FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[Pat Coleman]

Scott got flagged 15 yards for the above hit. Am I just wearing purple glasses or was that a bad call? I see it now like I saw it live, good hit. I didn't think he raised his hands or that it was a helmet to helmet hit. I think the officiating at ONU was an embarrassment to he OAC.

I ran this past our in-house defensive back and our in-house football ref and got these takes:

Ref: Borderline. It's not a blow to the head, and he did not lead with his helmet, so those are off the table.  It could be considered unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver... although, it's a stretch of the definition.  Personally, I wouldn't have thrown the flag, or I would've thrown it, discussed it with the crew, and likely picked it up unless they had a different view of it.  Again, though, it's borderline.

D-back: I don't think it's a penalty. Didn't lead with head, didn't launch himself, and the play was still active in the the WR was bobbling it so a hit was legal at that point.

Ref: Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.  You could make a case for the flag (using the defenseless receiver scenario), but it wouldn't be a great case because of all the things we listed. I tend to side with the idea of throwing it and then waving it off so that both sides understand we strongly considered it but reached a consensus against it. When a college ref has a microphone, he can announce the reason to the crowd, making the reaction more reasonable since, no matter what, one group of people will be upset.

[emma17]

Scott got flagged 15 yards for the above hit. Am I just wearing purple glasses or was that a bad call? I see it now like I saw it live, good hit. I didn't think he raised his hands or that it was a helmet to helmet hit. I think the officiating at ONU was an embarrassment to he OAC.

I ran this past our in-house defensive back and our in-house football ref and got these takes:

Ref: Borderline. It's not a blow to the head, and he did not lead with his helmet, so those are off the table.  It could be considered unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver... although, it's a stretch of the definition.  Personally, I wouldn't have thrown the flag, or I would've thrown it, discussed it with the crew, and likely picked it up unless they had a different view of it.  Again, though, it's borderline.

D-back: I don't think it's a penalty. Didn't lead with head, didn't launch himself, and the play was still active in the the WR was bobbling it so a hit was legal at that point.

Ref: Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.  You could make a case for the flag (using the defenseless receiver scenario), but it wouldn't be a great case because of all the things we listed. I tend to side with the idea of throwing it and then waving it off so that both sides understand we strongly considered it but reached a consensus against it. When a college ref has a microphone, he can announce the reason to the crowd, making the reaction more reasonable since, no matter what, one group of people will be upset.

I don't know that this bit was a penalty or not- but I do believe it's the type of hit football should get away from. No doubt the DB could have lowered a bit more to prevent the sort of whiplash effect the receiver took.
I'm not trying to eliminate physicality- just the unnecessary kind.

[Toph]

Scott got flagged 15 yards for the above hit. Am I just wearing purple glasses or was that a bad call? I see it now like I saw it live, good hit. I didn't think he raised his hands or that it was a helmet to helmet hit. I think the officiating at ONU was an embarrassment to he OAC.

I ran this past our in-house defensive back and our in-house football ref and got these takes:

Ref: Borderline. It's not a blow to the head, and he did not lead with his helmet, so those are off the table.  It could be considered unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver... although, it's a stretch of the definition.  Personally, I wouldn't have thrown the flag, or I would've thrown it, discussed it with the crew, and likely picked it up unless they had a different view of it.  Again, though, it's borderline.

D-back: I don't think it's a penalty. Didn't lead with head, didn't launch himself, and the play was still active in the the WR was bobbling it so a hit was legal at that point.

Ref: Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.  You could make a case for the flag (using the defenseless receiver scenario), but it wouldn't be a great case because of all the things we listed. I tend to side with the idea of throwing it and then waving it off so that both sides understand we strongly considered it but reached a consensus against it. When a college ref has a microphone, he can announce the reason to the crowd, making the reaction more reasonable since, no matter what, one group of people will be upset.

I don't know that this bit was a penalty or not- but I do believe it's the type of hit football should get away from. No doubt the DB could have lowered a bit more to prevent the sort of whiplash effect the receiver took.
I'm not trying to eliminate physicality- just the unnecessary kind.

I think that any time you ask a defender to adjust you're putting them in a tough spot.  The hit itself was clean.  High, but clean.  Things are moving fast out there on the field.  I can only assume that as a defender he saw the receiver catch it, and then moved to dislodge the receiver from the football.  You can play the what if game for days with this.  What if he had gone low and the receiver lowered his head?  What if he goes low, the receiver jukes, and gets his knee taken out, etc. 

