Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
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.
Interesting. If it's possible for a receiver to do something to take an unnecessary blow to the head in order to get some penalty yards, then that would defeat the purpose of the defenseless receiver rule, wouldn't it? Yeah, I could see how that would be a problem. Fortunately, for the Goldson on Doucet hit, that didn't happen, but I could see how a similar situation could arise and then lead to the perversity that receivers make themselves unnecessary victims.
I also see what you mean by the hard form tackle perhaps being preferable. Tangentially related to that, I have to say that the celebratory behavior of Goldson afterwards was classless. Still, he did carry out the primary responsibility in that situation for a defender, which is to administer enough force cleanly on the receiver to make it very difficult for the receiver to complete the reception. A hard form tackle could have done the same thing.