HawkShack.com

Man that's a serious injury, Pete said it looks like he will fully recover but still pretty brutal. Best wishes and speedy recovery

http://www.seahawks.com/news/2015/11/02 ... ck-surgery

Good luck Ricardo. We will miss you.

I'm glad you started the thread. I breathed a sigh of relief when he raised both arms as they were carrying him out. I'm glad he didn't get anymore seriously than he did but it looks as if his playing days are over.

It almost looked to me that he grabbed at his thigh like he had pulled a hamstring a few steps before the collision. I agreed with the announcers, even though it was as violent as they come, it was perfectly legal and clean and I don't think it deserves a penalty or a fine. It's just one of those things that's a necessary evil.

Ricardo - Glad the prognosis is positive.

That was about as intense as they come, hit wise. It could've been much worse, and I'm happy that it's looking positive for him moving forward.

Stretched and/or torn ligaments in his neck, that is about as close to breaking his neck and being paralyzed for the rest of his life. Good thing he had built up his neck muscles or this would have been a real tragedy. I agree, his playing days are over.

There are rules and there are the "spirit" of the rules. That hit broke the spirit of the rules. Ricardo was obviously pulling up lame, the one Cowboy set him up and the other turned and then LAUNCHED (which is why he WILL be fined) right into Lockette's upper body while he was a defenseless player. Ricardo ducked in a reflexive move when he realized what Heath was going to do. Look at the film, Heath hit Lockette in the neck with his fore arm. It was as dirty a play as I have ever seen. James Henderson was probably some where applauding.

I thought he might be dead for awhile when he was just lying on the ground. So relieved to see him move his hands!

Didn't know there was a surgery for neck ligaments ... damaged mine playing football and the only choices then were fusion surgery or wearing a neck brace till the damage repaired itself ... was in a brace for months and wore two of these after that.



But I imagine medicine has advanced since the 70's.

Seahawks4Ever wrote:Stretched and/or torn ligaments in his neck, that is about as close to breaking his neck and being paralyzed for the rest of his life. Good thing he had built up his neck muscles or this would have been a real tragedy. I agree, his playing days are over.

There are rules and there are the "spirit" of the rules. That hit broke the spirit of the rules. Ricardo was obviously pulling up lame, the one Cowboy set him up and the other turned and then LAUNCHED (which is why he WILL be fined) right into Lockette's upper body while he was a defenseless player. Ricardo ducked in a reflexive move when he realized what Heath was going to do. Look at the film, Heath hit Lockette in the neck with his fore arm. It was as dirty a play as I have ever seen. James Henderson was probably some where applauding.

The problem I have is they will get fined and move on. They should be suspended for the year. I don't think his playing days are over. He is out for the year, and a miracle he wasn't killed, which is THE most important thing.

Golden Tate's shot a couple years ago was just as bad, not by how much he actually hurt the guy he hit, but he targeted the dude.

... and we celebrate Steve Largent's blind-side hit all the time.

Just because it was a Hawk that got hurt, as a fan, you can't have it both ways. It was a "Football" play. A lot of blogger's don't even think there should of been a penalty. It wasn't a 'true' blindside hit. Very sad as it probably just ended his career.

We celebrate the Largent hit because he was able to gain retribution, in one of the greatest coincidences in sports history. Sorry this stuff has to stop, live is more important than football.

Yes, it has to stop. And just like the changes in how the players tackle, and the other safety changes that have been made up to now, you discourage with large fines and game suspensions with loss of a paycheck, not with a year. There isn't one professional sport that has an eye-for-an-eye type penalty or even close to it.

Colleges call it "targeting" (which already has gone too far in how it's been adjudicated. Player gets thrown out of game + (I think) the first 1/2 of the next game), The NFL will develop a plan for this, now that it happened on National TV at such a scary level.

Sorry I don't agree. Not only should there not be a suspension but it should not have even been a penalty.

It's football, big hits happen. The danger is inherent to the game (which if we're being honest is part of why we watch).

By the current rules it is a penalty Bob. We may disagree that it should be but it was a penalty.


As far as Tate's hit it would have been a penalty today to but it wasn't at the time it occurred.

Largent's hit on Harden wasn't a penalty then and wouldn't have been a penalty now. He was neither prone or defenseless. He was just a ball carrier that had his clock cleaned by a defender who was tackling him with a clean shoulder to shoulder hit. That hit was straight up Kam LOB style.

c_hawkbob wrote:Sorry I don't agree. Not only should there not be a suspension but it should not have even been a penalty.

