Whitner helmet hit legal

iceshack149 · 01-15-2012, 02:42 PM

NFL: Saints' Thomas not defenseless, Whitner helmet hit legal

Whitner was not penalized because the tackle was not against a defenseless player. Helmet-to-helmet hits are banned against defenseless players in eight categories, and a runner is not one of those categories. Thomas was considered a runner because he had made a catch, turned and made a "football move" before being hit.

NFL: Saints' Thomas not defenseless, Whitner helmet hit legal - NFL - CBSSports.com News, Rumors, Scores, Stats, Fantasy Advice

I say

Halo · 01-15-2012, 02:47 PM

I need a rule book to keep up with this. I think either they call helmet on helmet all the time or stop doing it at all. The definition of "defenseless player" is subjective at best.

|Mitch| · 01-15-2012, 02:51 PM

I agree! Can't call helmet to helmets only sometimes, either get rid of the rule or get strict!

BIGEASY504 · 01-16-2012, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Halo

I need a rule book to keep up with this. I think either they call helmet on helmet all the time or stop doing it at all. The definition of "defenseless player" is subjective at best.

There have been more BS calls made by the refs. I would much rather see the game slowed by a replay of the H-H hit and they get it right than to make that call and it's wrong than the team is penalized. A H-H hit when called should cover every player on the field and not just players they deem as "defenseless"

W. Kovacs · 01-15-2012, 02:50 PM

I actually agree with the NFL on this one (there were other non-calls that I thought were bs).

The Defender didn't launch his helmet into the player or anything along those lines.

Was it a vicious hit? Absolutely. But if you're going to take away vicious hits, why bother with the game?

Where I think the NFL is really guilty is in their equipment requirements. There are helmets out there that do a much better job at protecting from head injuries. Why aren't they used?

My theory is that they are 1) more expensive and 2) not made by the company that they have under licensing contracts to make their equipment. Again, just a theory, though...

Beastmode · 01-16-2012, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by W. Kovacs

I actually agree with the NFL on this one (there were other non-calls that I thought were bs).

The Defender didn't launch his helmet into the player or anything along those lines.

Was it a vicious hit? Absolutely. But if you're going to take away vicious hits, why bother with the game?

Where I think the NFL is really guilty is in their equipment requirements. There are helmets out there that do a much better job at protecting from head injuries. Why aren't they used?

My theory is that they are 1) more expensive and 2) not made by the company that they have under licensing contracts to make their equipment. Again, just a theory, though...

Even if these helmets are better it's marginal at best. The amount of force from a hit like PT took, I'm willing to bet it's worse than getting hit in the head with a baseball bat at full force. No helmet can 100% protect the brain in that situation. It's going to get rattled in there. They need to just go ahead and make any helmet to helmet contact illegal. It takes away from the game but so what. It's a game.

SapperSaint · 01-15-2012, 02:51 PM

Of coarse it was legal...... it was a hit on a Saints player!

This is for the guy who saw it and didn't throw a flag and for the guy who said it was legal.

OldMaid · 01-15-2012, 03:16 PM

Totally ridiculous rule.
Helment to helment, head butt should never be allowed with all that is out there , proven facts, about concussions.
It should be allowed all of the time or not at all if you have this rule.

Danno · 01-15-2012, 04:22 PM

We'd eliminate football if you couldn't hit RB's. RB's put their head down to break tackles.

It was a perfectly legal hit. I fear the day they outlaw helmet to helmet on every player. The NFL would cease to exist.

gandhi1007 · 01-15-2012, 05:39 PM

What they failed to include in this article is that Whitner lead with his helmet, which is in fact, ILLEGAL. The league actually issued warnings at the beginning of the year to each team for this exact subject......YOU MAY NOT LEAD WITH THE HEAD WHEN TACKLING!

