PFT: NFL considers more ejections for illegal hits

[Deus Irae]

In college football, the targeting rule states that any player who targets his opponent’s head with an illegal hit is automatically ejected, resulting in numerous ejections every Saturday. That approach may be coming to the NFL.

NFL Executive Vice President for Football Operations Troy Vincent says that the league’s Competition Committee is looking at immediate ejections as a solution to eliminate hits to the head.

NFL considers more ejections for illegal hits

Outside of economics, does the stupidity of the NFL have a limit?

 

[Bruins29]

 

[WaterfallJumper]

NFL considers more ejections for illegal hits

Outside of economics, does the stupidity of the NFL have a limit?

I'm all for player safety, but an automatic ejection for an inconsistent penalty is too much. Each ref seems to enforce the rule differently.

 

[Clonamery]

Oh, I thought it was for hitting Goodell in the head not other players. **** that, Refs are overwhelmed as it is...

 

[XLIX]

If they do this, they're going to have the exact same problem college had when they first implemented the policy: people will be outraged when a player gets ejected for something which replay shows was a bad call (like the contact was really to the shoulder or something like that).

College's solution was to implement automatic replays for such ejections to confirm or override the call on the field. But if the NFL did that too, it would slow down games even further.

 

[neuronet]

If they are serious about limiting head injuries, they probably should do something more than 15 yard penalty. But what more can they do besides eject players?

25 yard penalties? Points given? Automatic turnover? We don't have to limit ourselves to the usual penalties...Get creative: firstborn son, break a mom's finger, waterboarding?

 

[Soliel]

Oh brother. Seems like they are trying to dream up a way of beating the pats... Just toss out all our players for head hits.


That hit just cost you another draft pick

 

[PatsFanSince74]

That's like Capital Punishment without a trial.

Taking a player like Von Miller or Hightower or JPP, to name a few, out of a game on the basis of a judgment call by an official can influence the outcome of a game, especially early on.

If the League wants to up the enforcement of its suspension policy related to illegal hits to the head, that's fine with me as a matter of player safety, but a suspension should only occur after a review that takes place after the game and can be appealed in 24 hours.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

If any such ejection had to be confirmed by real, on the field, we see what the ref is seeing review I'll tentatively support it. I certainly have no problem with the concept of ejecting players for such hits. Any objections I have come down to how the policy would be implemented.

 

[ivanvamp]

I'm with PatsFanSince74. I think the best way to deal with this is to throw a flag, 15 yard penalty. If you get two of the same penalty (targeting), then you get ejected. But each one is reviewed, and if the team of officials reviewing the hits deems that the hits were real and probably on purpose, you get suspended a game.

That's pretty fair, it's a really stiff penalty, but it leaves room for the officials to make a mistake and not have the player punished too harshly.

 

[RobertWeathers]

As the article stated it seems there is still some discussion to be had.

Is it just for head hits or for all illegal hits?

For example, are they considering something like Kam's hit on Tom subject to automatic ejection? That seems like a stretch to me.

What about horse-collars?

 

[ivanvamp]

As the article stated it seems there is still some discussion to be had.

Is it just for head hits or for all illegal hits?

For example, are they considering something like Kam's hit on Tom subject to automatic ejection? That seems like a stretch to me.

What about horse-collars?

By the way, I still can't believe that Chancellor's wicked hit to Edelman in SB 49 - the one where Edelman went to one knee and got up and ran some more, but was clearly dazed (i.e., probably concussed) - wasn't flagged. It was a total shot to the head, but nobody even argued it at all. The announcers didn't even comment on it, but it was completely vicious and a clear head shot.

 

[jah]

I'm against this because of the subjectivity of enforcement, not because of "THE ****IFICATION OF FOOTBALL OMG".

 

[jah]

By the way, I still can't believe that Chancellor's wicked hit to Edelman in SB 49 - the one where Edelman went to one knee and got up and ran some more, but was clearly dazed (i.e., probably concussed) - wasn't flagged. It was a total shot to the head, but nobody even argued it at all. The announcers didn't even comment on it, but it was completely vicious and a clear head shot.

Probably better that way considering he should have been evaluated for a concussion but instead caught the SB winning touchdown...

 

[XLIX]

I'm against this because of the subjectivity of enforcement, not because of "THE ****IFICATION OF FOOTBALL OMG".

That's how I feel too. In fact, it sickens me how every time the NFL makes a good faith effort to make the game safer, a certain segment of fandom always complain about "putting dresses on the players" and "the wussification of the NFL".

Meanwhile, Dwight Clark announces he has ALS and Gale Sayers has dementia. But how dare the NFL try to legislate illegal hits to the head!!!

 

[neuronet]

By the way, I still can't believe that Chancellor's wicked hit to Edelman in SB 49 - the one where Edelman went to one knee and got up and ran some more, but was clearly dazed (i.e., probably concussed) - wasn't flagged. It was a total shot to the head, but nobody even argued it at all. The announcers didn't even comment on it, but it was completely vicious and a clear head shot.

I don't remember it that clearly, wasn't he a runner at that point, not a defenseless receiver?

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm against this because of the subjectivity of enforcement, not because of "THE ****IFICATION OF FOOTBALL OMG".

In this case, the first is part of the second.

 

[ivanvamp]

I don't remember it that clearly, wasn't he a runner at that point, not a defenseless receiver?

No. He had literally JUST caught the ball when Chancellor drilled him. Almost a simultaneous act, actually.

 

[Gator Mike]

I'm OK with tossing players for hits to the head, if the play is reviewed prior to an ejection.

I also think the NFL should be suspending more players for those kinds of hits.

Also, I've always kind of wondered why rosters aren't expanded so that players who are injuried/concussed aren't rushed back. And while we're at it, why do you have to end a player's season when you put him on the Disabled List? Why not create the NFL equivilant of the 15 or 60 day Disabled Lists like in baseball?

A lot of what the NFL does when it comes to player safety makes little to no sense to me.

 

[RobertWeathers]

By the way, I still can't believe that Chancellor's wicked hit to Edelman in SB 49 - the one where Edelman went to one knee and got up and ran some more, but was clearly dazed (i.e., probably concussed) - wasn't flagged. It was a total shot to the head, but nobody even argued it at all. The announcers didn't even comment on it, but it was completely vicious and a clear head shot.

Totally. That was a 15 yard penalty of there ever was one.