Frontline: League of Denial


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby bambam » Sun Oct 20, 2013 8:35 am

Dixon wrote:How many HS footballers have fathers in their 50's?


I don't think its that unusual. 18 yo high school player - if his father had the son when he was 32 that would be 50 yo. And it can be much higher. My Dad was 39 when I was born, so he was 56 when I graduated high school (I graduated at 17) - and there are older examples than that.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Daisy » Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:55 am

Dutra5 wrote: In my case, we had our children later than most.

I'll be 50 when my eldest starts high school. I look around at the other parents and I do not feel old.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby gh » Sun Oct 20, 2013 4:43 pm

wow-wow-wow..... have now watched the whole thing, and if this doesn't win some major award(s), all is not well on the planet.

I knew Pete Rozelle's empire turned sour at some point, but the amount of spin-doctoring (not to mention doctors with horrendous conflicts of interest displaying a stunning lack of ethics) that is revealed here makes it hard for me to remain a fan.

And what's truly scary is the suggestions of how ugly sub-conconcussive hits might be.

What a brilliantly cogent speaker Harry Carson is; not just another thug on the line (well, I guess he was, but he's so much more than that).

This could be the most informative 2-hours I've ever spent in my life.
gh
 
Posts: 46321
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dutra5 » Sun Oct 20, 2013 8:51 pm

gh wrote:
What a brilliantly cogent speaker Harry Carson is; not just another thug on the line (well, I guess he was, but he's so much more than that).



Growing up in NYC and a Giant fan during that period, Carson was an interesting dichotomy....if that's the right word....in that he was relatively soft spoken, introspective and played the position generally reserved for the meanest guy out there and played it at a HOF level.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 20, 2013 9:39 pm

gh wrote:What a brilliantly cogent speaker Harry Carson is; not just another thug on the line (well, I guess he was, but he's so much more than that).

I felt the same way about Carson. He was by far the must credible and thoughtful person in the whole Documentary IMO. When you have a Hall of Fame, Super Bowl Champion middle linebacker saying the things he's saying, you know the NFL has a problem. FYI, here's something I found from a 2001 Sports Illustrated article on Carson:

By his own count he suffered at least 15 concussions while playing pro football, from 1976 to '88, and he is afflicted by what Yaras-Davis, of the NFLPA, believes is one of the most common and troublesome maladies among former players: postconcussion syndrome, which is marked by headaches, forgetfulness, blurred vision and difficulty tracking mentally. . . . .

Carson had his share of other injuries, but none quite as stunning as the concussion he suffered in 1985 when he crashed head-on into his favorite opponent, Redskins fullback John Riggins. "It was pretty much my power against his power," Carson says. "I remember hitting John and going back to the huddle...everything faded to black. I was literally out on my feet."

Carson would find that such blows had long-term effects. In 1991, three years after he retired, he wrote in his journal, "I don't think as clearly as I used to. Nor is my speech, diction, selection of vocabulary as good as it used to be, and I don't know why." As a TV broadcaster with the MSG Network in New York City, he would occasionally misspeak. "I would mispronounce words and lose my train of thought," he says. "Things would happen, and I'd think I was going crazy. I'd go to the store to get something and forget what."

Like Yaras-Davis, Carson believes the syndrome is far more common than is generally thought. "One problem is that a lot of players who suffer from it have no clue what they're dealing with," says Carson, who still appears on a weekly show, Giants GamePlan, for MSG. "I've talked to players I've played with and against. Once I went public with this concussion thing, they were looking at me as being sort of brain-damaged, drooling and all this stuff. But it is an injury just like one to your knee or hip."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm

Here's the link to the video and transcript of the extended PBS interview with Carson:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ry-carson/

Dixon, I'm sure that you're familiar with Carson, a former HBCU legend. What do you think about the things he's saying?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby bambam » Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:29 am

gh wrote:What a brilliantly cogent speaker Harry Carson is; not just another thug on the line (well, I guess he was, but he's so much more than that).


