Anybody down for some two-hand touch?
OT: The wussification of the NFL continues
PICK ME! PICK ME!
If that's not a Carnac punch line, then it certainly should have been. My favorite that I can recall:
It's a football question, and the answer is "Touchback". <Carnac opens the envelope and reads the question> What should you do if a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader touches you?
The NFL has a serious concussion problem, and it needs to do something to get players to stop launching at each other helmets-first.
If I don't want to get washed overboard and freeze/drown in the Bering Sea, I won't get on a crab boat.
If I don't want to die in a fiery plane crash, I won't be a pilot.
If I don't want my body to be beat to hell and suffer brain damage, I won't play in the NFL.
It's pretty simple. If you don't want to get your skull smashed in, don't play.
No 22 year old thinks he's going to be an 80 year old man when he's 40, especially when he's one of the greatest athletes on the planet.
Not all paternalism is bad.
If they don't believe it or don't consider it before hand is their fault... Would you walk in to a job potentially dangerous workplace and take a job without considering the risks? They are legal adults and should be accountable to make their own decisions.
because 90% of people think they're above-average drivers and don't properly weigh the risk of getting into a serious accident.
I don't see how this is any different. The NFL is implementing stringent rules to prevent concussions because NFL players aren't properly weighing the risks that they'll end up like Fred McNeill. How is that a bad thing? If hitting people so hard that their brains bruise is an important part of the NFL, then we seriously need to rethink what the NFL is.
crab fishing, mining, military life, airplanes, etc because they're dangerous professions?
pilots, the airline industry, mining companies, and, I'm guessing, crab fishing boats to ensure safety. I don't want to get into the politics surrounding the proper amount of regulation in any given industry, but I think most people would agree that some regulations are appropriate in many professions to protect worker safety. The NFL is now drawing that line at "don't do things that are incredibly likely to cause someone else to get a concussion." I think that's totally reasonable.
To add there doesn't need to be a whiff of politics here either, the NFL is making a business decision. They don't want to become boxing. For all those who consider trying to protect players from concussions "wussification", would you let your son play a sport a sport that probably will shorten their life and seriously effect maintain proper mental welfare leading to things like serious depression or early alzhiemer's? I love football and I always thought I would watch my future son would play, now that he is here I have serious reservations about letting him play the sport. Millions of parents are having those same reservations about the sport as more and more is studied and written about the topic. This is a major dilemma for the NFL, if middle and upper class kids stop playing football then football will eventually lose its perch as the most popular American sport.
So when the military implemented rules regarding a requirement for helmets with better impact testing, or when it instituted more safety rules on a rifle rage, does that mean it was "wussifying?" The prevention of traumatic brain injuries in people who live to entertain us is more important than our uproar about how we can't grunt and eat red meat with our bare hands while saying manly things.
all of the things you listed are service industries for essential goods while football is entertainment. totally apples to apples comparison, well done.
I love it when very cerebral points get rated as "flamebait" simply because they destroy a faulty argument. Unfortunately, my "insightful" rating didn't counteract the ignorance.
Obviously, the argument is ridiculous. If I get carpal tunnel from typing on my computer all day at work, does that mean I have consented to the risk and thus should not be treated specially for the injury? If that was true, there would be no workers compensation for anyone except in extreme circumstances. Its funny that this argument is coming from a poster who appears to be from PA, one of the fathers of current workers compensation legislation.
And if you can't or don't want the risk in whatever job it is, don't take the job. It's very simple. We're all adults, we live in a free society, and if you don't want X happening to you because of said job, either don't take the position or retire early. Very simple.
" if you can't or don't want the risk in whatever job it is, don't take the job"
This is about reducing the risk of the job. Every job carries inherent risks; those risks that are absolute musts. Head-to-head contact is not a necessary component of football. Being speared in the neck is not a necessary component.
Hits altogether are being removed. You cannot hit someone while they're throwing or catching a ball. How is that football? You're playing gym-class flag ball at that point. May as well play offense-only or 7-on-7.
Defenseless players cannot be hit in the head or neck area with the helmet, face mask, forearm or shoulder.
You can still hit them in the chest, back, legs, etc.
Live stupid, die young, leave a decrepit corpse.
I actually do, I think we should seriously consider outlawing being an airplane as a profession.
Actually the airline industry has one of the best safety records of any industry. You are much safer in an airplane than a car. As for the other professions, I mostly defer to the comments above, but would like to add that for the most part those professions are much more important than professional football.
And seatbelt laws (except as applied to those under 18) are an insult and should be abolished everywhere.
Howeva, I think the NFL is different, and generally speaking trying to protect the athletes is admirable on their part. But the bottom line is, at some point guys still are going to get seriously hurt, and where do you draw the line?
