OT: The wussification of the NFL continues

Submitted by SteelCityMafia on

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6586630  <---- Link

 

So in maintaining their non-bias, the NFL adds "the Steeler rule" to the Mel Blount rule, the Hines Ward rule, the Ryan Clark rule, and the James Harrison rule.

Goodell is running amok and is fudging up the lockout situation and seriously needs to be fired.  He's the worst thing to happen to the NFL in a long, long time.  How many years until defenders can't touch QBs at all, and they have flags around their waists? Or until defenders are only allowed to move at half speed?

Seriously, such a joke. This is the NFL, not the Arena League.

EDIT: You can't hit the QB while he's throwing.  Um, what? Combined with the "no hitting the WR until he's in the endzone" rule, how are defenders supposed to do their jobs?

Geaux_Blue

May 25th, 2011 at 2:43 PM ^

are you a professor? then you should up your publication numbers twice over

are you a teacher? 30 point-higher standardized tests for all your students

hell, cut your pay too. you shouldn't complain. that's just the teacher entitlement complex talking.

anything less is just the acceptance of the dumbing down of America's students

/SCMafia argument style

DesHow21

May 25th, 2011 at 1:35 PM ^

try to stop Steelers from enjoying their birth rights:

1. Intentionally try to injure players that are too talented for them to stop otherwise

2. Rape women in Bathrooms.

SteelCityMafia

May 25th, 2011 at 1:39 PM ^

Because

1) that's all they've been known for their entire history, right? Oops.  Sorry they PLAY FOOTBALL and are, you know, physical.

2) Two allegations, one thrown out of court and the other couldn't even make it to court because the evidence was so weak the girl BRAGGED about having consentual relations with BR to her coworkers, = rape.  Did they change the meaning of the word? I may be in trouble if they did, just let me know.

 

Quit being a jealous ass.

BlueBarron

May 25th, 2011 at 1:34 PM ^

Well lets face it, starting NFL quarterbacks in are worth a lot of money. They want to protect the players that are making the big plays. The general public will go to a football game to see Tom Brady play, not the starting left guard. If Brady gets hurt, maybe people don't want to watch as much.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 25th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^

I'm all for the regulation of overly brutal hits to the head, I just want the NFL to figure what the hell they really are.  When Ndamukong Suh shoves Jay Cutler to the turf from behind, that really shouldn't be what they're talking about.

SteelCityMafia

May 25th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^

total B.S.

Look, I'm not condoning intentially injuring people or playing dirty (the Merriweather hit comes to mind), but when you get fined because (1) you block someone and knock them out or (2) hit someone and because they fetal-position it as you're hitting them they get their head knocked in that's a little absurd IMO.

If the NFL wanted to do this right, they'd set up a five-man committe of former players and have them review hits they deemed "questionable".  If the majority thinks they were dirty or unnecissary, then the guy gets a fine (or whatever).

jg2112

May 25th, 2011 at 1:48 PM ^

Eventually, professional football is going to be banned. There is too much evidence that playing the sport leads to too many head injuries, early deaths by way of memory loss, depression and suicide.

Either that, or the sport is going to lose its talent base. It's already happening - youth football participation is down significantly in the past ten years, while there is a corresponding explosion in participation in youth soccer and lacrosse, sports that don't run the high risk of brain trauma as does football.

jmblue

May 25th, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^

I don't think it'll ever go that far.  Football is just too popular.  I do, however, suspect that the oversized helmets with external padding will make a return, and eventually become mandatory.  It really makes no sense for helmets to have a hard outer shell.  You can have plastic in the middle, but the outside (the point of impact) should be foam rubber.

GoBlueInNYC

May 25th, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^

I remember reading a really good NYTimes article a while ago about football helmet technology (I think it was this one, but I'm positive). The gist was that helmets are designed to prevent skull fractures, not to protect against concussions. Just like jmblue said, the hard shell prevents fractures, but padding is what prevents concussions, and helmet companies haven't been able to figure out a way to keep the hard shell and add enough padding to protect against conscussions without creating giant, unreasonably heavy helmets.

This also gets at the "false sense of security" issue people bring up (usually in reference to the terrible idea of doing away with helmets all together). Players assume they are protected because they are wearing helmets, when in reality helmets offer a very specific form of protection that doesn't actually address the issue of concussions.

jmblue

May 25th, 2011 at 11:14 PM ^

I think external padding would help some.  The key is that the force of impact would be lessened, and more distributed, if the object had a softer external surface, so the player's head wouldn't be jerked around quite as much.  This might not be sufficient to protect the brain after those violent flying head-to-head collisions, but I believe it would after the more routine ones, like what offensive and defensive linemen have all the time - and those are just as bad from a long-term standpoint.  