It's football, big hits happen. The danger is inherent to the game (which if we're being honest is part of why we watch).

100% agreed. That hit wasn't anymore illegal than the one Kam Chancellor laid on Vernon Davis a few years back that we all complained about for him being flagged for. He did not lead with his helmet, he didn't target the head, he didn't blind side him, nor was Lockette in a defenseless situation. IMO it was a textbook block and he shouldn't have been penalized let alone any fine assessed and certainly a suspension. I mean, what the hell was he supposed to do, let him run by? Lockette was running right at him on a collision course. It was up to Lockette to recognize it and take a step sideways.

It would seem to me that Lockette pulled his hamstring a few steps before the collision, causing him to lose his concentration so he didn't recognize the impending collision until he was right on top of him. All he had time to do was to dip his shoulder and brace himself for the blow. Had he not been distracted by his hammy he probably would have had time to take some sort of evasive action to at least minimize the blow.

You can't legislate out every single at risk situation in this game without changing the nature of it. It's a violent, dangerous sport, and every player that participates is fully aware of the risks.

By the current rules it was only a penalty if it were actually a blind side hit, which it wasn't. Not only did E see it coming but he lowered his head into the contact (perhaps worsening the impact, perhaps not). It was called a penalty on the grounds of it being blind side.

In real time it was a blind side because Lockette was engaged with another player and you can't crack back on an engaged player. He may have seen him but only in so much as he had enough time for his body to instinctively react to the impact. He had no ability to protect himself from the hit which is what the rule is trying to guard against.

The refs got it right.

The main problem with interpreting the legality of the play is that we have the very worst angle to evaluate it (over the shoulder of the hitting player.) I have not seen any other camera angles shown. Because of this I think it's pretty natural that objective viewers would disagree on whether it was a legal hit or an illegal hit. When evaluating for a fine the league will no doubt look at all angles and that will be a good indicator of what actually took place.

What I see is Lockette being engage with a blocker and the result being him left off balance. Heath hits him straight on at this point and (to my view) square in the jaw. Others think the hit is lower, shoulder to chest. In my view even if you account for the direction Ricardo was heading previous to the initial block it's hard to say he was "blindsided" in the traditional sense of the word. The hit was as I said, head on and at most would have been 20-30 degrees off of the median had he not been blocked. Heath is though completely off both his feet at the end of the hit. More about that later.

Now let's look at the rule. Special protection against blows delivered to the head by an opponent is also provided to a receiver who has just completed a catch, a kicker/punter during the kick or during the return, and to the recipient of a "blindside" block.

<clipped>

3. "Blindside" Block. It is an illegal "blindside" block if the initial force of the contact by a blocker's helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of an opponent when the blocker is moving toward his own endline and approaches his opponent from behind or from the side..

So (in my view) two of the three requirements for a blindside block are met. Lockette is facing his own goal line and is hit in the neck or head area. The third requirement, that the blocker approach from the rear or the side does not appear to be met. Based on all of this one would have to conclude that it was a legal hit, albiet a hit that had a very high chance of injuring the other player.

So what about Heath leaving his feet on the hit? Under the same area of the rule book (Hits on Defenseless Players) launching is addressed.

2. "Launching" and "Dip and Rip."A defensive player must not "launch" himself (spring forward and upward) into a defenseless player, or otherwise strike him in a way that causes the defensive player's helmet or facemask to forcibly strike the defenseless player's head, neck, or face-even if the initial contact of the defender's helmet or facemask is lower than the defenseless player's neck. (Examples: a defender buries his facemask into a defenseless player's high chest area, but the defender's trajectory as he leaps into the defenseless player causes the defender's helmet to strike the defenseless player violently in the head or face; or a defender, using a face-on posture or with his head slightly lowered, hits a defenseless player in an area below the defenseless player's neck, then the defender's head moves upward, resulting in strong contact by the defender's mask or helmet with the defenseless player's head, neck, or face (one example is the so-called "dip and rip" technique.)

Again, our camera angle make it very hard to verify whether this happens or not. It does appear to me that Heath has sprung upward as the camera clearly shows he left his feet on the hit. It appears to me his shoulder does hit Lockette's neck or head. The clear tell tale of this would be Lockette's head motion after the hit but since we are straight on it is very hard to tell. So, even if we assume all of these conditions were met in some way was Lockette considered a defenseless player at the time of the hit? Again, let's look at the rule.