I have no issue with penalizing hits that appear to have the intent of injuring an opposing player, I am wondering about where you draw the line. There is a psychological aspect of laying the wood, so to speak, on a ball carrier, or driving EXTRA hard to pancake a defensive lineman. You cannot rule out legitimate hard hits. The issue is the line between what constitutes a fair and an illegal hit is getting (and will contiue to get) blurrier and will hurt the game.
As long as there are collisions people will inevitably sustain injuries, period. Curbing dirty play can help, but ultimately I think it will come down to helmet technology, better understanding concussions (including recent research that suggests its the "glancing blows" that typically cause them), and truly getting team doctors/coaches/players on board with properly treating head injuries and letting them heal.
Hard hits don't have to be hits to the head, which are the plays most people are concerned about. The league doesn't have any rules against hard hits, but using your helmet to blast another player in the head should be illegal.
[NOTE: I am aware of the BS penalties against Suh last season, those should not have been called, and were tough clean plays.]
I agree that helmet to helmet hits should be avoided and discouraged, but aren't altogether avoidable. I think specifically coaching against that would drastically help. I am sure no coach ever teaches leading with your head into another player's head, but I would imagine tackling at that level is so instinctual it will take time, effort, and practice to re-learn proper technique for some.
If they don't believe it or don't consider it before hand is their fault... Would you walk in to a job potentially dangerous workplace and take a job without considering the risks? They are legal adults and should be accountable to make their own decisions.
You probably don't come from a place where you only have two options: ball or bang.
Maybe I'm confused, but I thought "ball" and "bang" meant the same thing.
Banging is selling.
For the most part everybody wants to get out. There are basically two ways. Bang or ball, and if you're a baller and you keep your muth shut you won't have to deal with too much shit.
If you can get out because you are a baller nobody will really fuck with you because they want to be able to say "Hey, I grew up with Telfair (whoever)." And if you can get out because you can ball everybody knows who you are.
That might not be how it used to be, but for the most part that's how it goes now.
While this is doubtlessly true for some, I'd hesitate in saying it's true for even a majority of NFL players.
You can think whatever you want. I doubt you've lived it.
The life of every player in the NFL? No, I have not.
We can agree that Santonio Holmes and Eli Manning likely had different backgrounds without getting into dick-measuring contests over who had a harder-luck upbringing, however.
You're not honestly trying to say that "most" players in the NFL came from a household like the Manning household are you?
Edit: I believe you used the word "majority" which in my mind is synonymous with "most," but I know how you are a stickler for accuracy and all. HALOL.
It's an example. I'm just saying that I'm sure a large number of NFL players were not faced with the "deal drugs or play basketball/football" dilemma you're painting.
I'm sure Matt Stafford didn't. I'm sure that Jahvid Best, from a suburb of San Fran didn't. I'm even sure that Megatron, from small-town Georgia probably didn't.
I'm just saying that while I'm sure a number of guys grew up in the situation you describe, I don't think that the dilemma you described explains why a huge number of these guys are playing.
And you ended up graduating from Michigan, not banging, I don't think you can say you've lived it either.
I was just trying to make a joke about how both "balling" and "banging" are slang terms for having sexual intercourse.
I may be a middle class white guy, but even I know the immortal words of Biggums Smallsberg (aka Biggie Smalls), "either you're slingin' crack rock or you got a wicked jump shot." (Things Done Changed). Different sport, I know, but same sentiment.
since you are (I'm sure) wiser than these players you are tyying to protect.
The League they're all a part of is. Which in turn, also probably knows more than you or I.
Same idea as protecting the QB...The league (as is the case with all sports leagues) is dependent on the talent playing...if it becomes too dangerous and your top players can't take the field, how will the product look?
and probably THE point. Most of us can remember feeling immortal, indestructible and perhaps oblivious. While I don't personally know anyone who played professional football, a friend's brother was an all pro for several years and for the past twenty years (he is now about 70) could barely walk. These guys get the living daylights knocked out of them, and I hope the union does manage to get lifetime health benefits for everyone who plays the game.
are different than the issue at hand. Which is, where do you draw the line(s) between player protections, keeping the (let's face it) violent appeal of the game intact, and making a decision that these guys are aware of the risks, and are responsible, in the end, for their own future welfare.
that they're not properly assessing the risks. Optimism bias is a real, powerful thing, and humans are fucking terrible at assessing risk.
that are more qualified to assess the risks? Oh, the people who are in charge, or who want to be. I see. As for me, I think that Goodell and others that would put their judgements above the guys that play the game are just as prone to bias or mistakes.
Goodell is certainly capable of making mistakes, but if he makes a mistake here it's in the direction of being too careful, which is probably better for player welfare than being mistaken in the direction of being too reckless.
it is beside my point. Which is why does someone in charge have more responsibility for my safety, and have the right to dictate how "safe" I am, than I do? This is why I hate seat belt laws (which I personally follow, FWIW). If I want to be reckless (in another oerson's opinion) with my safety, that is my right, not the right of an unelected wise man who can decide what is good for me, since I may have "positive bias" and not know what actually is best for me.
