yeah that hit is just not called for, there is ways to block without giving concussions.

Good article on the hit in question.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/The-helmet-to-helmet-backlash-has-already-arrive?urn=ncaaf-280463

I agree with those who pointed out the "launching" himself, as he didn't bring his arms to "block" he just bent forward and drilled him. Plus, he basically left his feet in order to do it. Had he hit him 6 inches lower, I don't think he gets a penalty/suspension. However, I'm not in favor of penalizing guys for making legal plays, and that was a legal play. Was it a brutal hit? Sure. Football is a violent sport, and is intended to be played as such. Perhaps if #90 wouldn't be loafing down the field and not paying attention, looking for someone who's doing his job (paving a path for his return man) he wouldn't have gotten laid out.

There's no rule that says you can't play violent and mean. As they JUST pointed out in the OSU game, there is NO rule that takes into account INTENT on a hit like that. It is either a helmet-to-helmet hit or it isn't. And it was not. Therefore it is a legal play. If you have guys that can't handle playing a team with some mean, tenacious SOB's like that, then stick to chess or something. I'm all for penalizing guys if it is illegal, but I hate all this reactionary crap that draws out personal foul penalties that aren't deserved (Jackson/Robinson comes to mind). Let them play the damn game. If you're that scared of getting hurt, play something else.

Red_Skin_Pride;539087 wrote: It is either a helmet-to-helmet hit or it isn't. And it was not. Therefore it is a legal play.

Incorrect.

Leading with the helmet is illegal.
Hitting about the opponents shoulders is illegal.
It does not have to be helmet to helmet.