NFL Football, we hardy knew ye

[DanGarion]

Who cares about the rules they aren't my kids out there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

Serious question, do you really feel more manly to type out the word "pussification" when describing a game being played by monstrous men running into each other at full speed only because they can no longer use their helmets to hit each other, or target shoulders into heads, or smack their hands down on QBs heads?

As though this were the only rule change in recent memory?

I'm sorry, but effectively telling a RB he shouldn't lower his head as part of an effort to overpower a would-be tackler might be among the 3-5 dumbest things I've ever heard in the history of sports. That's into the very essence of football afaic, power vs strength.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As though this were the only rule change in recent memory?

I'm sorry, but effectively telling a RB he shouldn't lower his head as part of an effort to overpower a would-be tackler might be among the 3-5 dumbest things I've ever heard in the history of sports. That's into the very essence of football afaic, power vs strength.

We'll have to see how the new rule plays out and how often it's actually called (my guess is it will be almost never), but do you really miss defenders launching themselves head first into receivers? DBs didn't really play like that in the 80s and most of the 90s, were you able to stomach football then?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If the pussification of it continues, quite good.



Honestly? I don't think even a tiny fraction of the current fan population would particularly give a flying fuck beyond "oh how awful ... when's the next game start?"

I disagree completely with Jon on the necessity of these moves, but agree completely with this - the average fun doesn't give a fuck that the athletes are hurt, beyond mild platitudes about "Playing hard."

Listening to message board types talk about pussification (jeez, look at your FOFC thread, where some old out of shape dude talks about so and so lacking guts to go through the middle ) - you're closer to the center of NFL fandom.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I disagree completely with Jon on the necessity of these moves, but agree completely with this - the average fun doesn't give a fuck that the athletes are hurt, beyond mild platitudes about "Playing hard."

I don't think fans care about week-to-week injuries and whether or not Steve Young is forgetful now, but there's also the perception that football killed Junior Seau (and some other former players). Just wait until an ex-football player shoots up a shopping mall. Defense attorneys are already citing CTE as a mitigating factor in sentences for violent crimes (even where the brain hasn't been tested because the guy isn't dead yet - that BU group seems to have concluded that almost all football players have brain damage). Reality or not, it's a strong perception.

[stevew]

They said that it would have been called 11 times in 32 sampled games.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

still the top play on sportscenter

Spoiler

[molson]

If he had time it would have been legal for him to put his head down there.

[molson]

Originally Posted by stevew

They said that it would have been called 11 times in 32 sampled games.

So if players completely ignore and disregard the rule we'll see it called once every 3 games or so. More likely, at least some players will try to restrain themselves so we're probably looking at more like once every 5 or 6 games. The NFL will survive.

[BrianD]

This may be a dumb question, but has "spearing" been taken out of the rule books? I thought the head-first ban had always been there.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think fans care about week-to-week injuries and whether or not Steve Young is forgetful now, but there's also the perception that football killed Junior Seau (and some other former players). Just wait until an ex-football player shoots up a shopping mall. Defense attorneys are already citing CTE as a mitigating factor in sentences for violent crimes (even where the brain hasn't been tested because the guy isn't dead yet - that BU group seems to have concluded that almost all football players have brain damage). Reality or not, it's a strong perception.

Yeah, but how long does that last? Take the Junior Seau stuff - short-term outrage, NY Times editorials, etc etc... and since then ... nothing. Again, I'm on the side that football and the way it treats its players is nothing short of disgusting, but I'm not going to fool myself that the majority of fans care in any sort of "beyond the story of the week" sense. No kid of mine will ever waste his brain playing football, and I'm sure that's true for plenty of kids out here - but then again, I'm not exactly a natural athlete, and the NFL and college football don't lack for participants.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by stevew

They said that it would have been called 11 times in 32 sampled games.

Who is "they"?

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by BrianD

This may be a dumb question, but has "spearing" been taken out of the rule books? I thought the head-first ban had always been there.

I think that spearing is just for defensive players. And yes, (Edit: intentionally) initiating contact with the crown of the helmet has been illegal for defensive players for some time, and I can count on one hand the amount of times I've seen it called.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

We'll have to see how the new rule plays out and how often it's actually called (my guess is it will be almost never), but do you really miss defenders launching themselves head first into receivers? DBs didn't really play like that in the 80s and most of the 90s, were you able to stomach football then?

