See the tweet explaining the near fight during the Lions game 

Show Spoiler

Sorry the picture is so big.

---

You might want to enclose that picture in spoiler tags so it doesn't continue to break the page table.

---

Done sir.

---

Immediately after that hit I exclaimed that this is a prime example of how you can land a huge hit on someone without turning your body into an airborne missile with your head being the warheard. Helmet to helmet rules aren't making the game less physical, the erroneous perception that you can't blow someone up without driving your head into their head is. Either form tackle or lead with the shoulder if you're going for a big hit.

now to see the hit i go where

---

Idiot Lions announcers that apparently can't tell the difference between a shoulder and head. Awfully pussyriffic talk for a supposedly "tough" team (although Bush could have done without the chatter):
http://www.nfl.com/videos/detroit-lions/09000d5d8259c94a/QB-Stafford-to-RB-Smith-5-yd-pass-TD 

Thank you for the link to the video showing the shoulder hit.

I thought everyone would know which play I was talking about.

The Lions announcers whined but it ws a good hit. Jarring the ball lose would have prevented the touchdown

To change the subject.....

Eventually Riddell and other manufacturers will make helmets of better material. Probably due to a lawsuit and crazy jury verdict.

To stop the head to head contact they have had the spearing penalty on the books for decades but don't call it.

If they all went back to wearing leather helmets a lot of these dummies who never learned to tackle would finally get the message.

---

The biggest thing I remember is the loud crack, sadly absent from the video I linked to, but it was on the broadcast I watched (was in Indiana at the time).

This is exactly what I said and a few strongly said it was stupid. I think it's smart because when you realize your head is fragile you sure as hell won't be leading with it nearly as much. I think the helmet gives some players a sense that they can't be hurt so they throw their head into the mix of a tackle.

---

The disadvantage of the old leather helmets (or the head guards they wear in rugby) is there is a greater risk of bumps and bruises, broken noses, etc. The advantage is that those injuries are relatively minor and they condition players to be much more careful with their heads. Rugby players are trained to put their head to the side of the player and push through with their shoulder, driving them into the ground in a way that spares the head direct trauma.

The advantage of the plastic helmets is that they do an excellent job of protecting the players from these minor injuries and in many ways make playing a more pleasant experience. The disadvantage is they do such a good job of protecting the players from injury that the injuries that do occur tend to be of the catastrophic type: concussions, skull fractures, even spinal fractures. They lull players into a false sense of security, to the point that they seem to think they are invulnerable to direct blows to the head. This results in cocky, aggressive young men using their armored heads as weapons to intimidate their opponents. Most of the time they can get by with it, but when the unthinkable happens, it can be career ending or even lethal.

I would not be opposed to a return to the soft shell in football, but people would have to recalibrate their expectations of the product on the field. It would not be quite the same high-flying, violent circus act it is now. It would be a slower, more methodical game, much like we see in the old highlight videos. I personally don't think that would be a bad thing. Perhaps we'd see more of a return to strategy instead of the unending track meet.

---