PDA

View Full Version : "Trent Richardson Rule" Instated: Runners May No Longer Lead with Their Heads



Joel
04-06-2013, 06:08 AM
Sorry if this belongs in another sub-forum, but Football 101 was the one I thought most logical.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000152387/article/trent-richardson-crownofhelmet-hit-rule-my-fault (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000152387/article/trent-richardson-crownofhelmet-hit-rule-my-fault)
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9078554/trent-richardson-cleveland-browns-blames-self-new-helmet-rule

The best thing I can say about this rule is it's not exclusive to RBs, like the rules against hitting QBs or receivers above the shoulders or below the knees (indeed, many feel runners will get hit below the knees more often BECAUSE of this rule.) Nor is it like the rule against hitting a "defenseless player," which mandates WRs be allowed to make receptions and start running before contact, while hitting a RB as he takes a handoff is still just a great fumble-causing play. Since passers and receivers get hit so much more and harder than runners, they need extra protection.

I'm SO glad the NFL is taking further action to reduce the advantages of runners over passers and receivers in a league so increasingly dominated by running passing might otherwise have disappeared altogether. It's deplorable the physical punishment QBs and WRs endure makes it impossible for the bodies of guys like Favre, Peyton Manning and Elway to sustain the decade or more of Pro Bowl level play guys like Grange, Thorpe, Sayers and Terrell Davis enjoyed. Speaking of enjoyment, it's also good to know the NFL is fixing the rules to avert the risk of one-dimensional offense. Kudoes to Goodell on another typically good job. :rolleyes:

Perhaps the best news is for Jake Plummer: Having left football for handball because he felt it a game that can be played all ones life, he could return to the NFL once it completes gradual transition to that sport. :)

Jaded
04-06-2013, 10:30 PM
This rule is pure garbage.

aulaza
04-07-2013, 04:57 AM
I must say, that I disagree. I'm on Goodell's side on this one. I think there may be legitimate concerns about how this rule will be implemented, but I agree with the overall ambition, and with the attempt at stopping the helmet being used as a weapon.

The defenseless player rule mentioned above does not 'allow the receiver to start running before contact'. Defenders can still hit receivers with as much force as they want while they are classed as 'defenseless', so long as they do not strike the head or neck and do not lead with the crown of their helmet.

This rule will only apply in the open field, in instances where a player purposfully leads with the crown of the helmet (i.e. using the helmet as a weapon). RB's who rely on power can lead with the shoulder instead. This is not about removing physicality from the game or hampering RB's, its about preventing the kind of injuries that ruin lives.

I was generally against these kind of rules too, until around the time of the sad passing of Junior Seau last year. I realised the kind of damage that can be done. To me, its important that we try and reduce that as far as possible.

If you're dead against any player safety rules then I'm afraid you will continue to be disappointed over the next few years. The consensus is that this is the direction we need to go in.

Jaded
04-07-2013, 12:41 PM
I don't care about player safety, never did, and neither does the NFL aulaza. The NFL is in full-on C.Y.O.A Mode, these new rules are reactionary and pretentious, aimed only at the appearance of caring about player safety in light of all the bullshit lawsuits they're facing. So when y'all are dolling out blame don't forget the pathetic former players that'r just out for one last paycheck.

What I do care about is the game of football, which is quickly devolving into a glorified pansy-ass 7-on-7 passing drill. Soak it up, people, this new age crock of shit, but soon it won't be any closer to football than a tickle fight is to boxing.

Gimme a ******* break.

aulaza
04-07-2013, 02:01 PM
Forgive me, having trouble working out if that was sarcastic or not?

Jaded
04-07-2013, 03:14 PM
Forgive me, having trouble working out if that was sarcastic or not?

No you're not.

smith49
04-07-2013, 03:56 PM
I don't care about player safety, never did, and neither does the NFL aulaza. The NFL is in full-on C.Y.O.A Mode, these new rules are reactionary and pretentious, aimed only at the appearance of caring about player safety in light of all the bullshit lawsuits they're facing. So when y'all are dolling out blame don't forget the pathetic former players that'r just out for one last paycheck.

What I do care about is the game of football, which is quickly devolving into a glorified pansy-ass 7-on-7 passing drill. Soak it up, people, this new age crock of shit, but soon it won't be any closer to football than a tickle fight is to boxing.

Gimme a ******* break.



I don't wanna see guys get hurt. However, I couldn't have said this better Jaded.

aulaza
04-07-2013, 03:59 PM
In that case, not really sure you can 'not care about player safety'.

I really think this is for the good of the sport in the long run.

Joel
04-07-2013, 04:04 PM
I must say, that I disagree. I'm on Goodell's side on this one. I think there may be legitimate concerns about how this rule will be implemented, but I agree with the overall ambition, and with the attempt at stopping the helmet being used as a weapon.
We have a rule against using helmets as a weapon: It's called "spearing," it's been illegal a looong time and the NFL need do nothing more than enforce that rule, IF that's all it wants to prevent. According to Goodell back in 2010 that's all the NFL ever WOULD do: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/early-lead/2010/10/roger_goodell_reiterates_that.html We've since seen that was just a load of empty rhetoric; the League's annually cited long-illegal spearing to justify multiply rules against a great deal more than JUST spearing. In this case, they've decided to ban ball carriers reflexively ducking, not just to inflict blows, but absorb and withstand them.

Enforced uniformly, consistently and otherwise as written (i.e. against more than RBs) the new rule might offset the tremendous advantage new rules have increasingly given offense over defense in recent years (and maybe that was the idea: Blow one down there, blow one down here, in classic NFL fashion.) Unfortunately, the NFL DOESN'T enforce rules uniformly and consistently, else it wouldn't have "re-banned" something that's been illegal since 1979, let alone done so THREE YEARS RUNNING. Case in point:


The defenseless player rule mentioned above does not 'allow the receiver to start running before contact'. Defenders can still hit receivers with as much force as they want while they are classed as 'defenseless', so long as they do not strike the head or neck and do not lead with the crown of their helmet.
I'll believe that when it happens, or rather, when just the opposite STOPS. Remember Dunta Robinsons infamous hit on DeSean Jackson that gave them BOTH concussions? Here's a nice article noting that was a player legally ramming his SHOULDER (i.e. not helmet) into a defenseless players SHOULDER (i.e. not head or neck:) http://nflspearhead.blogspot.no/

The NFL fined him $50,000 anyway, as it does whenever—and WHEREVER—a defenseless receiver's hit. The rule's the same for running backs in a defenders grasp (but evidently not when taking a handoff) but defenders still do it routinely and with impunity. Indeed, the linked article starts by noting a spear by James Harrison (whose name always comes up in spearing discussions for SOME reason...) that drew NO fine, nor even penalty, because, according to the NFL VP of football operations (wait for it...) anything goes when hitting RBs. That's not what the rules say, but so what?

The link does note the NFL made it right by fining Harrison $75,000 for another illegal hit a week later: On a WR (naturally, since only hits on QBs or WRs draw fines/suspensions.) The NFL really getting the word out this is unacceptable; even as they charged Harrison $75,000 for MAKING the hit, NFL.com was charging fans $16-250 to own PICTURES of it: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/10/19/league-is-selling-photo-of-james-harrisons-illegal-hit/


This rule will only apply in the open field, in instances where a player purposfully leads with the crown of the helmet (i.e. using the helmet as a weapon). RB's who rely on power can lead with the shoulder instead. This is not about removing physicality from the game or hampering RB's, its about preventing the kind of injuries that ruin lives.
It should be clear from the above, if it wasn't before, the new rule will apply just like quarter century old rule against spearing and all the addititional rules against spearing imposed each of the last two seasons. That is, the rules will apply wtf the NFL wants them to, and be ignored the rest of the time.


I was generally against these kind of rules too, until around the time of the sad passing of Junior Seau last year. I realised the kind of damage that can be done. To me, its important that we try and reduce that as far as possible.

If you're dead against any player safety rules then I'm afraid you will continue to be disappointed over the next few years. The consensus is that this is the direction we need to go in.
We don't know CTE prompted Seaus suicide (it's certainly a likely culprit,) but the sad ends of Mike Webster had already brought CTE attention the NFL didn't want. I don't wish even guys like Harrison to end up in the condition of all the retired boxers who are walking vegetables, and support LEGITIMATE efforts to improve player safety. Efforts to simply protect the NFL from litigation over brain trauma doctors have been warning it about since the early '50s and/or make the passing game more explosive for ratings, are another hypocritical matter. If the NFL's sincere about improving player safety it should do two things:

1) Consistently enforce DECADES old rules against spearing and similar infractions, rather than annually duplicating them for selective enforcement. That means NFL execs don't go on ESPN to say the league ignores the rules when RBs are hit, or reserve fines for only cases involving high profile/scoring WRs and QBs.

