NFL over-policing hit policy

With its stranglehold at the top of the American sports culture, the NFL has done a lot of great things through marketing and publicity to weave its way into daily life of nearly every household in this country. Just look at how many people care about meaningless games because of straight up gambling, fantasy football, knockout pools etc.

The league has been great at publicizing that October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month or proactive moves like the First Down Line (although I believe FOX can take credit there).

But the NFL's new policy on "devastating hits" has over-stepped its bounds, and jeopardized the fundamentals of the game. It's an overreaction of a weekend of three big hits, which were replayed over and over and is likely a part of why this decision was made. (I doubt the same decision would have been made in the days before ESPN and the NFL Network.)

While baseball has taken heat for smaller ballparks and records shattered by steroid use, the NFL could go down the same path if lesser players are able to make more plays - especially over the middle - because they don't have to contend with the threat of as much contact.

This smacks of hypocrisy as one of the other ongoing headlines in the NFL is the expanding of the regular season by two games to 18. How can you penalize "devastating hits" and promote concussion awareness while subjecting players to additional games? (And we all know even if they cut two preseason games, the speed and intensity is not even comparable.)

While, sure, you can avoid some blatant hits of truly defenseless players with better fundamentals, or a healthier punishment like a suspension, the bottom line is the game is designed to produce collisions. And there may even be the argument that defensive players trying to avoid a suspension might play slower and subject themselves to other potential injuries.

Football simply can't be regulated in this way or it'll be relegated to rugby or even flag football.

For starters, let's enforce the rule already in place. An illegal hit is leaping, launching (leaving your feet) or leading with your helmet, shoulder or forearm to the head of a defenseless player. But isn't every receiver on a crossing pattern over the middle defenseless? And how can a defensive back, at that speed, only hit the torso of an opponent? What's more, a player with the ball is not defenseless. A classic example is Dunta Robinson's legal hit of DeSean Jackson, who had the ball and Robinson's shoulder hit Jackson in the chest.

The league should better define its "new" rule so defensive players don't have to change how they attack the offense. Safety is one thing, but football is a violent sport and injuries and dangerous hits can't be avoided entirely.