NFL rules provide special protection to defenseless players, by prohibiting (a) hits delivered to their head or neck area by an opponent with his helmet (including facemask), forearm, or shoulder, and (b) hits delivered by an opponent with his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/"hairline" parts) against any part of the defenseless player's body (i.e., "butting, spearing, or ramming" a defenseless player.)

Defenseless players are defined as (a) a player in the act of or just after throwing a pass; (b) a receiver catching or attempting to catch a pass; (c) a runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped; (d) a kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air; and (e) a player on the ground at the end of a play.

So the answer is no. Lockette does not meet any of the requirements to be a defenseless player and thus does not gain protection from launching.

Based on this research Heath's hit would be considered legal. If he is fined by the league for the hit (doubtful) it will be interesting to see what terminology the league uses. If they do call it a blindside block I think we can conclude that they have expanded the definition of that in some way that the rule book has not caught up with.

I will add my own personal view as well. This is one of the hits that the NFL is trying to remove from the game. Hits like this will no doubt result in a high percentage of injury. In this case the hit did not meet any of the requirements for a penalty. It's likely the rules will be changed in the future to avoid such hits.

Nice post, Folk. You really did your homework.

RiverDog wrote:Nice post, Folk. You really did your homework.

Agreed, well done Folk.

The controlling factor is that he is engaged with another Cowboy while Heath is approaching to lay the hit.

kalibane wrote:The controlling factor is that he is engaged with another Cowboy while Heath is approaching to lay the hit.

Yah, I think that's the key to any rule change that might result.
Maybe permit double teaming for the first 10 yards, then only 1 blocker on any player at a time.

It was a borderline call in my opinion and I initially thought it was clean, but I don't know the minutiae of the rule book in this instance.

I never considered it might have been illegal for a second until the call was made. It was football. Bang bang play.As a gunner you live by the sword and die by the sword.
I'm just thankful Ricardo is going to be OK. I forget the name of the kid who was a safety for the Huskies maybe ten years ago? He got swallowed up on a play and broke his neck and was paralyzed. He only lived a couple of years after that.

Lockette is lucky.

kalibane wrote:The controlling factor is that he is engaged with another Cowboy while Heath is approaching to lay the hit.

Sorry but Lockette had disengaged the other player and clearly lowered his shoulder. I think you need to watch the play again. The block was legal, the outcome is seriously unfortunate and sad, but the hit was clean, legal and a football play that happens regularly at every level.

Yeah, arms length is definitely not engaged.

The key here is that Lockette was not only engaged with another Cowboy but had pulled up lame and limping, the very definition of a "prone and defenseless" player. You could see Heath take the measure and then LAUNCHED himself into Ricardo. That is the other key, Heath launched himself into Lockette.

What made this especially dirty and really, I don't know some in here seem to be blind to it, is that heath used his forearm and hit Ricardo in the neck/jaw area.

The fact is, not only was a penalty the right call Heath should be fined if not suspended. This was nothing like the hit KC did on Davis or Largent on Harden, that is just fantasy.

Wait- there are people here who think that the penalty was justified there, and/or suspensions or fines are warranted?

C'mon- Heath was directly in front of him, Ricardo saw it coming, Heath got his hat out of the way... watching it, I can't imagine how anyone can conclude it was dirty and/or otherwise illegal.

The key here is that Lockette was not only engaged with another Cowboy but had pulled up lame and limping,

I honestly thought you were kidding posting this. He had been engaged with another blocker, but he was not engaged any longer, he took 3-4 steps and even lowered *his* head into the hit (which is natural to do, but he sure as hell wasn't surprised by the collision).

What made this especially dirty and really, I don't know some in here seem to be blind to it, is that heath used his forearm and hit Ricardo in the neck/jaw area.

He did nothing of the sort, for heaven's sake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-t2IkW3ypY

Are you thinking of a different play or something??

it looked more like 2 step than 3-4 but ok, what is Ricardo to do there? Hit the brakes?, And according to the "rule" it is the responsibility of the defender (heath) to adjust to a lowered head of Locket (I know, it's stupid) and hit him below the neck, it looks to me that heath hit Lockette in the neck jaw area what happens to a lot of rookies and with these penalties and fines the rookies learn, this one was just a devastating one to Lockette. To me according to the rule it was a foul, not necessarily a "dirty" play I think the play developed to fast to do something like that.

