Musings from Jason J

[hoorta]

The man very rarely posts anywhere- and it's been a good year or two since he's posted here- but when he's got something to say, it's worth listening to. And that would especially be you, defenders of Mr Harrison.

 

So with his permission, here's a few reprints from another board for your enlightenment.

 

 

[hoorta]

Jason J...

 

 

"...if people die playing, thats the risk they take."

 

Really??!!!?? Die?? That's OK with you? We're talking about a dead human being here.

 

I'm sure... or at least, I hope there's some hyperbole there. But this ridiculous video game sensitivity to violence (or lack thereof to be more accurate) is really disturbing. And that's the word for it... disturbing. What you wrote was one of the most unsettling things I've read about football in recent memory. And that's no exaggeration. I honestly never wanted to believe that people thought like that.

 

I've been coaching this game for 20 years. And there is a right way and a wrong way to teach the physical part of the game. And please don't get me wrong, pain and intimidation are part of that formula. But there always has to be an eye on the preservation of self and the preservation of the game.

 

The trouble is, when the stakes increase, players are far more apt to ignore their own safety and the safety of others. We have to stop rewarding that behavior. In fact, we have to punish it... for the preservation of the sport.

 

And removing the pads is not the answer. You provide them with the best equipment you can and set very specific rules with harsh enforcement.

 

You can not allow players to tackle with the shell of their helmet.

You can not allow players to make violent contact to the head.

 

What TJ Ward did to Jordan Shipley was a misplay. Sloppiness mixed with aggression... one of the worlds more dangerous cocktails. Ward was way too high. If his target area was nearer Shipley's waist (the way you're taught to tackle), even when he doubled over in reaction to the missed ball, Ward would've hit him in the shoulder pads or midsection. His hit deserved a substantial fine. And that's what he got.

 

Both of Harrison's plays would've gotten him ejected from a Pop Warner game and most high school games. In both cases he deliberately made first contact with the shell of his helmet. And while the fact that his first contact to Cribbs was to the head, that part of it is still legal, technically, it doesn't relieve him of the responsibility of making first contact with something other than the crown of this head.

 

Dunta Robinson, while his right shoulder made the heavy impact, lowered his head and hit Jackson with the crown of his helmet to the base of his facemask. Unacceptable. He's way way way too high. His target area should've been a full foot lower. If that shoulder aims for the area between the belt and the base of the numbers, shoots his arms around like he's supposed to. we still have a great hit. But nobody's risking serious injury. Instead we have a player abusing the leverage of hitting a player high rather than at his center of mass, and compounding it by making direct contact between the rigid surface of the top of his helmet and the rigid facemask of the receiver. The reflex of those two surfaces colliding makes for an incredibly dangerous and wholly unnecessary acceleration of the receivers head... and thereby the brain inside said head.

 

The problem is you have this volatile combination of the desire to be violent and an utter lack of technique or expertise when it comes to tackling. The more I look at the hit that Robinson placed on Jackson, the more appalled I get. Not for the violence... but for the technique. This is a supposedly elite NFL player. And he's making a tackle flat footed, almost no bend at the knee or hip, arched back, head down into a receiver moving directly at him. That's wrong at every point. He's lucky he walked away from it himself... much less the damage he could do to the receiver.

 

He needs to be hips down, back straight & near parallel to the turf, head up and arms cocked. If he does that, he puts his shoulder pad right through the midsection of the receiver and with a great deal more force than he did... and both guys walk away from it unaided... well, it may take Jackson a few minutes to catch his breath.

 

[hoorta]

Jason J

 

 

I'm not suggesting that the game isn't dangerous. There's always a chance that someone ends up somewhere other than where you expected. Collisions are part of football. But a great deal can be done to mitigate the risk rather than magnify it.

 

That kid at Rutgers went in high and made first contact with the shell of his helmet. Had he sunk his hips and put his shoulder pad into the body of the ball carrier, his prognosis would have been much better. It's sad, but we have to stop trading the big hit for proper technique. Proper technique is called that for a reason.

 

What I'm proposing is that we stop distinguishing between intentional helmet to helmet contact, and unintentional helmet to helmet contact. Or, more to the point, distinguish in a way similar to the way legal systems distinguish between "assault" or "aggravated assault."

 

I'm exhausted over the "He didn't do it intentionally" argument. You get no free pass for sloppy play. Ask Donte Stallworth if he intentionally killed that guy with his car. Nope, just a sloppy play. And driving a car while drunk and playing football in a sloppy manner carry unfortunately similar risks.

 

If you go in high, and catch a receiver in the helmet or you make first contact with the shell of your helmet, you get the 15 yards and the ejection. Let the league determine after the fact how long the suspension and how big the fine based on whether or not the hit can be classified as "deliberate," or even how deliberate. Don't know if it was helmet to helmet? Review it. Right then. Have a safety official review the play. If it was in fact illegal, the referee comes out from under the hood, shows the flag, and announces the ejection.