Agree completely - did not know much about him but came away with the same feeling.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby bambam » Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:30 am

gh wrote:wow-wow-wow..... have now watched the whole thing, and if this doesn't win some major award(s), all is not well on the planet.


You should read the book, too. I read the book right after seeing the documentary. The documentary actually follows the book relatively closely but there is a lot more in there.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby bambam » Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:37 am

gh wrote:I knew Pete Rozelle's empire turned sour at some point, but the amount of spin-doctoring (not to mention doctors with horrendous conflicts of interest displaying a stunning lack of ethics) that is revealed here makes it hard for me to remain a fan.


The whole issue of a team doctor and team sports injuries is a very complex ethical study, which has been examined in several journal articles (notably Amer J Sports Medicine). And I say this while noting I am friends with at least 20-30 team doctors for the 4 major American sports, and numerous others covering D1 college teams, most of whom realize the conflicts at hand.

On the one hand, the team doctor must take care of the patient primarily. On the other hand, he is actually employed (somewhat) by the team, which brings up the conflict of interest. This is also true of worker's compensation injuries in general. The doctor takes care of the patient, but actually answers to the worker's compensation insurance carrier. I actually can not do anything with a worker's comp patient, unless it is approved first by the insurance carrier - in this case, the patient and I do not make the decision.

The other dirty little secret is that all NFL and USA team sports injuries qualify as worker's compensation injuries, which further complicates matters. What is not known is that these multi-millionaires do not pay their doctors exorbitant fees for their services, but the doctors are actually reimbursed at worker's comp rates, which can be very low (e.g., Pennsylvania), or very high (e.g., Illinois).
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby bushop » Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:03 pm

Pego wrote:My 2¢ worth. To markedly reduce head injuries, football (at all levels) needs to do two things.

1. Outlaw all hits to head (I don't care about cries of "softening" the game - it is quite violent by its very nature).

2. Redesign the helmet to offer more protection without being a weapon.

... add - No cheated shoes.
bushop
 
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: near the toys and tape measures

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dixon » Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:10 pm

jazz

It doesn't mater what Carson said, it's all about do you want to play football or not. Injuries/a condition won't stand in the way if somebody really wants to play. Just ask a boxer about brain damage and why he's still fighting.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:52 pm

Dixon wrote:jazz

It doesn't mater what Carson said, it's all about do you want to play football or not. Injuries/a condition won't stand in the way if somebody really wants to play. Just ask a boxer about brain damage and why he's still fighting.


As was mentioned earlier, folks always knew that boxers were doing long-term damage to their brains, but up until recently, folks didn't know that football players were also doing this, and that changes everything. Do you think the NFL owners just agreed to give over 3 quarters of a billion dollars to former players out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you think that Roger Goodell is wussifying the game with never-ending rule changes because he always hated seeing guys like Ronnie Lott, Jack Tatum and Dick Butkus blow people up?

Anyway, today, another retired player weighed in with his concerns about the effect that all his concussions are beginning to have on him.

Brett Favre dismissed the possibility of returning to the NFL with St. Louis, and Rams coach Jeff Fisher declined to address reports he tried to lure the quarterback out of retirement to replace the injured Sam Bradford.

Favre told Washington sports station WSPZ-AM he doesn't feel physically able to compete and expressed fear that he has been affected by concussions.

"It's flattering, but you know there's no way I'm going to do that," Favre said.

Fisher changed the subject after practice, then said "Nice try" when asked whether the 44-year-old Favre could be ready to play. Bradford is out for the season with a knee injury.

"I don't remember my daughter playing soccer, playing youth soccer, one summer," Favre told WSPZ. "I don't remember that. I got a pretty good memory, and I have a tendency like we all do to say, 'Where are my glasses?' and they're on your head. This was pretty shocking to me that I couldn't remember my daughter playing youth soccer, just one summer, I think. I remember her playing basketball, I remember her playing volleyball, so I kind of think maybe she only played a game or two. I think she played eight. So that's a little bit scary to me. For the first time in 44 years, that put a little fear in me. ...

"I think after 20 years, God only knows the toll."