Another possibility would be helmets that were solely composed of padding, like what some rugby players wear but maybe a little more protective.  With no plastic shell, no one would think of using his head as a weapon.

Jinxed

May 26th, 2011 at 3:19 PM ^

Padding increases the collision time, which in turn decreases the force acting on the player's head. This is basic physics man... think air bag.

A good example would be two carts with no breaks. One of them is stoped by an elastic band and the other one is stopped by a brick wall. Which one do you think is going to sustain the greater ammount of force? In the end, both cars stop, but the collision time for the car with the elastic break was much longer.

GoBlueInNYC

May 26th, 2011 at 3:21 PM ^

Regarding the argument that football would be substantially safer if there were no helments, keep in mind that helmets were introduced for a reason. And they are designed to prevent skull fractures for a reason. As per that NYTimes article I linked above, "more than 100 high school and college football players in the 1960s were killed by skull fractures and acute brain bleeding." Getting rid of helmets might make players play safer, but it would also (however slightly) increase the risk of potentially mortal injury.

jg2112

May 25th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^

Boxing used to be extremely popular, until people got to watch Muhammad Ali de-compose before our very eyes.

Pro wrestling's popularity has decreased in recent years for a number of reasons, but the recurring deaths of those wrestlers who were popular in the 1980s is not helping the "sport."

And......as the father of a 4-year-old son, I know I'm not alone in saying that I will not permit my son to play a sport that runs an unreasonable risk of causing him future memory loss or an early death, if another suitable alternative (baseball, soccer, lacrosse) is readily available.

wolverine1987

May 25th, 2011 at 5:20 PM ^

with with seeing Ali or anyone else with brain issues. It's because the best athletes don't go into the sport anymore and it's less entertaining. If you had someone with Ali's charisma in the sport now, he would be huge.

Wrestling isn't a real sport, but to play along, it's decline is the same--a lack of charismatic athletes. Watch a few youtube clips of The Rock, Austin, Savage and those guys, and then try and watch wrestling now--yawn.

And your choice for your son is your own, and I wouldn't argue it. You have the ability to do what you see as best. But some feel that the NFL is making that decision for it's players, instead of letting the players make that decision themselves. And as adults. they should have that right, while a four year old should not.

 

yoopergoblue

May 25th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^

Wow, are you arrogant about your team or what?  The Steelers didn't invent physical play in football.  They are just the ones who bitch and moan the most when they get a penalty for it.  I do agree though that the league has taken it too far the fast few years in the fines and suspension department.

JohnnyV123

May 25th, 2011 at 1:51 PM ^

With the Suh hit they just decided even though it wasn't illegal it looked too hard so penalty!

It seems like the NFL is trying to get to the point where they say "If a player looks like he's going to catch the ball, an opposing tackler must first refrain from breaking it up and allow them to completely catch the ball and get two feet down in bounds before trying to tackle the player"

There is a limit where these rules can ruin the game. I'm all for player protection and James Harrison definitely deserved some of his fines last year but I'm very worried they are going to go too far with it or make it too tough on the refs to judge fairly. Make flagrant hits reviewable or something if there's any doubt.

GoBlueInNYC

May 25th, 2011 at 1:56 PM ^

As far as I can tell this rule isn't actually changing how the game is played, is it? It looks like all the NFL has done is say that they will start considering punishing franchises that are repeat offenders, it doesn't actually change the rules on the field.

Personally, I'm all for increasing safety in the league. With increased awareness of the head trauma these guys experience, more and more stories about what happens to them after they leave the league are coming out and are depressing and horrifying. And there's no reason that increased safety ruins the sport. Players could try tackling again, rather than just trying to lay massive hits on other players.

gbdub

May 25th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^

The receiver has to gather the ball before he can be hit in the head or neck. All it does is add receiver in the process of making a catch to the list of "defenseless players", so you can't launch yourself at his head. You can hit him in the chest, wrap him up, or whack his arms all you want.

SteelCityMafia

May 25th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^

Anyone who doesn't think these Goodell rules are a good idea are getting negged and tagged as "trolling" or "flamebait".

 

Thanks for having a discussion, guys.  Neg anyone who you don't agree with.  Awesome.

Action

May 25th, 2011 at 2:11 PM ^

SteelCity, you are making this too personal about your team, and I think that is the issue for most people.

The NFL has a concussion problem and has to do something about these hits.  This issue is not going to go away and the NFL was going to have a huge issue with the government if they didn't start to at least look like they were trying to prevent it.

