I'm all about player safety in football. Since my boys play the game, the last thing I want to see is one of them getting carted off on a stretcher with a neck or head injury. Heck, my oldest son lost half of his senior season in high school because his humerus got snapped in half from landing on the ball wrong. Seeing him get loaded into an ambulance and following it to the hospital was one of the saddest and most frightening moments of my life.
But his injury occurred on a freak play. It wasn't the result of someone "head hunting" him or making a vicious hit. It just happened. But lately in football, from the top down, commissioners and league presidents have been trying to eliminate the routine plays that cause injury, most notably the so-called helmet-to-helmet hits, hitting a defenseless receiver and any tackle that occurs above the shoulder pads. Again, player safety is of utmost importance to me, but it appears there is a lack of consistency when interpreting these rules, especially at the college level.
I'll use last night's game between Oregon State and my alma mater Washington State as an example. Twice, Cougar defenders were flagged for unnecessary roughness for tackles that were above the shoulder pads. Both times, even the TV announcers disagreed with the penalties. Why? Because the rules were interpreted incorrectly.
The first penalty was for a hit under the chin — not helmet-to-helmet, or even leading with the head — with the shoulder and forearm. It looked like a nasty hit, but it was as clean as this morning's laundry. Another reason it was an incorrect call was because the receiver had already caught the ball and had taken several steps to move upfield. He was no longer considered a "defenseless receiver" but a ballcarrier. The hit was completely legal and clean, but a penalty was called anyway. The announcer made the comment that if a running back was hit that way, there would be no foul. But because it was on a passing play, the officials automatically think they have to protect the receiver no matter the chronology of the play.
The second instance involved slight helmet-to-helmet contact, but nothing that would cause any damage to the receiver. It wasn't straight-on or broadside, just a glancing blow — maybe a penalty, but maybe not. However, when the penalty was announced, the referee indicated the personal foul was committed after the play. Not true. Nothing happened after the play, and what happened during the play could have been a penalty or not.
Where the glaring inconsistency occurred was near the end of the game when an Oregon State defender grabbed the WSU quarterback after he had thrown a pass, shoved him back several steps, and then slung him to the ground face-first. No penalty — clearly roughing the passer, but no flag was to be found. Whatever happened to protecting the quarterback at all cost?
So, in light of these inconsistencies, I have two suggestions that would either help to clear up the confusion as to what is a penalty-worthy hit, or that could eliminate that type of tackle altogether.
The first suggestion is to allow those types of penalties to be reviewable. They're judgment calls anyway, so why not let the replay official take a look and say, "No, that really wasn't a helmet-to-helmet hit. Even though it might have looked that way at full speed, the tape shows the defender made a clean hit and should not be penalized." Every other judgment call in college football is reviewable — was it a correct spot, was it really a fumble, was it really an incomplete pass? Why not add to the list, "Was it really an illegal hit?"
The second suggestion is to reduce the amount and size of pads that players wear so that self-preservation comes back into the hitters' minds. Rugby players play with little or no pads, and they don't seem to have the same rate of head and neck injuries that American football players do.
Also, have you ever watched film footage of games prior to 1950, before the plastic helmet and facemask came into widespread use? Those guys rarely tackled above the waist, let alone above the shoulders. With light, sparse pads and thin leather helmets with no facemasks, the guy hitting the ballcarrier was as likely to inflict as much damage on himself as he was his target. Players didn't hit — they tackled. Tackling is a lost art in the modern game. Players want to make the big "hit" rather than the fundamentally sound tackle. It looks better on the highlight shows. But if you take away their fearlessness to make that kind of a hit because they are less protected, they'll stop doing it.
But whatever the solution is, the issue of consistency needs to be addressed. The TV guys agreed that when a defender gets flagged for what he believes is a clean, legal hit, he gets confused as to what he can and can't do to bring a ballcarrier down. The same holds true for corners and safeties covering receivers. Sometimes the pass interference rule is just as inconsistent as the illegal hit rule. But that's for another article.
The bottom line, though, is that college football rule makers are handcuffing defenses in the name of player safety. And, while it opens up the offenses for exciting, high scoring games, it also frustrates the defenses that seemingly can't touch an offensive player carrying the ball. And if the best offense is a good defense, well … you get my point.
Leave a Comment