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=9300265
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dixon » Sat Oct 26, 2013 1:30 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Dixon wrote:jazz

It doesn't mater what Carson said, it's all about do you want to play football or not. Injuries/a condition won't stand in the way if somebody really wants to play. Just ask a boxer about brain damage and why he's still fighting.


As was mentioned earlier, folks always knew that boxers were doing long-term damage to their brains, but up until recently, folks didn't know that football players were also doing this, and that changes everything. Do you think the NFL owners just agreed to give over 3 quarters of a billion dollars to former players out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you think that Roger Goodell is wussifying the game with never-ending rule changes because he always hated seeing guys like Ronnie Lott, Jack Tatum and Dick Butkus blow people up?

Anyway, today, another retired player weighed in with his concerns about the effect that all his concussions are beginning to have on him.

Brett Favre dismissed the possibility of returning to the NFL with St. Louis, and Rams coach Jeff Fisher declined to address reports he tried to lure the quarterback out of retirement to replace the injured Sam Bradford.

Favre told Washington sports station WSPZ-AM he doesn't feel physically able to compete and expressed fear that he has been affected by concussions.

"It's flattering, but you know there's no way I'm going to do that," Favre said.

Fisher changed the subject after practice, then said "Nice try" when asked whether the 44-year-old Favre could be ready to play. Bradford is out for the season with a knee injury.

"I don't remember my daughter playing soccer, playing youth soccer, one summer," Favre told WSPZ. "I don't remember that. I got a pretty good memory, and I have a tendency like we all do to say, 'Where are my glasses?' and they're on your head. This was pretty shocking to me that I couldn't remember my daughter playing youth soccer, just one summer, I think. I remember her playing basketball, I remember her playing volleyball, so I kind of think maybe she only played a game or two. I think she played eight. So that's a little bit scary to me. For the first time in 44 years, that put a little fear in me. ...

"I think after 20 years, God only knows the toll."

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?secti ... id=9300265


What exactly are you trying to say? I have friends who smoke, I'm always..."you can't be that stupid"....they keep smoking.

Just today while flicking stations I came to a rodeo, there's a bull rider with a hemet on but the rest just cowboy hats. You think these guys don't know the danger?

People are not going...'"I could get hurt, better not do that"....come on man.

Sure players will start trying to watch the hemet hits and tackling instead of knocking people down will start being stressed.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dutra5 » Sat Oct 26, 2013 7:14 am

Despite the denial of some...parents....and in particular mom...will control to a certain degree whether kids play football. It simply won't be up to the kids.

They'll always be a population enough who will play but it will be a reduced population.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:59 am

Dixon wrote:How many HS footballers have fathers in their 50's?


A lot. The world has changed since you were young. At a guess, I would venture that a sizable number (like close to 40% maybe even half) of families have 50-year old parents with a kid in high school. I was born in the baby boom, and my parents fit that bill -- and I have a sibling seven grades younger. Not surprising with a non-trivial number of parents in the 70s while a kid is in high school.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16318
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby TN1965 » Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:53 pm

Dixon wrote:What exactly are you trying to say? I have friends who smoke, I'm always..."you can't be that stupid"....they keep smoking.


Should we then limit football to adults? Kids should be limited to flag football until they are 18, when they can make up their own mind. How about that?
TN1965
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dixon » Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:15 am

26mi235 wrote:
Dixon wrote:How many HS footballers have fathers in their 50's?


A lot. The world has changed since you were young. At a guess, I would venture that a sizable number (like close to 40% maybe even half) of families have 50-year old parents with a kid in high school. I was born in the baby boom, and my parents fit that bill -- and I have a sibling seven grades younger. Not surprising with a non-trivial number of parents in the 70s while a kid is in high school.


I don't see that. Not that I've studied it or gave it a lot of thought.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dixon » Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:25 am

TN1965 wrote:
Dixon wrote:What exactly are you trying to say? I have friends who smoke, I'm always..."you can't be that stupid"....they keep smoking.


Should we then limit football to adults? Kids should be limited to flag football until they are 18, when they can make up their own mind. How about that?


