish in the allotted 3 hour block, mostly due to TV coverage. College football on the other hand may be what the Time magazine study was looking at, and that is a considerably different game.
Happy Feet
Guest
Sorry, its not played at a faster pace. The individual plays might be faster but when you got a game that take 4 hour for 14 minutes action (Time magazine study), the game as a whole is certainly not played at a faster pace. And if these NFL players are stupid enough to lead with their head into a tackle then I reckon they have only got themselves to blame and not the NFL. If the NFL got anything to answer for its why they allowed the sport to become so rife with steroid abuse. I mean a five game ban for a first infringement is totally ridiculous (which is only a recent thing also). That's also why so many NFL players die before they're fifty from heart defects, just like in that other pseudo sport, the WWF.
Eliot Bingham
Roar Pro
Quarterbacks will always be over protected as they are the main attraction to a game and having them on the park means bums on seats. They need the highest paid players on the field. The hit on Brees was minor but the rules now say you can touch a QB in the neck or head region no matter if its a graze or forceful. THe best rule they brought was the abolition of using the crown of the helmet for hits and runs.
Justin Twell
Roar Guru
American Football is played at a much faster pace than rugby, particularly in the last 5-10 years. All too often we see the Rugby vs American Football argument but they are played in completely different ways to be able to compare them, and that includes the hits.
Justin Twell
Roar Guru
Fair comments astro and I do see where you're coming from. Yes player safety is the NFL's highest priority right now, but as Dominic pointed out above, the referees need to be more consistent in their decisions during games with regards to big/late hits. I've been an NFL fan since I was 9 years old (I'm 35 now) and it's only been in recent times that fines are being dished out and the subject of player safety has been brought to the forefront. That to me says the NFL did nothing about concussions etc until they started have lawsuits thrown their way from ex-players? It'll be interesting at least to see how the NFL evolves/changes over the next 5 years. I just don't want to see the reason I fell in love with the game so much disappear. As far as the protection of quarterbacks is concerned, I still believe they are being over protected.
Dylan
Roar Pro
Id just put it down to the cheap shots in the game.
mushi
Guest
Ah so you are completely ignorant then? That explains the comment better. For what it is worth I know of many people, myself included, that have played league/union and American football. Most people get really surprised in their first season at how you still feel the hits and there tends to be more of them due to the structure of the game.
Dylan
Roar Pro
Nah mate. I play rugby. No pads involved. Just big guys and bg hits
astro
Guest
Honestly, people need to wake up to the reality of what it happening with regards to concussions and player safety in sport. The same moronic complaints were made when the NRL banned the shoulder charge...the game has gone 'soft' and isn't as much fun to watch with the big hits where someone gets knocked out cold. Look, Justin, I'm sure you love football just as I do, but you need to get your head out of the sand mate. Something much bigger is going on in sport, and particularly the NFL, and it goes well beyond a few rule changes which are taking away the big hits you love watching. Read this timeline of events: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/league-of-denial/timeline-the-nfls-concussion-crisis/ For over a decade, the NFL has known that the sport itself and the consequences of its rules, are endangering players lives. And it has done NOTHING! The rule changes you speak of are the first small steps towards making the future of football viable, yet you speak out against them? In 10 years there won't be an NFL without some changes. No one will want their kid playing NFL, or league or union without some changes being brought in...If you think I'm going to far, again read up: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7443714/ In the end, we need to look at the big picture on this issue. Sure, the big hits will be missed, but the simple fact is, sports have to be made safer. An NFL player can still make a big tackle without ramming his head into that of another player. A league player can still hit hard, without using his shoulder first, or dumping a player on his head. If you don't agree with me, I offer this final article on the matter: http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9994041/tony-dorsett-cte-hockey-football