 

The punishment has to hit at all levels. 15 yard penalties are tough on teams. But dead roster spots can be just as damaging. With 45 guys dressing, coaches will begin to get furious over players being ejected. They will teach technique.

 

And the answer to avoid this is not to go half speed or put flags on them. It's teaching proper technique. If these guys are taught (actually, they are) to tackle properly, and held accountable for not doing it correctly (which they aren't), we'll eventually get this cleaned up.

 

The collisions will still be there. But these truly dangerous collisions can be brought down from a several hundred per season to a few dozen.

 

These guys just have to be forced to go in lower. The target for all tackles is the area between the top of the thigh pads and the base of the shoulder pads. If you stick to that, the amount of inadvertent helmet-to-helmet contact can be reduced significantly.

 

Like any rule change, it will take a little time to get used to. But after a while, guys will start tackling better, and fewer guys will get hurt. And the game will look strikingly similar to the way it always has.

 

 

-jj

[hoorta]

Jason J

 

Defensive technique in general is degrading. But tackling has been abysmal for at least a decade. Somewhere along the line we forgot how to hit and wrap. Instead tackling in the secondary has degraded to a form of moving body block; a hodgepodge of off-angle launchings at the shins and thighs of ball carriers. ED- I never thought about that before, but man,he's dead right...

 

That was where it started. But quickly larger players realized that you can maximize the impact by targeting the players vertical extremities. You mitigate your own risk by targeting the head of a player and utilizing the leverage to move his entire body mass. It's much easier to hit a guy in his head and send his body rotating around his center of mass, than it is to impact his center of mass and overcome his inertia.

 

Yes a quick burst of a blow to the head can deliver exponentially more lateral acceleration than even a well timed collision of large masses. So, first the NFL, then college, and now even at high school and instructional levels tackling has taken a backseat to a haphazard lunges, and ground level missile-fire leaps at ball carriers and receivers.

 

Now, did they factor the physics into it? I don't know. I doubt it. But they quickly figured out that they can knock somebody out without putting themselves at the same risk simply by moving their target from the waist to the head.

 

The old tackling adage was, "he can't go anywhere his belt buckle doesn't go." Modern defenders also might note, "he won't go too far without his head either."

 

True enough.

 

But the point of the matter is taking a shot at an airborne receiver's head is a coward's way out. If you want to deliver a knockout shot, hit through his core -- right through his center of mass.

 

But most guys don't want any part of it.

 

It's path of least resistance kind of stuff. And there are too many players and coaches all too willing to allow it to continue.

 

-jj

[hoorta]

Jason J

 

 

I can't disagree with you more. I'm not adding anything to the argument. I'm completely discounting "malicious intent" as irrelevant to the offense. I don't care what the player "intended". It doesn't matter.

 

The answer is in your statement. You said, "Since the players wear pads and helmets, they are instinctively loading up and unleashing hell at full speed quite recklessly."

 

Who the hell taught you that that's how you play football? There is nothing instinctive about launching your body at someone else. It's calculated, learned behavior. And it can be unlearned. You even call it "reckless." How is that OK?

 

You get arrested for driving a car recklessly. How does playing football recklessly not at least warrant a penalty or ejection?

 

In my opinion, if you make violent, unnecessary first contact with any part of the helmet including the forehead/hairline or the facemask (exactly like it says in the rulebook) - it's a penalty - you will be ejected - and subject to a fine and suspension.

 

"Malicious intent" affects only the amount of the fine and the length of the suspension.

 

This goes for guys who load up and come in high as well as for guys who launch themselves full speed into a receiver or ball carrier - Make violent, unnecessary first contact with your helmet you get to hit the locker room early. See ya. Sorry. Reckless pitchers get tossed from baseball games - there's no reason to keep a dangerously reckless player on a football field.

 

This launching of the body like a missile into another player is a relatively recent development in the NFL. And it's never been taught by anyone who has an ounce of sense. It's reckless, and it's dangerous, and it has no place in the NFL or football at any level.

 

It is not an important part of the game. Big hits are. Dangerous hits are not.

 

I don't care what you intended to do. You fly in out of control and catch a guy on the chin - you're done for the day. Sorry. Be more precise next time. Here's an idea, "see what you hit."

 

You fly in out of control and inadvertently tag a guy with the top of your helmet - you're done. See ya next week. Warm up your checkbook. Here's an idea... "see what you hit."

 

Target the torso. Guys in the NFL tackle way too high. It's sloppy. It's reckless. It's dangerous.

 

I have trouble understanding why this is a big problem for people.