2) Suspend players for recklessly and/or deliberately endangering or injuring opponents. I usually cite two contrasting examples:

a) Lawrence Taylor breaking Joe Theismanns leg and ending his career. Pictures of Taylor desperately calling for trainers immediately afterward are almost as infamous as those of the injury itself. The injury was clearly unintentional and sorely regretted, so I wouldn't hand out a penalty, fine or suspension for it. Football's a full contact sport, so accidents and injuries can and should be reduced, but never removed.

b) Bill Romanowski publicly admitting that, at the bottom of a pile with Dave Meggett, where he knew no refs could see him, he intentionally seized the backs finger and "snapped it like a chicken bone." That injury was far less severe than Theismanns, but also deliberate, intentional and malicious. THOSE should draw penalties, ejections, fines and suspensions.

The point of that last observation is that the NFLs current efforts focus on eliminating the MEANS of serious injury while ignoring the MOTIVES. That simply won't work; as long as we condone head-hunting, simply banning specific forms when injuries proliferate, dirty players will just find new, legal, ways to inflict the same old injuries. Always a textbook example, James Harrison has said as much: During the pre-game for Denvers 2011 playoff game against Pitt, Phil Simms quoted Harrison saying he'd convinced his teammates they should go low on receivers to avoid more fines and suspensions for hitting them in the neck and head. Unsurprisingly, he "swept the leg" on Eric Decker as the WR was making a first down reception early in the second quarter, despite another Steeler already tackling Decker, who immediately went down and missed the rest of the game and season with a sprained MCL.

We can't stop dirty players by saying, "even though it's illegal to hit guys in the head, we never enforce that rule, so we're passing a new rule that says you can't hit them in the head with a bat either." If we want to ban dirty play, we ban dirty play, not nibble around the edges of it while the worst offenders find new ways to circumvent any new rules even on the rare occasions refs actually enforce them.

Meanwhile, when RBs know they're about to be hit, most will still duck to avoid, deflect or at least direct the blow to their well-shielded heads; that's just a human reflex. It's funny people keep citing Jim Browns statement this week that he never used his head against defenders, only his hand, shoulder and/or forearm.

"Make sure when anyone tackles you he remembers how much it hurts."—Jim Brown.

I actually agree with that statement; the problem is todays players have forgotten the difference between "hurt" and "harm." The annual rules tweaks exacerbate that oversight by ignoring it.

Jaded
04-07-2013, 04:08 PM
Players get hurt, it's part of the game. If players are willing to take that chance I'm willing to watch.

Joel
04-07-2013, 04:28 PM
I don't care about player safety, never did, and neither does the NFL aulaza. The NFL is in full-on C.Y.O.A Mode, these new rules are reactionary and pretentious, aimed only at the appearance of caring about player safety in light of all the bullshit lawsuits they're facing. So when y'all are dolling out blame don't forget the pathetic former players that'r just out for one last paycheck.

What I do care about is the game of football, which is quickly devolving into a glorified pansy-ass 7-on-7 passing drill. Soak it up, people, this new age crock of shit, but soon it won't be any closer to football than a tickle fight is to boxing.

Gimme a ******* break.
My only disagreement is whether suits are just greedy millionaires seeking one last paycheck. I'm not even sure there have BEEN that many suits, considering how much cause there is. Doctors have been warning the NFL about the medical and legal risks since the early '50s, when they told the NFL players should be retired after their third concussion. Mike Webster, Junior Seau and Chris Henry never sued: They just died, all by age 50 (Henry was still on the Bengals roster when he died, but already suffering from degenerative brain damage.) They are but a few of many, and given the Leagues multi-decade effort to deny and discredit evidence I don't think we can simply say every player knows the risks of ending up a psychotic vegetable and factors it into his contract. So, yeah, I agree the League is just CYA crying crocodile tears.

In that and the passing drill comment I think you're right on target. It's no coincidence THREE different QBs all broke the decades old season yardage record in ONE year, just a couple years after Brady broke the single season TD record Peyton had broken a few years before that. It's also no coincidence League execs go on national TV to basically say 1979s spearing rule doesn't apply to RBs held by a tacklers teammates, yet hands out fines for hits on defenseless receivers that don't even violate the NEW rules. Ironically, that latter case is an example of the direction the NFL SHOULD go: Penalizing intent to injure rather than specific acts that MAY cause unintentional injury, since almost any act on a football field (or anywhere) carries SOME risk.

Yet QBs, WRs and DEs earn eight figure salaries and produce nine figure revenue from broadcast rights, merchandise, video games, and commercials. Weekend widows, HS kids and console gamers don't know or care who Thorpe, Grange, Brown, Sayers, Dorsett, Campbell or Payton were; they want Hail Marys. The NFL hasn't realized none of them buy season tickets, jerseys, mugs, bobbleheads or NFLNetwork subscriptions either; console gamers buy each years Madden, but that's about it. The Leagues accountants will explain it eventually, hopefully before all the REAL football fans turn to rugby instead.

aulaza
04-09-2013, 05:13 AM
Firstly, your points concerning application of rules I would agree with. I think it is a real problem, but for some reason the spearing rule is being disregarded, at least this new rule will remind people of the illegality of using the helmet as a weapon and we may see it called. I agree application of the spearing rule would be great but it hasn't happened for the last how many years. At least this means it will get called now.

Secondly, yes shoudler on shoulder contact can cause concussions. But this is not about eliminating all concussions because that is impossible. However, helmet to helmet (often avoidable) contact is far more likely to result in concussions than shoudler to shoulder. The example you state is not common, whilst I don't have stats in front of me I think we can agree that concussions from this type of contact would be far less common than from head to head contact. As for the application of fines, again I agree that it needs improvement, but I'm not sure why that means this rule is awful.

I'm not really sure what you mean about 'they apply when the NFL wants them to'. Are there directives to officials about what to call/not call?

As for the impact on suicides, I think its pretty clear that it is a factor. I'm glad to see you do care about player safety, as I think most normal fans do!

Overall, I agree with a lot of what you say about enforcement of existing rules and application of fines. However, for me, this new rule will actually make sure that guys get called where in previous years they wouldn't have. I hope they officiate it well, I guess we will have to wait and see on that. I think we would all like to see more consistency by officials.

aulaza
04-09-2013, 05:16 AM
What annoys me is fans sitting in their armchairs saying that they don't care about player safety, when we can see the consequences of it. If you disagree with this rule on grounds of how it will be applied then ok, we can have that debate. I have concerns over how it will be officiated. But if you think that player safety is a non issue then you need to wake up.

Joel
04-09-2013, 07:49 AM
The core issue is that consistent uniform enforcement would make the spearing ban sufficient; without it, no amount of additional selectively/unenforced rules can help.

Firstly, your points concerning application of rules I would agree with. I think it is a real problem, but for some reason the spearing rule is being disregarded, at least this new rule will remind people of the illegality of using the helmet as a weapon and we may see it called. I agree application of the spearing rule would be great but it hasn't happened for the last how many years. At least this means it will get called now.
It means nothing of the sort. Again, the same season the NFL enacted the "defenseless player" rule it publicly said it didn't flag James Harrison spearing Joshua Cribbs in the head because anything goes with RBs. Never mind that one of Harrisons teammates already had Cribbs wrapped up in the act of tackling him (about as "defenseless" as it gets:) No flag for hitting a defenseless player in the head, no spearing flag.

Note also that wasn't just officials missing something on the field in real time, or an individual making the wrong judgement call: In the days following the hit the video was played over and over on national sports broadcasts until the NFL VP of Football Operations went on a syndicated radio show to say it was perfectly fine and no call was the RIGHT call. After further review and under scrutiny, the NFL stood by the non-call.


Secondly, yes shoudler on shoulder contact can cause concussions. But this is not about eliminating all concussions because that is impossible. However, helmet to helmet (often avoidable) contact is far more likely to result in concussions than shoudler to shoulder. The example you state is not common, whilst I don't have stats in front of me I think we can agree that concussions from this type of contact would be far less common than from head to head contact. As for the application of fines, again I agree that it needs improvement, but I'm not sure why that means this rule is awful.
Because there's no reason to believe it will be applied any more consistently or uniformly than the defenseless player or spearing rules are, in which case it just handicaps RBs without improving safety one whit.


I'm not really sure what you mean about 'they apply when the NFL wants them to'. Are there directives to officials about what to call/not call?
See above, and yes, there are directives to officials about what to call and when: The "points of emphasis" we hear about annually. The "point" of those is that the Competition Committee feels things already illegal aren't called enough/correctly. The second article I linked even notes such an example in the defenseless player rule:
Although such violent or unnecessary use of the helmet and facemask is impermissible against any opponent, game officials will give special attention in administering this rule to protecting those players who are in virtually defenseless postures. The defenseless player rule itself is more "point of emphasis" than new rule; unfortunately, it's not "emphasized" uniformly or consistently, but exclusively on receptions and sacks. That improves passing, not safety.

Further illustrating how the Competition Committee muddies the waters for even itself, the "Richardson Rule" isn't confined to helmet-on-helmet hits, but covers ALL cases of RBs or defenders leading with the crown of their helmet: The NFL simply "re-banned" spearing. For, like, the third or fourth time; how many times must we enact unenforced rules against something illegal since 1979 before refs start calling it properly...?


As for the impact on suicides, I think its pretty clear that it is a factor. I'm glad to see you do care about player safety, as I think most normal fans do!
Of course I care about safety, too much to see it become a canard for turning the NFL into arena football without improving safety at all.


