To distract us from our current misery.

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on Loffler's hit on Manny Arceneaux. Do you agree that these types of hits should be taken out of football?

Coaching PeeWee football this year, we were penalized on a few occasions both offense and defense in taking out players that didn't see it coming from a blocking or tackling point of view. And I'm not talking about the penalties that occurred 30 yards away from the play where a player takes out an an unsuspecting opposition. Those I agree in being penalized.

I'm all for player safety and I don't want to see players experience long term effects but I struggle with accepting that these types of hits being outlawed. Isn't there onus on all players to be aware of one's surroundings? Like in Hockey not keeping your head up when receiving a pass?  

Anyways, I'd like to hear what other's think. 

7 minutes ago, gcn11 said:

They can be separate things for sure, but this clearly a case of mamby pamby PC agenda looking to take contact out of the sport of football.

I'm not trying to start an argument about this... but that just doesn't make sense... a PC agenda would be something stupid like calling that Loffler hit a "man's hit" then some PC idiot calling that sexist... or something like that... doesn't matter, I get exactly what you're saying just disagree with your choice of words... no harm, no foul...

The rule book is full of terrible wording that can be used to justify lousy calls.

"Leading with the head" gets used all the time.  Freeze a play during a game and what will you see?  Every player who isn't in a backpeddle could be described as leading with their head.  That's the natural angle for running forward.  The tackler's head is the first point of contact on the tackled player for the majority of plays.  What they're actually trying to penalize is the act of using a helmet as a weapon.  So why not get rid of leading with the helmet as a descriptor of a penalty and replace it with using a "helmet as a weapon".  There are 9 guys along the line of scrimmage that bash helmets on nearly every snap yet it's never called.  Why?  Because leading with the helmet isn't actually what they are trying to penalize.

A hit on a defenceless receiver?  Same terrible choice of words, and it once again allows for the literal description to create a grey area.  Anytime a receiver is in the act of making a catch he could be described as defenceless.  What they are trying to get rid of is predatory and unnecessary hits (half of Shea Emry's hits in his career).  The kind of hit where a defensive player tees up on a receiver just because the opportunity presents itself, even though the outcome of the play has been decided.

Does that change of words mean Loffler doesn't get penalized?  Probably not.  Murray Clarke was reaching for that flag before Loffler arrived.  He needs to throw flags on the Bombers like the desert needs rain.  He'd still argue that the hit was predatory and unnecessary.  I'd argue that the ball was tipped off of Arceneaux's hands and was still in the air and in the end zone when that hit happened, so the outcome of the play and Arceneaux's role in it was very much undecided.  It remains a subjective call, but at least the intent of the rule is clearer.  And it doesn't make Murray Clarke a better ref.

I would suggest that there are different rules for hits against star players than there are against non star players and that's a problem 

I was surprised that Manny was even still in the game.  He took a hit a few plays earlier along the sideline where I thought he got his bell rung a bit.  The commentators even commented about him limping a bit (which I would argue was more of an uneasiness due to the previous hit).  Then he went over the middle and got hit (cleanly) by Loffler and was down for the count.  I'm thinking that if it wasn't for the earlier hit, Manny probably pops up from the Loffler hit with little problem and there is no flag.  I strongly feel that the flag came out because of how Manny took it and not because of how it was delivered by Loffler.

As a few people have said here already, if Manny makes that catch, it's a clean hit to dislodge the ball.  Based on that alone, there shouldn't be a penalty because Loffler didn't lead with his head, and didn't hit Manny in the head.

Loffler needs to learn how to hit like Cauchy Muamba.  Now there was a safety who didn't take unnecessary penalties.

That hit would not have been near as damaging but Manny flung his head over lofflers shoulder. Manny was out to injure TL if you ask me. M.A. should be banned from football for running into Loffler like that. I'll bet Orridge is behind this trying to job the bombers from a playoff win. It's all part of the conspiracy. 

 

Bye the way. Just love the title of the thread. 

Edited November 16, 20169 yr by Rod Black

 

On 11/14/2016 at 6:19 PM, blitzmore said:

Loved the hit...but Loffler could have pulled up or gone by...his intention from the beginning was to nail him. In the end it hurt us two ways...the penalty...and making the lions mad.

Isn't that always his intention? Great hit in my opinion, for such a tall guy you'd think Arceneux would be better at keeping his head up.

On ‎2016‎-‎11‎-‎14 at 0:01 PM, Taynted_Fayth said:

Loved the hit, I didnt think it deserved a penalty though.  I kept thinking about the terry ray hit on pat woodcock, but the difference there was Ray hit him as the ball was hitting his hands, Loffler had a full step or 2 after the ball went off his hands. I can see why it was called but it is what it is.