01-15-2012, 02:42 PM	#1
iceshack149 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Fairbanks, AK Posts: 4,339 Blog Entries: 1	Whitner helmet hit legal NFL: Saints' Thomas not defenseless, Whitner helmet hit legal Whitner was not penalized because the tackle was not against a defenseless player. Helmet-to-helmet hits are banned against defenseless players in eight categories, and a runner is not one of those categories. Thomas was considered a runner because he had made a catch, turned and made a "football move" before being hit. NFL: Saints' Thomas not defenseless, Whitner helmet hit legal - NFL - CBSSports.com News, Rumors, Scores, Stats, Fantasy Advice I say Attached Thumbnails

01-15-2012, 02:47 PM	#2
Halo Site Donor MONTHLY Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Orleans, LA Posts: 20,854 Blog Entries: 45	I need a rule book to keep up with this. I think either they call helmet on helmet all the time or stop doing it at all. The definition of "defenseless player" is subjective at best. saintfan, OldMaid, Rueben Mayes and 2 others like this.

01-15-2012, 02:51 PM	#3
\|Mitch\| 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Alexandria, La Posts: 11,303	I agree! Can't call helmet to helmets only sometimes, either get rid of the rule or get strict! G504 and OldMaid like this.

01-16-2012, 10:48 AM	#4
BIGEASY504 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 487	Originally Posted by Halo I need a rule book to keep up with this. I think either they call helmet on helmet all the time or stop doing it at all. The definition of "defenseless player" is subjective at best. There have been more BS calls made by the refs. I would much rather see the game slowed by a replay of the H-H hit and they get it right than to make that call and it's wrong than the team is penalized. A H-H hit when called should cover every player on the field and not just players they deem as "defenseless"
BIGEASY504 100th Post Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 487

01-16-2012, 06:16 AM	#6
Beastmode 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,126	Originally Posted by W. Kovacs I actually agree with the NFL on this one (there were other non-calls that I thought were bs). The Defender didn't launch his helmet into the player or anything along those lines. Was it a vicious hit? Absolutely. But if you're going to take away vicious hits, why bother with the game? Where I think the NFL is really guilty is in their equipment requirements. There are helmets out there that do a much better job at protecting from head injuries. Why aren't they used? My theory is that they are 1) more expensive and 2) not made by the company that they have under licensing contracts to make their equipment. Again, just a theory, though... Even if these helmets are better it's marginal at best. The amount of force from a hit like PT took, I'm willing to bet it's worse than getting hit in the head with a baseball bat at full force. No helmet can 100% protect the brain in that situation. It's going to get rattled in there. They need to just go ahead and make any helmet to helmet contact illegal. It takes away from the game but so what. It's a game. G504 and WHO_DAT_CAT like this.
Beastmode 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,126

01-15-2012, 02:50 PM	#5
W. Kovacs 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 514	I actually agree with the NFL on this one (there were other non-calls that I thought were bs). The Defender didn't launch his helmet into the player or anything along those lines. Was it a vicious hit? Absolutely. But if you're going to take away vicious hits, why bother with the game? Where I think the NFL is really guilty is in their equipment requirements. There are helmets out there that do a much better job at protecting from head injuries. Why aren't they used? My theory is that they are 1) more expensive and 2) not made by the company that they have under licensing contracts to make their equipment. Again, just a theory, though...

01-15-2012, 02:51 PM	#7
SapperSaint Pink Nightmare Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Mississippi Posts: 3,028 Blog Entries: 7	Of coarse it was legal...... it was a hit on a Saints player! This is for the guy who saw it and didn't throw a flag and for the guy who said it was legal. OldMaid likes this.

01-15-2012, 03:16 PM	#8
OldMaid Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 2,917 Blog Entries: 3	Totally ridiculous rule. Helment to helment, head butt should never be allowed with all that is out there , proven facts, about concussions. It should be allowed all of the time or not at all if you have this rule.

01-15-2012, 04:22 PM	#9
Danno Truth Addict Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Spanish Fort, AL (via NO and B/R) Posts: 24,748	We'd eliminate football if you couldn't hit RB's. RB's put their head down to break tackles. It was a perfectly legal hit. I fear the day they outlaw helmet to helmet on every player. The NFL would cease to exist. W. Kovacs likes this.

01-15-2012, 05:39 PM	#10
gandhi1007 Part Time Pimp Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,967	What they failed to include in this article is that Whitner lead with his helmet, which is in fact, ILLEGAL. The league actually issued warnings at the beginning of the year to each team for this exact subject......YOU MAY NOT LEAD WITH THE HEAD WHEN TACKLING! Rueben Mayes and halloween 65 like this.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/40427-whitner-helmet-hit-legal.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
Whitner helmet hit legal	This thread	Refback	01-16-2012 06:52 AM	2