Overall, I agree with a lot of what you say about enforcement of existing rules and application of fines. However, for me, this new rule will actually make sure that guys get called where in previous years they wouldn't have. I hope they officiate it well, I guess we will have to wait and see on that. I think we would all like to see more consistency by officials.
Again, I expect no more consistency or uniformity in this rule than in pre-existing ones. We'll see RBs lose yardage for ducking to avoid/absorb/deflect hits, but no other changes. If the NFL were serious about consistently uniformly enforcing the spearing ban it wouldn't keep "re-banning" spearing, it'd just tell refs, "start flagging spears REGARDLESS of source," and fire those who didn't.

Ravage!!!
04-09-2013, 11:55 AM
What annoys me is fans sitting in their armchairs saying that they don't care about player safety, when we can see the consequences of it. If you disagree with this rule on grounds of how it will be applied then ok, we can have that debate. I have concerns over how it will be officiated. But if you think that player safety is a non issue then you need to wake up.

If you ever listen to any ex-NFL player talk, they will generally LAUGH at the idea that the NFL "worries" about player safety. They don't. The NFL doesn't care about the safety of players, as they are purely putting on the shroud of "care" to show that they are "Doing all they can do" for the sake of future law suites.

As a fan of the GAME... I don't care about the safety of the player AS LONG AS its effecting the game. Give me something that has a REAL benefit. GIve me new helmets and not this BS crap about "hitting defensless player"... JUNK. That is what football is about.. HITTING. Hitting HARD. We became football fanatics BECAUSE the big, huge, fast, athlete humans are SMASHING into one another, and doing things we only wish we could do...but as a part of that sacrifice...these guys get paid a LOT of money! Its not like football is the only one, car racing became famous BECAUSE of the wrecks! They didn't change the sport of racing, they added REAL safety equipment.

Fans only "worry" about the injuries when the injuries become headlines. When the injury is so severe, that it becomes a "story." But those kind of injuries can happen in ANY line of work! Ask a lathe operator if his job is dangerous.

Also.. there is NO evidence that CTE (their new name) is a cause for suicides. NFL players aren't the largest "profession" associated with suicide. If the constant contact in the game was SUCh a reason for committing such actions, why don't we see a larger percentage than we do? Dentists and doctors have a higher "suicide" rate than anything we see in the NFL. Of course there is more than one reason for suicide, but it seems that there are reasons for suicide OTHER than CTE... and the % of suicide in the NFL doesn't even make the top list of professions (well, the top 21 anyway) http://www.businessinsider.com/most-suicidal-occupations-2011-10#5-finance-workers-are-151-times-more-likely-to-commit-suicide-15

ANYWAY.. going back to this topic.. I can honestly say that this rule is NOT one that is going to "help" the game of football nor the football players themselves, but is merely a reactionary rule that is made to purely give the "image" of care.

BroncoWave
04-09-2013, 12:17 PM
What annoys me is fans sitting in their armchairs saying that they don't care about player safety, when we can see the consequences of it. If you disagree with this rule on grounds of how it will be applied then ok, we can have that debate. I have concerns over how it will be officiated. But if you think that player safety is a non issue then you need to wake up.

Totally agree. It's easy to say things like "players sign up for this, they know the risks, blah, blah blah" when you are sitting on your cozy couch watching it on TV. They don't seem like real people, so it's hard for fans to care too much about their safety. In the real world though, it is a concern, and measures like this are necessary to ensure the long-term viability of the league.

claymore
04-09-2013, 12:44 PM
These guys are compensated for the risks they take. Hopefully they reduce ticket prices and salaries associated with the lower risks.

BroncoWave
04-09-2013, 12:48 PM
These guys are compensated for the risks they take. Hopefully they reduce ticket prices and salaries associated with the lower risks.

They are compensated for their unique skillsets. Even if you lower the risks their skillsets are still just as unique.

Ravage!!!
04-09-2013, 12:48 PM
These guys are compensated for the risks they take. Hopefully they reduce ticket prices and salaries associated with the lower risks.

Hah.. that would be an awsome thing. "Due to the fact that Goodell has made the sport more like touch football, our insurance policies have gone down, and thus we will LOWER the ticket prices!" :lol:

I can see that happening! :beer:

claymore
04-09-2013, 12:50 PM
They are compensated for their unique skillsets. Even if you lower the risks their skillsets are still just as unique.

In most cases though it is the only skill they have. You could lower the majority of the NFL salaries to the LOW 6 figure range and none of them would be able to do better on the outside.

They are compensated heavily for the risks they take, and the short careers the majority of them have.

Ravage!!!
04-09-2013, 12:52 PM
They are compensated for their unique skillsets. Even if you lower the risks their skillsets are still just as unique.

No..they are compensated for because of the crowds that the sport attracts. They get a JOB because of their skillset. The reason the sport is so popular is because of the hard hitting risks that the players showcase, WITH said skillset. Either way, they are WELL compensated for their "risky" line of work. How many "risky" jobs can you think of that doesn't get paid as much as these guys do?

BroncoWave
04-09-2013, 01:09 PM
No..they are compensated for because of the crowds that the sport attracts. They get a JOB because of their skillset. The reason the sport is so popular is because of the hard hitting risks that the players showcase, WITH said skillset. Either way, they are WELL compensated for their "risky" line of work. How many "risky" jobs can you think of that doesn't get paid as much as these guys do?

The risk the NFL has isn't necessary to put an entertaining product on the field. You can make rule changes like this and still have a product that the fans will come in droves to see.

Joel
04-09-2013, 02:34 PM
These guys are compensated for the risks they take. Hopefully they reduce ticket prices and salaries associated with the lower risks.
Not really; doctors have been telling the NFL since 1952 to retire players after a third concussion, but the NFL instead spent 60 years since doing all it can to deny and discredit what the whole medical community told anyone who'd listen (which definitely excludes the NFL.) It's like smoking: A business can't spend hundreds of millions on a half-century national campaign to hide grave dangers, then say, "you knew the risks."

Twenty people DIED playing football in 1905 (some say more,) prompting President Roosevelt to threaten a ban. That's where we got the forward pass, seven men on the offensive line (instead of flying wedges) and, after TRs White House conference, the NCAA itself. Safety reforms have ample precedent in literally CREATING what we know as "football," and the NCAA. The problem is the past few years' annual "reforms" weren't meant to improve safety, and haven't: They were meant to increase passing and shield the NFL from suits. Those are sorry reasons to do anything, especially handcuff defenders and running backs.

spikerman
04-09-2013, 03:38 PM
Folks, the game of football is under attack. Parents are starting to find other, "safer" sports for their kids to play because they see the damage that can be caused. If football doesn't try to make itself safer we won't have the game in a few years. If tackling is done correctly most of these fouls would never be called anyway.

Btw, when you're ready for your heads to explode I'll tell you about the change in the targeting rule in college for next year.

aulaza
04-09-2013, 03:55 PM
Ravage, your name is apt.

Jaded
04-09-2013, 05:21 PM
What annoys me is fans sitting in their armchairs saying that they don't care about player safety, when we can see the consequences of it. If you disagree with this rule on grounds of how it will be applied then ok, we can have that debate. I have concerns over how it will be officiated. But if you think that player safety is a non issue then you need to wake up.

I know fisherman take huge risk putting crab on my plate yet I eat without a single thought about their risks whatsoever. If I cared about player safety I wouldn't watch football the same way I choose not to watch things ranging from seals getting clubbed to rodeo ******** who tie a bulls balls in a knot and climbimg on their back. A lot of things involve risk of injury, where's your bleeding heart for the less popular?

How's the view from the soapbox, Nancy Grace? Is it everything you thought it'd be?

BroncoWave
04-09-2013, 05:24 PM
Folks, the game of football is under attack. Parents are starting to find other, "safer" sports for their kids to play because they see the damage that can be caused. If football doesn't try to make itself safer we won't have the game in a few years. If tackling is done correctly most of these fouls would never be called anyway.

Btw, when you're ready for your heads to explode I'll tell you about the change in the targeting rule in college for next year.

Exactly. I've posted studies that show youth football participation has declined by 1/3 in recent years. Of course the people who have their heels dug so far in the sand that football should be as violent as possible simply discredit those findings for no good reason really.

spikerman
04-09-2013, 05:33 PM
Exactly. I've posted studies that show youth football participation has declined by 1/3 in recent years. Of course the people who have their heels dug so far in the sand that football should be as violent as possible simply discredit those findings for no good reason really.

Everybody is going for the "woo" hits now. If anybody was actually coached to tackle the way a lot of these guys attempt to do it, they had really crappy coaches. Wait until next year in college when if the officials determine that a player is targeting another player then it results in not only a 15 yard penalty, but also an ejection.

Jaded
04-09-2013, 05:39 PM
I don't remember anyone saying the game should be as violent as possible but if it's too much for your sons, by all means, enjoy the 0-0 soccer matches.

I don't even have a problem with teaching these kids the fundamentals, Steve Atwater and Dennis Smith absolutely drove me up a wall missing all those tackles trying to make the one kill shot. But you can't deny that the game of football is being ruined by the Soccermom mentality where winning is being phased out and replaced by participation ribbons. They don't even keep score these days, it's sickening.

spikerman
04-09-2013, 05:43 PM
I don't remember anyone saying the game should be as violent as possible but if it's too much for your sons, by all means, enjoy the 0-0 soccer matches.

