An unintended consequence by the NFL legislating a ban on helmet to helmet contact in a well-intentioned effort to reduce concussions has at least seemed to be an uptick in lower leg (read ACL) injuries. The backlash was to be expected, as players and others are vocal in their outrage over increased knee issues.
If I may use baseball in a sort of comparison, I specifically bring up the size of the "strike zone". I had always been accustomed to that area being the space between the batter's letters and his knees. But in fact, or at least practice, the "strike zone" seems to be roughly the size of a shoe box, centered in the batter's wheel house or sweet spot. Not many letter high strikes get called by MLB umpires. Maybe this is a result of trying to keep more offense in the game, and minimize the number of 1-0 shutouts twirled by big league pitchers. A dull game to most fans, for sure.
Now, I return to the current uproar in football. Why not institute a strictly enforced "strike zone" that is applied to both tackling and blocking equally. No hitting of any kind below the thigh pads (which must be worn at all times) or above the shoulder pads. Force players on both sides of the ball to "man up" and only hit the opponent within the confines of that allowed region. No taking a man's legs out from under him. No cut blocks. Take your man on and may the best man win. Football 101 . . . .whip your man fair and square.
Seems to me that this idea might be a way to keep more players healthier longer and maintain a higher level of play by all. I'm not so sheltered to think that my idea would eliminate all knee injuries. Some don't even involve contact of any sort. Just shrink the "strike zone" a bit so most of the "cheap" variety gets gone.
Makes sense to me, but I"m ready to engage in a healthy debate should any of my fellow-readers care to take up the conversation.
Go Colts !