Player poll: Roger Goodell unpopular

[Denver Native (Carol)]

A majority of NFL players aren't happy with the job Roger Goodell is doing as commissioner, according to a poll conducted by USA Today Sports.

The newspaper polled 300 active players from Dec. 19 to Jan. 12, and 61 percent said they disapprove of Goodell's performance.
The players polled were both on active rosters and practice squads, and the poll has a margin of error of plus- or minus-5 percent. Players were granted anonymity if they requested that their names not be made public.

Most of the players who said they disapproved of Goodell's job performance cited the increase in fines for hits on defenseless players and the commissioner's role in the league's investigation and discipline of the Saints for the team's bounty program.

rest - http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8889528/nfl-player-poll-61-percent-disapprove-roger-goodell

[BroncoJoe]

:shocked:

[wayninja]

Bring back Tagliabue!

[Timmy!]

What a shocker.

[rationalfan]

goodell also did an IAM (Q&A) on Reddit today:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/17fylz/iam_roger_goodell_nfl_commissioner_ama/

[Army Bronco]

So goodell pretty much dodged the question about why the players disapprove. He should run for office.

[Simple Jaded]

Of course they don't like him, that's a good thing. Goodell is exactly what the NFL needs.......

[sneakers]

As long as he is popular among the owners, it doesn't matter what others think

[Dirk]

The players aren't happy about the increase in fines....uh, I'm sure that the league isn't happy about the increase in lawsuits from players that caused the fines to increase. :confused:

[TXBRONC]

:faint:

The players may not be happy with him but the owners are.

[MOtorboat]

The players aren't happy about the increase in fines....uh, I'm sure that the league isn't happy about the increase in lawsuits from players that caused the fines to increase. :confused:

When they actually make rules that make the game safer, let me know.

[spikerman]

When they actually make rules that make the game safer, let me know.

What do you suggest?

[Ravage!!!]

I don't blame them for not liking Goodell.... he's an ass. I don't like him either, and certainly don't like the direction he's taking the sport.

[MOtorboat]

What do you suggest?

When they stop allowing offensive players to use their heads as battering rams, I'll start believing they are serious about player safety in terms of rules. So I guess I'm not arguing that the defenseless receiver rule is necessarily contrary to player safety, but rather I think it's a very shallow approach to say "see! Player safety!" like the league is doing.

I'd like to see a study of which types of contact, i.e., offensive/defensive line impacts, running back/defensive player impacts, defenseless receiver hits, kickoffs, etc., have created the most concussions. We've had two or three years of the heightened concussion rules. I would think they could tell the players where those concussions are coming from and begin to assess where the game needs to get safer at. Maybe that's been done, but I haven't seen it. Instead they are arbitrarily talking about eliminating plays like the kickoff and regulating some hits but not all, while at the same time discussing extending the season.

[wayninja]

That's the main reason I didn't apply for the NFL draft out of college. I didn't want to shake Goodell's hand.

Oh, that and the talent thing.

[Ravage!!!]

That's the main reason I didn't apply for the NFL draft out of college. I didn't want to shake Goodell's hand.

Oh, that and the talent thing.

Handshake? Hell, Goodell looks for a big, giant, bear-hug now. He wants the people watching TV to believe he's liked. He's like President Snow.

[spikerman]

When they stop allowing offensive players to use their heads as battering rams, I'll start believing they are serious about player safety in terms of rules. So I guess I'm not arguing that the defenseless receiver rule is necessarily contrary to player safety, but rather I think it's a very shallow approach to say "see! Player safety!" like the league is doing.

I'd like to see a study of which types of contact, i.e., offensive/defensive line impacts, running back/defensive player impacts, defenseless receiver hits, kickoffs, etc., have created the most concussions. We've had two or three years of the heightened concussion rules. I would think they could tell the players where those concussions are coming from and begin to assess where the game needs to get safer at. Maybe that's been done, but I haven't seen it. Instead they are arbitrarily talking about eliminating plays like the kickoff and regulating some hits but not all, while at the same time discussing extending the season.

I can't argue with what you've said. I do think that some of their rules are safety related, but maybe they don't go far enough. I'd like to see some of these rule changes:

1. No blocking below the waist anywhere except at the line of scrimmage.
2. Make it a foul anytime either an offensive or defensive player leads with the crown of the helmet. For instance, even when an RB lowers his head to gain extra yeardage, if he hits somebody with the crown of the helmet, then it's a foul.
3. Do it like the NCAA. Make a touchback on the kickoffs come out to the 25 instead of the 20. A lot of injuries happen on kickoffs.
4. Not safety related, but make targeting of a defenseless player a challengable call.

I'm sure I can think of more, but off the top of my head that's what I would change.

[wayninja]

I can't argue with what you've said. I do think that some of their rules are safety related, but maybe they don't go far enough. I'd like to see some of these rule changes:

1. No blocking below the waist anywhere except at the line of scrimmage.
2. Make it a foul anytime either an offensive or defensive player leads with the crown of the helmet. For instance, even when an RB lowers his head to gain extra yeardage, if he hits somebody with the crown of the helmet, then it's a foul.
3. Do it like the NCAA. Make a touchback on the kickoffs come out to the 25 instead of the 20. A lot of injuries happen on kickoffs.


These all would definitely make the game safer. It would probably make the game appeal to me way less, too.

[Ravage!!!]

I can't argue with what you've said. I do think that some of their rules are safety related, but maybe they don't go far enough. I'd like to see some of these rule changes:

1. No blocking below the waist anywhere except at the line of scrimmage.
2. Make it a foul anytime either an offensive or defensive player leads with the crown of the helmet. For instance, even when an RB lowers his head to gain extra yeardage, if he hits somebody with the crown of the helmet, then it's a foul.
3. Do it like the NCAA. Make a touchback on the kickoffs come out to the 25 instead of the 20. A lot of injuries happen on kickoffs.
4. Not safety related, but make targeting of a defenseless player a challengable call.

I'm sure I can think of more, but off the top of my head that's what I would change.

Ugh. Then people will eventually just stop watching. THe younger generation will see a very, very, watered down sport that lost its appeal. The more rules that are added, the less this game will becaome america's sport....and will fall down to the level of baseball and boxing.

[spikerman]

These all would definitely make the game safer. It would probably make the game appeal to me way less, too.