I don't even have a problem with teaching these kids the fundamentals, Steve Atwater and Dennis Smith absolutely drove me up a wall missing all those tackles trying to make the one kill shot. But you can't deny that the game of football is being ruined by the Soccermom mentality where winning is being phased out and replaced by participation ribbons. They don't even keep score these days, it's sickening.

I can't speak for the NFL or for Pop Warner, but i can tell you that at the levels I officiate (HS and college) there is still plenty of hard (legal) hitting going on. I'm pretty sure I only threw one flag for targeting last year and there was plenty of popping going on. I think there has been a serious overreaction to some of these rule changes/enforcements. If these guys play fundamentally sound football, there won't be much of an issue. I guess I just don't understand the outrage - and I hate soccer.

Joel
04-09-2013, 06:27 PM
Folks, the game of football is under attack. Parents are starting to find other, "safer" sports for their kids to play because they see the damage that can be caused. If football doesn't try to make itself safer we won't have the game in a few years. If tackling is done correctly most of these fouls would never be called anyway.

Btw, when you're ready for your heads to explode I'll tell you about the change in the targeting rule in college for next year.
Do you or Goodell really think paying lip service to safety without actually improving it will change that? We've talked about this before in the context of the previous rules changes, and the "targeting" rule you mention is a MUCH more positive step, IMHO. Go after motive, not means, and things will change; otherwise, dirty players will just find new ways to inflict injury within the rules. Shooting around the problem won't eliminate it or provide lawsuit cover; it just gives unsportsmanlike players an excrutiatingly well defined way to inflict excrutiating LEGAL injuries.

That covers the crap that is James Harrisons pro career, but not all of it: Fining him $75,000 for a LEGAL hit that injured a receiver while ignoring an ILLEGAL spear on a running back—publicly (but falsely) declaring the latter legal—isn't about safety: It's about revenue. Not only is that confusingly inconsistent (not a good way to reform players,) it's laughable the NFLs idea of "improving safety" is to ban players at the most beat up shortest lived position ducking to avoid and shield themselves from blows. Why stop at half measures, Goodell; if running back helmets are so dangerous, why not ban them altogether? The poor SOBs only have about five good years in them as it is; if we ban helmets for them (and ONLY them) they won't make it past their first training camp, and we can officially call it the National Handball League.


Everybody is going for the "woo" hits now. If anybody was actually coached to tackle the way a lot of these guys attempt to do it, they had really crappy coaches. Wait until next year in college when if the officials determine that a player is targeting another player then it results in not only a 15 yard penalty, but also an ejection.
The NFL LIKES the "woo" hits—it just doesn't want to publicly admit that, for legal reasons. You can, and evidently should, "woo" hit runners all you like; according to the League office you can even spear them, despite that being illegal since 1979, even in the head while a teammate holds them defenseless, despite THAT being legal since 2010. You just can't "woo" hit receivers or QBs, because they make "woo" TD passes. You also can't cut block DEs, because they make "woo" sacks (which are totally awesome as long as they're between the QBs knees and shoulders; QB>DE on the "woo" scale. ;)))

Jaded
04-09-2013, 06:39 PM
I can't speak for the NFL or for Pop Warner, but i can tell you that at the levels I officiate (HS and college) there is still plenty of hard (legal) hitting going on. I'm pretty sure I only threw one flag for targeting last year and there was plenty of popping going on. I think there has been a serious overreaction to some of these rule changes/enforcements. If these guys play fundamentally sound football, there won't be much of an issue. I guess I just don't understand the outrage - and I hate soccer.

Maybe we'll all understand the outrage when any team gets a TD stricken because a RB went all Earl Campbell on some poor, poor unsuspecting millionaire CB. Again, I'm all for teaching kids the fundamentals and if I could believe the motivation for these NFL player safety measures were legit I might look at it differenly.

Hitting defenseless receivers was one thing but this rule change is utterly pathetic.

BroncoWave
04-09-2013, 06:42 PM
Hitting defenseless receivers was one thing but this rule change is utterly pathetic.

Jim Brown disagrees with you. I think the greatest RB ever to lace up cleats might have a little credibility in the matter.

Jaded
04-09-2013, 06:48 PM
Jim Brown disagrees with you. I think the greatest RB ever to lace up cleats might have a little credibility in the matter.

And?

aulaza
04-09-2013, 06:52 PM
I know fisherman take huge risk putting crab on my plate yet I eat without a single thought about their risks whatsoever. If I cared about player safety I wouldn't watch football the same way I choose not to watch things ranging from seals getting clubbed to rodeo ******** who tie a bulls balls in a knot and climbimg on their back. A lot of things involve risk of injury, where's your bleeding heart for the less popular?

How's the view from the soapbox, Nancy Grace? Is it everything you thought it'd be?

Not sure I understand where you're coming from there. How do those examples relate exactly? Maybe I'm having a brain fart but I don't quite get it?

Are you saying you do watch all those things, or don't?

"Where's your bleeding heart for the less popular?" Didn't realise I had to provide a list of all things on this Earth that are also dangerous. I thought we were talking about football. There are plenty of other things for which my heart 'bleeds' as you put it.

Nancy Grace? You'll have to help me out there buddy! Not au fait with all parts of American culture!

spikerman
04-09-2013, 06:53 PM
For Joel and Jaded, as I understand the NFL rule, one thing to keep in mind is that it is not a foul simply because a running back lowers his head to protect himself. That is still legal. It is only a foul when he uses it as a weapon outside of the tackle box which means lowering his head going up the middle between the tackles would not even be looked at as a foul.

BroncoWave
04-09-2013, 06:54 PM
And?

He has a little more credibility on the matter than you. And to add to the list of people who have credibility on this matter...


"I'm in favor of it and I think it's a good rule that we need,'' said Super Bowl-winning Baltimore head coach John Harbaugh, of the league's decision to penalize the crown-of-the-helmet hit in the open field. "When you look at all the plays involved, what becomes apparent is what they're talking about calling is a dangerous position for any player to be. You never teach a running back to lead with the crown of the helmet and you never teach a tackler to lead with the crown of the helmet. No one's taught that from the beginning of football.
"We teach them just the opposite, to see what you hit, or if you go low, to use your shoulder. A back can still go low with his head, he just can't square up on a guy and lead with the crown of his helmet. That's something that's putting people in jeopardy. So I came out of the meetings feeling good about the rule.''


Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130320/nfl-helmet-rule-change/#ixzz2Q0tq4WeK

spikerman
04-09-2013, 07:41 PM
... And to add to the list of people who have credibility on this matter...

I don't want to address anyone's credibility, but I do think that Harbaugh said what I was trying to say much more eloquently.

Joel
04-09-2013, 07:48 PM
Jim Brown disagrees with you. I think the greatest RB ever to lace up cleats might have a little credibility in the matter.
"Make sure when anyone tackles you he remembers how much it hurts."—Jim Brown. Browns point was that he always used his hand, arm or shoulder to ward off tackles; are we to believe whipping a forearm into someone face doesn't often cause concussions? I've already cited an example of a shoulder-to-shoulder hit doing just that. You may have misspelled "hypocrisy," man. :tongue:

To be fair, there IS a distinction between "hurt" and "harm," but I'm not sure Jim Brown, widely recognized as one of the most punishing runners in history, is the best authority on it (Stephen R. Donaldson would be better. :tongue: ) I'm not saying Brown set out to injure people either, but this is along the lines of what I referenced earlier: Ban specific means of, rather than intent to, injure people and dirty players just find legal ways to inflict the same injuries within the new rules—they already do: That's why we keep seeing new rules every freakin' year, treating the symptom rather than the disease.


For Joel and Jaded, as I understand the NFL rule, one thing to keep in mind is that it is not a foul simply because a running back lowers his head to protect himself. That is still legal. It is only a foul when he uses it as a weapon outside of the tackle box which means lowering his head going up the middle between the tackles would not even be looked at as a foul.
That's just more inconsistency, just like with the cut blocking rules: The same dangerous act magically becomes safe between the tackles, because... well, just because. Or, put another way, the same perfectly legal act suddenly becomes illegal if it happens in the open field. This rule's just more unconscionable because the act is DEFENSIVE, despite the suggestions it's offensive. Maybe if a concussed RB sues the NFL for CTE caused by too many un-duckable shoulderpads to the head things will change. The NFL will probably just ban running, but at least the game will be "safer." :rolleyes:

spikerman
04-09-2013, 08:02 PM
"Make sure when anyone tackles you he remembers how much it hurts."—Jim Brown. Browns point was that he always used his hand, arm or shoulder to ward off tackles; are we to believe whipping a forearm into someone face doesn't often cause concussions? I've already cited an example of a shoulder-to-shoulder hit doing just that. You may have misspelled "hypocrisy," man. :tongue:

To be fair, there IS a distinction between "hurt" and "harm," but I'm not sure Jim Brown, widely recognized as one of the most punishing runners in history, is the best authority on it (Stephen R. Donaldson would be better. :tongue: ) I'm not saying Brown set out to injure people either, but this is along the lines of what I referenced earlier: Ban specific means of, rather than intent to, injure people and dirty players just find legal ways to inflict the same injuries within the new rules—they already do: That's why we keep seeing new rules every freakin' year, treating the symptom rather than the disease.