I've cared steadily less for the NFL for at least a couple of decades. Would require more effort than I'm willing to expend to come up with a specific time frame.

Would also be unfair to limit that declining interest solely to on-field concerns. The salary cap has done as much damage to my interest as anything, I'm consistently rankled by the very concept that players are routinely cut for reasons other than an owner being unwilling to pay them/that or they are simply no longer worth their contract.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by molson

If he had time it would have been legal for him to put his head down there.

point is nary a rule was broken. hell, he didn't even break a proposed rule change (form tackle from the side)

Concussions may be caused by impact forces, in which the head strikes or is struck by something, or impulsive forces, in which the head moves without itself being subject to blunt trauma (for example, when the chest hits something and the head snaps forward)

what set of rules is going to eliminate this?

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

what set of rules is going to eliminate this?

The federal rules of civil procedure are the ones the NFL is worried about. Football, like everything else in life, can never be 100% safe, but refusing to adjust anything about the rules with all the new science we have about the dangers of concussions invites legal problems. And is probably unethical.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I still think a good way to cut down on injuries is to reduce the roster size and make people play both ways. You would no longer get people trained to play only one aspect of the game and rest often. Training would require all-around talent and would slow the game back down. It would also up the endurance needs.

It would also cause some of these players to think twice about doing something dirty on defense if they had to face a similar situation in retaliation on the other side of the ball.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by molson

The federal rules of civil procedure are the ones the NFL is worried about.

holy moly, man. so what are the rules about leading with your head for?

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

holy moly, man. so what are the rules about leading with your head for?

The rule is designed to reduce legal exposure, and secondarily, to reduce the likelihood of an on-field death or paralysis and subsequent negative impact on their business.

I mean, do you just not believe them? Do you just not believe that the NFL's high-priced legal teams have done the research and have scared them half to death with the risks? Do you think the NFL owners are just a bunch of over-protective mother-like figures who just care too much about their beloved players?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by molson

The rule is designed to reduce legal exposure, and secondarily, to reduce the likelihood of an on-field death or paralysis and subsequent negative impact on their business.

lol. because when you're talking about hgh riddled gladiators in body armor hurling themselves at one another it's all about minimizing your legal exposure.

itt: madness

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

lol. because when you're talking about hgh riddled gladiators in body armor hurling themselves at one another it's all about minimizing your legal exposure.

It is. Any industry that has the potential for carnage has to be deeply concerned about legal exposure. Airlines, car manufacturers, drug manufacturers, skydive instructors, public mass transportation authorities, construction companies, prison management - there's dangers in all that stuff and of course, absolutely, those involved in those industries better have plans in place to mitigate damage and legal exposure, even if they can't 100% eliminate the risk. Courts ask, "what could you have done differently?"

[chadritt]

When one lawsuit could cost them tens of millions of dollars, if not a whole heck of a lot more, yeah...its something they have to think about.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I think that spearing is just for defensive players. And yes, (Edit: intentionally) initiating contact with the crown of the helmet has been illegal for defensive players for some time, and I can count on one hand the amount of times I've seen it called.

It is illegal for the offense too. I have seen it called a few times in lower levels, mostly by referees that liked to enforce at least one obscure rule each game.

Rather than making a new rule, why not just make a point of emphasis to use the existing rule?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by molson

Courts ask, "what could you have done differently?"

nothing. our sport as it was designed is inherently dangerous. this has been exacerbated by the evolution of athletes with modern training techniques. as such, we cannot continue to lie to our fans and to ourselves about the reality of our sport. we will seek admission with athletic commissions in the states with teams and going forward wish to be classified along with boxing and mma as a combat sport.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

nothing. our sport as it was designed is inherently dangerous. this has been exacerbated by the evolution of athletes with modern training techniques. as such, we cannot continue to lie to our fans and to ourselves about the reality of our sport. we will seek admission with athletic commissions in the states with teams and going forward wish to be classified along with boxing and mma as a combat sport.

Great...now about that time when you knew things were problematic and just waited for someone to die...

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

nothing. our sport as it was designed is inherently dangerous. this has been exacerbated by the evolution of athletes with modern training techniques. as such, we cannot continue to lie to our fans and to ourselves about the reality of our sport. we will seek admission with athletic commissions in the states with teams and going forward wish to be classified along with boxing and mma as a combat sport.