FWIW,

Heath Reaches Out To Seahawks WR; But “Not Apologizing For Playing Hard”

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2015/11/03/heath-reaches-out-seahawks-wr-%E2%80%9Cnot-apologizing-playing-hard%E2%80%9D?campaign=sf14897020+sf14897020

Go Hawks,
BillA

depaashaas wrote:it looked more like 2 step than 3-4 but ok, what is Ricardo to do there? Hit the brakes?, And according to the "rule" it is the responsibility of the defender (heath) to adjust to a lowered head of Locket (I know, it's stupid) and hit him below the neck, it looks to me that heath hit Lockette in the neck jaw area what happens to a lot of rookies and with these penalties and fines the rookies learn, this one was just a devastating one to Lockette. To me according to the rule it was a foul, not necessarily a "dirty" play I think the play developed to fast to do something like that.

What is Heath supposed to do, jump out of the way? It's a clean block. Sorry the outcome turned out the way it did, but the outcome doesn't make it a foul or cheap. I stood up for Kams hit on Davis, and this is zero different. It shouldn't have been a penalty.

It seems some can't differentiate between jersey color in regards to this stuff.

Yah, I think that's the key to any rule change that might result.
Maybe permit double teaming for the first 10 yards, then only 1 blocker on any player at a time.

Even with that rule change North it wouldn't have been a penalty. Lock had disengaged the other player, even shoving him as he prepared to hit Heath. I am fairly confident Lock thought he was going to be the one standing over a prone Heath in this instance, not the way it turned out unfortunately.

About the only way to legislate a rule that would prevent an injury like that from happening again would be to outlaw the punt and just give the ball to the opponent 40-50 yards downfield.

RiverDog wrote:About the only way to legislate a rule that would prevent an injury like that from happening again would be to outlaw the punt and just give the ball to the opponent 40-50 yards downfield.

They have completely taken the low hit out of the return game. They could completely take the high hit out of the return game as well. Understanding that there is a difference of opinion on whether it was a high hit or not.

When Pete was asked on Monday about the flag he seemed to indicate he thought it was for a high hit, again not sure how that would jive with the rules. It will be interesting to see what the league chooses to do in this case.

Seems everyone saw it differently. Heres what I personally saw:

Lockette appeared to be engaged with a cowboy, who kind of pushed him off (maybe touched his face mask a little?) Lockette turned around and was facing the incoming hit though he appeared to me to be off balance from his previous engagement (being pushed off) and didn't appear to me to have any time to react to the incoming blow.

In my opinion the block was legal, though very dirty. I kinda agree that it didn't violate the written rule, but did violate the spirit of the rule.

This is just my opinion and what I saw. I realize everyone seems to have seen the issue differently. I will say though that anyone that claims Lockette saw it coming and reacted needs an eye exam. The hit was so bang-bang I don't believe it was humanly possible to react in that amount of time.

I will say though that anyone that claims Lockette saw it coming and reacted needs an eye exam. The hit was so bang-bang I don't believe it was humanly possible to react in that amount of time.

Well, he couldn't have changed direction necessarily (Isaac Newton's a dick that way), but it was not "bang bang"- Lock had disengaged, took a few steps, saw the blocker and lowered his head into him.

Heath turned his head to the side and hit Lock in the chest with his shoulder.

That Lock couldn't have avoided Heath is true, but it's immaterial. There is almost literally no more clean encounter that could have happened there short of Heath jumping out of his way.

If by 'disengaged' you mean got pushed off and by 'take a few steps' you mean you lost his balance and stumbled directly into the hit than sure...

Watch the play again if necessary, Lockette is the one pushing off of the previous blocker.

I don't think it should have been a penalty, or deserve a fine. I don't see anything about Lockette's approach to Heath or the other way around (in terms of blind side, or engaging/disengaging, or pulling up lame) that seems problematic.

I do, however, think that Heath should have come in lower. He definitely stands up tall, which makes his shoulder-to-chest hit slide into the facemask almost instantly (well, from the angle in the video, it seems that way, but hard to tell). There isn't anything dirty about that hit, but I do think he could have been safer there. But I don't see a problem about the violence of the hit or it being a cheap shot. I'd just like to see it farther from the head.

EmeraldBullet wrote:If by 'disengaged' you mean got pushed off and by 'take a few steps' you mean you lost his balance and stumbled directly into the hit than sure...

*sigh* If you can watch that clip and conclude Lock was 'off-balance and stumbling' before the hit, I'm not sure we have any more to discuss.

And how he became disengaged doesn't matter- the point is he was not tied up with the other blocker anymore.

Lockette was released from hospital. He seems to still have a very positive attitude over the whole thing. Hoping he has a quick and full recovery.