Sure hope he`s OK

D3 Mighty Ducks · 11-21-10, 10:53 PM

So by the rules of this stupid league Samuels hard hit on that no name wide receiver was more "vicious" then that idiot on the Giants direct head shot to Ellis Hobbs? Someone please please explain why that wasn't a penalty and won't be a fine?

dlightner · 11-21-10, 10:59 PM

Helmet to Helmet is Helmet to Helmet. I just don`t get it. Dumb rules

Beachdude83 · 11-21-10, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by D3 Mighty Ducks

So by the rules of this stupid league Samuels hard hit on that no name wide receiver was more "vicious" then that idiot on the Giants direct head shot to Ellis Hobbs? Someone please please explain why that wasn't a penalty and won't be a fine?

Because when you are tackling an established runner it is much more dangerous to lead with your head if you are tackling. That guy in college this year got paralyzed because he lead with his head when he tackled. itd be kinda sad if a guy led with his head and got paralyzed and then got fined $50,000

D3 Mighty Ducks · 11-21-10, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Beachdude83

Because when you are tackling an established runner it is much more dangerous to lead with your head if you are tackling. That guy in college this year got paralyzed because he lead with his head when he tackled. itd be kinda sad if a guy led with his head and got paralyzed and then got fined $50,000

You didn't answer my question.

Beachdude83 · 11-21-10, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by D3 Mighty Ducks

You didn't answer my question.

because established runners can just move themselves so they will be hit helmet to helmet. a defenseless receiver is protected because they can't brace themselves for hits and can't manipulate their bodies to cause the defender to make an illegal hit.

D3 Mighty Ducks · 11-21-10, 11:15 PM

Thats the stupidest rule in all of sports. If there going to eliminate hits to the head you can't just protect defenseless receivers. Just because one guy is a runner and one is a receiver that means its okay that the "runner" can be brain dead for the rest of his life because he was able to move out of the way. A hit to the head is a hit to the head. You either get rid of it or keep it, you can't call one hit and not the other. Such a dumb rule I can't believe that.

Beachdude83 · 11-21-10, 11:20 PM

i agree it is a dumb rule. but if you eliminate all hits to the head the game really would be unwatchable. these guys get paid millions of dollars to play this game. they don't have to play if they don't want to

D3 Mighty Ducks · 11-21-10, 11:25 PM

And what you said I agree too. Would I like to see anyone lying down on the field helpless with no movement in their arms and legs? No, of course not I'm not that sick in the head. But my point and i'll repeat it again and again if your going to make a big stink about hits to the head then you have to call EVERY hit to the head, PERIOD! I hated when they caused such a big deal about the hitting to the head when Dunta Robinson absolutely destroyed DeSean Jackson coming across the middle a few weeks ago. Its part of the game. Make safer helmets or just turn the NFL in to touch football because this hitting to the head rule its just to shut the media up, its not reducing injuries in any way.

Beachdude83 · 11-21-10, 11:40 PM

head to head happens its football and i dont think they should be making all these new rules. people are going to get hurt, they always have, they always will. nobody is forcing them to play. people weren't getting carted off the field every game before these rules. it wasnt a problem in the first place