Which part? I don't think most of those changes would be noticeable.

[spikerman]

Ugh. Then people will eventually just stop watching. THe younger generation will see a very, very, watered down sport that lost its appeal. The more rules that are added, the less this game will becaome america's sport....and will fall down to the level of baseball and boxing.

People would stop watching over those rule changes? There isn't really much that's revolutionary in there.

[wayninja]

Which part? I don't think most of those changes would be noticeable.

The head lowering and no blocking below the waist would be crazy noticeable!

Upping the touchback spot wouldn't be directly noticeable, but it would pretty drastically reduce the number of returns... which is bad for excitement.

Who wants to see touchbacks?

[spikerman]

The head lowering and no blocking below the waist would be crazy noticeable!

Technically, you're not supposed to ever lead with the crown of the helmet anyway. That's really more of an enforcement thing than a rule change. You can lower your head, just don't lead into the other player with it. As for the blocking below the waist, I wonder how much you see it in today's game. Are you a college football fan?

[wayninja]

Technically, you're not supposed to ever lead with the crown of the helmet anyway. That's really more of an enforcement thing than a rule change. You can lower your head, just don't lead into the other player with it. As for the blocking below the waist, I wonder how much you see it in today's game. Are you a college football fan?

I am not a college fan, at all.

Technical or not, I've never seen a running back flagged for doing it. If I started to see running backs flagged for doing it, it would irritate me.

[Ravage!!!]

People would stop watching over those rule changes? There isn't really much that's revolutionary in there.

I think you are very wrong. How does a runner not lower his head for protection? If he does, isn't he setting himself up for more injury by exposing the rest of his body to blows? Curling up in protection is normal.

Also, how does moving the ball to the 25 help out with injuries if its a touchback anyway? WOuldn't that make teams be sure to kick the ball higher, and NOT into the endzone as much as possible?

Not blocking below the waist, would get QBs killed... which is exactly what the NFL doesn't want.

Do I think THESE rules would make the sport unwatchable? No. I'm saying that most of your suggestions aren't very thought out, but IF the NFL made changes LIKE these, then the sport is going to go down-hill VERY quickly. Boxing tried to make things safer by simply adding more padding to their gloves, and that was just the beginning of what killed boxing.

[spikerman]

I agree that it could have some impact on the game, but if we're talking about safety I think it's one they should consider. The rule against lowering the head is to protect the hitter as much as the hittee.

[spikerman]

I think you are very wrong. How does a runner not lower his head for protection? If he does, isn't he setting himself up for more injury by exposing the rest of his body to blows? Curling up in protection is normal. See my post from a couple of minutes ago. Lowering your head and curling up to protect yourself is one thing. Lowering it to use as a battering ram is something else entirely. I would make it a foul (I mean enforce it) if either the offensive or defensive player did it.


Also, how does moving the ball to the 25 help out with injuries if its a touchback anyway? WOuldn't that make teams be sure to kick the ball higher, and NOT into the endzone as much as possible?
The reason for bringing it out to the 25 is to reduce the incentive for returning it from the end zone. In other words, take the touchback and gain the extra 5 yards. If teams want to start kicking it high and short, fine. Fair catch the kickoff and come away with decent field position anyway - with a reduced chance of injury.


Not blocking below the waist, would get QBs killed... which is exactly what the NFL doesn't want. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning behind this.


Do I think THESE rules would make the sport unwatchable? No. I'm saying that most of your suggestions aren't very thought out, but IF the NFL made changes LIKE these, then the sport is going to go down-hill VERY quickly. Boxing tried to make things safer by simply adding more padding to their gloves, and that was just the beginning of what killed boxing.

I seriously doubt more padding in the gloves led to the downfall of boxing, but I'm not a boxing fan so I could be wrong.

[Army Bronco]

I can only speak for myself but the violence of the game was what attracted me to watch and play the sport in HS. These guys are professionals and know that its a violent sport. Im sure they have taken pride sometime in their lives that they play with such violence. Now that they are famous and rich off of the same violent sport they go and sue??? Thats kinda hypocritical. I miss watching Atwater and Smith play.

[Ravage!!!]

See my post from a couple of minutes ago. Lowering your head and curling up to protect yourself is one thing. Lowering it to use as a battering ram is something else entirely. I would make it a foul (I mean enforce it) if either the offensive or defensive player did it.
more 'arbitrary' calls that just slow down and ruin the game.


The reason for bringing it out to the 25 is to reduce the incentive for returning it from the end zone. In other words, take the touchback and gain the extra 5 yards. If teams want to start kicking it high and short, fine. Fair catch the kickoff and come away with decent field position anyway - with a reduced chance of injury.
They won't kick it high and short, it will be to the 5 or 10...but most importantly, you can NOT "fair catch" a kick-off.
Seems that giving it to the 25 only give the offense just that much MORE benefits. The kickoff return is one of the most exciting plays in football. It can change a game in a heartbeat. Taking it away by having more kicks go through the endzone (by moving the kick forward), or giving more reasons NOT to return is just something else that takes away from the game.

The "brilliant" Goodell suggested takign away the kickoff completely. Of course, he announced this the day he lost the ruling by Tagliabue, so I'm sure he just pulled a Randy Moss by making an outlandish comment purely for the sake of THAT being the headline instead of him having to answer questions about looking like a complete ass.

But taking away kick-off returns is a travesty to the game of footbal.

I'm not sure that the 5 yards is worth not taking the chance on the big game. After all, teams are allowing their kick returner to take the ball out right now, even with the kickign team being closer. The chance for the big return is just huge. But you give the offense more yards, and you'll find special teams units doing something to counter that. Kicking it high and to the 5-10 could be worth the gamble of getting that turnover.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning behind this.
RBs have to block below the waist to stop blitzers, if they don't, then LBs or DEs will just toss them to the side (most of the time). ITs like when people tried to cry out to eliminate the 'cut block.' Can't do it. So if you keep it legal for OL to do it, and you keep the ability for RBs to do it behind the LOS, then how can you justify it being illegal elsewhere? Plus, when as downfield blocking been a major problem?


I seriously doubt more padding in the gloves led to the downfall of boxing, but I'm not a boxing fan so I could be wrong.

