tackling is legal, yes.
But neither the NFL nor I am talking about tackles.
We're talking about major hits on defenseless players.

and no, players are not always defenseless.

When you have the ball secured, feet are planted, your eyes are out of the sky you are not considered defenseless and that accounts for 99.99 percent of the time when players are hit or tackled.

And nobody is even saying you can't tackle or even hit that player within that .01 percent of the time when they are defenseless...they are saying you can't hit them in such an ill-advised manner that their head and neck snap.

If you want to prevent the receiver from catching the ball, you either hit them where they are catching the ball or (If their body is in between you and the ball) you hit them with your chest and wrap your arms around theirs. It's next to impossible to catch a ball when your arms are tied up and you can still knock a person on their back and prevent them from catching a pass by hitting them in the mid section with your chest, shoulders, and arms.

These are professional athletes. They use their bodies for a living. They are capable of tackling while using common sense. Some of these guys are also the same players that celebrate after they make a big hit but after the opposite team gets a first down. They know what they are doing.....The game just isn't about fundamentals or even winning to them and there's only one way to attempt to solve that issue and make the game safer and the NFL is going to do what it takes to make it happen.

it doesn't need to be helmet to helmet in order to be of ill intent and dangerous.

you have a receiver in a defenseless position and in the air or off balance and spread out.

and then you have a defender with a low center of gravity waiting like a lion to pounce.

that defender has a choice between going for the tackle

or going for the yard sale

these hits are also defined as illegal by the nfl

it's not a matter of defining what is illegal

but a matter of increasing the punishment in order to enforce the pre-existing definitoins.

I agree with DCK 100 percent.
I want new music more than I want a reunion.

Whatever line-up gives us the best chance of new music has my vote.

If that is a reunited gnr.....so be it

ron is also a great rhythm player than anyone else in teh mix, if izzy said no

I'm not saying a reunion is on the table cause it isn't......yet.

what if duff goes home and, a week later, he can't get out of his head how much fun he had playing on stage with axl again?

and then gnr tries to play the us and sales are nill to none. makes sense to bring him back full time at that point.

and then before you know it izzy is back again.

then  axcl starts getting sentimental and the rest is history.