Bubba
Well-Known Member
I know for a fact that my St. Louis Rams would never be guilty of a head2head hit since they don't have any clue on what a tackle is.miller is just jealous that some of the other teams know how to tackle.
Helmet to helmet hits....by the Steelers....when is enough, enough??
- Thread starter Miller
- Start date
discoverecology
Revvin' for Seven!!
That was a good hit. it was not intentional. if you were objective i think you would agree.
Being objective myself, instead of subjective, i was at the game and have not yet seen the replay.
i called a friend from the game who hates, repeat HATES the steelers and he said he came with his shoulder and the helmets met and that it definitely did not appear intentional.
Whatever.
Being objective myself, instead of subjective, i was at the game and have not yet seen the replay.
i called a friend from the game who hates, repeat HATES the steelers and he said he came with his shoulder and the helmets met and that it definitely did not appear intentional.
Whatever.
Last edited by a moderator:
discoverecology
Revvin' for Seven!!
^
||
Yeah! How about the INTENTIONAL hand underneath Keomatu's facemask? When Keomatu retaliated THEN the officials said "15 YARDS AGAINST PITTSBURGH FOR INTENTIONAL ROUGHING" or whatever the bs call was. THAT was intentional, FINGERS UP UNDERNEATH THE GUY'S HELMET. Does the official care about safety? Really!
Come on guys, BALTIMORE meant to inflict, Clark just meant to hit. Here goes the crying again: " they hit too hard!" Please.
Read the thread....no one has stated he meant to inflict....but he led with his head, this shoulder crap is just not what I see (though I do feel differently about the sweed hit after the interview, just plain dirty there). I see the helmets hitting first, period, end of the shoulder crap. When the point of impact is the helmet, that ends the argument for me, obviously I'm in the minority, fine, not the first, and won't be the last. The shoulders hit, yes, AFTER the heads.
The intent here is not what I am talking about, again, no doubt the intent was to just put a great hit and do his job. Sorry, intent does not get you off of the results. This is just a dangerous technique, a technique that is going to leave someone in a wheelchair for the rest of their lives and there is a good shot it will be the one delivering the hit. Until they stop lowering their heads to deliver these missile shots the players are putting everyone at an increased risk for career ending injuries.....I just hope it doens't take one to wake up the NFL. See what ya hit, as fundamental as it gets.
Fire
in the hole
Sorry if this was brought up already, but I am too lazy to read four more pages about this.
What about wrapping up the guy with your arms. Look at Clarks arms when he makes contact. He shows no intention of wrapping them around the ball carrier. This is one of the most basic fundamentals of tackling.
Mustang Jones
Banned
Ultimate.
The inbound round (Hit Man) should only be allowed to deliver a blow equal to the blow he receives from the target (Player he hits).
Open your heart. Deliver the goods. On equal terms.
i think we could see a rule change here in the near future.
Legal hit today
The inbound round (Hit Man) should only be allowed to deliver a blow equal to the blow he receives from the target (Player he hits).
Open your heart. Deliver the goods. On equal terms.
i think we could see a rule change here in the near future.
Legal hit today
Runnik's Hambones
Active Member
I was listening to Jim Rome yesterday and he was chatting about the hit. He made an interesting point:
The hit was clearly legal. The reason it was legal was because McGahee was not defensless, according to the league's definition. That being that he had secured possesion of the ball, and had taken 2 steps, clearly in control of where he was going.
However, the hit was not clean. By clean, Rome meant that it was not a required hit. McGahee could have been tackled by a real tackle. A fundamentaly tought, clean tackle, in which a defender keeps their head up, wraps up the target, and takes him to the ground.
Just food for thought.
The hit was clearly legal. The reason it was legal was because McGahee was not defensless, according to the league's definition. That being that he had secured possesion of the ball, and had taken 2 steps, clearly in control of where he was going.
However, the hit was not clean. By clean, Rome meant that it was not a required hit. McGahee could have been tackled by a real tackle. A fundamentaly tought, clean tackle, in which a defender keeps their head up, wraps up the target, and takes him to the ground.
Just food for thought.
Hawks Eye
Master of Inexpertise
This is a good point. He should have been going for the tackle instead of going for the hit.
Mustang Jones
Banned
McGahee was defenseless, but so much more less into the play.
Willis reacted to the vision of wicked harm 'Headed' his way.
The defender reacts with harm in mind, intimidation a sure rule.
On contact one body knew true.
Dancing is a contact sport. Football is a collision sport
and faeries wear boots, you gotta believe me
why won't somebody answer the phone?
Runnik's Hambones
Active Member
LOL, dude, you really gotta dumb this stuff down for me. My interpretation, or as best that I can interpret that, is you're talking from Willis' point of view? As in, he was hit so hard, that he's in "la la land," seeing faeries in boots and wondering why the ringging in his head isn't answered? Am I anywhere close?
Hawks Eye
Master of Inexpertise
I don't think there's any sort of "close" when it comes to the writings of Jones. When he's on that other plane of existence, he's miles away.
The Ram
Half Man, Half Amazing
Orgazmo
Well-Known Member
You're a Guy Torry fan too?
The Ram
Half Man, Half Amazing