[bleedpurple]

Scott got flagged 15 yards for the above hit. Am I just wearing purple glasses or was that a bad call? I see it now like I saw it live, good hit. I didn't think he raised his hands or that it was a helmet to helmet hit. I think the officiating at ONU was an embarrassment to he OAC.

I ran this past our in-house defensive back and our in-house football ref and got these takes:

Ref: Borderline. It's not a blow to the head, and he did not lead with his helmet, so those are off the table.  It could be considered unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver... although, it's a stretch of the definition.  Personally, I wouldn't have thrown the flag, or I would've thrown it, discussed it with the crew, and likely picked it up unless they had a different view of it.  Again, though, it's borderline.

D-back: I don't think it's a penalty. Didn't lead with head, didn't launch himself, and the play was still active in the the WR was bobbling it so a hit was legal at that point.

Ref: Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.  You could make a case for the flag (using the defenseless receiver scenario), but it wouldn't be a great case because of all the things we listed. I tend to side with the idea of throwing it and then waving it off so that both sides understand we strongly considered it but reached a consensus against it. When a college ref has a microphone, he can announce the reason to the crowd, making the reaction more reasonable since, no matter what, one group of people will be upset.

I don't know that this bit was a penalty or not- but I do believe it's the type of hit football should get away from. No doubt the DB could have lowered a bit more to prevent the sort of whiplash effect the receiver took.
I'm not trying to eliminate physicality- just the unnecessary kind.

Spoken like a true wide receiver, Emma. 

No no no!! This is football. If you don't like this kind of hit, go play soccer with Dudley and Biff...

[Mr. Ypsi]

Scott got flagged 15 yards for the above hit. Am I just wearing purple glasses or was that a bad call? I see it now like I saw it live, good hit. I didn't think he raised his hands or that it was a helmet to helmet hit. I think the officiating at ONU was an embarrassment to he OAC.

I ran this past our in-house defensive back and our in-house football ref and got these takes:

Ref: Borderline. It's not a blow to the head, and he did not lead with his helmet, so those are off the table.  It could be considered unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver... although, it's a stretch of the definition.  Personally, I wouldn't have thrown the flag, or I would've thrown it, discussed it with the crew, and likely picked it up unless they had a different view of it.  Again, though, it's borderline.

D-back: I don't think it's a penalty. Didn't lead with head, didn't launch himself, and the play was still active in the the WR was bobbling it so a hit was legal at that point.

Ref: Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.  You could make a case for the flag (using the defenseless receiver scenario), but it wouldn't be a great case because of all the things we listed. I tend to side with the idea of throwing it and then waving it off so that both sides understand we strongly considered it but reached a consensus against it. When a college ref has a microphone, he can announce the reason to the crowd, making the reaction more reasonable since, no matter what, one group of people will be upset.

I don't know that this bit was a penalty or not- but I do believe it's the type of hit football should get away from. No doubt the DB could have lowered a bit more to prevent the sort of whiplash effect the receiver took.
I'm not trying to eliminate physicality- just the unnecessary kind.

Spoken like a true wide receiver, Emma. 

No no no!! This is football. If you don't like this kind of hit, go play soccer with Dudley and Biff...

I've seen more dangerous hits in soccer - and with no pads!  Of course, they got red cards!

FWIW: I do NOT think this hit was a penalty, but also agree with Emma that it was most unfortunate.  What amazed me is that the receiver held onto the ball (if not his helmet ) - that 'whiplash' alone could cause a concussion.

[Knightstalker]

Scott got flagged 15 yards for the above hit. Am I just wearing purple glasses or was that a bad call? I see it now like I saw it live, good hit. I didn't think he raised his hands or that it was a helmet to helmet hit. I think the officiating at ONU was an embarrassment to he OAC.

I ran this past our in-house defensive back and our in-house football ref and got these takes:

Ref: Borderline. It's not a blow to the head, and he did not lead with his helmet, so those are off the table.  It could be considered unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver... although, it's a stretch of the definition.  Personally, I wouldn't have thrown the flag, or I would've thrown it, discussed it with the crew, and likely picked it up unless they had a different view of it.  Again, though, it's borderline.

D-back: I don't think it's a penalty. Didn't lead with head, didn't launch himself, and the play was still active in the the WR was bobbling it so a hit was legal at that point.