Was a huge start to the downfall of boxing. They tried several things to try and make boxing 'safer.' The gloves were just the first thing of many that started the downfall. Eventually, the pay-per-view is what I would say killed it completely.

However.. you know what the fastest growing sport is? UFC. They embrace the sport for what it is.

What I don't get is that people want to change the very sport that has become this nation's PASSION. People LOVE to watch the violence in the sport. All societies, through out history, have had their favorite sports and they generally evolve around the violence. From the roman colosium, to to Tai boxing, to Australian football, american football, to **** fighting, and UFC.

There is a reason that football is our favorite game, and its not because we want to see huge, armored, athletic men of our species play paddy-cake on the field. All this changing of the game, taking away the hard hitting, taking away the violent collisions, and taking away the most exciting plays in the game for the sake of "safety"...(when the players know the dangers of the sport they are playing).. .is backwards thinking that if it doesn't kill it, will (eventually) make it a secondary sport much like baseball and basketball have fallen to.

[spikerman]

more 'arbitrary' calls that just slow down and ruin the game.


They won't kick it high and short, it will be to the 5 or 10...but most importantly, you can NOT "fair catch" a kick-off.
Seems that giving it to the 25 only give the offense just that much MORE benefits. The kickoff return is one of the most exciting plays in football. It can change a game in a heartbeat. Taking it away by having more kicks go through the endzone (by moving the kick forward), or giving more reasons NOT to return is just something else that takes away from the game.

The "brilliant" Goodell suggested takign away the kickoff completely. Of course, he announced this the day he lost the ruling by Tagliabue, so I'm sure he just pulled a Randy Moss by making an outlandish comment purely for the sake of THAT being the headline instead of him having to answer questions about looking like a complete ass.

But taking away kick-off returns is a travesty to the game of footbal.

I'm not sure that the 5 yards is worth not taking the chance on the big game. After all, teams are allowing their kick returner to take the ball out right now, even with the kickign team being closer. The chance for the big return is just huge. But you give the offense more yards, and you'll find special teams units doing something to counter that. Kicking it high and to the 5-10 could be worth the gamble of getting that turnover.

RBs have to block below the waist to stop blitzers, if they don't, then LBs or DEs will just toss them to the side (most of the time). ITs like when people tried to cry out to eliminate the 'cut block.' Can't do it. So if you keep it legal for OL to do it, and you keep the ability for RBs to do it behind the LOS, then how can you justify it being illegal elsewhere? Plus, when as downfield blocking been a major problem?



Was a huge start to the downfall of boxing. They tried several things to try and make boxing 'safer.' The gloves were just the first thing of many that started the downfall. Eventually, the pay-per-view is what I would say killed it completely.

However.. you know what the fastest growing sport is? UFC. They embrace the sport for what it is.

What I don't get is that people want to change the very sport that has become this nation's PASSION. People LOVE to watch the violence in the sport. All societies, through out history, have had their favorite sports and they generally evolve around the violence. From the roman colosium, to to Tai boxing, to Australian football, american football, to **** fighting, and UFC.

There is a reason that football is our favorite game, and its not because we want to see huge, armored, athletic men of our species play paddy-cake on the field. All this changing of the game, taking away the hard hitting, taking away the violent collisions, and taking away the most exciting plays in the game for the sake of "safety"...(when the players know the dangers of the sport they are playing).. .is backwards thinking that if it doesn't kill it, will (eventually) make it a secondary sport much like baseball and basketball have fallen to.

You make some good points and I would be willing to change the blocking below the waist to making it legal in the tackle box which would eliminate your concern about RBs not being able to do it to protect the QB. I disagree with some of your other points, but it's a good discussion.

What I really want to ask is, how confident are you that you can't fair catch a kickoff?

[Ravage!!!]

You make some good points and I would be willing to change the blocking below the waist to making it legal in the tackle box which would eliminate your concern about RBs not being able to do it to protect the QB. I disagree with some of your other points, but it's a good discussion.

What I really want to ask is, how confident are you that you can't fair catch a kickoff?

I'm not even saying my points are valid enough not to make the changes, I just think there are a LOT of things to consider with each rule change.

As far as fair catching a KO, I'm pretty sure. Otherwise you could simply fair catch an onsides kick.

[spikerman]

I'm not even saying my points are valid enough not to make the changes, I just think there are a LOT of things to consider with each rule change.

As far as fair catching a KO, I'm pretty sure. Otherwise you could simply fair catch an onsides kick.

No doubt. There are a lot of things to consider. There are a lot of unintended consequences. I don't think any rule changes are applied without a lot of study.

As for the kickoffs. You can fair catch a kickoff. In fact, you'll see it on pooch kicks occasionally. The reason that you can't fair catch an onside kick is because there is no fair catch once the ball hits the ground (there's a new exception to this in college, but I don't think the NFL has adopted it yet).

[Dapper Dan]

Abolish the forward pass.

[Buff]

I would say he's the worst commissioner in sports. But all of them are ******* awful.

Gary Bettman is probably the worst. Stern is the biggest *****. Selig is in denial and Goodell is just horribly misguided and drunk with power.

[Ravage!!!]

No doubt. There are a lot of things to consider. There are a lot of unintended consequences. I don't think any rule changes are applied without a lot of study.

As for the kickoffs. You can fair catch a kickoff. In fact, you'll see it on pooch kicks occasionally. The reason that you can't fair catch an onside kick is because there is no fair catch once the ball hits the ground (there's a new exception to this in college, but I don't think the NFL has adopted it yet).

Wait. How can you fair catch pooch kicks if you can't fair catch a KO that hits the ground? :confused: Either way, I don't want to see fair catches on KO returns. That would be crap. Ugh.

I hate the rule changes. As Ed Reed said about Junior Seau.."he signed up for it." They all sign up for it, and they know the dangers. This "don't hit him because it might hurt him".... is going to ruin the game. THe game that became SOOO popular because of the hitting. WIthout it, the game isn't the same. Goodell will ruin this game, imo.

[spikerman]

Wait. How can you fair kick pooch kicks if you can't fair catch a KO that hits the ground? Either way, I don't want to see fair catches on KO returns. That would be crap. Ugh.

I hate the rule changes. As Ed Reed said about Junior Seau.."he signed up for it." They all sign up for it, and they know the dangers. This "don't hit him because it might hurt him".... is going to ruin the game. THe game that became SOOO popular because of the hitting. WIthout it, the game isn't the same. Goodell will ruin this game.

