No Fun League @ it again

Seanhawk

New member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
6,819
Reaction score
0
Now people whining in the game day forum about helmet to helmet hits on RBs or on Russell while he's a runner might actually be right for a change. This stinks. They'll probably think they were always right too.
 

HawkGA

New member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
107,412
Reaction score
1
Ejection seems pretty rough. I dunno, lowering a head seems like a potentially natural response in some instances. A QB sneak, for example. Diving forward, for another.
 

Uncle Si

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
20,596
Reaction score
3
college is already doing this.

The NFL knows it needs to save this game and to do that they need to protect their players, even from themselves. These types of rules should quickly lead to a change in the way players go about their tackling, and ideally, lead to changes in how tackling is coached at the younger ages.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,887
Reaction score
1,054
Mixed feelings on this one.

To be honest, more interested in seeing a prohibition on tackling in football before the age of 12.

But after reading about the guy who refused to be inducted into the Montana football HOF because he believes football 'ruined his life', I have mixed emotions about how much I enjoy the game but then gaining a growing awareness that some of these players that I loved - are going to be decimated in later years because of the physical and bruising way they approached the game.

I am most worried about guys like Lynch, Kam and Earl with the amount of hits they dished out over the years. But any player that plays football or played it through college or pros, some part of me worries about now. Football takes a toll and I think some of the blame people dish out about players burning through their money should at least consider that one of the first things that gets impacted is decision-making. So part of the reason some football players seem to make such poor decisions can at least potentially be at least somewhat be the result of the injuries they are sustaining.

So anything that limits the risk? Absolutely.

Do I believe they will screw it up and make a bad call that literally ends up costing teams games? Absolutely.

Is it probably worth it to change even if it makes the game 'less fun' if somehow we limit the amount of former players that are left struggling through the rest of their life with brain injuries? Absolutely.
 

Uncle Si

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
20,596
Reaction score
3
Its a great point TH

Also, there are a number of states that are now doing that with their football programs. While some offer "non tackling" leagues, others are outright banning tackling until a certain age.

Hockey did it with checking years ago and the sport seems to be chugging along
 

IndyHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
7,956
Reaction score
1,594
This pretty much takes out the power runners and full backs..
To think more it will also take out a lot of TE's(Not Jimmy)
 

Osprey

Active member
Joined
Apr 22, 2010
Messages
2,753
Reaction score
7
Location
Camas, WA
Extending it to offensive players was 100% necessary.

In a league where the rules are already stacked in favor of the offense, you can't have receivers dropping their head and folding in half when a defender approaches them in hopes of drawing a penalty. It's both a competitive and safety issue.
 

mistaowen

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,334
Reaction score
606
Hasn't Pete been teaching his players these upcoming changes for the most part, at least on tackling technique?

Not sure I like refs getting the ability to make a game changing ejection on their interpretation of a hit though. College game had some pretty awful ejections.
 

Trrrroy

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
3,304
Reaction score
0
I doubt we notice much of a difference, at least on defence. If this leads multiple penalties a game for incedental contact that's one thing, but my bet is that it will have to be a pretty blatant offence. Defenders should be leading with the shoulder and wrapping up, anyways.

My one concern is how is this rule going to be enforced on offense? How do you go for extra yards without lowering your head? Do they expect these guys to stay upright and get hammered, while also risking more leg injuries?
 

IndyHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2013
Messages
7,956
Reaction score
1,594
Osprey":38615dp4 said:
Extending it to offensive players was 100% necessary.

In a league where the rules are already stacked in favor of the offense, you can't have receivers dropping their head and folding in half when a defender approaches them in hopes of drawing a penalty. It's both a competitive and safety issue.
The Steeler Wr and Atl(Jones)both do this a lot.
 

SoulfishHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
29,412
Reaction score
9,865
Location
Sammamish, WA
Pretty weak really. Just look how many times a lead blocker puts his head down. This is FOOTBALL. Why not just put bubble wrap around the players? :roll:
 

lukerguy

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
2,320
Reaction score
20
This is about the lives of human beings. I'll sacrifice that for no longer being able to enjoy "jacked up", and "fun" if it means a man gets to watch his daughter walk down the aisle.
 

lukerguy

Active member
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
2,320
Reaction score
20
SoulfishHawk":3twnz2gr said:
It's football, guys get hit hard, guys use their heads. It's a risk they CHOOSE to take.

Saying it's their choice lacks so much empathy for their situation.

Not all, but a lot of these guys avoided a very low standard of living and life in criminal neighborhoods because they were given a gift and worked hard to excel above .001% of the population.

Part of the reason some of them even have an education is because it was FREE (because of football).

Now, you actually expect them to CHOOSE not to play because there is a risk they could get a life threatening head injury? No one is or really ever had turned down the fame or the money for the health risk, and you wouldn't either.

So, because it's an impossible decision, let's allow them to live their lives and go the extra step to try to avoid head on head collisions. There's still going to be risks, but let's take the biggest risks out of the equation..

I don't think the NCAA is any worse to watch with the targeting rule implemented,and that's what we're looking at.


thanks for reading.
 

WmHBonney

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 27, 2012
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
999
mistaowen":20zs2dtk said:
Hasn't Pete been teaching his players these upcoming changes for the most part, at least on tackling technique?

Not sure I like refs getting the ability to make a game changing ejection on their interpretation of a hit though. College game had some pretty awful ejections.

This. I too, saw some really bad calls in college. I don't know what the answer is, but this is going to be a damn nightmare.
 

SoulfishHawk

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
29,412
Reaction score
9,865
Location
Sammamish, WA
Yeah, that's me, no empathy :roll:
I just don't want them turning the NFL in to flag football that's all. Watch a replay of any game, and look how often guys put their heads down. Seems like a lot to ask of them to adhere to this rule. But, who knows, maybe it won't be as bas as it sounds. Will be interesting to say the least.
 

naholmes

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
348
Reaction score
0
“leading with the crown of their helmets to initiate contact against an opponent“

It shouldn’t apply to a RB diving for the end zone because they are not initiating contact the defender would be attempting to do that. Yes there’s going to be judgement calls but it’s good to at least have replay to hopefully limit the questionable ejections. They have to do something the problem seemed to get worse last year with some sickening and unnecessary hits (Trevathan’s hit on Davante Adams comes to mind). I don’t find watching guys getting knocked unconscious to be much fun at all.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,887
Reaction score
1,054
Soulfish,

Remember these guys often start their journey into the NFL at the age of 9, maybe 10.

The commitment requires evenings, summers and years. By the time they hit the NFL they probably committed 10 years to this, if not more. My friend had a kid that played safety for the University of Washington. They don't get to pick their classes, and many instances not even their doctor. It is an investment of years to an opportunity few actually can reach.

Now remember that while we knew about concussions, the actual impact and depth of the problem + who it impacts was not clear until maybe the past 5 years. Maybe 3.

I work in technology. If tomorrow computers just stopped working, or I could no longer work in tech? I would be screwed. They kind of face the same issue if you take away football from them.

Consider a kid that devoted that many years taking the single track to star college and hopefully NFL. Then find out that the danger is that large? But what choice does he have?

A lot of these kids do not have other options and it isn't their choice.

Given that, wouldn't you be OK with 'watering down' the game a bit in de-emphasizing the physical aspect to emphasize the athletic instead?

Football was and sometimes still is about the ability to inflict and endure pain/punishment. But I can still get behind a game that is more about fantastic runs, amazing catches, or a tremendous effort batting away the ball. Especially if that means more of them can remember the names of their wives later or don't become violent with family members later. (Read up on what happens to these guys and how it affects their families. Trust me, there is no way they signed up for that and it is ridiculous the NFL hid what it knew for so long)
 
Top