Ref: Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.  You could make a case for the flag (using the defenseless receiver scenario), but it wouldn't be a great case because of all the things we listed. I tend to side with the idea of throwing it and then waving it off so that both sides understand we strongly considered it but reached a consensus against it. When a college ref has a microphone, he can announce the reason to the crowd, making the reaction more reasonable since, no matter what, one group of people will be upset.

I don't know that this bit was a penalty or not- but I do believe it's the type of hit football should get away from. No doubt the DB could have lowered a bit more to prevent the sort of whiplash effect the receiver took.
I'm not trying to eliminate physicality- just the unnecessary kind.

Spoken like a true wide receiver, Emma. 

No no no!! This is football. If you don't like this kind of hit, go play soccer with Dudley and Biff...

I've seen more dangerous hits in soccer - and with no pads!  Of course, they got red cards!

FWIW: I do NOT think this hit was a penalty, but also agree with Emma that it was most unfortunate.  What amazed me is that the receiver held onto the ball (if not his helmet ) - that 'whiplash' alone could cause a concussion.

You can't tell from this angle but maybe he threw a little extra in with the left forearm when he hit the receiver with his shoulder.  What angle did the official who threw the flag view the play from?

[Ric]

Knightstalker... the official could have been holding the camera. Same angle. This call, although bad, was not nearly as bad as the fumble - no fumble Mount returned for a TD. They were all over Scott's fumble for a touchback though.

[Craft_Beermeister]

Scott got flagged 15 yards for the above hit. Am I just wearing purple glasses or was that a bad call? I see it now like I saw it live, good hit. I didn't think he raised his hands or that it was a helmet to helmet hit. I think the officiating at ONU was an embarrassment to he OAC.

I ran this past our in-house defensive back and our in-house football ref and got these takes:

Ref: Borderline. It's not a blow to the head, and he did not lead with his helmet, so those are off the table.  It could be considered unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver... although, it's a stretch of the definition.  Personally, I wouldn't have thrown the flag, or I would've thrown it, discussed it with the crew, and likely picked it up unless they had a different view of it.  Again, though, it's borderline.

D-back: I don't think it's a penalty. Didn't lead with head, didn't launch himself, and the play was still active in the the WR was bobbling it so a hit was legal at that point.

Ref: Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.  You could make a case for the flag (using the defenseless receiver scenario), but it wouldn't be a great case because of all the things we listed. I tend to side with the idea of throwing it and then waving it off so that both sides understand we strongly considered it but reached a consensus against it. When a college ref has a microphone, he can announce the reason to the crowd, making the reaction more reasonable since, no matter what, one group of people will be upset.

I don't know that this bit was a penalty or not- but I do believe it's the type of hit football should get away from. No doubt the DB could have lowered a bit more to prevent the sort of whiplash effect the receiver took.
I'm not trying to eliminate physicality- just the unnecessary kind.

Spoken like a true wide receiver, Emma. 

No no no!! This is football. If you don't like this kind of hit, go play soccer with Dudley and Biff...

I've seen more dangerous hits in soccer - and with no pads!  Of course, they got red cards!

FWIW: I do NOT think this hit was a penalty, but also agree with Emma that it was most unfortunate.  What amazed me is that the receiver held onto the ball (if not his helmet ) - that 'whiplash' alone could cause a concussion.

You can't tell from this angle but maybe he threw a little extra in with the left forearm when he hit the receiver with his shoulder.  What angle did the official who threw the flag view the play from?

The hit was legal and good football technique.  How can you single out " a little extra in with left forearm"  ?  The defender didn't hit the receiver with while leading with his helmet but instead had his helmet to the right side of the receiver so naturally the left forearm makes more contact.  Clearly the receiver saw the defender coming straight onto him and chooses to try to catch the ball but pulls up instead of driving through.  The impact of the hit had more to do with receiver surrendering at contact.

[emma17]

Scott got flagged 15 yards for the above hit. Am I just wearing purple glasses or was that a bad call? I see it now like I saw it live, good hit. I didn't think he raised his hands or that it was a helmet to helmet hit. I think the officiating at ONU was an embarrassment to he OAC.

I ran this past our in-house defensive back and our in-house football ref and got these takes:

Ref: Borderline. It's not a blow to the head, and he did not lead with his helmet, so those are off the table.  It could be considered unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver... although, it's a stretch of the definition.  Personally, I wouldn't have thrown the flag, or I would've thrown it, discussed it with the crew, and likely picked it up unless they had a different view of it.  Again, though, it's borderline.