By "pooch kick" I'm talking about the short kick offs that go to one of the up men. As long as it doesn't hit the ground it can be fair caught. In college they changed the rule where if you kick it directly into the ground and it bounces high in the air that can also be fair caught, but I don't think the NFL allows for that.

Any kick off that doesn't touch the ground can be fair caught.

[Ravage!!!]

By "pooch kick" I'm talking about the short kick offs that go to one of the up men. As long as it doesn't hit the ground it can be fair caught. In college they changed the rule where if you kick it directly into the ground and it bounces high in the air that can also be fair caught, but I don't think the NFL allows for that.

Any kick off that doesn't touch the ground can be fair caught.

I need to see an official ruling on this, because it doesn't make sense.

Once the ball travels 10 yrsd on a kick-off, its fair game.. period. So if its a kick-off, and I kick it high enough that the kicking team can get down the field.. and some guy down there is signaling fair catch..... tough. I'm going to go AFTER that ball, and I don't think I have to sit to the side and let him catch the ball. That ball is LIVE after 10 yrds, and just like an onsides kick, I have the right to go after that ball, right? So I have to let a player catch a live ball now? if a pass goes straight up in the air, am I supposed to be made to let the receiver catch the ball before I go after it?

Either you are incorrect spikerman, or this is another Roger Goodell rule change.

[Dapper Dan]

I need to see an official ruling on this, because it doesn't make sense.

Once the ball travels 10 yrsd on a kick-off, its fair game.. period. So if its a kick-off, and I kick it high enough that the kicking team can get down the field.. and some guy down there is signaling fair catch..... tough. I'm going to go AFTER that ball, and I don't think I have to sit to the side and let him catch the ball. That ball is LIVE after 10 yrds, and just like an onsides kick, I have the right to go after that ball, right? So I have to let a player catch a live ball now? if a pass goes straight up in the air, am I supposed to be made to let the receiver catch the ball before I go after it?

Either you are incorrect spikerman, or this is another Roger Goodell rule change.

On an onside kick, the ball hits the ground first. If the ball doesn't hit the ground, the return man can call a fair catch and you have to give him room to catch the ball, just like on a punt. It's only a live ball after it hits the ground. If a punt bounced off of the ground and then up in the air, you can't fair catch it.

[Ravage!!!]

On an onside kick, the ball hits the ground first. If the ball doesn't hit the ground, the return man can call a fair catch and you have to give him room to catch the ball, just like on a punt. It's only a live ball after it hits the ground. If a punt bounced off of the ground and then up in the air, you can't fair catch it.

The onside kick has always been live AFTER 10 yards, not because it hit the ground. I've seen onside kicks where the kicker just popped it straight up without hitting the ground.

If there has been a rule change, than its a new rule. But never have I seen a KO be fair caught, and never have heard this rule that teh ball has to hit the ground for it to be a live ball. When was this rule changed?

[Dapper Dan]

The onside kick has always been live AFTER 10 yards, not because it hit the ground. I've seen onside kicks where the kicker just popped it straight up without hitting the ground.

If there has been a rule change, than its a new rule. But never have I seen a KO be fair caught, and never have heard this rule that teh ball has to hit the ground for it to be a live ball. When was this rule changed?

I don't know. I'll wait for the refs explanation. My Nyquil is kicking in. That was my opinion. All on sides I've seen have bounced off the ground first. I've never seen a kick off fair caught in real life either. I do it on Madden to save a second.

[Poet]

It's live after ten yards. On occasion they try to have the kicker pop one up that starts to fail around ten yards so the kicking team can get an airborne recovery.

[Dapper Dan]

I looked up the rules on the kick off and fair catch. It doesn't really explain the fair catch on the kick off. It says that you must give the return man room to make the catch and all that. But I don't know. It didn't clear things up.

I still think if you kick it straight up into the air, that the returner can call a fair catch. I think they bounce it off the ground right in front of the tee so no fair catch can be called. It still has the same effect, it hits the ground and springs up into the air.

I had read something about the NCAA changing the rule to where the return man can still call fair catch after the one hop. Player safety.

[spikerman]

I need to see an official ruling on this, because it doesn't make sense.

Once the ball travels 10 yrsd on a kick-off, its fair game.. period. So if its a kick-off, and I kick it high enough that the kicking team can get down the field.. and some guy down there is signaling fair catch..... tough. I'm going to go AFTER that ball, and I don't think I have to sit to the side and let him catch the ball. That ball is LIVE after 10 yrds, and just like an onsides kick, I have the right to go after that ball, right? So I have to let a player catch a live ball now? if a pass goes straight up in the air, am I supposed to be made to let the receiver catch the ball before I go after it?

Either you are incorrect spikerman, or this is another Roger Goodell rule change.

Sorry Rav, I can be wrong a lot, but not in this case. It is also not a new rule and was in effect well before Roger Goodell. From former NFL Ref Jerry Markbreit in 2004:


I think I saw a fair catch on a kickoff in an NFL game. Is that legal? I understand a fair catch on a punt as the kicking team gives up possession, but not on a kickoff. --Bob Kozack, Orland Park, Ill.

A valid fair catch signal may be made while any kick is in flight with one arm raised and fully extended above the head and waved from side to side. The ball becomes dead when it is caught, unless the kick fails to cross the line of scrimmage. If the kick returner does not signal, the ball is put in play by the receiving team at the spot of the catch. A kickoff is treated exactly the same as a punt because the kicking team is giving up possession. The only twist on kickoffs is the right of the kicking team to recover and keep the ball, once it has gone 10 yards. After any successful fair catch, the receiving team may opt to try a free kick, in order to score a field goal--a rule seldom seen.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-040915jerrymarkbreitsanswers,0,2450660.story

I know the part where he references the "twist" will add fuel to the fire, so I found this:



Fair Catch
Parameters for fair catches on punts or kickoffs.

1. The member of the receiving team must raise one arm a full length above his head and wave it from side to side while kick is in flight. (Failure to give proper sign: receivers' ball five yards behind spot of signal.)

Note: It is legal for the receiver to shield his eyes from the sun by raising one hand no higher than the helmet.

2. No opponent may interfere with the fair catcher, the ball, or his path to the ball. Penalty: 15 yards from spot of foul and fair catch is awarded.

