[Husker] A few things

[Nick Chevance]

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:47 AM,  <gzimmerman5 at kc.rr.com> wrote:
> To try and eliminate helmet to helmet hits should be the goal even if it's not obtainable. If the game becomes less violent, so be it.
> --
> Greg Zimmerman, UNL '75
> Overland Park, Kansas

The goal is unobtainable.  As someone has already pointed out, and it
should be completely obvious to anyone who watches football, there are
many helmet-to-helmet collisions in every game.  Take for instance
line play.  When an offensive and defensive player meet, its almost
always head-to-head.  And as in the Martin hit last week, it looks
like the hittee tucked his chin just at contact, which is the natural
thing to do, a reflex.

I'm not advocating for ignoring the issue, but it's just not possible
to have no helmet contact and still play the game as a contact sport.
For instance, Dennard's injury was from his own player - how do you
treat that in the world of no helmet-to-helmet contact?  Suspend them
both?  It makes little sense.

I think again the intent of the rules as they are now is to limit the
intentional targeting with a helmet.  I think the rule works fairly
well, and I think most players are aware of the rule.  I think where
the rule gets into a gray area is trying to infer intent from a video
review of something that often happens in a blink of an eye.  A lot of
this type of talk has gone on on this list, inferring intent from a
breakdown of a hit, since last week.  I'd argue that intent is
sometimes available to you on video, but most of the time, its only in
the mind of the player.  And if we can determine intent with any true
accuracy from video alone, why the hell are we spending so much on
security at airports?  All we'd have to do is be filmed going to
airplanes.

Nick
-- 
“It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.”
          Groucho Marx