1

In a New York Times opinion piece, former Denver Broncos player Nate Jackson criticizes the National Football League’s efforts to discourage players from, in his words, “using their heads as weapons.” Jackson argues that head-on tackles are a necessity in modern football and that the sport would suffer if they were not allowed. I strongly disagree. In fact, prohibiting head-first tackles and blocks would improve the safety of the players without destroying the game.

2

Jackson claims that alternative forms of tackling, including the use of shoulder pads instead of helmets, are ineffectual and would get any professional player cut from his team. The truth is, if the NFL prohibited all players from head-first tackling and blocking, the playing field would still be level. If all players were to tackle with their shoulders, for example, there would be no reason to cut players based on their tackling style. Jackson states that shoulder tackles have only half the strength of head-on tackles. This may seem a disadvantage at first, but if NFL players were required to use their shoulders instead of their heads to tackle, it is likely that the number of head injuries each season would drop significantly.

3

Jackson also claims that players who attempt to avoid head collisions have their manhood called into question. This seemingly irrelevant point shows that many football players are far more concerned about their image than about their own safety. He further demonstrates this attitude when he says, “The brain cells [he] lost on plays like that were of less concern to [him] than being called out in meetings by coaches.” If the rules were changed to end head-first tackles and blocks, players wouldn’t have to worry about having their manhood questioned. Instead, they would be able to focus on the game rather than on their own images.

4

Jackson also argues that helmet-to-helmet hits are unavoidable, at one point estimating that six or seven such hits might occur per play in the NFL. Later in his essay, however, Jackson notes that the pre-1950s “leatherheads” did not lead with their heads when tackling. Additionally, their leather caps did not evolve into massive plastic shells to be used as weapons but instead to reduce the risk of injury. Modern football players, however, are required to take advantage of the more rugged helmet designs and use them to ram other players. A change in rules would make helmet-to-helmet hits avoidable and allow the helmets to be used as originally intended—for protection.

5

Toward the end of his essay Jackson claims, “The only way to prevent head injuries in football is no more football.” He proposes the less drastic approaches of educating coaches about the dangers of head-first tackling and of improving helmet design. But it is unlikely that either of these strategies will address the cause of the increasing number of head injuries in the NFL. Instead, the probable result of better helmet designs is that players will ram each another with even more force than they do today.

6

Finally, Jackson says, “The players understand the risks, and the fans enjoy watching them take those risks,” implying that the players would not like to see stricter safety rules than those in place today. He also asserts that the type of football played under such restrictions “wouldn’t be football anymore.” However, NFL players surely would benefit from improved safety rules, and the nature of the game would not change significantly.

7

As Jackson himself notes, today’s football players are larger and faster than ever before. And as many fans and critics have noted, the game is more violent than ever before. Under these conditions, it has never been more important to prohibit head-first tackles and blocks, reducing the number of potentially life-destroying head injuries.

Work Cited

Jackson, Nate. “The NFL’s Head Cases.” Nytimes.com. New York Times, 23 Oct. 2010. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.