D-back: I don't think it's a penalty. Didn't lead with head, didn't launch himself, and the play was still active in the the WR was bobbling it so a hit was legal at that point.

Ref: Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.  You could make a case for the flag (using the defenseless receiver scenario), but it wouldn't be a great case because of all the things we listed. I tend to side with the idea of throwing it and then waving it off so that both sides understand we strongly considered it but reached a consensus against it. When a college ref has a microphone, he can announce the reason to the crowd, making the reaction more reasonable since, no matter what, one group of people will be upset.

I don't know that this bit was a penalty or not- but I do believe it's the type of hit football should get away from. No doubt the DB could have lowered a bit more to prevent the sort of whiplash effect the receiver took.
I'm not trying to eliminate physicality- just the unnecessary kind.

Spoken like a true wide receiver, Emma. 

No no no!! This is football. If you don't like this kind of hit, go play soccer with Dudley and Biff...

There you go, bustin my soccer balls again Bleed.
For the record, I happen to be a soccer fan, I think they're tougher and more athletic than most care to admit.

As for the hit- I really don't have much of a problem with it.  From a proper coaching perspective, especially when working with youth, I would absolutely correct the technique while also pointing out some positives.  Yes, the defender kept his head up and yes he separated the ball from the receiver.
That said, I'd still teach the defender to lower more and look to put his facemask to the ball, which would automatically lower his shoulder. 
It's a legal hit, but I still feel it's the type of hit that can be massaged a bit to eliminate the head trauma. 
For all you bad a$$es out there that love the vicious hit, you can still lay the wood to the receiver through the middle of his torso rather than at the height this hit was.  Both helmets were nearly the same height- low man wins.   

[bleedpurple]

Scott got flagged 15 yards for the above hit. Am I just wearing purple glasses or was that a bad call? I see it now like I saw it live, good hit. I didn't think he raised his hands or that it was a helmet to helmet hit. I think the officiating at ONU was an embarrassment to he OAC.

I ran this past our in-house defensive back and our in-house football ref and got these takes:

Ref: Borderline. It's not a blow to the head, and he did not lead with his helmet, so those are off the table.  It could be considered unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver... although, it's a stretch of the definition.  Personally, I wouldn't have thrown the flag, or I would've thrown it, discussed it with the crew, and likely picked it up unless they had a different view of it.  Again, though, it's borderline.

D-back: I don't think it's a penalty. Didn't lead with head, didn't launch himself, and the play was still active in the the WR was bobbling it so a hit was legal at that point.

Ref: Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.  You could make a case for the flag (using the defenseless receiver scenario), but it wouldn't be a great case because of all the things we listed. I tend to side with the idea of throwing it and then waving it off so that both sides understand we strongly considered it but reached a consensus against it. When a college ref has a microphone, he can announce the reason to the crowd, making the reaction more reasonable since, no matter what, one group of people will be upset.

I don't know that this bit was a penalty or not- but I do believe it's the type of hit football should get away from. No doubt the DB could have lowered a bit more to prevent the sort of whiplash effect the receiver took.
I'm not trying to eliminate physicality- just the unnecessary kind.

Spoken like a true wide receiver, Emma. 

No no no!! This is football. If you don't like this kind of hit, go play soccer with Dudley and Biff...

There you go, bustin my soccer balls again Bleed.
For the record, I happen to be a soccer fan, I think they're tougher and more athletic than most care to admit.

As for the hit- I really don't have much of a problem with it.  From a proper coaching perspective, especially when working with youth, I would absolutely correct the technique while also pointing out some positives.  Yes, the defender kept his head up and yes he separated the ball from the receiver.
That said, I'd still teach the defender to lower more and look to put his facemask to the ball, which would automatically lower his shoulder. 
It's a legal hit, but I still feel it's the type of hit that can be massaged a bit to eliminate the head trauma. 
For all you bad a$$es out there that love the vicious hit, you can still lay the wood to the receiver through the middle of his torso rather than at the height this hit was.  Both helmets were nearly the same height- low man wins.

Then go cover soccer. That will be fun. 

[Knightstalker]

Scott got flagged 15 yards for the above hit. Am I just wearing purple glasses or was that a bad call? I see it now like I saw it live, good hit. I didn't think he raised his hands or that it was a helmet to helmet hit. I think the officiating at ONU was an embarrassment to he OAC.

