Originally posted by JustinShapiro As if this is about "I'm just mad that I can't do me cheapshots anymore." Plenty of players have said they think his improper tackle wasn't illegal and that MM ducked into a collision that wasn't even helmet-leading. That's unfortunate but that's Harrison's whole beef -- that the punishments are inconsistent and arbitrary, and that defensive players are put into a difficult position because they're being coached to be physical and break up plays while no one is sure what's illegal or what will be enforced as illegal (no penalty on the MoMass hit) as something similar-looking slides. I'm all for protecting players and an expanded interpretation of unnecessary roughness; the NFL is a meat-grinder on the human body. But the league talks out of both sides of its mouth and only regulates ex post facto based on controversy, attention, and PR, such as this becoming headshot week.
(edited by JustinShapiro on 21.10.10 0909)
I understand what you mean and I agree for the most part. The punishments are random and the NFL isn't pro-active enough to stop these illegal hits from happening. My point would be that, based on what many NFL analysts among others have said, too many players in the NFL today don't know how to tackle properly.A lot of these players, if not the vast majority of them, want to make the highlight reel with their tackles instead of just breaking up the play or preventing the receiver/runner from gaining more yards on the play. The difference in the tackling would not just limit the number of possibly devastating injuries but it would also improve the defense tremendously, which is the actual point for a defensive player, not get on ESPN top 10 plays. As nice as it is to be on a highlight, I sincerely believe that having a OMG play is not going to earn fans, impress coaches, and earn you more money and accolades as much as knowing and properly practicing the basics and performing them well consistently for a better defense all season.
For a player to be considered down, all one has to do is run into them/bump them/touch them and then if the runner stumbles to the ground, they are considered down and tackled.
If the rules were changed so they had to be in the grasp of someone, that would change how the defense plays from hitting to knock people down, to actually wrapping up the players and driving them to the ground.
I'm against the idea of suspensions for plays that were not penalties. Now, for egregious hits, ref has the power to toss the player, so toss him. That hurts the offending player's team even more, as now they are down a player and have to scramble for the rest of the day. With a suspension, you just don't dress the player and you game plan knowing he is not in your defense. Now, for repeat offenders, suspension becomes the next step, with the added punishment that your team can't dress someone in your place. That will get coaches to crackdown on their players.
I don't think anyone's saying he CAN'T do well at football talk, just that it's not what he's best at. His knowledge of baseball is amazing to me at times so it feels like asking Peter Gammons to cover hockey. Why would you do that?