Topic of the Week

After this past NFL weekend games, the talk of the town is the NFL's declaration to suspend players for violent conduct. The NFL previously imposed fines for these flagrant fouls, but the new sanctions were brought on by three major hits that occurred this weekend between players on the field. The league hopes that suspensions will deter players from committing these hits and coaches from teaching their players to hit/tackle in a particularly dangerous way.

Although this may initially appear as a sensible policy to protect players, it has become very controversial. First, the policy is unclear in that it fails to define what type of hit will be considered dangerous or flagrant. As a result, players and coaches are not sure how to act in response to the policy in this week's games, making them subject to fines and suspensions. Secondly, the policy arguably changes the nature of the game. Football is about big hits. That is a huge reason for its popularity, especially in TV ratings. It is understandable that, i.e. helmet to helmet, hits are illegal, but the other types of hits at issue have been part of the game forever and to take them out now significantly changes the game. Thirdly, as one former player and coach pointed out, playing football is a privilege. Players have the option to not play in the NFL if they do not want to get hit. No one is forcing them to be on the field.

Sure, the NFL has a responsibility to protect players, but does this policy go too far? IS the NFL acting rashly in response to one weekend of big hits? Tell me what YOU think!