MMA and boxing have rules promoting safety too. The UFC couldn't get licensed in most states until they were in place. (And once they were put in place, the popularity of the sport exploded, even though I'm sure there were plenty of old-timers who hated that they had to move away from the old days.)

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

this feels like a debate about the economy.

me: it's fucked. own it
you: sure it's fucked. but we might be able to prop it up for 20 more years

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by BrianD

It is illegal for the offense too. I have seen it called a few times in lower levels, mostly by referees that liked to enforce at least one obscure rule each game.

Rather than making a new rule, why not just make a point of emphasis to use the existing rule?

Here's the rule you're talking about, part of 12.2.8 (Unnecessary Roughness) says:

"If a player uses any part of his helmet (including the top/crown and forehead/”hairline” parts) or facemask to butt, spear, or ram an opponent violently or unnecessarily."

Perhaps if Sak is around, he can clear up how that rule is specifically taught for officials. I'm trying to find the exact wording of the new rule, but can't find it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

this feels like a debate about the economy.

me: it's fucked. own it
you: sure it's fucked. but we might be able to prop it up for 20 more years

I don't think it's fucked at all, exactly because the league is smart enough to evolve in ways that impact its business 0%.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

this is pretty much how i feel. it's from grantland

This slow death march could easily take 10 to 15 years. Imagine the timeline. A couple more college players — or worse, high schoolers — commit suicide with autopsies showing CTE. A jury makes a huge award of $20 million to a family. A class-action suit shapes up with real legs, the NFL keeps changing its rules, but it turns out that less than concussion levels of constant head contact still produce CTE. Technological solutions (new helmets, pads) are tried and they fail to solve the problem.

Soon high schools decide it isn't worth it. The Ivy League quits football, then California shuts down its participation, busting up the Pac-12. Then the Big Ten calls it quits, followed by the East Coast schools. ...

[larrymcg421]

We can't do everything, so we should do nothing is always a terrible argument.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

or classify yourself as a combat sport and put the onus of safety on the athletic commission

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

or classify yourself as a combat sport and put the onus of safety on the athletic commission

Why would you rather have the government set your rules than your own competition committee? That's exactly what they'd like to avoid.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

or classify yourself as a combat sport and put the onus of safety on the athletic commission

Is that really something thats as simple as just saying "were a combat sport, were not liable anymore" and then you're ok in every state and on the federal level? That seems like it should be a fairly complicated process for a currently running league.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

is it better to have something or nothing? i'm proposing something. you're proposing a smoldering crater where football used to be

these rules changes are a farce.

[chadritt]

our definitions of "nothing" clearly differ.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

nothing. our sport as it was designed is inherently dangerous. this has been exacerbated by the evolution of athletes with modern training techniques. as such, we cannot continue to lie to our fans and to ourselves about the reality of our sport. we will seek admission with athletic commissions in the states with teams and going forward wish to be classified along with boxing and mma as a combat sport.

The NFL will never allow itself to be governed by state regulatory bodies.

[molson]

Originally Posted by NorvTurnerOverdrive

these rules changes are a farce.

Would you prefer that the NFL not have made these rules changes and we just continued on with the status quo - (helmet to helmet contact everywhere, guys going right back in after concussions), or would you rather play it safe for the preservation of the game and turn over rule authority right now to the government, so that tighter rules can be imposed, because they're doomed otherwise?

Because I thought you were just in the "NFL is wussy, big hits rulz" crowd, but now you seem to be saying that they should go all in on the safety regulations immediately.

[Logan]

Pretty sure this is why Norv Turner couldn't succeed as a head coach.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

the athletic commission/combat sports thing was spitball. i have no idea how to save football. if you think it's gonna be all arm tackles and space age helmets you're a silly person.

football is fucked. i give it even odds goodell lied to congress (knowingly or unknowingly) which will probably come out during the class action (if you've ever seen the 30 for 30 'broke' you know is a matter of when not if) whether that leads or follows the impending legal tsunami remains to be seen

minimizing legal risk? that's nuts. it's like the romans saying, 'what if we de-clawed the lions before tossing them in with the christians?' the fundamental concept of your sport is violence. the lions are still gonna eat the christians and 250 lb men are still going to tackle 250 lb men

[chadritt]

I dont even mean this as reducto de absurdum but then why not just go back to no helmets and no pads. If youre going to try and keep people safe shouldnt you actually try and keep them as safe as you realistically can? Also goalies wearing modern masks is a total pussification of hockey right?