I ran this past our in-house defensive back and our in-house football ref and got these takes:

Ref: Borderline. It's not a blow to the head, and he did not lead with his helmet, so those are off the table.  It could be considered unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver... although, it's a stretch of the definition.  Personally, I wouldn't have thrown the flag, or I would've thrown it, discussed it with the crew, and likely picked it up unless they had a different view of it.  Again, though, it's borderline.

D-back: I don't think it's a penalty. Didn't lead with head, didn't launch himself, and the play was still active in the the WR was bobbling it so a hit was legal at that point.

Ref: Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.  You could make a case for the flag (using the defenseless receiver scenario), but it wouldn't be a great case because of all the things we listed. I tend to side with the idea of throwing it and then waving it off so that both sides understand we strongly considered it but reached a consensus against it. When a college ref has a microphone, he can announce the reason to the crowd, making the reaction more reasonable since, no matter what, one group of people will be upset.

I don't know that this bit was a penalty or not- but I do believe it's the type of hit football should get away from. No doubt the DB could have lowered a bit more to prevent the sort of whiplash effect the receiver took.
I'm not trying to eliminate physicality- just the unnecessary kind.

Spoken like a true wide receiver, Emma. 

No no no!! This is football. If you don't like this kind of hit, go play soccer with Dudley and Biff...

I've seen more dangerous hits in soccer - and with no pads!  Of course, they got red cards!

FWIW: I do NOT think this hit was a penalty, but also agree with Emma that it was most unfortunate.  What amazed me is that the receiver held onto the ball (if not his helmet ) - that 'whiplash' alone could cause a concussion.

You can't tell from this angle but maybe he threw a little extra in with the left forearm when he hit the receiver with his shoulder.  What angle did the official who threw the flag view the play from?

The hit was legal and good football technique.  How can you single out " a little extra in with left forearm"  ?  The defender didn't hit the receiver with while leading with his helmet but instead had his helmet to the right side of the receiver so naturally the left forearm makes more contact.  Clearly the receiver saw the defender coming straight onto him and chooses to try to catch the ball but pulls up instead of driving through.  The impact of the hit had more to do with receiver surrendering at contact.

Way back when in the late 70's when I played, that would not have been considered good technique.  Good technique would be as bleedpurple states, put the facemask in the ball and instead of throwing the forearm, wrap up and ensure that the tackle is made.  That forearm may have gotten a flag when I was in high school.  But then again I like a good 13-10 game where both teams are running a variation on the wing-t and play good solid defense.  I love good old smash-mouth option football.

[D3MAFAN]

Scott got flagged 15 yards for the above hit. Am I just wearing purple glasses or was that a bad call? I see it now like I saw it live, good hit. I didn't think he raised his hands or that it was a helmet to helmet hit. I think the officiating at ONU was an embarrassment to he OAC.

I ran this past our in-house defensive back and our in-house football ref and got these takes:

Ref: Borderline. It's not a blow to the head, and he did not lead with his helmet, so those are off the table.  It could be considered unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver... although, it's a stretch of the definition.  Personally, I wouldn't have thrown the flag, or I would've thrown it, discussed it with the crew, and likely picked it up unless they had a different view of it.  Again, though, it's borderline.

D-back: I don't think it's a penalty. Didn't lead with head, didn't launch himself, and the play was still active in the the WR was bobbling it so a hit was legal at that point.

Ref: Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.  You could make a case for the flag (using the defenseless receiver scenario), but it wouldn't be a great case because of all the things we listed. I tend to side with the idea of throwing it and then waving it off so that both sides understand we strongly considered it but reached a consensus against it. When a college ref has a microphone, he can announce the reason to the crowd, making the reaction more reasonable since, no matter what, one group of people will be upset.

I don't know that this bit was a penalty or not- but I do believe it's the type of hit football should get away from. No doubt the DB could have lowered a bit more to prevent the sort of whiplash effect the receiver took.
I'm not trying to eliminate physicality- just the unnecessary kind.

Spoken like a true wide receiver, Emma. 

No no no!! This is football. If you don't like this kind of hit, go play soccer with Dudley and Biff...

There you go, bustin my soccer balls again Bleed.
For the record, I happen to be a soccer fan, I think they're tougher and more athletic than most care to admit.