That's just more inconsistency, just like with the cut blocking rules: The same dangerous act magically becomes safe between the tackles, because... well, just because. Or, put another way, the same perfectly legal act suddenly becomes illegal if it happens in the open field. This rule's just more unconscionable because the act is DEFENSIVE, despite the suggestions it's offensive. Maybe if a concussed RB sues the NFL for CTE caused by too many un-duckable shoulderpads to the head things will change. The NFL will probably just ban running, but at least the game will be "safer." :rolleyes:

There are a lot of things to address here and I will when I have more time. I think you're misunderstanding a few things within the rules, I'll try to address them later, but for now I'm curious as to what you would suggest.

Joel
04-09-2013, 10:11 PM
There are a lot of things to address here and I will when I have more time. I think you're misunderstanding a few things within the rules, I'll try to address them later, but for now I'm curious as to what you would suggest.
I'll counter with curiosity about that "targeting" rule you mentioned, because it sounds like the sort of thing I have in mind: Suspend guys for recklessness and intentional attempts to injure. I realize that's a judgement call, but a much of officiating is inherently a judgement call, so why not apply it to something meaningful? It's not right to penalize, fine and suspend guys for hard but non-malicious hits that inadvertently cause injury, and it's not right to give guys a pass for trying to take a guy out of a game as long as they do it within the letter of the rules.

I believe we've long had a catchall rule for all the above that's always been very much a judgement call: Unnecessary roughness. Funny how rarely I see THAT one called these days no matter how much the NFL says it cares about emphasizing and improving safety. It's pretty much exclusively in the context of the defenseless player penalty, like that's the only kind of unnecessary roughness that exists.

That's what frustrates me about all this: We've had rules against spearing, unnecessary roughness and unsportsmanlike conduct since before most current NFL players were born. Yet suddenly we need new rules to prevent already illegal but rarely penalized behavior, while "incidentally" handicapping defenders and aiding passing (and now handicapping running, too.) Current rules are sufficient IF consistently uniformly enforced; if they're not, no amount of additional selectively enforced ones will change that root problem: In either case, new rules are POINTLESS.

Jaded
04-10-2013, 01:03 AM
He has a little more credibility on the matter than you. And to add to the list of people who have credibility on this matter...
Certainly, but that's not what I meant. I meant what did he say, exactly? Is it fair to question his motives, ie, is he being a massive hypocrite or does he maybe got his fellow ex-players back on these lawsuit issues? You said he disagrees, I was just hoping there was more to your point than the painfully ******* obvious.

Jaded
04-10-2013, 01:26 AM
Not sure I understand where you're coming from there. How do those examples relate exactly? Maybe I'm having a brain fart but I don't quite get it?

Are you saying you do watch all those things, or don't?

"Where's your bleeding heart for the less popular?" Didn't realise I had to provide a list of all things on this Earth that are also dangerous. I thought we were talking about football. There are plenty of other things for which my heart 'bleeds' as you put it.

Nancy Grace? You'll have to help me out there buddy! Not au fait with all parts of American culture!

No, I don't watch things that I'm not comfortable with, that's the point. If I wasn't comfortable with the injuries that have been a part of American football since day 1 I wouldn't be watching it.

Nancy Grace is an over-the-top tv drama queen.

claymore
04-10-2013, 10:00 AM
If running backs were allowed to carry pistols to shoot the CB's Id be all for that too. I want Football to be as violent, and entertaining as possible. I dont care about the players because I dont know them.

chazoe60
04-10-2013, 10:24 AM
If running backs were allowed to carry pistols to shoot the CB's Id be all for that too. I want Football to be as violent, and entertaining as possible. I dont care about the players because I dont know them.

What's your opinion on adding lions to the mix, not those faggots from Detroit, I mean actual live lions?

BroncoJoe
04-10-2013, 10:28 AM
If running backs were allowed to carry pistols to shoot the CB's Id be all for that too. I want Football to be as violent, and entertaining as possible. I dont care about the players because I dont know them.

Oh, I can't wait for BTB to go all apeshit over this post!

chazoe60
04-10-2013, 10:29 AM
Oh, I can't wait for BTB to go all apeshit over this post!

BTB go apeshit? No friggin way.

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 10:32 AM
The way the rule is written is what is going to cause problems with the interpretation on the field. Refs will CERTAINLY error on the side of caution, after all, its alllll about safety and EVERYONE is watching the RB carrying the football.

So lets say the RB is outside the box, and is hit by a LB..he breaks the tackle but the LB grabs his lower leg/ankle thus making the RB have to "yank" to get free. In the meantime, of course, the DB comes flying up to assist in the tackle. The RB sees this, of course, and lowers down to take the impact.

Now...two things here. The RB lowers down to take the impact, or, he doesn't lower down to take the impact and does what people THINK "Jim Brown" would have done and not *cough*. The first should be flagged. As he's outside the tackle box, and lowers his head. Two, he doesn't lower his head, and keeps himself open for a second player to come plowing into his body with no protection.

Now before you say "he didn't lower his head and use it as a weapon"...REMEMBER... spearing has ALWAYS been a rule. Now we have a rule that bans lowering the head for the RB and the refs are looking to "protect the players" by throwing flags when using the helmet.

So as this RB is fighting hard to go forward (he isn't completely stopped, of course)... and lowers down to hit that second tackler....... isn't that a flagged play against the RB? IF not, why not? Where is the line? When SHOULD the refs throw the flags if this doesn't fit the definition of the rule? When will the refs interpret the rule as to being legal and when will they determine that same play to be illegal? This has been the main concern about these STUPID rules. Its not so much the misleading "intent" behind the rules added (which is a sham), its the interpretation of these rules on the field.

Like the "defenseless player" BS rule that has RUINED the job of the safety in the NFL. You have to let WRs catch the ball in order to hit them..because as we've seen, if you don't you WILL get called. Just as the ridiculous "fines" for players that hit ball carriers (and WRs) in the head with SHOULDER PADS. Even when the players make the move to "hit correctly"...they are getting flags AND fines because REFS WILL ERROR ON SIDE OF CAUTION.

Crappy, stupid, rules just give the refs more room to error with a split second interpretation and "erroring" on the side of caution. So what is better, the player lowering down, or asking the player to fight instinct and take harder hits?

BroncoWave
04-10-2013, 10:39 AM
Oh, I can't wait for BTB to go all apeshit over this post!

LOL I know a joke when I see one. I know you guys like to paint me as some moron who is always angry but I actually do know what I'm talking about and I can usually pick up on sarcasm.

MOtorboat
04-10-2013, 11:24 AM
LOL I know a joke when I see one. I know you guys like to paint me as some moron who is always angry but I actually do know what I'm talking about and I can usually pick up on sarcasm.

Something tells me Clay isn't joking.

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 11:32 AM
If running backs were allowed to carry pistols to shoot the CB's Id be all for that too. I want Football to be as violent, and entertaining as possible. I dont care about the players because I dont know them.

Seriously, what makes this sport the MOST entertaining in alllllll of sports, IS the violence. This game would be...and will be...nothing without it.

BroncoWave
04-10-2013, 11:40 AM
Seriously, what makes this sport the MOST entertaining in alllllll of sports, IS the violence. This game would be...and will be...nothing without it.

Can you show me where the ratings have been going down as the violence has been taken out?

BroncoJoe
04-10-2013, 12:05 PM
Can you show me where the ratings have been going down as the violence has been taken out?

What usually leads the sports TV coverage?

BroncoWave
04-10-2013, 12:18 PM
What usually leads the sports TV coverage?

As long as people are still watching (as they are in record numbers) then I'm not convinced that a decrease in violence will hurt the popularity of the sport. I don't care if big hits lead the TV coverage, as that's not what decides ratings.

In case you weren't aware, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reasons for the NFL's popularity is gambling. Fantasy football is up there with it as well. As long as gambling and fantasy football exist the popularity of the NFL won't be decreasing any time soon.

BroncoWave
04-10-2013, 12:25 PM
Another thing I tend to notice is that people like to huff and puff and make threats, but rarely take action. It's easy to sit and complain about the NFL's rule changes and say you will stop watching if they get too soft, but in reality most people (especially the type like us with thousands of posts on a football message board) are too invested in the sport to simply stop watching it.

Just look at the trend of NFL ratings over the years and tell me why they have any reason at all to be concerned about people stopping watching it.

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 01:31 PM
Then there you go. Continue to buy into the NFL's rhetoric on player "safety"....don't question how their changes are ruining the game, and just look at the viewing numbers to determine if it will have a long term negative product in the future. In the meantime, let them spoon feed you some more crap and smile while they tell you how much YOU like it because the numbers say you do.

aulaza
04-10-2013, 01:39 PM
Seriously, what makes this sport the MOST entertaining in alllllll of sports, IS the violence. This game would be...and will be...nothing without it.

