Whitner helmet hit legal

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.

01-16-2012, 06:16 AM	#2
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

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

01-15-2012, 02:50 PM	#1
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...