- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Malachi Dupre carried off on stretcher
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:10 am to moneyg
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:10 am to moneyg
quote:
I think everyone agrees you shouldn't lead with the crown of your helmet and certainly shouldn't lower your head when tackling. However, anyone being honest also knows that these defenders are protecting themselves as well...and they are reacting at incredible speeds. This wasn't a Chuck Cecil hit. This wasn't intentional. And, Malachi needs to protect himself as a runner. We see hits like this in every single game.
Not denying any of this. Simply making the argument that the hit was undoubtedly illegal, and should be illegal, and it's asinine for anyone to even attempt to argue otherwise. The "it's football" response is particularly dumb, considering this is a rule...in football...at every level...and has been for years.
3
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:14 am to glaucon
quote:
ejected for the game would be the appropriate response
Hope you like flag football bc thats what youre wanting. Sorry, but the occasional hit like that IS PART OF THE GAME. Its what made it so great. I dont even know how a safety is supposed to play anymore.... why even be on the field.
I know we have to address CTE, but at what cost? If a player is worried, he shouldnt play. Get a normal job. There are risks in damn near everything.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:16 am to moneyg
quote:
A very reasonable line to draw is the defenseless vs. non-defenseless player.
No, its not. The game needs to change in order to lower the incidences of tackles like this. The defenseless/non-defenseless player distinction fundamentally doesn't matter. It is about lowering the number of concussions. While outside the tackle box, you can't lead with the crown of your helmet, period. Long term, it is about making the game safer for the players, which is necessary for the long term future of the sport.
quote:
The defenders job is to prevent the runner from getting first down and a foot makes a difference all of the time. They are going to go in hard and fast because they have to.
They are going to have to change and the rules can force them to do that.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:18 am to cas4t
quote:
Simply making the argument that the hit was undoubtedly illegal
ok, but the practical application of the rule doesn't really support that.
quote:
should be illegal
I disagree as it relates to a player who is not defenseless. It's a rule that accomplishes nothing (hits still occur) and materially affects the integrity of the game.
quote:
and it's asinine for anyone to even attempt to argue otherwise
...that's the snowflake in you that is unable to accept that others have a different opinion than you. You've managed to try and label those that disagree with you as asinine and dumb in one post. That smells like someone who is trying to convince himself of something rather than relying on the logic of his argument.
quote:
The "it's football" response is particularly dumb, considering this is a rule...in football...at every level...and has been for years.
See my comment on how QBs are handled. It's a rule, has been for years, but the flags that are thrown are probably 30 to 1 on technicalities vs. truly dangerous plays...and the accidental plays continue to happen because it's impossible to legislate out.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:18 am to cas4t
quote:
considering this is a rule...in football...at every level...and has been for years.
Doesnt change the fact these guys on the field are trying like hell to make an impact and get a spot and take care of their families. Football is a contact sport. I dont see it as malicious, just an unfortunate culmination of several factors that led to a certain result.
There were several players removed due to concussions yesterday.... there is no black & white solution to this.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:24 am to ColeLSU
quote:
Sorry, but the occasional hit like that IS PART OF THE GAME. Its what made it so great.
This is the attitude that fundamentally has to change.
quote:
I know we have to address CTE, but at what cost?
A 15 yard penalty and ejection from the game is too big a cost for you for the long term health of the players? Not just in the NFL mind you but in high school and college as well? Do I want my son to risk long term brain injury by playing high school football? Enough folks start to answer no, the game dies so the game needs to adequately address the issue.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:26 am to glaucon
quote:
No, its not. The game needs to change in order to lower the incidences of tackles like this. The defenseless/non-defenseless player distinction fundamentally doesn't matter. It is about lowering the number of concussions. While outside the tackle box, you can't lead with the crown of your helmet, period. Long term, it is about making the game safer for the players, which is necessary for the long term future of the sport.
That's a noble goal for an emotionally driven fella. In practice, you end up with the same number of dangerous plays and have materially affected the integrity of the game. It's a classic example of a bleeding heart who feels the need to do something without the foresight into evaluating whether what he's doing truly results in the desired outcome...or more importantly whether the desired outcome is worth the associated cost.
quote:
They are going to have to change and the rules can force them to do that.
meh. If we continue to do what we are in trying to improve equipment and make rational decisions about rules that would be enough.
From a fan perspective, there are a TON more fans who are getting disinterested in the game because of the rule changes as compared to being unable or unwilling to watch violence. I've never met someone who said they are turned off by the violence in football.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:32 am to ColeLSU
quote:
Hit wasn't that awful.
he put the crown of his helmet to Chi's chin. Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:35 am to purplengold1
Ts and Ps for MD
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:37 am to moneyg
quote:
That's a noble goal for an emotionally driven fella. In practice, you end up with the same number of dangerous plays and have materially affected the integrity of the game. It's a classic example of a bleeding heart who feels the need to do something without the foresight into evaluating whether what he's doing truly results in the desired outcome...or more importantly whether the desired outcome is worth the associated cost.
