OT: James Harrison threatens to quit over fine

[Bobs My Uncle]

Are you making a knock on my grammar or my contention that most of the time you can hit someone without making it illegal?

I understood your "everytime" comment to mean that Meriweather hits illegally everytime. If not everytime certainly more than just this once.

If this were a case where the player in question had been fined multiple times for helmet to helmet hits then, yes, I see where a suspension is warranted. This was Merwiether's first such infraction. It's not like he's applying helmet to helmet hits all of the time.

 

[Froob]

The last thing anyone wants is another daryl stingley though. I think some of it can be removed but if they start going further than just head to head. Then that's another story.

 

[BSR]

I'm sure that CBs have been saying the same thing about the illegal contact/pass interference rules for the past seven years as well. Eventually they figure out how to do it.

I also think it is less about figuring out intent but rather just fining helmet to helmet hits regardless of intent. One concern I have regarding this is the WRs role in this. Its pretty common to see a WR start to curl up when he is about to be hit and bringing the head down is a part of this. I think that was what happened on the Harrison hit. So even if a defender is trying to make a legal hit, the reaction of the WR is going to cause them to make an improper hit. I'd hate to see one of our players be suspended or adjust their game out of fear of being suspended when they didn't do anything wrong and it was just one of those things.

 

[condon84]

James Harrison on skipping the White House visit:

"This is how I feel -- if you want to see the Pittsburgh Steelers, invite us when we don't win the Super Bowl. As far as I'm concerned, he [Obama] would've invited Arizona if they had won," said Harrison.

Not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[Bella*chick]

James Harrison on skipping the White House visit:



Not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

LOL, what an understatement. I cannot stop laughing at his comments.

 

[Sicilian]

I understood your "everytime" comment to mean that Meriweather hits illegally everytime. If not everytime certainly more than just this once.

If this were a case where the player in question had been fined multiple times for helmet to helmet hits then, yes, I see where a suspension is warranted. This was Merwiether's first such infraction. It's not like he's applying helmet to helmet hits all of the time.

That's not what I meant at all, but I probably wasn't clear. What I meant was, the number of hits that are illegal is so minuscule, that cracking down on them and punishing the few offenders severely isn't going to affect 99.9% of the plays, or 99.9% of the players. It's not going to make the game soft, because right now those types of illegal hits are not really part of the game.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

I'm sure that CBs have been saying the same thing about the illegal contact/pass interference rules for the past seven years as well. Eventually they figure out how to do it.

I also think it is less about figuring out intent but rather just fining helmet to helmet hits regardless of intent. One concern I have regarding this is the WRs role in this. Its pretty common to see a WR start to curl up when he is about to be hit and bringing the head down is a part of this. I think that was what happened on the Harrison hit. So even if a defender is trying to make a legal hit, the reaction of the WR is going to cause them to make an improper hit. I'd hate to see one of our players be suspended or adjust their game out of fear of being suspended when they didn't do anything wrong and it was just one of those things.

And both will happen most certainly.

Suspensions will happen, and players will avoid hitting, for fear they'll be docked serious money. And all for something that, in many cases, is totally unavoidable.

As things now stand there is a very fine line between making a great hit that separates the defender from the ball and wins the game for a team and making a hit that gets you suspended for a game or two and aids your team in losing.

 

[moosekill]

Actually removing the helmets and other equipment would not be a bad idea. Rugby is just as violent of sport but with less serious injuries because the players are not armed with weapons.

Rugby is no where near as violent a sport as football is, because they don't wear padding.

 

[Gwedd]

My problem with this plan of justice is that play will be altered depending on your salary. If a minimum wage player gets docked $50K, it hurts and he will think twice. The multimillion dollar player may see this fine as a cost of doing business, like Rodney Harrison did. Their game is less likely to change. Either fines should be proportional to income.... or suspensions without pay.

The way to levy the fines and make certain that the players are paying attention, is to make each fine as percentage of income. In other words, the more you make, the more you pay in fines.

You get a fine that's 10% of your income, THAT will really make people sit up and take notice.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

That's not what I meant at all, but I probably wasn't clear. What I meant was, the number of hits that are illegal is so minuscule, that cracking down on them and punishing the few offenders severely isn't going to affect 99.9% of the plays, or 99.9% of the players. It's not going to make the game soft, because right now those types of illegal hits are not really part of the game.

Gotcha.

I happen to disagree with you though.

It's a big enough issue that the league is doing something about it.

Second, it has the real potential to make defenses soft simply because defenders are in position to being scrutinized by the league and media, with the resultant possible fine, each and every time they make a tackle. If money is at risk players will change the way they play for fear of losing said money. It WILL happen ..... and that's the objective of this ruling actually. But, there are SERIOUS woes in it's implementation.

You have to realize that oftentimes such hits are unavoidable. Not every "illegal" hit is the result of malicious intent. Many. most? are simply the result of bad timing, or luck, however you wish to look at it.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Rugby is no where near as violent a sport as football is, because they don't wear padding.