Maybe that's the case for you, but it isn't for everyone. Sounds like you'd be happy watching gladiators in the Colosseum.

claymore
04-10-2013, 01:44 PM
Something tells me Clay isn't joking.

Im not joking. If Rahim MOore had a pistol that day, we would be world champions.

BroncoWave
04-10-2013, 01:50 PM
Then there you go. Continue to buy into the NFL's rhetoric on player "safety"....don't question how their changes are ruining the game, and just look at the viewing numbers to determine if it will have a long term negative product in the future. In the meantime, let them spoon feed you some more crap and smile while they tell you how much YOU like it because the numbers say you do.

I completely realize that their focus is on avoiding lawsuits and that deep down, they probably don't give two shits about player safety. But until viewing numbers start to decrease because of these changes, then there is nothing to worry about. I still am of the firm opinion that increased violence is worse for the long-term health of the sport since parents are ceasing to let their kids play football at a staggering rate. It's no coincidence that youth football participation has decreased by 1/3 since all of this data about concussions in retired players has come out. Until the game becomes much safer, more and more parents will stop letting their kids play football, and the talent pool in the NFL will become more and more diluted.

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 01:52 PM
Maybe that's the case for you, but it isn't for everyone. Sounds like you'd be happy watching gladiators in the Colosseum.

Maybe.

But masses love violence. Look throughout history, and look at societies favorite sports. Whether you are in the phillipines with chicken-fights or muay thai, romans and the collosium, or modern america with football. The NFL knew this as they were making HIGHLIGHT films of the big hits to promote their product. No one fills a stadium to watch flag or touch football. If they COULD, then why aren't we just changing the sport to flag football and eliminate nearly ALLLL the dangers?

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 01:54 PM
I completely realize that their focus is on avoiding lawsuits and that deep down, they probably don't give two shits about player safety. But until viewing numbers start to decrease because of these changes, then there is nothing to worry about. I still am of the firm opinion that increased violence is worse for the long-term health of the sport since parents are ceasing to let their kids play football at a staggering rate. It's no coincidence that youth football participation has decreased by 1/3 since all of this data about concussions in retired players has come out. Until the game becomes much safer, more and more parents will stop letting their kids play football, and the talent pool in the NFL will become more and more diluted.

1/3 is an exaggerated number (whether you want to believe that or not, its an LARGE exaggeration)... plus... you'll see how those stats change as time goes forward and this "scare tactic" that those suing the NFL, and the NFL is using to give credence to their rule changes, stops from being headlines.

BroncoWave
04-10-2013, 02:04 PM
1/3 is an exaggerated number (whether you want to believe that or not, its an LARGE exaggeration)... plus... you'll see how those stats change as time goes forward and this "scare tactic" that those suing the NFL, and the NFL is using to give credence to their rule changes, stops from being headlines.

No, it's not a large exaggeration. It's a fact. I know you are allergic to facts, but it is still one nonetheless.

Here is my source:

http://leagueoffans.org/2012/12/12/youth-football-participation-dropping/


According to a recent report from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association, the number of kids, ages 6 to 12, playing football was down 35 percent in the four-year period from 2007 to 2011.

chazoe60
04-10-2013, 02:06 PM
Has BTB ever made a post without a personal attack, veiled or blatant? ;)

claymore
04-10-2013, 02:08 PM
I completely realize that their focus is on avoiding lawsuits and that deep down, they probably don't give two shits about player safety. But until viewing numbers start to decrease because of these changes, then there is nothing to worry about. I still am of the firm opinion that increased violence is worse for the long-term health of the sport since parents are ceasing to let their kids play football at a staggering rate. It's no coincidence that youth football participation has decreased by 1/3 since all of this data about concussions in retired players has come out. Until the game becomes much safer, more and more parents will stop letting their kids play football, and the talent pool in the NFL will become more and more diluted.

Less parents will let their kids play football. I do not want my son to play tackle football, but he is begging me to play. If half the kids stop playing football and start playing soccer instead... There is still a shit ton of kids to choose from and we will never know the difference.

BroncoWave
04-10-2013, 02:14 PM
Less parents will let their kids play football. I do not want my son to play tackle football, but he is begging me to play. If half the kids stop playing football and start playing soccer instead... There is still a shit ton of kids to choose from and we will never know the difference.

If you cut the talent pool in half, the NFL would be WAY diluted. Imagine taking out half the players currently in the NFL at random and replacing them with guys currently on the street. You don't think that would make the NFL a worse product?

Jaded
04-10-2013, 02:14 PM
Aulaza do you think boxing and MMA became popular because of the ripped abs?

Jaded
04-10-2013, 02:16 PM
If you cut the talent pool in half, the NFL would be WAY diluted. Imagine taking out half the players currently in the NFL at random and replacing them with guys currently on the street. You don't think that would make the NFL a worse product?
Don't worry there's a half billion of untapped talent pool in Europe.

chazoe60
04-10-2013, 02:24 PM
BTW BTB, I was just giving you shit. It's fun for me. :laugh:

BroncoWave
04-10-2013, 02:26 PM
BTW BTB, I was just giving you shit. It's fun for me. :laugh:

:lol: I figured as much!

claymore
04-10-2013, 02:29 PM
If you cut the talent pool in half, the NFL would be WAY diluted. Imagine taking out half the players currently in the NFL at random and replacing them with guys currently on the street. You don't think that would make the NFL a worse product?

No I dont. If we replaced everyone in the NFL with practice squad players it might actually be better since they are hungrier. Pay them less, bring ticket prices down, and the game would be more enjoyable.

aulaza
04-10-2013, 02:59 PM
Aulaza do you think boxing and MMA became popular because of the ripped abs?

I didn't say people don't watch violent sports, or that they don't exist. I just said that maybe not every football fan loves the violence that some seem to enjoy. Besides, football is a bigger sport than the ones you name, so clearly there are a large proportion of people who watch football, but not those kinds of sports.

I like seeing big hits, the physical battle of two teams or two men going against each other. Of course it is entertaining and is part of what makes football great. However, when I see a hit that I know is going to cause serious injury? No I don't enjoy that. I don't cheer when I see a huge helmet to helmet collision and two guys end up seriously hurt.

I would also like to make the point that football players don't exist solely for the gratification of fans, they are also people. Yes, you can argue that without the fan, football players wouldn't make a profession out of it. But I would maintain that, like anyone else, their health should be considered.

aulaza
04-10-2013, 03:07 PM
Maybe.

But masses love violence. Look throughout history, and look at societies favorite sports. Whether you are in the phillipines with chicken-fights or muay thai, romans and the collosium, or modern america with football. The NFL knew this as they were making HIGHLIGHT films of the big hits to promote their product. No one fills a stadium to watch flag or touch football. If they COULD, then why aren't we just changing the sport to flag football and eliminate nearly ALLLL the dangers?

Yes, but there has to be a limit. There is progress in history. Today, you can't have a sport where people fight to the death. Violence is still there in sports, its just a case of how much it is controlled. You can't have uncontrolled violence. I guess we differ on how far the controls would go.

I'm sure we will continue to disagree, but for me the importance of people's health should not be understated. I think the possible impact on the entertainment levels for some fans, isn't enough of a reason to disregard player safety.

BroncoJoe
04-10-2013, 03:19 PM
I have never once threatened to stop watching.

Joel
04-10-2013, 03:22 PM
Im not joking. If Rahim MOore had a pistol that day, we would be world champions.
If Rahim Moore knew how to aim, figure a trajectory and take a good angle he wouldn't have needed a pistol. Give him a pistol that day and he just shoots Adams. :( Anyway, this isn't The Last Boy Scout.


I completely realize that their focus is on avoiding lawsuits and that deep down, they probably don't give two shits about player safety. But until viewing numbers start to decrease because of these changes, then there is nothing to worry about. I still am of the firm opinion that increased violence is worse for the long-term health of the sport since parents are ceasing to let their kids play football at a staggering rate. It's no coincidence that youth football participation has decreased by 1/3 since all of this data about concussions in retired players has come out. Until the game becomes much safer, more and more parents will stop letting their kids play football, and the talent pool in the NFL will become more and more diluted.
Viewing numbers are more means to an end in the modern NFL. Madden NFL makes it more money than anything but merchandise, and TV contracts are just a means of marketing both. Ratings are misleading though, because the kind of casual fans who only watch for big hits and deep bombs aren't the ones who spend money on jerseys, mugs and Madden. They don't care enough about the NFL to spend money on it, or they'd be as disgusted as most serious fans by neutering the game for the sake of inflated passing stats. THOSE fans are increasingly better off watching the All Blacks and buying THEIR gear.

Speaking of which, those guys don't even HAVE helmets, but league execs don't lay awake nights worried about lawsuits and whether soccer moms refuse to let their kids play (newsflash: They're gonna do that whatever the NFL does; that's why they're called "SOCCER moms.")

BroncoJoe
04-10-2013, 03:22 PM
I'm sure this has nothing to do with decreased participation:


Continuing a 12-year decline, the U.S. birth rate has dropped to the lowest level since national data have been available, according to statistics just released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The rate of births among teenagers also fell to a new record low, continuing a decline that began in 1991.

claymore
04-10-2013, 03:23 PM
If Rahim Moore knew how to aim, figure a trajectory and take a good angle he wouldn't have needed a pistol. Give him a pistol that day and he just shoots Adams. :( Anyway, this isn't The Last Boy Scout.