As for the hit- I really don't have much of a problem with it.  From a proper coaching perspective, especially when working with youth, I would absolutely correct the technique while also pointing out some positives.  Yes, the defender kept his head up and yes he separated the ball from the receiver.
That said, I'd still teach the defender to lower more and look to put his facemask to the ball, which would automatically lower his shoulder.  It's a legal hit, but I still feel it's the type of hit that can be massaged a bit to eliminate the head trauma. 
For all you bad a$$es out there that love the vicious hit, you can still lay the wood to the receiver through the middle of his torso rather than at the height this hit was.  Both helmets were nearly the same height- low man wins.

I think that is the problem sometimes is when a  defensive player actually tries to be lower and press their facemack into the football, the Wide Receiver by natural instict sometimes lowers their head which creates the helmet to helmet contact.

As far as always hitting the torso area, sometimes the play is to fast and is somewhat impossible for a player to adjust (not in this case), so I guess it is all subjective until video evidence presents itself.

It was a good hit nevertheless (no if's and or but's). 

[PurpleSuit]

Maybe the ONU reciever could tighten his chinstrap...I love the hit but normally it would just be a hard hit, not a helmet launching shot

[ExTartanPlayer]

Scott got flagged 15 yards for the above hit. Am I just wearing purple glasses or was that a bad call? I see it now like I saw it live, good hit. I didn't think he raised his hands or that it was a helmet to helmet hit. I think the officiating at ONU was an embarrassment to he OAC.

I ran this past our in-house defensive back and our in-house football ref and got these takes:

Ref: Borderline. It's not a blow to the head, and he did not lead with his helmet, so those are off the table.  It could be considered unnecessary roughness on a defenseless receiver... although, it's a stretch of the definition.  Personally, I wouldn't have thrown the flag, or I would've thrown it, discussed it with the crew, and likely picked it up unless they had a different view of it.  Again, though, it's borderline.

D-back: I don't think it's a penalty. Didn't lead with head, didn't launch himself, and the play was still active in the the WR was bobbling it so a hit was legal at that point.

Ref: Yeah, we're pretty much in agreement.  You could make a case for the flag (using the defenseless receiver scenario), but it wouldn't be a great case because of all the things we listed. I tend to side with the idea of throwing it and then waving it off so that both sides understand we strongly considered it but reached a consensus against it. When a college ref has a microphone, he can announce the reason to the crowd, making the reaction more reasonable since, no matter what, one group of people will be upset.

I don't know that this bit was a penalty or not- but I do believe it's the type of hit football should get away from. No doubt the DB could have lowered a bit more to prevent the sort of whiplash effect the receiver took.
I'm not trying to eliminate physicality- just the unnecessary kind.

I actually agree with this.  There's no doubt that the purpose of this hit was to dislodge the ball by blowing up the receiver rather than defensing the pass.  That's fine under the current rules, but I've been pondering whether the game really should allow that as a means of defensing passes (somewhat like the debate about whether baseball should allow runners to try to score by plowing over the catcher at home plate).

jknezek mentioned an idea a few weeks ago about implementing rugby-style tackling rules in which any tackle attempt must come with a wrap-up rather than leading with a shoulder and just attempting to knock the ballcarrier over.  I see this as an example of a hit that is currently legal, but would not be legal under such a rule change (you can't possibly tell me that he's trying to wrap up the ballcarrier - he's strictly trying to knock him over).

Look, I know there are people who resist any attempt to take physicality out of football, and some of you may be among that number.  OK.  I feel especially lucky to have played the game for fifteen years and have come out of it, thus far, apparently healthy.  I love the sport and want it to continue thriving.  But I do think some measures will have to be taken to change the game, and it's not like there's no precedent (Teddy Roosevelt in 1905?) for a major reform of the game to make it safer.

[jknezek]

I think it is a legal hit under the current rules, but ExTartan already made my point. Hits like this are not the product of good football or good technique. They are a product of SportsCenter. Hits like this are also the reason I hope my boys do not want to play football. I understand the game is violent, but these kinds of hits are UNNECESSARILY violent. They don't represent the best way to tackle or finish a play, while at the same time they increase the odds of injury.

So a hit like this, without attempting to wrap up, is both dangerous and stupid. It does have the sole redeeming quality that it makes everyone watching the tape or from the stands go "Oooh" and chuckle that it wasn't them that just had his block knocked off.

Good entertainment, bad football. In this case it worked out, but I'm always happy when the DB leads with the shoulder attempting the big hit and the running back or receiver bounces off and keeps going for a big run. Had the tackler wrapped up, it is less flashy but more effective.