Wednesday 20 October 2010

Supporting the new NFL rules on dangerous tackles

Following several incidents in week 6, the National Football League has made the decision to introduce fines and possible suspensions for players who commit dangerous and unnecessary helmet-to-helmet tackles on 'defenseless' ball-carriers.


Patriots defender Brandon Merriweather launches himself at the unprotected Todd Heap


Dunta Robinson collides with Desean Jackson


Steelers player James Harrison hits Cleveland's Mohamed Massaquoi

Being an issue that I feel passionately about and that I have written about before, I'm fully behind the NFL's decision to introduce such measures.

Predictably, many current players saw it a different way. Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher spoke to the Chicago Tribune:

"It's freaking football. There are going to be big hits,'' Urlacher said. "I don't understand how they can do this after one weekend of hitting. And I can't understand how they can suspend us for it. I think it's a bunch of bull (crap).

"You know what we should do? We should just put flags on everybody. Let's make it the NFFL — the National Flag Football League. It's unbelievable.''



And James Harrison, involved in one of the two more-flagrant incidents on Sunday and fined $75,000 as a result, threatened to quit the game.

What Harrison has said has made him look both petulant and immature. Here is a player who has in the past made no secret about going out in games and attempting to injure opponents, and with such an attitude he will, in my eyes at least, no loss to the sport should he decide to leave.

What needs to change quickly is the attitude that 'it's football, get on with it'. Tell that to former professionals now struggling with the devastating effects of brain damage induced by repeated concussions. Protective equipment was developed for the game following injuries to players, and this same equipment has now become a weapon itself. The sport must do what it can in order to adapt again.

I get the appeal of the big helmet-on-helmet hits; the dramatic immediacy of the stop, the testosterone-fueled reaction it brings, and the sheer drama of the play. But you cannot keep such hits and also keep the long-term health of players safeguarded. And in a choice between the two, I'll put the player's safety first, every time.

The idea that the game will fundamentally change, or that the physical nature of the sport is being completely removed is flawed. Only the unnecessarily violent plays will be penalised. The message to defenders is this; tackle properly and without causing undue injury or distress to your opponent. That is hardly too much to ask for, is it?

Anything that can be done to reduce the frequency of concussions and head injuries in general must be encouraged, and simply asking that players avoid such tackles is ultimately for their own benefit. (What the league has yet to consider is the concussive effects of regular and repeated helmet contact between players at the line of scrimmage)

The debate currently being had has at least meant that we have heard players such as former Patriots safety Rodney Harrison, voicing his regrets about the way he played the game following his retirement.

The possibility of getting fined or ultimately suspended should mean that players have to think before they tackle, which can be no bad thing. For one it should see coaches having to instruct players on how to tackle properly, not leading with the head but wrapping the arms and bringing the player down.

By tragic coincidence, this week in college football saw Rutgers defensive linesman Eric LeGrand being paralysed from an impact during a special teams play, when he lowered his helmet into the body of an opponent. If these are the possible immediate effects from head collisions, the significance of the long term effects should also be apparent. If anything can make professionals like Harrison think twice before either speaking or tackling, LeGrand's life-changing injury should.

No comments:

Post a Comment