Maybe we could just have one sniper in the stands and he gets 3 bullets a game.

aulaza
04-10-2013, 03:28 PM
Viewing numbers are more means to an end in the modern NFL. Madden NFL makes it more money than anything but merchandise, and TV contracts are just a means of marketing both. Ratings are misleading though, because the kind of casual fans who only watch for big hits and deep bombs aren't the ones who spend money on jerseys, mugs and Madden. They don't care enough about the NFL to spend money on it, or they'd be as disgusted as most serious fans by neutering the game for the sake of inflated passing stats. THOSE fans are increasingly better off watching the All Blacks and buying THEIR gear.

Thats really interesting. Im a huge rugby fan, but I would say player safety is a WAY bigger issue in football than in Rugby. I love the physicality in both sports, but in football its having consequences that aren't there in Rugby. I wonder if all of the protective equipment (esp. helmets) maybe makes things worse? I don't know its just a thought.

I can think of a couple things why its this way.

1) In football there is an emphasis on forcing fumbles which isn't there is Rugby.
2) Football is more stop start and has set possessions, whereas Rugby is more about constant, repetitive defending with constant tackles being made. It is more fluid.

Just some thoguhts.

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 05:21 PM
No, it's not a large exaggeration. It's a fact. I know you are allergic to facts, but it is still one nonetheless.

Here is my source:

http://leagueoffans.org/2012/12/12/youth-football-participation-dropping/

Brilliant. So Sports and Fitness is your source that 35% of the NATION's football has dwindled? That's what you have and you dont' think this number is an inflated number.....really?

The problem is you like to believe and think EVERYTHING is a fact because you read it. You want to believe that the NFL isn't feeding you junk, because you are told it. You read/hear a quote and believe it to be 100% true because its said. You don't want to think for yourself, because you let people tell you what to think. You don't seem to see that there are motives behind quotes, incentives behind statements, and reasons why numbers could be inflated. SPorts and Fitness is your source and you want to believe it to be a fact...ok... good for you. But that "stat" (that you think I'm allergic to)...doesn't hold water to me purely because Sports and Fitness says it to be true.

BroncoJoe
04-10-2013, 05:28 PM
Rav, the internet never lies.

BroncoWave
04-10-2013, 05:30 PM
The problem is you like to believe and think EVERYTHING is a fact because you read it.

This isn't true. I think everything you post is a load of shit.

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 05:31 PM
I'm curious as to the growth in MMA fighting and participation over the last 4 years. Has it grown or shrunk? I KNOW that its grown. Now that may not be 12 year olds, but the point is why one "violent" sport is supposedly shrinking, another is growing. I know NASCAR is rising as well, another dangerous sport. I wonder whta region has the highest percentage of shrinking participation in youth football programs? What are the kids doing instead? Are they playing golf now? If there has been a 35% decrease in football activity, what sport is growing the most? Baseball? Basketball? Martial Arts? Skateboarding?

SR
04-10-2013, 05:39 PM
This thread took a turn for the worse

Ravage!!!
04-10-2013, 05:46 PM
I didn't say people don't watch violent sports, or that they don't exist. I just said that maybe not every football fan loves the violence that some seem to enjoy. Besides, football is a bigger sport than the ones you name, so clearly there are a large proportion of people who watch football, but not those kinds of sports.
Probably not everyone, but considering that football is by FAR the largest of favorite sports in america (NCAA football being #2), a LARGE part of what has made football enjoyable IS the violent collisions and the aggressivness of the sport. Its what makes it different than sports like baseball and basketball. Its OUR version of the gladiators of the collisium.


I like seeing big hits, the physical battle of two teams or two men going against each other. Of course it is entertaining and is part of what makes football great. However, when I see a hit that I know is going to cause serious injury? No I don't enjoy that. I don't cheer when I see a huge helmet to helmet collision and two guys end up seriously hurt.

NO one likes to see serious injury. Fans of the HARDEST hits and want the violence in the game to be a mainstay, do NOT root for serious injuries that occur. But the reality is, its the sport in its ENTIRETY that is what is feared for because of the rule changes. With the path that is being taken, the sport is goingto completely change to basically a passing league that tries to eliminate the hard hits at all. THAT is what makes the added rule changes to be so adamantly opposed. It's not the parts that are as bothersome as much as the toll its going to take against the whole.

No different than certain law changes. If one isn't careful, and allows the governing body to eliminate ONE constitutional right, then that opens the door to a whole new set of problems. No different here. First there is basically no hitting WRs until they catch the ball..lhaving no threat as to whether they are going to be hit or not, they have no fear of crossing the middle of the field. Thus, as we are seeing, QBs are putting up GIGANTIC numbers on a regular basis. THen you can't hit a QB high...then you can't hit a QB low.... soon, we won't be able to hit the QBs at all. Then where does that lead? Right now, now defensive players can't hit the head of another player. FIrst that was with your own helmet, but we are seeing players get fined for hitting another player with the shoulder pads.

Now with this new rule, a player basically can't curl up when BEING hit. What is next? What is next that the NFL is going to shroud in the cloak of "care" for the NFL player (and they TRULY dont' care for the health of the player) that is going to eventually ruin this game? The path that is being taken, WILL ruin this game.


I would also like to make the pointthat football players don't exist solely for the gratification of fans, they are also people. Yes, you can argue that without the fan, football players wouldn't make a profession out of it. But I would maintain that, like anyone else, their health should be considered.
You just made the point. THey DO exist...as football players...for the gratification of the fans. Without the FOOTBALL fans, there are no football players. No paychecks to play football.

Listen to EVERY football player interviewed...and ask them if they would "do it all over again"...even knowing the dangers they know today. Even knowing the injuries that they have sustained while playing... would they do it all over again? I've NEVER heard one say no. They always say "I absolutely would do it all over again." Because they love the game. They love THE GAME.

BroncoWave
04-10-2013, 05:52 PM
You must really like to hear yourself speak, huh Rav?

Jaded
04-10-2013, 06:21 PM
I didn't say people don't watch violent sports, or that they don't exist. I just said that maybe not every football fan loves the violence that some seem to enjoy. Besides, football is a bigger sport than the ones you name, so clearly there are a large proportion of people who watch football, but not those kinds of sports.

I like seeing big hits, the physical battle of two teams or two men going against each other. Of course it is entertaining and is part of what makes football great. However, when I see a hit that I know is going to cause serious injury? No I don't enjoy that. I don't cheer when I see a huge helmet to helmet collision and two guys end up seriously hurt.

I would also like to make the point that football players don't exist solely for the gratification of fans, they are also people. Yes, you can argue that without the fan, football players wouldn't make a profession out of it. But I would maintain that, like anyone else, their health should be considered.

:golf clap:

Nobody said they wanna see serious injuries.

Btw, their health is considered, by the people that matter.

aulaza
04-10-2013, 06:39 PM
:golf clap:

Nobody said they wanna see serious injuries.

Btw, their health is considered, by the people that matter.

Well if they don't, they have to realise player safety is an issue.

aulaza
04-10-2013, 07:01 PM
Probably not everyone, but considering that football is by FAR the largest of favorite sports in america (NCAA football being #2), a LARGE part of what has made football enjoyable IS the violent collisions and the aggressivness of the sport. Its what makes it different than sports like baseball and basketball. Its OUR version of the gladiators of the collisium.

That doesn't mean to say those hits shouldn't be controlled. What seperates football from the gladiators is the rules. We can have sensible rules to avoid injuries whilst maintaining the integrity of the sport.


NO one likes to see serious injury. Fans of the HARDEST hits and want the violence in the game to be a mainstay, do NOT root for serious injuries that occur. But the reality is, its the sport in its ENTIRETY that is what is feared for because of the rule changes. With the path that is being taken, the sport is goingto completely change to basically a passing league that tries to eliminate the hard hits at all. THAT is what makes the added rule changes to be so adamantly opposed. It's not the parts that are as bothersome as much as the toll its going to take against the whole.

No different than certain law changes. If one isn't careful, and allows the governing body to eliminate ONE constitutional right, then that opens the door to a whole new set of problems. No different here. First there is basically no hitting WRs until they catch the ball..lhaving no threat as to whether they are going to be hit or not, they have no fear of crossing the middle of the field. Thus, as we are seeing, QBs are putting up GIGANTIC numbers on a regular basis. THen you can't hit a QB high...then you can't hit a QB low.... soon, we won't be able to hit the QBs at all. Then where does that lead? Right now, now defensive players can't hit the head of another player. FIrst that was with your own helmet, but we are seeing players get fined for hitting another player with the shoulder pads.

Now with this new rule, a player basically can't curl up when BEING hit. What is next? What is next that the NFL is going to shroud in the cloak of "care" for the NFL player (and they TRULY dont' care for the health of the player) that is going to eventually ruin this game? The path that is being taken, WILL ruin this game.

Well, if they don't want to see them, then they need to recognise player safety as being an issue.

