http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2010 ... hes_d.html
Rolle also loves the competitive nature and physicality of football. Despite the league’s attempts to crack down on violent hits by threatening suspensions, Rolle said he will continue to play as usual.
“Sometimes I try to lower my angle or put my helmet on the other side of (the receiver),” Rolle said. “And that winds up being helmet-to-helmet, too. This is a fast game and you have to play fast.”
I know it's really a simple concept and unremarkable to some, but sometimes it takes bringing it down to square one and taking a step back to see the big picture. The man makes a good point. As for the debate itself, it's quite an interesting conflict between the players and the league that I see potentially getting heated. I personally think that everything needs to be looked at from the perspective of the players' intentions on the hit. If it wasn't done recklessly and was just a player doing his job and hitting a guy a little aggressively (which happens in football, especially the NFL) then there really shouldn't be a fine.
They also have to factor in the repeat offenses, meaning players who are playing recklessly on a consistent basis, not just off of ill-advised hit. These guys are football players, not brain surgeons. And many of them do not have a good history of decision making (*cough* Plaxico *cough*).Humans aren't always great decision makers. So they won't always make the right judgment on a play in the sense of whether or not they should hold up or if it's imperative to make the hit. If they continue to use bad judgment, you drop the hammer on them. But if it happens just once and/or if the player really didn't have much control over the situation based on the speed of the game, I don't agree with fining/suspending those players.
What do you guys think about the fining and suspending of players for these violent hits?