The NFL's efforts to protect offensive players will end up shortening those players' careers.

Being a Skins fan, I have nothing more to look forward to this season [/mancry], so I'm left to wax theoretical. Like many of you, I've recently been thinking more and more about how the game is called, specifically respecting hits that draw 15 yard penalties and/or automatic first downs. Every week I feel sorrier for tacklers. As I see it, two main issues stemming from the changes in play calling are problematic.

1.) Referees' expectations of defenders have changed so suddenly and so dramatically that it's been difficult to adjust. Players have been rewarded for cultivating a specific set of techniques, some of them since the age of 6. Suddenly in a matter of a few years, the rules have been set to work against literally decades of muscle memory.

2.) While rules are explicitly worded, the way they are enforced is often ambiguous, inconsistent, and subject to personal judgement. I recently read an article by Michael David Smith. The following quote really resonated with me.

"Hits on defenseless players have become like Rorschach tests: The way observers react to them tells you more about the observers than it does about the hits."

Calling a game in real time is incredibly difficult, and the refs are doing their best. Their judgement calls have always been imperfect; that's not new. However, the upsurge in penalties calling on that judgement, penalties that automatically drag offenses down field and grant fresh sets of downs, will force defenses to re-examine the risks of their methods vs. the rewards they promise.

Earlier this year, I saw London Fletcher hit Tom Brady square in the chest, and get called for a forearm to the head penalty. Fletcher's play was perfect. It was text book. It still drew a flag. (I'm not calling out the refs for favoritism, "Tom Brady Rule," etc, it's just one memorable example from the past few weeks.) Part of the problem on that play and many questionable penalties called recently is that Brady was falling to the ground as he was hit. Fletcher's tackle was aimed at Brady's abdomen, but as the QB slid down, he ended up taking the hit higher. Still in a legal location, but closer to the "restricted" area. Even when a runner remains upright, when he sees a hit coming, instinct tells him to curl his body to absorb it, drawing his helmet down towards that of the tackler. Despite this fact, the NFL has made it crystal clear that responsibility for helmet to helmet hits (or even shoulder to helmet hits, on defenseless receivers) belongs solely to the tackler, and not the runner.

Where does this leave us? Tacklers still want to make a stop, but hits that are even perceived as high grant 15 yards and are counterproductive. Those hits may also carry fines. I believe these conditions may drive tackles LOWER. The man you're going to hit is about to lower himself, there's no penalty for hitting him too low (except QBs), and if you even LOOK like you hit him above the numbers, you're just doing his job for him. Historically this is poor technique; you're just asking to be hurdled. But if going high risks giving up a first down, you might as well TRY to obstruct him. Why not aim for his hips?

If that's how defenders react, it will be dangerous for two reasons. One, directing impact to runners' hips and knees, while sparing them concussions, will damage the joints, ligaments, and tendons that enable the players to, you know, walk. Second, if tacklers going low does make runners leap to avoid tackles, it increases the likely hood that a second tacker will hit the runner in mid-air. That might be worse than the other consequence. The tackler's ability to aim his shot will be further impaired, and the runner's limited ability to control how he lands opens him to any number of injuries.

I'm not saying that I don't like the efforts they've made to prevent head injuries. It's fantastic. Good for the players, good for the sport. But they need to find a way to call the game fairly and consistently. Otherwise, tight games might be a dice roll for both sides. I'm not looking to extend the game to four hours, but maybe JUST helmet to helmet calls should be reviewable? Protecting the players is great, but we need to keep the game fair. Your thoughts? Anything I've left out, missed the point on, etc?

TL;DR The 15 yard penalties meant to defend against head injuries may drive tackles lower, which could lead to more knee and hip shots. Ask Adrian Peterson how he feels about that.