The concussion problem is a real issue and needs to be addressed.

ThWard

May 25th, 2011 at 2:15 PM ^

That posters don't get negged for disagreement, they get negged for disagreeing in a dickish way, SteelCity, or for framing reasonable dispute in extreme ways (i.e., it's not protecting playe safety, it's "wussification").

And you're against these regulations, but you'd be for a 5 man board to review all hits?  So this is an executive authority v. bureaucracy issue in your eyes?

ESNY

May 25th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^

Congrats, you have entered the extreme biased pantheon.   Besides attacking a reasonable change for safety purposes that shouldn't really impact  the game (so you really need to launch yourself head first at a player and hit them with your helmet), you are defending that rapist because he bought off his accusers?   Pathetic.

You are right up there with Tennessee fans who think it was a media conspiracy to steal the Heisman from Manning and the OSU fans who say the tat5 did nothing wrong because THEY SOLD THEIR OWN PERSONAL ITEMS

You should correct your post to "Anyone who is so blatantly biased that it is clouding his judgement are getting negged and tagged as trolling or flamebait". 

SteelCityMafia

May 25th, 2011 at 7:23 PM ^

I said I liked Roethlisberger or supported him? Innocent until guilty.  The first instance was shady (from the female) at best.  The second instance was a cluster-mess.

But, again, keep thinking that because I root for Pittsburgh I slob on the knob of anyone who wears a uniform.

mdm87

May 25th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^

Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell all they did was ban all hits to the head and neck. Are people really crying over the fact that a defender can't hit a defenseless player in the head? This rule had pretty much already been in place, they just updated the definition of defenseless player.

"Defenseless players cannot be hit in the head or neck area with the helmet, face mask, forearm or shoulder. The definition of such players now includes those throwing a pass; attempting or completing a catch without having time to ward off or avoid contact; a runner whose forward progress has been stopped by a tackler; kickoff or punt returners while the ball is in the air; kickers or punters during a kick or a return; a quarterback during a change of possession; a player who receives a blindside block from a blocker moving toward his own end zone.

Penalized players are subject to being ejected for flagrant fouls.

Also, hits to the head of a passer that are not considered "forcible" blows will not be penalized."

If you can't play football without launching your head and/or shoulder into someone else's head, then you probably shouldn't be playing in the first place.

 

M-Wolverine

May 25th, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^

It's that if you do that, MULTIPLE TIMES, and you can't seem to stop your players from doing it after they've been warned, fined, punished, then they'll fine the organization that coaches things that way. If anything, players should be happy, because they're not heaping all the responsibility on their shoulders, and they protecting them from coaches/teams that say "oh, well, he should have been fined for that hit" but behind closed doors are saying "hey, knock that MFer OUT! you...wuss".

chitownblue2

May 25th, 2011 at 3:06 PM ^

SteelCity represents one of my favorite types of internet poster: they guys that post like they're bringing a STRONG TAKE on the Jim Rome show.

BRCE

May 25th, 2011 at 4:08 PM ^

GREAT call on saying Goodell needs to be fired. Between his imitation of McGruff the Crime Dog, his lack of candor during the lockout and now him continuing to add, not reduce at the clear preference of fans, wussification rules, I would venture to say he is the worst commissioner in any sport I have ever seen. Not worse than David Stern-bad, which represents greed and dishonesty. He's just incompetent in addition to being a dick.

As a Lions fan, this really infuriates me. Suh and Fairley are going to wreak havoc but the league may not let them. Suh has already been flagged a few times for essentially being too strong, doing something totally legal but that they refs thought it looked "unnatural."

Needs

May 25th, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^

1. Bettman?

2. I think the end of your post got cut off. I think it should read: "Suh has already been flagged a few times for essentially being too strong, doing something totally legal but that they refs thought it looked 'unnatural.' And Fairley ... um, er ... yeah, that guy's just dirty."

GoBlueInNYC

May 25th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^

I'm a fan and I support rules that protect players from totally unnecessary and completely avoidable traumatic head injuries. So don't go generalizing there too much, guy.

Plus, you seem to make an equivalency that dangerous = somehow "real" (i.e., non-wussy) football. I disagree. If anything, I would say that launching yourself head-first into another player's head is not "real" football, and is in fact needless dangerous and sloppy play. As a fan, I'd love to see defenders start tackling again.

BRCE

May 25th, 2011 at 5:21 PM ^

This isn't about helment-to-helmet hits.

This is about making rules against guys who merely hit too hard. Suh's takedown on Cutler is the best example of this. There is NOTHING in the rulebook against what he did, yet he was penalized and fined for something because its apperance was too rough.