3. A player who signals for a fair catch is not required to catch the ball. However, if a player signals for a fair catch, he may not block or initiate contact with any player on the kicking team until the ball touches a player. Penalty: snap 15 yards behind spot of foul.

4. If ball hits ground or is touched by member of kicking team in flight, fair catch signal is off and all rules for a kicked ball apply.

5. Any undue advance by a fair catch receiver is delay of game. No specific distance is specified for undue advance as ball is dead at spot of catch. If player comes to a reasonable stop, no penalty. For violation, five yards.

6. If time expires while ball is in play and a fair catch is awarded, receiving team may choose to extend the period with one fair catch kick down. However, placekicker may not use tee.

http://www.angelfire.com/ia3/coltsnflrules/6.htm#faircatch

The receiving team can call for a fair catch on the kickoff as long as the ball hasn't touched the ground. That's why so many kickers drive it into the ground to bounce it high. The NCAA tweaked their rule to still make that a "fair catchable" ball, but the NFL hasn't done that yet. If the receiving team calls for a fair catch even on a kickoff, the player must be given an opportunity to catch the ball. If not, it's kick catch interference (as long as the ball hasn't hit the ground and the fair catch signal is valid). In fact, in college, if the player calls for a fair catch and muffs it, if he still has an opportunity to catch it before it hits the ground he must be given that opportunity. I don't know the NFL rule on that though.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

NEW ORLEANS -- NFL Players Association officials described the Bountygate matter that played out over the last year, and the resulting procedural problems, as something they took "personally" during their news conference Thursday.

After meeting with the media, union president Domonique Foxworth elaborated, saying he's getting a strong push for players to challenge NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's power over discipline in the wake of the New Orleans Saints saga.

"We've already asked the league to revisit it, a number of times, to revisit neutral arbitration and commissioner discipline," Foxworth told NFL.com. "Our players are intent on making moves in that direction, and any avenue that it requires us to make that move, we're willing to take because it's not my responsibility to decide the direction of this organization. It's my responsibility to hear that direction and lead in that direction. And that's where they want to go."

rest - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000133566/article/nflpa-could-challenge-commissioner-roger-goodells-power

[Dzone]

Dominique Foxworth is Union president? Oh man, good thing we got rid of that locker room cancer lol

[spikerman]

I can't argue with what you've said. I do think that some of their rules are safety related, but maybe they don't go far enough. I'd like to see some of these rule changes:

1. No blocking below the waist anywhere except at the line of scrimmage.
2. Make it a foul anytime either an offensive or defensive player leads with the crown of the helmet. For instance, even when an RB lowers his head to gain extra yardage, if he hits somebody with the crown of the helmet, then it's a foul.
3. Do it like the NCAA. Make a touchback on the kickoffs come out to the 25 instead of the 20. A lot of injuries happen on kickoffs.
4. Not safety related, but make targeting of a defenseless player a challengable call.

I'm sure I can think of more, but off the top of my head that's what I would change.

I think the NFL reads our MB.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/14/nfl-may-prevent-runners-from-lowering-their-heads-into-tacklers/

[Joel]

I can't argue with what you've said. I do think that some of their rules are safety related, but maybe they don't go far enough. I'd like to see some of these rule changes:

1. No blocking below the waist anywhere except at the line of scrimmage.
2. Make it a foul anytime either an offensive or defensive player leads with the crown of the helmet. For instance, even when an RB lowers his head to gain extra yeardage, if he hits somebody with the crown of the helmet, then it's a foul.
3. Do it like the NCAA. Make a touchback on the kickoffs come out to the 25 instead of the 20. A lot of injuries happen on kickoffs.
4. Not safety related, but make targeting of a defenseless player a challengable call.

I'm sure I can think of more, but off the top of my head that's what I would change.
Buried at the NFL.com article on the Tuck Rule, almost as an afterthought, was a statement that the Competition Committee is also considering proposals to do the first two things you mention:

1) Back leading with the crown of their helmet will be illegal and 2) cut blocks will be illegal outside the tackle box when linemen are moving toward their own end line.

Evidently rushing totals and averages have gotten so high, and passing yardage so low, the passing game needs something to level the playing field or it could forever vanish from the sport. And defenseless RB certainly don't need any of the protection given to defenseless WRs and QBs, since their bodies only last about half as long (if they're lucky.)

I still think they need to focus on intent and how best to determine it rather than trying to selectively phase out all the ways to be injured in a full contact sport. Anyone think Lawrence Taylor should've been fined and suspended for ending Joe Theismanns career? I certainly think Bill Romanowski should've been for breaking Dave Meggetts finger; there's no question which injury was the more severe, but one was intentional and the other accidental. One guy was a Hall of Famer who inflicted a gruesome but unintentional injury, the other a psycho who made a career out of head-hunting: THAT'S the distinction the League should make.

Goodell's just focused on pumping ratings and merchandise sales by aping the Arena Leagues high scoring, pass-obsessed, "defenseless defense." 'Cause that's where the money is; funny though how the Arena League went bankrupt while the NFL kept making money hand over fist. So the guys who make highlight reels and sell jerseys get "protection" and the rest are expendable. Seriously, he rams through rule after rule to protect QBs, WRs and pass rushers, but offensive linemen and RBs, whose bodies have always taken more of a beating than any of those three, just get handcuffs.

The players safety is irrelevant except as an excuse for rules changes intended to increase REVENUE, so it's no wonder they loathe Goodell for sanctimonious hypocrisy at the expense of their bodies.

[DenBronx]

I think they are even more unpopular with Broncos fans today after denying Elvis and Elways request to accept the deal, even if it was 8 minutes late.

[spikerman]

Evidently rushing totals and averages have gotten so high, and passing yardage so low, the passing game needs something to level the playing field or it could forever vanish from the sport. And defenseless RB certainly don't need any of the protection given to defenseless WRs and QBs, since their bodies only last about half as long (if they're lucky.)


Ok, this made me laugh. Well played, sir.

I think the whole push for player safety is not so much for revenue today, but to keep the players from coming back in 5-10 years and suing the NFL for their injuries.