In the end I hope Arceneaux is alright

 

This pretty well sums up my thoughts as well. I thought the hit was a clean, tough, football play. If Arceneaux is in possession of the ball it's not a penalty IMO. Loffler committed himself to the hit, and at full speed it's impossible to stop. He didn't hit his head, he made contact with his chest.

I feel bad that Arceneaux was injured but as other posters have said it's football, and its a rough game.....

23 hours ago, bearpants said:

I'm not trying to start an argument about this... but that just doesn't make sense... a PC agenda would be something stupid like calling that Loffler hit a "man's hit" then some PC idiot calling that sexist... or something like that... doesn't matter, I get exactly what you're saying just disagree with your choice of words... no harm, no foul...

No it makes perfect sense. You just aren't understanding that hard contact football, you know the way it is supposed to be played,  is now politically incorrect. We have the mamby pamby media, politicians, and alarmists running around telling us how a beautifully executed text book hit like Loffler's should be eliminated from the game. Mamby pambies.

I have little doubt that even though my opinion is correct from a football purist point of view, that many on here will strongly disagree with me and take issue with it. Why/ Not because they could give 2 figs about Arceneaux's melon....it's because the other night they sat down and watched the media proclaim it as barbarian and then flipped over to Netflix and watched that stupid Will Smith movie about it.

That my friend is a textbook definition of it not being PC.

Edited November 16, 20169 yr by gcn11

25 minutes ago, gcn11 said:

No it makes perfect sense. You just aren't understanding that hard contact football, you know the way it is supposed to be played,  is now politically incorrect. We have the mamby pamby media, politicians, and alarmists running around telling us how a beautifully executed text book hit like Loffler's should be eliminated from the game. Mamby pambies.

I have little doubt that even though my opinion is correct from a football purist point of view, that many on here will strongly disagree with me and take issue with it. Why/ Not because they could give 2 figs about Arceneaux's melon....it's because the other night they sat down and watched the media proclaim it as barbarian and then flipped over to Netflix and watched that stupid Will Smith movie about it.

That my friend is a textbook definition of it not being PC.

fair enough... maybe I'm just too PC to get it 

19 minutes ago, bearpants said:

fair enough... maybe I'm just too PC to get it 

I could be too old school to think otherwise as well....but all I know is when Loffler rocked him I jumped out of my seat. Nicest hit all year!!

1 hour ago, gcn11 said:

I could be too old school to think otherwise as well....but all I know is when Loffler rocked him I jumped out of my seat. Nicest hit all year!!

I didn't quite jump out of my seat but I had hands in the air celebrating followed immediately by "No way you can call that!"

It sounds like Manny will be playing this Sunday.  Good to hear! 

that is good news. I was oping he would play but hadn't heard any updates... Hopefully Reilly will be good to go too...

1 hour ago, B-F-F-C said:

It sounds like Manny will be playing this Sunday.  Good to hear! 

I'm actually quite surprised by this. It looked like (can't confirm) that he was knocked out cold.

When that happens, the trend is the show usually gets shut down longer than a week. 

I do assume though they are not putting him at any risk other than the potential of getting clocked again which all other players do anyways.   

Edited November 17, 20169 yr by HardCoreBlue

1 hour ago, bearpants said:

that is good news. I was oping he would play but hadn't heard any updates... Hopefully Reilly will be good to go too...

Apparently the Esks have signed DeMarco, so maybe Reilly isn't 100%.

I'm glad he's healthy and I hope he remains healthy until next year so that Loffler can earhole him again.

29 minutes ago, tracker said:

Apparently the Esks have signed DeMarco, so maybe Reilly isn't 100%.

yeah I heard that... it would be Franklin, Lynch and DeMarco if Reilly can't go... This one game alone could get Franklin paid big (if he plays)...

I thought I read that Manny didn't practice today. So not sure I'd say he's going to be in the line up. 

15 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I thought I read that Manny didn't practice today. So not sure I'd say he's going to be in the line up. 

Yup read the same thing but also read that's he's been cleared to play so I assume they're resting him till game time. 

Maybe they should remove the punching from boxing because someone might get hurt.

1 hour ago, Fraser said:

Maybe they should remove the punching from boxing because someone might get hurt.

That would be called stand-up wrestling. :-)

5 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

I thought I read that Manny didn't practice today. So not sure I'd say he's going to be in the line up. 

In the video of the Lion's locker room after the game Manny was sporting a crutch, forgotten in all of this hub-bub is that he twisted his ankle prior to his appt. with Dr. Loffler.