My short answer is "no," but the longer answer is if they insist on protecting "defenseless players," a concept I find completely foreign to a sport like football, then, for consistency, how could they not outlaw such hits? Williams was every bit as defenseless as a receiver going up for a ball - either both are protected, or (in my preference) neither. I miss the days of a safety actually being able to separate a receiver from a ball and going over the middle being dangerous. The new NFL is way, way less fun to watch.

They absolutely should ban it...that's the most vulnerable part of the body.

Low blocks like that, absolutely. I'm a bit biased, but that is a senseless and awful block.

I'm more of a defensive minded person from the playing and coaching days so I do have some bias on this, however ... I don't like low blocks for a couple reasons beyond injuries.

One is the fact that football is a game of skill and a successful block should depend on "ability". A cut block takes minimal skill. Also, there is little that a defender can do to equalize the playing field. For example, pass interference or holding can be called both ways. Most things "physical" about the game of football keep a close balance between offense and defense -- except for low blocks. What advantage does the defense have on the offense, or what can they do to counteract the impact of a cut block? I've yet to find the answer.

The injury concerns are self-explanatory. I wonder if the NFL would crack down on low blocks if they were facing a huge lawsuit related to them? Fortunately, you have a greater chance of successful surgery to repair a knee unlike an injury to the brain. But unfortunately, that means low blocks will likely stay around.