Originally Posted by DanT
That was a completely legal hit.http://bayarea.sbnation.com/49ers/20...e-early-doucet
I don't have a problem with hits like that. That was shoulder first into a receiver's torso. There's something that receivers can do to avoid getting lit up like that, which is to not try to catch passes right in front of safeties. Clean hits are absolutely fine with me. If a ball carrier is going out of bounds but takes an extra step or two in front of the pursuing defender, I want the defender to deliver a clean inbounds hit. That's part of the game in my opinion. If a player doesn't want to get hit, then he should step out of bounds earlier.
I do care a lot about player safety, though. I don't like players taking unnecessary risks, especially players who will not realize until far down the road that they did things to themselves that were not in their interests.
If a player gets lit up, I want there to be independent and qualified experts evaluating whether the player is ready to return to action. That's a simple step to take. Teams that know how to protect their players will benefit at the expense of teams that don't. That's how the game should be.
Here's the problem. That's a legal hit, but if the receiver did anything (e.g. duck or go low), then it becomes an illegal hit. And then the defender would have complained about intent. "Oh, well I was going for the torso, but the receiver ducked."
Sorry, I don't like those kinds of tackles. That's a kill shot where he missiles into the defender with his shoulder. That same play could have been made by making a play for the ball or a hard form tackle.