The good, the bad, and the ugly.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Here ya go:

Arceneaux got rocked.

That wasn't the only time, Loffler knocked the hell out of receivers throughout his career, but he was only penalized for clean body shots in later years as he was never a head-hunter.  BA was flagged a few times for doing the same but adjusted his game to avoid getting penalized for using excessive force. Body can't take those impacts, each one caused a concussion whether head is hit or not. 

[blue_gold_84]

That wasn't the only time, Loffler knocked the hell out of receivers throughout his career...

I couldn't find a video where he hit Begelton, but this one seemed like a close comparable. Loffler was a stud in his prime and made some hellacious hits in blue and gold.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Here ya go:

Arceneaux got rocked.

Thanks for posting that clip, some of my favourite players from that era, it's crazy but I have fonder memories of the pre-Zach era when they were still in chase mode.

[Blue In BC]

Thanks for posting that clip, some of my favourite players from that era, it's crazy but I have fonder memories of the pre-Zach era when they were still in chase mode.

I was never sure what Loffler was supposed to do. It was a violent hit and the receiver was still looking up. That's different than the hit this week.

Wheatfall essentially caught the ball and was tucking it away when he was hit violently on the upper body. There was a slightly longer ( 1/2 second ? ) time than on the Loffler hit.

Again, what is the DB supposed to do, allow the receiver to complete tucking the ball?  If the defender is another 1/2 second or 1 step away it's a completed pass. We some something similar when Mitchell made some receptions and then got hit recently.

I'm all for protecting the players and don't know what exactly can be done to eliminate fast and hard hits.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I was never sure what Loffler was supposed to do. It was a violent hit and the receiver was still looking up. That's different than the hit this week.

Wheatfall essentially caught the ball and was tucking it away when he was hit violently on the upper body. There was a slightly longer ( 1/2 second ? ) time than on the Loffler hit.

Again, what is the DB supposed to do, allow the receiver to complete tucking the ball?  If the defender is another 1/2 second or 1 step away it's a completed pass. We some something similar when Mitchell made some receptions and then got hit recently.

I'm all for protecting the players and don't know what exactly can be done to eliminate fast and hard hits.

Well, DB has the choice of knocking the pass down or tackling the receiver.  Eliminate the option of running them over and using intimidation as a fear factor.

[Blue In BC]

Well, DB has the choice of knocking the pass down or tackling the receiver.  Eliminate the option of running them over and using intimidation as a fear factor.

A DB doesn't always have the option to knock down a pass. It depends on the position of the ball for both the receiver and the DB. More often it's choice to hit the receiver to dislodge the ball. This all happens in a very short time frame. Intimidation is part of the game. You are aware of Brady ball are you not. That's intimidation and punishing defensive players trying to make a tackle.

[blue_or_die]

The "defenseless receiver" thing has always baffled me. If you have the ball you're going to get lit up by a defender. I feel bad for Wheatie but it's collateral damage and deciding when a hit is "violent" is so pathetically subjective.

Thanks for sharing that Loffler hit in what was our first playoff game in 5 years back then. I remember that happening and cheering and getting into a tiff with my father in law and brother in law, "yeah you can't hit a guy that hard..."

Derp.

[Pete]

Well, DB has the choice of knocking the pass down or tackling the receiver.  Eliminate the option of running them over and using intimidation as a fear factor.

not pretending to be an expert but can a rule be instituted that to be a legitimate tackle the defender must at least attempt to wrap up receiver/qb vs using their shoulder/shoulder pads as a point of contact.

[VictorRomano]

not pretending to be an expert but can a rule be instituted that to be a legitimate tackle the defender must at least attempt to wrap up receiver/qb vs using their shoulder/shoulder pads as a point of contact.

Speaking as a kid who grew up playing football and rugby, any attempt to shoulder tackle in rugby without a clear attempt to wrap is met with an immediate yellow card (closest comparable penalty in football would be a misconduct, in rugby it would be 10 minutes on the bench and the offending teram playing 1 player down until the other team scored or 10 minutes elapsed).  If there was no attempt to wrap *and* the player was injured *or* it was a clear attempt to injure, it would be a red card (in football, equivalent would be a game miscoduct and player is done for the game; in rugby it's banishment from the match and an immediate suspension until the disciplinary committee meets, and decides when(or even if) a player will *ever* be allowed to play again.)