[Lancane]

Goodell has had a personal hand in the modern direction of the sport in whole, for good or bad and it seems to me that the sport is lesser now for his tampering. The reason these athletes make the money they do today was because of the chance of long-term health issues resulting from the game and the danger they put their body's through. It's asinine to think the NFL has somehow become better under his watch, but has only become closer to being a weaker sport in the future. As fans we should be concerned, the NFL is one step closer to becoming a nothing more then another stock driven commodity instead of a professional sport.

[Joel]

Ok, this made me laugh. Well played, sir.

I think the whole push for player safety is not so much for revenue today, but to keep the players from coming back in 5-10 years and suing the NFL for their injuries.
A reasonable conclusion on your part, but not the Leagues. It amounts to knowingly and profitably having guys put their hands in a meat grinder each week, but requiring mittens in the faint hope that LEGALLY "protects" the LEAGUE without PHYSICALLY protecting the PLAYERS one whit. Good luck with that, Roger; you'll need it, especially since the whole elaborate process is a tacit admission everyone who played a single down before the new rules has valid cause for legal action. The elephant in the corner here is long term damage from severe brain trauma, but banning hits to the legs of WRs and QBs did NOTHING to reduce that.

It's not hard to figure out the motivation for all those OTHER rules: How many MONTHS did it take the NFL to ban hitting QBs low after Tom Brady missed all of 2008 with a torn ACL and MCL? Meanwhile, Adrian Peterson had the same injury at the end of 2011, but it's still legal to hit RBs low, even though Peterson uses his legs far more than Brady. On the other hand, Peterson only earns about half as much, sells far less jerseys, isn't married to a supermodel and didn't spend as much of last season trying to sell me a Chrysler as he did trying to reach the SB (note to Tom: BOTH goals were unfulfilled.)

With few exceptions, the extent to which each years new "safety" rules affect a player is INVERSELY proportional to the amount of physical punishment they absorb, but DIRECTLY proportional to the amount of camera time they get on and off the field. Passers shielded behind five linemen can only be hit between the shoulders and knees, and only when they have the ball; the linemen deflecting most defenders blows on every down have no such protection. Same for receivers splitting receptions with half a dozen teammates, and pass rushers who rarely play on 1st or 2nd down; it's not legal to cut block a LB or DE in the open field, but taking a DTs legs out from under him at the line is perfectly fine. The NFLs priority is pretty clearly marketing, not safety.

[Dzone]

I wish he would stop bragging about playing pop warner football and how it made him the man he is today...LOL

[spikerman]

It's not hard to figure out the motivation for all those OTHER rules: How many MONTHS did it take the NFL to ban hitting QBs low after Tom Brady missed all of 2008 with a torn ACL and MCL? Meanwhile, Adrian Peterson had the same injury at the end of 2011, but it's still legal to hit RBs low, even though Peterson uses his legs far more than Brady. On the other hand, Peterson only earns about half as much, sells far less jerseys, isn't married to a supermodel and didn't spend as much of last season trying to sell me a Chrysler as he did trying to reach the SB (note to Tom: BOTH goals were unfulfilled.)

I think you come very close to hitting the nail on the head with the above part, but I do think there is a safety aspect as well even when dealing with the legs. Legs on a "defenseless player", are particularly vulnerable and a QB (for instance) who has just thrown the ball kicker who has just kicked the ball are in precarious positions. Anyway, I don't want to get too involved in that tonight..I'm going to bed soon. (Sue me I'm old). :D I don't dispute your premise one bit, though, that the amount of money a player generates for the NFL has a direct bearing on how rules come into play.

[Simple Jaded]

Regardless, there is very little doubt in my mind that a huge reason for the NFL's crackdown on player safety is lawsuits. I think the wide open offenses is the future they wanna sell, not because they're progressive, but because it's the byproduct of these ridiculous rule changes that C.Y.O.A.

Count me out.......

[Lancane]

Regardless, there is very little doubt in my mind that a huge reason for the NFL's crackdown on player safety is lawsuits. I think the wide open offenses is the future they wanna sell, not because they're progressive, but because it's the byproduct of these ridiculous rule changes that C.Y.O.A.

Count me out.......

But again that was the point of the larger contracts in professional sports and the financial amounts involved was so these athletes would have the finances to support themselves and their families should they come to physical harm. The ridiculousness of such lawsuits may have caused this wave of radical changes to the league, but it's those who've allowed these players to gain in such lawsuits despite the monetary gains awarded by their contracts to further such actions.

[Simple Jaded]

But again that was the point of the larger contracts in professional sports and the financial amounts involved was so these athletes would have the finances to support themselves and their families should they come to physical harm. The ridiculousness of such lawsuits may have caused this wave of radical changes to the league, but it's those who've allowed these players to gain in such lawsuits despite the monetary gains awarded by their contracts to further such actions.

All these years we've been hearing from the players what they put their bodies through to play the game when it's contract time, now they wanna pretend they had no idea of the dangers so they can collect another fat paycheck.......

[Lancane]

All these years we've been hearing from the players what they put their bodies through to play the game when it's contract time, now they wanna pretend they had no idea of the dangers so they can collect another fat paycheck.......

Exactly... How many of us would do the same for less? Hell, half the people I know would play for half a million as long as they got medical and dental!

[Simple Jaded]

Exactly... How many of us would do the same for less? Hell, half the people I know would play for half a million as long as they got medical and dental!

You pay me league minimum and I would find a way to make it work.......

[Joel]

I think you come very close to hitting the nail on the head with the above part, but I do think there is a safety aspect as well even when dealing with the legs. Legs on a "defenseless player", are particularly vulnerable and a QB (for instance) who has just thrown the ball kicker who has just kicked the ball are in precarious positions. Anyway, I don't want to get too involved in that tonight..I'm going to bed soon. (Sue me I'm old). :D I don't dispute your premise one bit, though, that the amount of money a player generates for the NFL has a direct bearing on how rules come into play.
We already had rules against hitting QBs or Ks after they release the ball, y'know (and I'm aware of no new ones for kickers, but how many kicker jerseys does the NFL sell each year? ;)) If sincerely worried about safety or even lawsuits they'd create rules to protect the players who get hurt most and worst, not least but most prominently.


Regardless, there is very little doubt in my mind that a huge reason for the NFL's crackdown on player safety is lawsuits. I think the wide open offenses is the future they wanna sell, not because they're progressive, but because it's the byproduct of these ridiculous rule changes that C.Y.O.A.

