at Michigan in the mid 20's. Oosterbaan was a three time All American and Ray made it once.
In the early 50's Ray taught us to stick our face into a runner's gut when making a head on tackle. He said it was better to break your nose or lose a few teeth than break your neck or maybe suffer a concussion. That was almost 70 years ago and we didn't have face masks or mouth pieces. Big hitter Poppa Bear! Poppa knew football.
I think the answer is to have them play without helmets.
to try and make contact with your shoulders. It protects the stomach and chest from absorbing the blow and provides power to go forward. The runner generally isn't trying to hit with the helmet, but it msy be the first part of the body to make contact.
But... the rules need several generations to take effect IMO. The cycle of players being taught to launch themselves like a missile at someone versus form tackling has to work its way through the system from pee wee football into college. The first group through that process gets marginally better at playing the game closer to how it was played decades ago. The next generation after that is no longer being coached by people that don't agree with it and no longer really knows the old way ever existed.
Helmets are needed just for basic protection from the head hitting the ground, etc. If you eliminated the plastic masks, the extensive bars on face masks that now exist and basically made players play with the 1970's style QB two bars around the mouth style face mask, it would force players to stop leading with their helmets -- because too many of them would be breaking their nose, eye injuries, etc.
I know he's persona non grata here, but Fritz Crisler suggested that so long ago that the article also mentioned how big offensive tackles were getting, saying they don't even get recruited if they don't weigh at least 230.
"I am one who is concerned about the equipment we're using today. I have the feeling that it is contributing to injuries. The equipment was supposed to protect the wearer from injury, and now I'm wondering if it isn't causing injuries.
"I would like to see a rule on the subject of equipment—the face mask, the headgear, this unyielding armor we're putting these kids into. I've declared myself. I am convinced that we ought to take off the face mask and review the helmet. You see, you get the depth of this unyielding plastic in the back of the neck and you get this face mask out front. A blow of some sort underneath the mask can cause a whiplash in the back of the neck, in the area of the cervical vertebrae. A blow of this kind could be fatal. It has been fatal. There is also the danger that, with grasping the mask itself, you will get a sharp head rotation and a disabling injury.
"There is another serious point to be made in this same connection. The face mask and headgear are changing the mechanics of football, and blocking in particular. Now they're blocking with the head. The shoulder blocks and side body blocks are gradually disappearing. This use of the headgear as a weapon is called spearing. They have spearing drills. Some call it goring. Now, if you took the face mask off, it isn't likely that they would be able to do that sort of thing."
The 1964 Rules Committee meeting voted to make it a personal foul for a player to ram an opponent in the head, face or neck with his helmet or neck. Nothing was said about changing the helmet or removing the mask, as Crisler so strongly recommends. Was anything being done about that problem?
"There are a number of studies going on," said Crisler. "Here at Michigan, Bennie Oosterbaan [Michigan's famous All-America end and former coach] and I have been assisting Dr. Richard Schneider, a great neurosurgeon, by getting films together for his study of football fatalities. There is conclusive evidence that with today's helmet and face mask you get that whiplash I mentioned."
Without the face mask, wouldn't there be some teeth knocked out, some noses broken?
Crisler looked around the walls, his eyes lingering a moment on one of the portraits of Stagg.
"I would rather have that," he said quietly, "than to see a boy on a slab in the morgue."
it wouldn't take a generation to change the behavior. A few hours in practice, and players leading with their faces (now) would stop doing it.
Losing the sense of invulnerability is a powerful impetus for change.
at all levels of football.
Not sure what else to say beyond that; it was not illegal at that point and in fact back in the day that sort of thing was encouraged. Warren Sapp used to always look to do it and would even leave his feet (which was a cheap shot).
As if. Who was that moron color commentator?
Snead was actively pursuing a ball carrier, which makes him fair game in my opinion. The hit was brutal and would be a clear penalty now, but back then it was a clean play.
What justice did he receive? Our Stanford law leader was again publicly missing in action in calling for protection of players and the most severe punishment of the braggadocious perpetrators.
I participate a lot on InsideTexas and the vast majority feel that at worst it was an inadvertent hit, or that he hit his shoulder, that there was no intent, etc. Most agreed though that it was a brutal collision just not one that was entirely the fault of the Texas player.
I would disagree with those who characterize Texas fans as anything other than good fans. Now I was at the Texas/Ohio State game in 2005 and witnessed some really bad behavior towards anybody wearing Texas gear.
I was at the 2006 return game in Austin and Ohio State fans came away saying they were surprised at how good and welcoming Texas fans and Austin were to them. They didn't expect that.
Even they were quiet as church mice while they reviewed the Hunter hit, fearing a penalty.
Even Jimmy Dunne did not run a full page thank you newspaper ad in the Austin American Statesman.
If it isn’t targeting, they should get rid of the rule.
They need to penalize these types of hits so players change the way they play.
Or that it was in fact clean?
I have seen worse hits, but that collision was the very definition of what both the NFL and NCAA are writing rules to eliminate:
-defenseless player
-contact initiated with helmet
-defensive player launched into the hit
I still have no idea how that wasn't called
I imagine he might have taken his team off the field.
If your players are in danger why continue? Because it's Notre Dame-Texas on national TV?
There is no debate as to whether multiple head injuries lead to long-term medical conditions. The issue is whether the rules as currently drafted serve the players enough.
If you don't enforce the rules why put your kids' health at risk?
So you know that most Texas fans are delusional and full of shit.