Will it be the NFFL? The National Flag Football League?

NFL players speak out on the NFL's awful, new dangerous hit rule

By Chris Chase
http://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ept_spor...JHJ9DD0AgSgRn9NFL players are speaking out against the new suspensions and fines for players making hard hits. A number of stars, both on offense and defense, have criticized the league in recent days, proving that not everyone is in favor of arbitrary rulings on hard hits, intent and effective tackling.
Roger Goodell and the NFL have good intentions with the new suspension and fine rules, but this slapdash tweak to the rulebook has already left players and fans confused. James Harrison(notes) getting fined $75,000 is understandable. Everyone except Harrison acknowledges that his hits were dirty. But what about Dunta Robinson(notes) getting fined $50,000 for a perfectly legal hit on DeSean Jackson(notes)? That was a great play with an unfortunate result. Yet his fine suggests the NFL is only serious about sanctioning players who cause injury, not ones who do so with vicious, reckless intent. If Jackson had popped up right after that hit, would Robinson still owe 50K today? I doubt it.








http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shu...urn=nfl-278498



Urlacher seems to think so. I think a couple of these dudes have had their bells rung already.

Also, what exactly is the definition of "devastating hit"? How will they enforce that?
Seriously, I see guys leaving the league over this. Retirements, defecting to the UFL, etc etc...

This hit is what I feel the NFL is trying to eliminate. This dude should be suspended because he a head hunter.

Besides, what ever happened to this...



The fact is brain injuries aren't to be trifled with and no matter how Brian Urlacher and James Harrison feel, these rules are in place so that they can have a productive life AFTER football. Defenders should be targetting as low as the knees and as high as the sternum. Once you hit a man near his head, you are a head hunter. Now I get that a ball carrier is way different, as you have two men moving and both men know the collision is coming. But just like with QBs, sometimes WRs are unaware that a defender is approaching because they are trying to make a catch. That is why Merriweather's hit should be a suspendable offense because he was doing nothing more than head hunting.

Every time the NFL fines folks for hard hits there's an article about how the NFL is becoming a flag football league... They should have their computers and internet taken away from them for life. The NFL wants to eliminate career ending injuries and possible life threatening injuries too. It's not good for the players or the business.

They're fining them for helmet to helmet hits, which I understand because guys are doing it on purpose. But they're also going to fine/suspend for "violent and jarring" i.e. "devastating" hits on a player. What I don't understand is where they will be drawing the line on "devastating". It's a total judgement call and it'll cause more problems than it solves.
Helmet to helmet is pretty cut and dried. You see two helmets crashing together, it's a flag. But refs will be asked to determine which hits are violent enough to flag and which aren't. How do you do that? What's the determining factor? If a guy takes a good legal shot and gets hurt, is it violent? If a guy takes a really hard legal shot, and is NOT injured, is it violent?
Maybe this is just a knee-jerk reaction from the league and it'll be retracted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackDiamond

They're fining them for helmet to helmet hits, which I understand because guys are doing it on purpose. But they're also going to fine/suspend for "violent and jarring" i.e. "devastating" hits on a player. What I don't understand is where they will be drawing the line on "devastating". It's a total judgement call and it'll cause more problems than it solves.
Helmet to helmet is pretty cut and dried. You see two helmets crashing together, it's a flag. But refs will be asked to determine which hits are violent enough to flag and which aren't. How do you do that? What's the determining factor? If a guy takes a good legal shot and gets hurt, is it violent? If a guy takes a really hard legal shot, and is NOT injured, is it violent?
Maybe this is just a knee-jerk reaction from the league and it'll be retracted.

---

Steve Young tried to define it last week by calling it, " hit's that make you CRINGE ". That's not hard to understand and we all know one when we see one....... and players know when they have a guy lined-up to do one. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for hard hitting, but not at the expense of players suffering lifelong debilitating consequences. And alls it would take is one of these hits to cause that (wether it be paralysis or brain injury ). Go on Wiki and look up the how lives of Mike Webster and Justin Strzelczyk ( to name a couple ) wound up after football . And if that doesn't make you think ..... then whatever. But I think that this is what the NFL is trying to protect these guys from. Yes they know the risks. But we're only talking about eliminating 1 thing here : Hits that make you cringe. Spectacular to watch ? Yep. Necessarry ? No. Avoidable ? Many times- yes ( but not always ). There will still be plenty of hard hits ..... just a few less of this kind.