Wouldn't this be considered hurdling? and be a flag!!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The encouragement / discouragement aspect of this rule is completely ridiculous. The NATURAL inclination of a runner seeing a defender going for him is to jump. The rule is not going to come into his brain at all. And worse - if it DOES, somehow, come into his brain - is the intent of the rulesmakers that the runner simply allow himself to get hit low? Wouldn't that be MORE likely to cause injury, not less?

I don't think that can be predicted. The ball is eventually going to become dead by some means, and more often than not it'll be via tackling. Being hit waist high is a very safe way to get hit, although it's hard to predict how you'll then contact the ground following such a hit vs. any other type of tackle.

But the other point I don't think can be so easily predicted is the danger of hurdling vs. that of diving. The danger to the opponent is that a hurdler might come down on your head, bringing the whole weight of his body on it and endangering your neck. However, I think that'd be a relatively rare event compared to the times a runner on his feet or diving projects toward an opponent's head horizontally. The danger to the hurdler himself is his being undercut and upended and so having an awkward landing. However, is that greater than the danger from diving head first? In the latter case the head is projected toward opponents; in both cases the head might contact the ground. The runner trying to hold onto the ball, no matter how he leaves the ground, is at a disadvantage in not having the use of both arms, or possibly either arm, in bracing himself for a fall.