I have advocated for decades as a coach in football that tackling rules from rugby should be adopted; if the league is *really* concerned about player safety, they need to make sure every player attempts to wrap during the tackle, and that shoulder tackles are penalized (like, tack 10 yards on after the end of the play) to discourage situations where players launch their body in an uncontrolled manner into a group of people or at an individual.  Proper form protects the head, neck and spine, and has the potential to reduce concussions.

[Pete]

Speaking as a kid who grew up playing football and rugby, any attempt to shoulder tackle in rugby without a clear attempt to wrap is met with an immediate yellow card (closest comparable penalty in football would be a misconduct, in rugby it would be 10 minutes on the bench and the offending teram playing 1 player down until the other team scored or 10 minutes elapsed).  If there was no attempt to wrap *and* the player was injured *or* it was a clear attempt to injure, it would be a red card (in football, equivalent would be a game miscoduct and player is done for the game; in rugby it's banishment from the match and an immediate suspension until the disciplinary committee meets, and decides when(or even if) a player will *ever* be allowed to play again.)

I have advocated for decades as a coach in football that tackling rules from rugby should be adopted; if the league is *really* concerned about player safety, they need to make sure every player attempts to wrap during the tackle, and that shoulder tackles are penalized (like, tack 10 yards on after the end of the play) to discourage situations where players launch their body in an uncontrolled manner into a group of people or at an individual.  Proper form protects the head, neck and spine, and has the potential to reduce concussions.

Appreciate the comment, and agree even if it was just for qbs, The Reavis hit on Collaros there was no attempt to wrap up, it was to inflict as much damage as he could even if it was within the rules. Its not just player safety, we've all seen the quality of games when a teams qb1 is out.
 Are there rules on the shoulder pad and elbow equipment as to how hard they can be? Its almost like a weapon

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Speaking as a kid who grew up playing football and rugby, any attempt to shoulder tackle in rugby without a clear attempt to wrap is met with an immediate yellow card (closest comparable penalty in football would be a misconduct, in rugby it would be 10 minutes on the bench and the offending teram playing 1 player down until the other team scored or 10 minutes elapsed).  If there was no attempt to wrap *and* the player was injured *or* it was a clear attempt to injure, it would be a red card (in football, equivalent would be a game miscoduct and player is done for the game; in rugby it's banishment from the match and an immediate suspension until the disciplinary committee meets, and decides when(or even if) a player will *ever* be allowed to play again.)

I have advocated for decades as a coach in football that tackling rules from rugby should be adopted; if the league is *really* concerned about player safety, they need to make sure every player attempts to wrap during the tackle, and that shoulder tackles are penalized (like, tack 10 yards on after the end of the play) to discourage situations where players launch their body in an uncontrolled manner into a group of people or at an individual.  Proper form protects the head, neck and spine, and has the potential to reduce concussions.

That's the perfect solution, intimidation isn't a necessary part of the game, nobody buys a ticket to watch a DB grunt knock a highly talented receiver out of the lineup and onto the injury list for multiple weeks. If the DB has to throw a bodycheck into a receiver to knock the ball lose he was either caught out of position to knock down the pass or showed up too late to make a play on the ball.

[Tecno]

The "defenseless receiver" thing has always baffled me. If you have the ball you're going to get lit up by a defender. I feel bad for Wheatie but it's collateral damage and deciding when a hit is "violent" is so pathetically subjective.

The issue at hand here, and what I'm sure most would be on board with, is going for major hits on receivers at the moment of the catch when they are looking at nothing but the ball, usually getting blindsided, or have no time to protect themselves.  In the Wheatie case, it was all 3.

The current rules are not comprehensive enough, because they really only protect RECs against shin hits and spearing.  Spearing would only apply when a static REC (i.e. zone sitter) has a DB fly at him helmet first with his body in the air.  That's dangerous because that's a full-speed guy's weight flying at a non-moving REC, and contacting first with a hard surface (helmet).

How is that any worse than the converse, where the REC is in a full speed run catching a crossing route, and the DB then braces themselves at a near-45 degree angle planted on the ground to become basically a granite wall.  In both cases the speed of the collision is the same.  But the planted-DB instance is worse because there is zero give by 1 party in the collision!  At least in the spearing-DB example both players absorb the hit and both are knocked back.  In the Wheatie example only 1 player is knocked back.

I don't see how you can protect one, but not the other.  And the league HAS flagged the Wheatie hit before, many times.  The inconsistency from command and apparent desire for more blood-sport this season is disturbing.