Maybe I should have used the word "physical" instead of "violent". But I would not mind in the least if football returned to its rugby roots of no padding and helmets and players using their physical strength to battle on the LOS instead of the equipment.

 

[Nitro]

Im a fan of the if you injure a player you are out as long as the other guy is out idea. no fines, you give someone a concussion and they are out a month, so are you. simple as that.

 

[Gwedd]

And both will happen most certainly.

Suspensions will happen, and players will avoid hitting, for fear they'll be docked serious money. And all for something that, in many cases, is totally unavoidable.

As things now stand there is a very fine line between making a great hit that separates the defender from the ball and wins the game for a team and making a hit that gets you suspended for a game or two and aids your team in losing.

Not really. Learn to lead from the shoulder, and/or hit square up and there should be no problem. The issue here isn't so much a helmet-to-helmet hit. That's going to happen during a game, no matter what the players do. The issue is intentionally leading with the helmet and going for the other player's head.

In case some folks don't know, the face guard is welded steel covered with an industrial grade heavy plastic. The helmet's main shell is actually a better grade material than that used to make motorcycle helmets. The whole helmet is heavy, and stores energy as the player accelerates. It's going to transfer all that energy at the moment of impact and if it hits a human head, there's a real chance of that force being transferred along the side of the skull, with some dissipating through micro-fractures or tissue/ligament separation at the jaw line, and the rest moving down to the neck vertebra and possibly causing a disc to blow or actually sever the joint and, potentially, the spinal cord. It's like energy traveling down the support columns of a bridge. To much concentrated in one area can find the weak spots and cause it to buckle.

Helmet-to-helmet injuries will always occur. The way to mitigate this issue is to ban the intentional use of the helmet-to-helmet hit and I have no problem with that.

 

[BradyManny]

Sure, remove the helmets. It s heading that way anyhow with all the controls being enforced on the players. In due time, they'll all be wearing flags on their hips in which case helmets won't be needed.

As for my take on the injury aspect ...... the game is violent and injuries happen. If a player doesn't want to subject himself to possible injury then he should go play golf instead.

That's asinine. That's like saying "well, if a player didn't want to be ritually sacrificed to the Gods, they he shouldn't have played in that Mayan ballgame". We have the ability to evolve as a society, and outgrow dangerous - even barbaric - practices when new information is available to us.

No one is advocating flag football. We're talking about players launching their brains into one another at high speeds, unnecessarily. That really doesn't need to be a part of anything, or any game.

No one should have to sacrifice their post-career livelihood & mental state for the sake of the game in this day and age. We're talking about head, neck & spine injuries. There is no reason for them, ever. These aren't aches & pains. Yes, football is a violent sport which will cause broken bones, torn ACLs, busted knees for life - but that's not the issue. The issue is the head. These are life-altering injuries.

Take a look at rugby - it's a physical sport, but without the same problems.

The padding and helmets make NFL players feel invincible, when they are not. They need to protect their heads. It's that simple. Meriweather's hit has no place in the game, it has nothing to do with football, particularly not football going forward - with what we know now.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

That's asinine. That's like saying "well, if a player didn't want to be ritually sacrificed to the Gods, they he shouldn't have played in that Mayan ballgame". We have the ability to evolve as a society, and outgrow dangerous - even barbaric - practices when new information is available to us.

No one is advocating flag football. We're talking about players launching their brains into one another at high speeds, unnecessarily. That really doesn't need to be a part of anything, or any game.

No one should have to sacrifice their post-career livelihood for the sake of the game in this day and age. We're talking about head, neck & spine injuries. There is no reason for them, ever.

Take a look at rugby - it's a physical sport, but without the same problems.

The padding and helmets make NFL players feel invincible, when they are not. They need to protect their heads. It's that simple. Meriweather's hit has no place in the game, it has nothing to do with football, particularly not football going forward - with what we know now.

I disagree but to each his own I suppose.

 

[goz421]

Goddell made his bed when he showed during spygate that he would cave to media pressure.

 

[FirstAndGoal]

Harrison is a drama queen. Does anyone really think he'll quit?

 

[Haley]

Harrison is a drama queen. Does anyone really think he'll quit?

No, it's pretty hard to make 3.6 mil a year otherwise.

 

[PatsDeb]

Go ahead and quit, ya losah. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Patriot Missile]

That's not what I meant at all, but I probably wasn't clear. What I meant was, the number of hits that are illegal is so minuscule, that cracking down on them and punishing the few offenders severely isn't going to affect 99.9% of the plays, or 99.9% of the players. It's not going to make the game soft, because right now those types of illegal hits are not really part of the game.

Pretty much agree here. Not to sound like some uncaring fan or anything,but part of Harrisons interview had to do with offensive players leading with their helmets too. I think he used Jacobs as an example. The phrase violent game has been thrown out there quite a bit this week and that is exactly what it is. The intensity level will suffer a tad with the rule changes.