I actually have less of a problem with the NFL than with a seatbelt law however. In the NFL, they are trying to restrict someone else doing something that may harm me. With a seatbelt law, if I don't wear one no one is hurt but me.
...but multpile concussions don't have to be mandatory for NFL players. I think I would rather see them play with no helmets, no spikes, and no pads. Padding and helmets reduce immediate pain, but all of that force has to go somewhere, so it goes into the body. Let people get immediate feedback that it hurts when they run into someone at full speed, so that they aren't as likely to do it that way in the future.
Football can still be plenty tough without causing an average lifespan under 50 years old..
is people who wouldn't last one moderate hit in the NFL bitching about the wussification of a sport that leads to serious/major/deadly injuries yearly
I am not a trained athlete. I haven't played in the NFL and trained for that PROFESSIONAL CAREER, so because I can't do the things these people do I can't have an opinion on it?
OK, guess I can only have an opinion on English, History, and Teaching. If I ever see someone complain about or have an opinion on something they don't do as a profession or job then I guess I'll have to report them.
He is not saying you can't have an opinion. It seems he thinks your opinion is unreasonable, ill-informed, or just stupid.
These guys are taking powerful hits at speeds beyond normal levels. Football commands so much money that these guys are trained to be brutal warriors. There is a reason NFL offensive linemen have much shorter life-spans than non-NFL individuals. The sport is tough. The evolution of the game has led to more physical play that needs to be curtailed. For example, hockey: players and goalies didn't used to wear helmets because the game was slower, less physical, and less complicated. Imagine not wearing a helmet now. I read an article on the effects of blows to the head on football players (it was either Newsweek or National Geographic) that was really interesting just the amount of dangerous hits to the head players take (I believe it was a college player they were monitoring).
The Steelers play tough, but that can be dirty. Also, BR is a pig and regardless of the dismissal, he still could have raped the girl. Those "he v. she said" cases are difficult to bring to court, especially when one's bodyguard refuses to allow her friends to join her in the bathroom.
perhaps i could make an analogy.
"Use of starving, pissed off lions adds to the wussification of gladiatorial combat!"
slake your blood lust elsewhere, football has a lot more going for it than dudes crushing each other.
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
Something tells me that if this rule were about, say, the Ravens tactics, "Steel City Mafia" wouldn't be bitching about it.
Goodell and DB are two people I'd like to see replaced.
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.
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.
Yes, we are all jealous that unlike Rothlisberger we are unable to rape girls with impunity and to have off-duty cops act as lookouts/accomplices
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.
How did that theory turn out in 2008? Please advice.
ever to still miss out on a playoff spot. That's how that worked out.
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.
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).
Well, the committee seems like a great thing except the votes would entirely go along positional lines.
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.
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.
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.
Padding doesn't prevent the brain from bouncing off the inside of the skull. The energy of the hit has to go somewhere.
Strangely enough, football would probably be substantially safer if players didn't wear helmets.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'll be sure to catch the start of the next soccer season.
because I root for the Steelers and hate soccer I'm terrible? Good to know.
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.
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.
(or earlier addition this offseason, I'm not entirely sure) where the pass reciever now is required to catch the ball and gather himself before he can be hit. I mean...it's flag football.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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".
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.
I think you're confusing "anyone who doesn't think these Goodell rules are a good idea" with "SteelCityMafia."
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".
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.
You want to get rid of the concussions? Stop making the helmet into a weapon.
that if you wanted to eliminate most of these hits, just go back to leather helmets. No one (or the vast majority anyway) would launch a soft leather helmet at a guy. In rugby they hit very hard, but with their shoulders.
as the wussification of U4 girls' soccer. Let 'em slide tackle, for Christ's sake!
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."
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.
Are you arguing about Goodell's rule, or that Suh once got flagged for a penalty he shouldn't have?
Nobody is talking about one of these things other than you.
FWIW, it IS about Head-to-Head hits. The definition of the hits they count (per the article):
"Defenseless players cannot be hit in the head or neck area with the helmet, face mask, forearm or shoulder."
IE: don't hit anyone in the head.
It absolutely is about helmet to helmet hits. The NFL's newest rule simply states that franchises can be fined if their players are repeat offenders when it comes to illegal hits against defenseless players (e.g., helmet to helmet hits).
The call against Suh was a bad call, specifically because it's not illegal according to the rules. Terrible officiating is a different topic than the leagure instituting a new rule that tries to minimize dangerous plays.
Football was wussified long ago when they took out head slaps, forearm shivers, clotheslines, and tackling with the facemask.
Congratulations! You win the "Stupidest MGoArgument" of the day award!
You know it's a painful off season when "Stupidest MGoArgument" can be awarded daily.
It becomes an hourly thing.
Where it ends up a minute by minute award.
(And keep posting. Everyone is losing points so fast, I'm getting dangerously close to the top).
I hear Cobra Kai is looking for a new Sensei.