Exactly, its the general direction that people are opposing. Therefore any new rule designed to increase safety is met by the same knee jerk reaction of 'you;re changing our sport' by many. Thats a natural reaction, but Im not sure its always right.

There are a lot of things that annoy me about the rules and the way they are administered. One of the things that annoys me is miniscule hits on QBs getting called and hits like the one on Decker vs Pitt in the wild card game not getting called. There are a lot of things that could change, but this rule I support. I support it because I think it will move us back to leading with the shoulder instead of the head. Youngsters should learn to initiate contact in this way, not by using the helmet.

Ducking into contact to protect oneself is allowed. Its the hits where the helmet is being used as a weapon which will be illegal, according to the law. If the refs start penalising runners for ducking to protect themselves we will have a problem, but as long as they ref it properly we will be fine. It will remain to be seen what happens here, but if it were to have that outcome, then I would agree with you 100%. But as for right now everyone I've heard talking about it has said that won't be the case.

As for hits on the head, I think its perfectly reasonable that players be expected to tackle below the head. I think its perfectly reasonable for players not to be allowed to use the helmet as a weapon. The one thing I would like to see, is principles like these applied more uniformly, rather than giving special treatment to certain positions.


You just made the point. THey DO exist...as football players...for the gratification of the fans. Without the FOOTBALL fans, there are no football players. No paychecks to play football.

Yes, I did say that. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be protected though. These are people like you and me whose sole existence on earth isn't to please us fans. Yes there are risks which they knowingly enter into, but it doesn't mean we shoudln't work to lower the risks whilst maintaing the integrity of the game.

Ultimately, I think everyone would like to see football remain as the game we all love, whilst also seeing less serious injuries to players. I think that can be common ground for everyone. So then its a case of how far we can go whilst maintaining the sport. I believe this rule can do that, obviously others don't, I suppose time will tell. As I said earlier, maybe you will be proved right by the way they judge it. I do want people to acknowledge player safety as an issue though, even if we differ on how the issue should be resolved.

(Sorry about the length)

Joel
04-10-2013, 07:28 PM
Maybe we could just have one sniper in the stands and he gets 3 bullets a game.
Wait, I know this joke; the punchline is "shoot Belicheat thrice." :tongue:

Joel
04-10-2013, 08:24 PM
Thats really interesting. Im a huge rugby fan, but I would say player safety is a WAY bigger issue in football than in Rugby. I love the physicality in both sports, but in football its having consequences that aren't there in Rugby. I wonder if all of the protective equipment (esp. helmets) maybe makes things worse? I don't know its just a thought.

I can think of a couple things why its this way.

1) In football there is an emphasis on forcing fumbles which isn't there is Rugby.
2) Football is more stop start and has set possessions, whereas Rugby is more about constant, repetitive defending with constant tackles being made. It is more fluid.

Just some thoguhts.
The consensus I've always heard is that the protective gear is, ironically, a big part of the problem for two reasons:

1) The hard surfaces deflect force, which shields people behind them at the expense of those in front of them. If you're hit with a helmet, pad, or guard, IT won't give much, so YOU will.
2) The protection encourages players to fly around at speeds and angles they'd NEVER consider in street clothes. Like the old helmet test of ramming head first into brick walls; bare-headed people don't do that.

It may be no more than a zero sum game, at best; the very things designed to decrease injuries encourage behavior that increases them. If football hadn't replaced scrums with the line of scrimmage, it would probably be a lot worse precisely because players so seldom paused to take a breath or count how many teammates were still standing (and in the bad old pre-1905 days that was a big problem.)


That doesn't mean to say those hits shouldn't be controlled. What seperates football from the gladiators is the rules. We can have sensible rules to avoid injuries whilst maintaining the integrity of the sport.
No disagreement there; my objection is the annual rule changes don't—aren't even intended to—increase safety: They're meant to increase PASSING and protect ONLY players involved in it, for the sake of ratings. Perhaps that's reasonable from an ethical perspective: Trading the visceral emotional thrill of watching ones favorite thugs bludgeon opponents into bloody submission for the "enlightened" visceral thrill of watching ones favorite incompetents score lucky wins over opponents by chunking 60 Hail Marys per game and having most caught by the right centerfielder, or refs award a first down ANYWAY when they aren't.

Instead of gladiators presided over by an emperor, we have roulette players presided over by a croupier. Except it's really more like gladiatorial roulette players presided over by an imperial croupier. No, thanks.


One of the things that annoys me is miniscule hits on QBs getting called and hits like the one on Decker vs Pitt in the wild card game not getting called. There are a lot of things that could change, but this rule I support. I support it because I think it will move us back to leading with the shoulder instead of the head. Youngsters should learn to initiate contact in this way, not by using the helmet.
Youngsters should learn intentionally injuring opponents is no substitute for playing well. Unfortunately, some actually ARE coached that way; I know that because I've talked with too many guys who say even in JUNIOR high they had coaches telling causing bruises, bleeding, even broken bones was invaluable intimidation, that deliberately injuring the best opposing players so badly they had to leave the field was "just part of the game." I don't think it was ever the norm, and do think it's becoming less common, but it IS out there, and needs to be unambiguously prohibited.

Yet flagging guys for inadvertently running fingers over the top of a QBs helmet because he makes $10 million/year and his car and pizza commercials air 30 times/game, while letting Pro Bowl defenders kneecap second string receivers because the first is a household name and the second unknown, makes the needed message more rather than less ambiguous. It's no longer "x is right and y is wrong," but "x can do things y can't, because he's more important." That's a pretty awful message to send kids if you think about it: If you're popular/wealthy/important enough you can commit any crime you like against your inferiors.


Ducking into contact to protect oneself is allowed. Its the hits where the helmet is being used as a weapon which will be illegal, according to the law. If the refs start penalising runners for ducking to protect themselves we will have a problem, but as long as they ref it properly we will be fine. It will remain to be seen what happens here, but if it were to have that outcome, then I would agree with you 100%. But as for right now everyone I've heard talking about it has said that won't be the case.
Yeah, and they said they'd flag spearing starting in '79, but STILL don't flag spears on runners, even when held by other players and therefore "defenseless" under THAT new rule. They said they'd only flag hits to the head and neck, not shoulder-to-shoulder, but they flag both—IF a QB or WR is involved; RBs, according to the leagues own execs, are fair game. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe hitting someone with the crown of the helmet for ANY reason is a penalty under the new rule (even thought it was already under the 24 year old spearing ban.) Ducking to avoid contact doesn't change that.


As for hits on the head, I think its perfectly reasonable that players be expected to tackle below the head. I think its perfectly reasonable for players not to be allowed to use the helmet as a weapon. The one thing I would like to see, is principles like these applied more uniformly, rather than giving special treatment to certain positions.
Amen to that. Under the LETTER of the new rule, receivers are bound by it also, but I'm not holding my breath waiting to see if a receiver gets flagged for spearing a LB or safety trying to tackle him.


I do want people to acknowledge player safety as an issue though, even if we differ on how the issue should be resolved.
We resolve it by enforcing the unnecessary roughness, unsportsmanlike conduct and spearing rules that have been on the books for decades, and by suspending players who repeatedly violate them. Those $100,000 fines annoy Pro Bowlers like Harrison the same as speeding tickets annoy the rest of us, because the monetary impact on guys earning millions/year is about the same. However, the only way to stop unrepentant repeat offenders is suspension, whether it be their license to drive or their ability to play the game. When teams start losing games because they're best defenders are in street clothes, they'll start to wonder whether a guy who misses 4 games/year, or 8, is really their "best" defender. And when guys like Harrison start losing $50 million contracts because no one wants to sign a guy who might miss half the year AND eat up capspace, they'll feel that a lot more than a $100,000 fine.


(Sorry about the length)
Yeah, I hate when people do that.... ;)

Jaded
04-12-2013, 12:39 AM
Well if they don't, they have to realise player safety is an issue.
That's very heart warming.

I think that with your help, and with some good old fashioned hard work and determination, I think if we really apply ourselves we could be a completely rehabilitated culture by lunch time tomorrow.

Stay golden Ponyboy.

Joel
04-12-2013, 03:24 AM
That's very heart warming.

I think that with your help, and with some good old fashioned hard work and determination, I think if we really apply ourselves we could be a completely rehabilitated culture by lunch time tomorrow.

Stay golden Ponyboy.
It IS an issue if only because the NFL is making it one, whether for ethical or legal reasons. You know as well as I head-hunting is almost as old as football, and many NFL players and coaches, still do it, though few as brazenly as James Harrison. Bountygate was just last year, and not even the first such case in the modern era; Buddy Ryan did the same thing coaching Philly against Dallas, and didn't even NEED to against a 1-15 team: He's just a vicious SOB who wanted to end Troy Aikmans career before it started and take "vengeance" on a kicker he cut who dared sign with a divisional team. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounty_Bowl

It happens, commonly, if not necessarily often (who knows, since no one will publicly admit doing it, though Harrison comes awfully close.) And it needs to stop, because there's nothing sporting in winning a game by deliberately crippling opponents; that's not football, and the too many who think it is need to be disabused of their abusive notion. The NFL's going about it all wrong targeting means rather than motive, at the expense of play, but doing the wrong thing for the (supposed) right reason makes that reason no less right.