 

-jj

[hoorta]

Jason J

 

yeah, one of our resident trolls likes to get spanked on other boards too..... And he's in denial about the Cribbs hit......

 

 

______________________________________________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fan Of STEEL

Actually it is very much a part of the game. If you played football ever you were taught to inflict as much punishment as possible to the opposing player. You WANT to hurt them. You don't want to kill them or end their career but you want to slow them down. This happens by wearing your opponent down through HITTING them. Leading with your head should be a penalty but what they are talking about doing has nothing to do with leading with your helmet. They are talking about HARD hits, not just hits to the head. And neither of Harrisons hits were leading with his helmet either. It's total BS and is going to change the game for the worse. If they want to make it safer remove some of the padding or safty equipment. It is what makes the players able to deliver the big hits. What you are going to see now is more career ending knee injuries to the offensive players.

"Actually it is very much a part of the game. If you played football ever you were taught to inflict as much punishment as possible to the opposing player. You WANT to hurt them."

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

Who taught you that? Because he's an idiot. If you play the game within the rules, there will be a great deal of big hits. And rarely does anyone get hurt from a good, clean hit.

 

"They are talking about HARD hits, not just hits to the head. "

 

No they're talking about "dangerous" hits. Hits that are already prohibited in the rules of football at all levels. The language is pretty clear. The NFL will not permit violent, unnecessary contact with any part of the helmet including the crown, forehead (hairline), or facemask.

 

Also not permitted are blows to the head and neck area of a defenseless player, with an area of special enforcement that includes making said contact with one's own helmet - the so called "helmet-to-helmet" rule.

 

Notice it doesn't say "lead with the head." It says "violent and unnecessary contact with any part of the helmet."

 

In both of Harrison's incidents (even though the league gave him a free pass on the Cribbs shot), it could be argued that he made "violent and unnecessary contact with his helmet."

 

If Harrison had good tackling form and kept his head up he would've skimmed right over Cribbs back, as he was quickly pulled to the ground in front of him. There was no need to hit him again. He didn't prevent him from advancing the ball. He wasn't going to cause a turnover. He was trying to send a message. He lowered his headgear and planted the crown of his helmet into the side of another players helmet. Message delivered. Now get your checkbook.

 

The Massoquoi hit was certainly less unnecessary, as when Harrison launched himself there was no way to know if the receiver would still have the ball when he got there. The problem is, he's way too high. He deliberately aimed at a target area at or above the shoulders of the player. The rules strictly prohibit contact to the "head and neck area of a defenseless player." Regardless of what he lead with. He made contact to the "head and neck area of a defenseless player." And once those helmets touch - and please don't try to argue that those helmets didn't collide as part of the hit - the case is closed. You broke the rule. Period.

 

And stop with the "take the pads off the players bit. The equipment isn't "what makes the players able to deliver the big hits." Reckless players make players able deliver dangerous hits. Lack of self preservation, a fleck of sadism, some macho bullshit drive, and and a general "look at me I'm some sort of badass" mentality makes players able to attempt to maim, injure, or "hurt" another player without remorse.

 

Helmets don't cause 20 years of headaches, bi-polarism, depression, attempted suicides, shorter lifespans, dementia, and memory loss - people do.

 

-jj

[hoorta]

Jason J

 

First, these rules aren't new. They've been around in one form or another since the mid-1970's. The current iteration of the rule has states that a player may not use "any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily."

 

And prohibits

 

"... the initial force of the contact by a defender’s helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder... to the head or neck area of a defenseless player. "

So nothing has changed other than what might be considered "violent," "unnecessary," or "defenseless."

 

I would argue that the LACK of fear of injury is attempting to irrevocably damage the game as we know it. Advances in equipment have created an undue air of fearlessness among NFL players. Couple that with advances in weight training, nutrition, complex zone defense alignments, and you've ratcheted up the violence to a level that exceeds the human body's ability to absorb it.

 

Consider, we're only 35 years removed from the suspension helmet being the norm. A helmet that was lined like a crown around the forehead and base of the skull in foam rubber and a leather or vinyl cap (almost like a kippah or "yarmulke") that was fastened with nylon straps to the lower part of the helmet in order to keep a cushion of air between the cap and the rigid helmet above.

 

You had to protect yourself. Because that thing wasn't going to do it for you. And you certainly wouldn't deliberately hit anyone with it. Not with your own head in it.

 

Look at the engineering on the inside of one of today's helmets vs. one from even 20 years ago. If you make deliberate, braced, predictable contact with any part of these new helmets, you are incredibly unlikely to suffer any particular negative event.

 

However, the helmet can do nothing about the head of someone who is off of the ground or not expecting contact.