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

won't matter. idk the exact data but i'd wager 95% of concussions in sports are impulsive (brain collides with skull interior) not impactive (skull interior bends/collapses into brain)

virtually all ko's in boxing/mma are impulsive (shot to the jaw, head snaps violently)

the brain is just floating around in jelly up there.

[RendeR]

Class action suits should entirely fail under one simple fact of law:

That participants knew the dangers going into the sport. I don't see how you can blame anyone or claim they are at fault when you willingly sign your kid up and send him off to play a game you KNOW to have this possible outcome.

I don't get how the players got a payoff from the NFL for doing what they WANTED TO DO and demanded HIGH PAY to perform doing. How does that make it the league's fault that you got banged up?

There is no danger to the NFL's existence. Anyone who thinks so is deluding themselves with how much difference any of this is going to make. 50-100 years from now barring some sort of sports revo/evo-lutions the NFL will still be going strong and we'll be discussing some other "new and horrible fact" about being an NFL professional.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

it would help if i read the f'n article. the lawsuit already exists. the outrage is that 'player safety' was never a concern until after it was filed (my bad if this is common knowledge. i blame the a.d.d.)

More than 4,000 ex-players -- one-third of all living retired players -- are suing for billions of dollars on the grounds the NFL "deliberately ignored and actively concealed" information about concussions for decades. The Fitch credit-rating agency recently reported that the lawsuit added uncertainty to the league's future finances.

OTL

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RendeR

50-100 years from now barring some sort of sports revo/evo-lutions the NFL will still be going strong and we'll be discussing some other "new and horrible fact" about being an NFL professional.

You want to hitch your wagon to such time spans? I mean 50 years ago, the Super Bowl hadn't even begun and boxing was a big time sport.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Yeah, but how long does that last? Take the Junior Seau stuff - short-term outrage, NY Times editorials, etc etc... and since then ... nothing

You mean expect for the lawsuit that was filed in January after it was shown Seau had CTE?

I bet if Seau's family wins, it's back all over the newspapers. And there is nothing more that the media loves than bringing down things.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You mean expect for the lawsuit that was filed in January after it was shown Seau had CTE?

I bet if Seau's family wins, it's back all over the newspapers. And there is nothing more that the media loves than bringing down things.

In temrs of the public conversation though? Not really. I hope you're right Imran, but I sincerely doubt it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Class action suits should entirely fail under one simple fact of law:

That participants knew the dangers going into the sport. I don't see how you can blame anyone or claim they are at fault when you willingly sign your kid up and send him off to play a game you KNOW to have this possible outcome.

I don't get how the players got a payoff from the NFL for doing what they WANTED TO DO and demanded HIGH PAY to perform doing. How does that make it the league's fault that you got banged up?

There is no danger to the NFL's existence. Anyone who thinks so is deluding themselves with how much difference any of this is going to make. 50-100 years from now barring some sort of sports revo/evo-lutions the NFL will still be going strong and we'll be discussing some other "new and horrible fact" about being an NFL professional.

It isn't that simple. The lawsuit will be about proper monitoring of concussions, pressure to play before fully healed, lack of interest in research and preventive care, failure to heed warnings about concussions, etc.

A lot of the issues are similar to the Big Tobacco lawsuits.

[RendeR]

No it really IS that simple, and it goes right along with the Big Tobacco shit too.

The players KNOW when they're hurting, they KNOW when something isn't right with thri body. You do not reach that level as an athlete without being intimately aware of your body and how it reacts to injury.

Its the same BS with Tobacco. Why the fuck should anyone pay out billions of dollars because people are stupid enough to suck SMOKE into their LUNGS? They KNEW it was a bad thing to do yet they did it anyway.

I am SO not impressed with giving cash prizes for unabated stupidity.


EDIT: It comes down to being honest with yourself and being responsible for yourself. If you're JR Seau and you make teh decision to go back into a game when your brain is fucked up then you have to live (or die) with that decision. People should not reap benefits because you chose to endanger your own life in that way. The League certainly SHOULD take precautions, but in the end no one other than ourselves can protect us from ourselves. its not their job and should NOT become their job.

[Logan]

I agree with a lot of what you say. But you're talking about what should happen, and that's fine, but the NFL has to deal with the potential reality of what could happen or what would happen if they try to adopt the "you signed up for it, deal with it" defense.