Count me out.......
I must admit rugby's increasingly appealing. I still play Madden 07 a lot since it was one of the last installments with a PC version, and I just have to shake my head when receivers make a catch only to drop it when a DB or LB knocks the crap out of them; John Madden immediately notes that "there's a lot of guys in the League who take pride in making hits like that" and I sit there thinking, yeah, but 5 years later they started taking penalties, fines and suspensions instead. Big Hits are a stat in Madden, which earns the NFL more money than ANYTHING except merchandise; bit of a mixed message from the NFL. ;)

I don't think it's lawsuits though, at least not injury lawsuits: Most suits were filed against the NFL for CONCEALING the known long term effects of brain trauma, not the trauma itself. That is, the NFL's being sued, not for the players assumption of risk, but misrepresenting that risks MAGNITUDE to the players, which necessarily affected their willingness to assume it. There's a reason the NFL is far more worried about that specific injury than even professional boxing is (though everyone in boxing who follows the NFL must be pissing themselves:) NFL players can and increasingly do donate their bodies to a medical lab specifically studying the long term brain damage from head trauma, with results both serious and shocking.


But again that was the point of the larger contracts in professional sports and the financial amounts involved was so these athletes would have the finances to support themselves and their families should they come to physical harm. The ridiculousness of such lawsuits may have caused this wave of radical changes to the league, but it's those who've allowed these players to gain in such lawsuits despite the monetary gains awarded by their contracts to further such actions.
Perhaps the NFLs lawyers should research the well established legal principle of "assumption of risk." A friend of mine wanted to play NT in HS, but couldn't because his mom refused to sign thel required medical waiver. It's hard to believe no NFL Commissioner ever thought of that (isn't the current one a lawyer?) Players know football is dangerous, so lawsuits are unreasonable (but retirement medical insurance certainly isn't; Earl Campbell was introduced to the crowd on crutches prior to the Texans playoff game against Cincy last year, while the announcers said they were glad to see he's no longer confined to a wheelchair.)

Yet, while it may have been cited as cause, I'm not sure how much injuries really explain rising NFL salaries. They're nothing like basketball or baseball salaries, even though injuries are nowhere near as common or severe in those sports. The salaries of NFL players are a consequence of the NFL raking in $9 billiion/year off the sweat of players who only get about half of it even under the new CBA (in fairness to owners, that's a more equitable labor/management split than exists in pretty much any other career.)

Professional athletes have many expenses few fans see; they are, after all, truly professionals: They spend tremendous amounts of time training even during the "off" season, must pay agents skilled enough to send a fax on time and need doctors and insurers to keep/get them upright. That's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head; PFM could surely name half a dozen more, as could Chris Harris, who must meet those expenses with far less income. Even without families and entourages consuming cash, it costs money to be a professional athlete, so isn't worthwhile unless it pays considerably more.

[Lancane]

Perhaps the NFLs lawyers should research the well established legal principle of "assumption of risk." A friend of mine wanted to play NT in HS, but couldn't because his mom refused to sign thel required medical waiver. It's hard to believe no NFL Commissioner ever thought of that (isn't the current one a lawyer?) Players know football is dangerous, so lawsuits are unreasonable (but retirement medical insurance certainly isn't; Earl Campbell was introduced to the crowd on crutches prior to the Texans playoff game against Cincy last year, while the announcers said they were glad to see he's no longer confined to a wheelchair.)

Yet, while it may have been cited as cause, I'm not sure how much injuries really explain rising NFL salaries. They're nothing like basketball or baseball salaries, even though injuries are nowhere near as common or severe in those sports. The salaries of NFL players are a consequence of the NFL raking in $9 billiion/year off the sweat of players who only get about half of it even under the new CBA (in fairness to owners, that's a more equitable labor/management split than exists in pretty much any other career.)

Professional athletes have many expenses few fans see; they are, after all, truly professionals: They spend tremendous amounts of time training even during the "off" season, must pay agents skilled enough to send a fax on time and need doctors and insurers to keep/get them upright. That's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head; PFM could surely name half a dozen more, as could Chris Harris, who must meet those expenses with far less income. Even without families and entourages consuming cash, it costs money to be a professional athlete, so isn't worthwhile unless it pays considerably more.

I have to completely disagree, the inflation of NFL salaries was near prominent as injuries progressed, especially to the more focal positions, such as quarterbacks and likewise that caused all salaries to rise. How can one say "We're going to pay the quarterback 4 million a season and his lineman will get only about a quarter of that a piece?". And let's be honest about something else, a good agent would try to get their client to invest his money elsewhere. Granted there is a difference between middle class costs and that of professional athletes, but by their choice. The first thing they do, run out and buy a 10 million dollar home for their momma, not a more reasonable $250,000.00 home which would be just as comfortable, the same for themselves, they have to have the Aston Martin when some of the newer more economical American Motors are comparable in class. This also is what has caused a radical inflation of ticket prices and merchandise, which we the fans make up for. I don't care about what they drive, where they live or who hangs out with them, these athletes could all survive on the league minimum and be comfortable and set if they wanted to be, they choose to overspend. That is why we're seeing more and more retired athletes becoming broke. But, if you look at the rise of injuries and the rise of salaries the two coincide to well to be simply coincidence.

[Joel]

I have to completely disagree, the inflation of NFL salaries was near prominent as injuries progressed, especially to the more focal positions, such as quarterbacks and likewise that caused all salaries to rise. How can one say "We're going to pay the quarterback 4 million a season and his lineman will get only about a quarter of that a piece?". And let's be honest about something else, a good agent would try to get their client to invest his money elsewhere. Granted there is a difference between middle class costs and that of professional athletes, but by their choice. The first thing they do, run out and buy a 10 million dollar home for their momma, not a more reasonable $250,000.00 home which would be just as comfortable, the same for themselves, they have to have the Aston Martin when some of the newer more economical American Motors are comparable in class. This also is what has caused a radical inflation of ticket prices and merchandise, which we the fans make up for. I don't care about what they drive, where they live or who hangs out with them, these athletes could all survive on the league minimum and be comfortable and set if they wanted to be, they choose to overspend. That is why we're seeing more and more retired athletes becoming broke. But, if you look at the rise of injuries and the rise of salaries the two coincide to well to be simply coincidence.
I don't have stats handy, but suspect players going broke has become less rather than more common over the past several decades. Hollywood Henderson's only a millionaire because he won the Texas Lottery about a decade ago; he left the NFL an impoverished drug addict. I enjoy millionaire-bashing as much as or more than the next man, but the selectiveness among pro sports fans is perplexing.

