Unintended consequences of the anti-concussion rules..

**RockyMRaven** · 10-29-2013, 06:50 PM

I just read an article about Packers' TE Jermichael Finley's recollections of the injury which put him in the ICU for a couple of days: http://www.nflevolution.com/article/...p2000000271891. What I particularly noticed was this part. He said: "It all happened very quickly. I remember seeing the defender out of the corner of my eye, and I intentionally lowered my head and shoulders to protect my knees." So the rules don't allow defenders to hit any part of the helmet with his own helmet, shoulder, forearm, ...(am I forgetting anything?). The result of that is that the defenders aim low when tackling. The result of that is that there have been very serious knee injuries of offensive players. And the result of that is that the offensive players "intentionally lower their head and shoulders to protect their knees". And the result of that is that they get more concussions and even more serious injuries like spinal cord contusions. A vicious circle that hasn't really solved anything and has weakened the game. Fining the defensive players has only made everything worse, in my opinion. Guys are going to try to protect their pockets. Comments?

**Ravenswintitle** · 10-29-2013, 06:53 PM

and then you have Meriweather saying he's going to target guys knees.

There's a large enough target between the knees and the head. That's where they will move the strike zone soon IMO. As it is now, it's perfectly legal to go for the knees.

**Paintballguy** · 10-29-2013, 07:08 PM

As much as I don't like Meriweather, I'd be doing the same thing as a defender. Why not go for knees? You won't get flagged or fined, and you got a good chance of knocking a guy out of the game.

**BSHU** · 10-29-2013, 07:54 PM

If they added more wiggle room with this rule, this would be far more successful. The Merriweather-type hits are one thing and should be fined, but there are far too many blows to the head that are very clearly incidental and an effort needs to be made to distinguish the two.

**redmike34** · 10-29-2013, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by BSHU

If they added more wiggle room with this rule, this would be far more successful. The Merriweather-type hits are one thing and should be fined, but there are far too many blows to the head that are very clearly incidental and an effort needs to be made to distinguish the two.

While I agree with you in principle as a fan of the game, I can't see that flying from the perspective of the league. In the end, it doesn't matter whether a concussion happens from an intentional or unintentional hit; it's still a concussion, which is what they want to avoid. So they'll penalize players irrespective of intent in order to completely discourage players from doing things that even MIGHT wind up in helmet-to-helmet contact.

On this topic, I'm a layman to the helmet industry, but I'm kind of surprised that somebody can't come up with a solution for this. I've been riding motorcycles for years, and am a big fan of motorcycle racing. When guys crash racebikes, it's occasionally really ugly, and sometimes involves a helmeted head hitting something hard at pretty high velocity (certainly faster than two NFL players running right at each other). Concussions do happen, but it doesn't seem to happen nearly as often as it does in the NFL. Sure there's something I'm missing...

**NJRaven** · 10-29-2013, 10:00 PM

It doesn't matter where they move the strike zone since the ball handler will intentionally lower his head as Finley did.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**rpcfball** · 10-29-2013, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

and then you have Meriweather saying he's going to target guys knees.

There's a large enough target between the knees and the head. That's where they will move the strike zone soon IMO. As it is now, it's perfectly legal to go for the knees.

It's not possible to hit that strike zone sometimes. When guys catch passes over the middle the first thing they do is curl up into a ball to protect themselves. As a defender it is your job to make sure a receiver doesn't catch the ball. If a receiver ducks, you can't hit their head, and you can't hit their knees, how is the defender supposed to do that job?

**CincyCat** · 10-29-2013, 10:09 PM

A local writer just brought up the topic of the NFL's protection rules for 2013. His point, pointing out hypocrisy was "If they were all that worried about injuries they would do away with Thursday night games". Sure it's a money maker, but if the true objective is less injuries they would stop these mid-week games which at times force the borderline injured guys to decide to play knowing they need time to heal.

**Ravenswintitle** · 10-29-2013, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by rpcfball

It's not possible to hit that strike zone sometimes. When guys catch passes over the middle the first thing they do is curl up into a ball to protect themselves. As a defender it is your job to make sure a receiver doesn't catch the ball. If a receiver ducks, you can't hit their head, and you can't hit their knees, how is the defender supposed to do that job?

I agree but the league is determined to stop the head shots. They may keep tweaking rules to limit it as much as possible but at the same time, the knees come into it too. We're headed for a mid section strike zone IMO

**BcRaven** · 10-29-2013, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by CincyCat

A local writer just brought up the topic of the NFL's protection rules for 2013. His point, pointing out hypocrisy was "If they were all that worried about injuries they would do away with Thursday night games". Sure it's a money maker, but if the true objective is less injuries they would stop these mid-week games which at times force the borderline injured guys to decide to play knowing they need time to heal.

I'm willing to bet that if this writer worked for the network that broadcasts Thursday Night Football, his article would never be published. It's easy for these media types to write negative things about X, Y, or Z, as long as it doesn't affect them or their employers.
Football players know from a young age about the physical dangers of their chosen sport.
I don't think they want to play on Thursday nights, but wouldn't be willing to give up a portion of their salaries to do so. Hypocrisy runs rampant in our society...the NFL, the Media, plus you and me aren't immune to it... Bc

**DaStevez** · 10-29-2013, 10:57 PM

IMO these things come one at a time. The low shots that are inevitably going to end a few important careers will open up the minds-that-be and we're going to see a ban on hits at or below the knees within the next few years to support the NFL's business interests. It would be a punishing blow to the NFL's profits if a player like Megatron had his knee destroyed because some 5'11" safety was afraid of leading with their shoulder to hit him in the gut so they opted to go for the knees.

**ravenfever_com** · 10-30-2013, 09:15 AM

According to a League Source the NFL will start playing modified two hand touch in 2015. They looked into the Flag Football League Rules however were worried that the flags could cause a problem for the officials since sometimes they would not know if the flag was a penalty or a tackle.