 

When you deliver a hit, the massive muscles in the neck and back work in tandem to swell like a hydraulic shock absorber to minimize the motion of the head. The muscles of the back contort to align the spine to accept the blow vertically allowing the dispersion of energy first helmet padding, then through the muscles of the neck and shoulder, then through the compression of the soft spinal discs. So much is this the case, that the player delivering the hit often never loses balance, remains standing upright, and appears to hit "through" the opponent as if he wasn't there. The head, unless the force of impact was greatly miscalculated, moves smoothly and slowly with minimal shifting.

 

That's all well and good if you're the hitter. For the hittee the world is much different. Even the most sophisticated of sports helmets cannot stop or even appreciably slow the rapid deceleration and re-acceleration of the cranium in a helmet to helmet collision. In a fraction of a fraction of a second, the player's head goes from moving in one direction at a rate of 14-16 miles per hour, to zero, to 25-30 miles per hour in the opposite direction, to zero again when his head hits the ground. Even considering that the player's musculature and inertia will decelerate the motion after the initial impact, the collision with the ground is still violent to the point of dangerous.

 

Now, the impact with the padding inside the helmet will attempt to slow this acceleration deceleration event. And it does a fair job at protecting the skull and surrounding tissue - NFL players are almost never bruised by helmet contact events and cranial fractures are virtually unheard of.

 

But nothing, and I mean NOTHING, can stop the smashing of the brain against the rigid surface inside the skull. And that's exactly whats' going on here. The rigid surface of one helmet reflecting off of another creates an immediate stop of the forward motion of the brain... in much the same way a bridge abutment brings a stop to a Ford Mustang. The brain smashes against the cranial wall, distorting its shape and, in some cases momentarily pulling away from the spinal chord... creating an electrical interruption. That's why the lights go out. And as the head rebounds in the opposite direction, you'll see a repeat of this process as the players head ricochets off the turf.

 

As advocates and coaches, we're just beginning to chart the long term effects of these repeated violent cranial events... we're having enough trouble charting the short-term effects.

 

We know this... it's really bad for you. And that's enough.

 

Forcing players to strike in the torso - moreover the mid-torso - is not going to "Pussify" the game. Prohibiting players from striking with their helmets is not going to "Screw" the game. It's a way to protect the game - and to a greater extent - protect the players from themselves. And players need protecting. It's a rare 20 something with stacks of disposable income that makes decisions that - despite his great claims of wisdom - are, in fact, in his best long-term interest.

 

Remember these guys don't get paid millions of dollars to put their lives in danger. Anyone can do that. We don't pay skydivers millions of dollars. NFL players get paid the way they do because they are elite athletes that we pay to entertain us. Entertain us... not attempt to kill one another. It's a game - not some macho war of attrition.

 

The game is popular because it's entertaining. The violence is and always will be a part of it. But the violence itself is only appealing to a fraction of the fan base. Try not to project your particular adolescent bloodlust on the masses. What's true for you, is not true of all fans. And NFL highlight shows will not lose a single viewer over the lack of a "Jacked Up" segment.

 

Relax. Go hit the heavy bag for a while, then enjoy the show that the NFL puts on. Leave the policy-making and rules enforcement to people who give a damn about the players' lives and livelihood, and frankly, know better.

 

-jj

[Canton Mike]

I agree that tackling, in general, has been poor. I WANT to see more of defensive players wrapping a guy up & really TACKLING them. It's called going back to basics.

Mike

[kshutchins]

Thanks, Hoorta. And thanks to jj, too, for an extremely informative, knowledgeable account.

[kshutchins]

Jason J

Remember these guys don't get paid millions of dollars to put their lives in danger. Anyone can do that. We don't pay skydivers millions of dollars. NFL players get paid the way they do because they are elite athletes that we pay to entertain us. Entertain us... not attempt to kill one another. It's a game - not some macho war of attrition.

 

The game is popular because it's entertaining. The violence is and always will be a part of it. But the violence itself is only appealing to a fraction of the fan base. Try not to project your particular adolescent bloodlust on the masses. What's true for you, is not true of all fans. And NFL highlight shows will not lose a single viewer over the lack of a "Jacked Up" segment.

 

Relax. Go hit the heavy bag for a while, then enjoy the show that the NFL puts on. Leave the policy-making and rules enforcement to people who give a damn about the players' lives and livelihood, and frankly, know better.

 

-jj

 

I think the above bears repeating.

 

My seats in CBS are in the upper deck. I like sitting up there because I can see the entire field and see things you can't see in the tight shots on tv or from field level. The most fun I ever had at a football game was when my dad and I sat next to someone who REALLY understood the game more than we did and pointed out what to watch on every play. It was far more entertaining than waiting for the sound of the one brutal hit. I love hearing from people who really know the game.

 

[kshutchins]

I see the Harrison fans have been rendered speechless.