[blue_or_die]

The issue at hand here, and what I'm sure most would be on board with, is going for major hits on receivers at the moment of the catch when they are looking at nothing but the ball, usually getting blindsided, or have no time to protect themselves.  In the Wheatie case, it was all 3.

The current rules are not comprehensive enough, because they really only protect RECs against shin hits and spearing.  Spearing would only apply when a static REC (i.e. zone sitter) has a DB fly at him helmet first with his body in the air.  That's dangerous because that's a full-speed guy's weight flying at a non-moving REC, and contacting first with a hard surface (helmet).

How is that any worse than the converse, where the REC is in a full speed run catching a crossing route, and the DB then braces themselves at a near-45 degree angle planted on the ground to become basically a granite wall.  In both cases the speed of the collision is the same.  But the planted-DB instance is worse because there is zero give by 1 party in the collision!  At least in the spearing-DB example both players absorb the hit and both are knocked back.  In the Wheatie example only 1 player is knocked back.

I don't see how you can protect one, but not the other.  And the league HAS flagged the Wheatie hit before, many times.  The inconsistency from command and apparent desire for more blood-sport this season is disturbing.

I definitely agree with flagging below the belt chop tackles, spearing, and anything involving the head. But when all those parameters are abided by, a clean hit is a clean hit. Same as hockey, where as a defender you go full speed ahead at the player looking to receive the puck and time it perfectly so they're hit right as they gain possession and hope to cause a turnover.

Not sure what "defense" the receiver can have anyway. They're wearing pads and are playing a rough sport. The opportunity to assume the fetal position will only cause more damage when muscles tense up anyway.

I'm all for player safety but there's a point where it's just a contact sport.

[VictorRomano]

Are there rules on the shoulder pad and elbow equipment as to how hard they can be? Its almost like a weapon

Unsure if this comment was direct to me re:  rugby, but rugby has very strict limitations on protective equipment.  A mouthguard is required, but that's it.  PLayer cannot wear medical bracing with any kind of hard parts (strap buckles, plastic joint supports) that may cause cuts or impact injuries during play.  Most players simply uise a ton of tape, and some use tape over a soft neopprene support.  Some front row forwards who engage in mauls and scrums frequently choose to wear a soft foam-padded scrum cap, to protect the players ears from becoming "cauliflower ears" (much like a wrestler's headgear), but this in no way protects from concussions or skull fractures from impacts.  Players can choose to wear a World Rugby approved padded undershirt, but this is mostly intended to prevent severe bruising, with most of the soft foam padding being on top of the shoulders and around the sternum).

I will add one other thing about the Laws in rugby when it comes to tackling - it is stated in the Laws that the player initiating the tackle is responsible for the health and welfare of the player he is attempting to tackle.  If a player gets hurt during the tackle, the blame rests on the player who initiated the tackle.  This is why rugby's Laws penalize players who tackle above mid-chest (even with a full wrap attempted), dump tackles (where the tackled player's head is closer to the ground than his hips, increasing the chance the head and neck hit the ground first), spear tackles (where they player is lifted beyond the horizontal during the tackle, with their head lower than their hips), stiff-arm tackles (where the tackler uses a fist and/or strike with a rigid arm to initiate the tackle) and whip tackles (where a player is flung to the ground by being swung around by their jersey).  All of the above are considered Dangerous Play, and usually lead to a yellow card (if unintentional) or a red card (if intentional, repeated, or if tyhe tackled player suffers injury).

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I definitely agree with flagging below the belt chop tackles, spearing, and anything involving the head. But when all those parameters are abided by, a clean hit is a clean hit. Same as hockey, where as a defender you go full speed ahead at the player looking to receive the puck and time it perfectly so they're hit right as they gain possession and hope to cause a turnover.

Not sure what "defense" the receiver can have anyway. They're wearing pads and are playing a rough sport. The opportunity to assume the fetal position will only cause more damage when muscles tense up anyway.

I'm all for player safety but there's a point where it's just a contact sport.

What you're failing to recognize is the hit laid on Wheatfall caused a concussion due to the blunt force exerted, just as it would have if he speared him in the head with his helmet, the end result is the same.  The DB made a conscious decision to hit him as hard as he could to potentially knock the ball loose instead of wrapping him up with a proper tackle. Can't blame him as he's executing the lessons he's been taught, but if a penalty flag is pending for using excessive force, good chance he chooses the second option first.

From the league's standpoint favouring completions over bone-rattling hits creates more offence instead of  more punts.  It also has economic benefits of not having to pay Wheatfall to sit out games on the injury list and pay another player to take his place.