It's been a LONG time since more than a handful of starting QBs earned "merely" $4 million. After the early '90s Cowboys won their second SB Emmitt Smith held out for a bigger contract SOLELY because Thurman Thomas had just signed a $35 million contract that made him the NFLs highest paid RB, and Dallas only managed to re-sign him after Aikman restructured his year old $50 million deal so they could pay Emmitt without going over cap. Sure, those are smaller than todays numbers, but we're still talking $7-10 milllion/year, and that was 20 years ago, long before the NFL started sweating bullets over retired player lawsuits.

About the time the NFLs top RB and QB inked $35 and $50 million deals, NBA rookie Glenn Robinson refused to play for <$100 million; ARod signed his (first) quarter BILLION dollar deal nearly 15 years ago. Injuries only impact the disparity in that any top athlete with half a brain would look at it and refuse to get hurt far worse and more, and thus have far shorter careers, for maybe a quarter the money. When an NBA rookie can demand twice as much before his first pro game as the top NFL QB who just won back-to-back SBs, I think NFL players demanded more money because THEY think they earn it, not because of injury.

[Joel]

Another example: Remember how mad baseball fans got when Bo Jackson was coming home and trucked the catcher so he'd drop the ball? Bo did that to LBs every Sunday for the Raiders and everyone thought it was great: Guess which paid better. ;) Now consider that his hip injury instantly ended his football career, yet he managed to play two more seasons of pro baseball. NFL salaries aren't about injuries.

[Lancane]

Another example: Remember how mad baseball fans got when Bo Jackson was coming home and trucked the catcher so he'd drop the ball? Bo did that to LBs every Sunday for the Raiders and everyone thought it was great: Guess which paid better. ;) Now consider that his hip injury instantly ended his football career, yet he managed to play two more seasons of pro baseball. NFL salaries aren't about injuries.

Joel, do you honestly believe that the Owners and the League didn't see the rise of player's salaries as a long-term monetary supplement for the sake of their family's and a player's own well being? As did those of other professional sports? Do you honestly believe that Owners were like whoa, we'll give them a 40 million and we'll still be expected to pay for health problems, isn't that why there is a Health Settlement clause in many contracts today? I'm not Millionaire bashing, I am bashing the notion that these players can not afford effective health insurance and take care of their family's on the salary they're are receiving, even league minimum. Have you ever been to Karl Mecklenburg's House? Or Tom Jacksons? They live in houses that in today's market are worth about three to four hundred thousand, not ten or eleven million. Shannon Sharpe invested his money into PostNet and other ventures as did John Elway, his old house was much like Karl's and Tom's. Look I get you're saying that the fiscal difference is due to injury, but do you think the owners did not, especially with the money they are giving these athletes?

Point I am getting at is that the money these players are worth have effected the sport, in part because the owners and league are still be held responsible for medical issues rather then forcing the players to use their financial situation to prepare for long-term ramifications and likewise has led to the new rules which are altering the sport overall.

[Joel]

Joel, do you honestly believe that the Owners and the League didn't see the rise of player's salaries as a long-term monetary supplement for the sake of their family's and a player's own well being? As did those of other professional sports? Do you honestly believe that Owners were like whoa, we'll give them a 40 million and we'll still be expected to pay for health problems, isn't that why there is a Health Settlement clause in many contracts today? I'm not Millionaire bashing, I am bashing the notion that these players can not afford effective health insurance and take care of their family's on the salary they're are receiving, even league minimum. Have you ever been to Karl Mecklenburg's House? Or Tom Jacksons? They live in houses that in today's market are worth about three to four hundred thousand, not ten or eleven million. Shannon Sharpe invested his money into PostNet and other ventures as did John Elway, his old house was much like Karl's and Tom's. Look I get you're saying that the fiscal difference is due to injury, but do you think the owners did not, especially with the money they are giving these athletes?

Point I am getting at is that the money these players are worth have effected the sport, in part because the owners and league are still be held responsible for medical issues rather then forcing the players to use their financial situation to prepare for long-term ramifications and likewise has led to the new rules which are altering the sport overall.
Actually, I'm saying just the opposite: The fiscal difference is NOT due to injury, else baseball and basketball players would not earn so much more despite their much lesser likelihood and severity of injury. Nolan Ryan played over 20 years and his worst sports injury is occasional shoulder stiffness; Earl Campbell played for just 7 and was in a wheelchair until last summer: Guess which one made about 10 times as much. If the salaries are all about injuries, so those injuries don't justify more money from owners, why haven't NBA and MLB owners demanded far lower salaries for players with far fewer and less severe injuries?

This isn't about whether you or I have been to Elways house. It's about whether $500,000/year can cover a backup LBs training expenses for a 4 year career while leaving enough to cover his long term medical costs and put food in his belly. It's also about whether Moreno's been to Pat Bowlens and Derek Jeters houses and realizes he's a lot more likely than either of them to retire with a brain the consistency of jello.

As far as NFL injuries AS NFL injuries (i.e. without comparison to injuries in other pro sports,) assumption of risk and retirement medical insurance address them sufficiently, PROVIDED the NFL discloses all it knows about the severity and size of risk assumed. The suits against the NFL allege it has WITHELD that information, not that it is responsible for the risks existence.

[DenBronx]

Goodell just had a live press conference on NFLN. One reporter asked his comments on the Dumervil situation. Basically Goodell said he doesnt handle those types of things and there is a department that handles all the players contracts, but he only steps in when in emergencies. So any decisions made on Dumervil contract snafu isnt Goodell, its the NFL players contract department. The NFLPA most likely is talking to that department.

[spikerman]

Goodell just had a live press conference on NFLN. One reporter asked his comments on the Dumervil situation. Basically Goodell said he doesnt handle those types of things and there is a department that handles all the players contracts, but he only steps in when in emergencies. So any decisions made on Dumervil contract snafu isnt Goodell, its the NFL players contract department. The NFLPA most likely is talking to that department.

If this isn't an emergency it's damn strange.