End of the day, the number of concussions in football need to be lowered. Your cost/benefit analysis of the fans perspective isn't particularly persuasive. If you have a better solution to the actual problem, I will listen.
quote:
meh. If we continue to do what we are in trying to improve equipment and make rational decisions about rules that would be enough.
Leading with the crown of your helmet while making an hit in the open field being an automatic 15 year penalty and ejection does seems like a pretty rational rule. It has a pretty clear definition and is the instigator of many of the most violent collisions in the game.
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 11:37 am
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:37 am to purplengold1
Getting his trial by fire early. Fine line between a solid hit and a dirty one when players are at full speed, game of inches. Suck it up buttercup or take your money and head for the rocking chair. So far it's still the NFL not the NFFL
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:38 am to CarRamrod
quote:
he put the crown of his helmet to Chi's chin.
No. He didnt.
He put his helemt (yes the crown) into Chi's chest. Chi was dropping on his own and fell into the hit, but it mostly still caught him in chest. You dont want to see the crown leading, but thats part of my problem in this thread....everyon is acting like the guy targeted Chi's earhole and he didnt
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:40 am to ColeLSU
quote:
He put his helemt (yes the crown) into Chi's chest. Chi was dropping on his own and fell into the hit, but it mostly still caught him in chest. You dont want to see the crown leading, but thats part of my problem in this thread....everyon is acting like the guy targeted Chi's earhole and he didnt
Most folks have been talking about his leading with his helmet. Not about it being a helmet to helmet hit. Not sure why you can't get this through your head.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:41 am to glaucon
quote:
Most folks have been talking about his leading with his helmet. Not about it being a helmet to helmet hit. Not sure why you can't get this through your head.
Its through my head. I just think if you wanna scream over helmet to chest hits, then the game of football isnt long for this world. Him angling his head up about 15 degrees is all this whole fuss is over..... Its simply human nature to put your head down. This wasnt helmet to helmet, he just didnt raise his head. But by all means, lets throw a fit
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 11:43 am
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:42 am to ColeLSU
That was a good hit that the last second circumstances turned bad. He was a RB at that point in the play and not a defenseless receiver. It that drew a flag they just need to take off the pads and go to 2 hand touch
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:43 am to ColeLSU
Looked like a football play.
Chi was not defenseless, he was a runner.
Both dropped shoulders and head to brace for impact. Chi attempting to run through tackle and tackler attempting to tackle. Just a football play. This was not targeting but ended with a difficult result.
Chi was not defenseless, he was a runner.
Both dropped shoulders and head to brace for impact. Chi attempting to run through tackle and tackler attempting to tackle. Just a football play. This was not targeting but ended with a difficult result.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:48 am to ItTakesAThief
quote:
was not defenseless, he was a runner.
This is not the rule. It was an illegal hit under the rules because it results in people going to the fricking hospital and has long term impact on the health of the players.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:55 am to glaucon
quote:
End of the day, the number of concussions in football need to be lowered
At any cost? Should we outlaw tackling. Again, you are very willing to demand change without making the case for why it will work and just as importantly why it won't cause problems. We all want concussions to be lowered. Wanting something doesn't justify anything on its own. The actual proposed solution matters.
quote:
Your cost/benefit analysis of the fans perspective isn't particularly persuasive
The biggest threat to football is something that would decrease fan interest. I'm not sure how any logical person could disagree with that. The willingness of people to play football is not a crisis and never will be as long as there is money to fame to be made playing football.
The biggest threat is probably people like yourself who just don't have the stomach for "violence" and want to continue to chip away at the game rather than allow participants to just accept risk.
quote:
Leading with the crown of your helmet while making an hit in the open field being an automatic 15 year penalty and ejection does seems like a pretty rational rule
By your own admission the rule already exists. The hit still happened. Why do you think that is? Is this just an example of a bad guy who wanted to try and hurt someone? If that's what you believe, we'll just have to disagree.
I think this is a play that we will see over and over again. 19 out of 20 times, the hit will be big but nobody will be injured so the bleeding hearts like yourself just won't realize it.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 11:57 am to glaucon
quote:of course he led with his helmet. What's he supposed to do, put it in his back pocket at the point of contact? Bad luck made that helmet to helmet nothing else
Most folks have been talking about his leading with his helmet.
Posted on 8/11/17 at 12:07 pm to moneyg
quote:
By your own admission the rule already exists. The hit still happened. Why do you think that is?
Because it isn't enforced consistently by the officials (nor is it review-able by replay) and the only result is a 15 yard penalty. Sure, it could still happen even with my rule, but the defensive player would have a different set of incentives than they currently have. Worst case now is they get a penalty. It should be they get removed from the game.
I am fundamentally not blaming the player individually. I am blaming the rules, the enforcement of the rules, and folks that think that kind of hit is an acceptable part of the game.
quote:
The willingness of people to play football is not a crisis and never will be as long as there is money to fame to be made playing football.
Boxing used to be a much bigger deal in this country. Appetites and societies change. Long term, I am not sure folks will continue to flock to and let their children play a sport that know looks the other way when it comes to brain injuries. I think the smart play is to change and adapt. You obviously disagree.
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 12:12 pm
Page 7 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News