What needs to happen at all levels of football is make it well known that hitting with your helmet is stupid and you look stupid doing it. Coachs need to preach the tackle instead of the knock down. Too many players trying to look monstrous and bad/mean, that mentality has to stop. Get back to the fundamentals, get back to tackling. You do not have to hit ball carriers, you tackle them.

Not a whole hell of a lot can be do about leg injuries. Expecting tacklers to not hit high, not hit low is not realistic.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:26 am

Dixon wrote:What needs to happen at all levels of football is make it well known that hitting with your helmet is stupid and you look stupid doing it. Coachs need to preach the tackle instead of the knock down. Too many players trying to look monstrous and bad/mean, that mentality has to stop. Get back to the fundamentals, get back to tackling. You do not have to hit ball carriers, you tackle them.

It has to start at little league because once a bad habit is learned, it's hard to unlearn it. Also TV networks need to quit glorying blow-up hits by playing the Jadaveon Clowney hit on a loop video for months on end. Kids have a natural tendency to emulate what they see being glorified. Perhaps instead of glorifying these hits, the networks shouldn't show these hits at all when they're showing a game's highlights, or at least pixelize them, as though they're trying to censor a lewd act being committed.

Dixon wrote:Not a whole hell of a lot can be do about leg injuries. Expecting tacklers to not hit high, not hit low is not realistic.

I agree with you here. Too often I see players get flagged, or even worse, ejected, for making textbook form tackles and blocks, just because they tackled or blocked hard. The targeting rule has morphed into a de facto hit-the-player-too-hard rule. It seems as though the referees instinctively throw a flag whenever they see an offensive player's head snap back, even if he is hit in the numbers with the shoulder of an opponent. People have to realize that even if 100% of the tackles and blocks are done by the textbook, it won't eliminate concussions.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Pego » Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:51 am

jazzcyclist wrote: glorifying these hits


Not only glorifying, some commentators are trying to justify them.

jazzcyclist wrote:often I see players get flagged, or even worse, ejected, for making textbook form tackles and blocks, just because they tackled or blocked hard


I agree with punishing excessive force. "Unnecessary roughness" is the term. The game is brutal enough even when "wussified" as some have called these stricter rules/calls.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:55 am

Pego wrote:I agree with punishing excessive force. "Unnecessary roughness" is the term. The game is brutal enough even when "wussified" as some have called these stricter rules/calls.

The unnecessary roughness rule has nothing to do with the intensity of a hit, rather it has to do with late hits and hits far away from the action that would have had no bearing on the play.

    College Rule

    A conduct- or safety-related infraction. Includes unnecessary roughness, such as hitting a ball carrier after he is already out of bounds, "piling on" a ball carrier who is already down, or violent contact with an opponent who is away from and out of the play.
Here's the link to the pro rule which is too long to quote:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/ ... -roughness

You'll notice that these rules focus exclusively on the technique of the hit, not the intensity of it. The day that rules are written which legislate hit intensities, you might as well put flags on the players. Defensive linemen who rush a quarterback who is in the process of throwing a pass are supposed to hit him hard enough to cause a fumble. Defensive backs who meet a receiver at the same time the ball is arriving are supposed to hit him hard enough to disrupt his ability to hold onto the ball and cause an incomplete pass. If in the future, players are prevented by rule from hitting hard enough to disrupt receptions and cause fumbles, the game will essentially be no different than flag football.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dutra5 » Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:04 pm

Dixon wrote:
26mi235 wrote:
Dixon wrote:How many HS footballers have fathers in their 50's?


A lot. The world has changed since you were young. At a guess, I would venture that a sizable number (like close to 40% maybe even half) of families have 50-year old parents with a kid in high school. I was born in the baby boom, and my parents fit that bill -- and I have a sibling seven grades younger. Not surprising with a non-trivial number of parents in the 70s while a kid is in high school.


I don't see that. Not that I've studied it or gave it a lot of thought.


I suggest attending a HS football game or two.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dixon » Sun Oct 27, 2013 11:15 pm

Dutra5 wrote:
Dixon wrote:
26mi235 wrote:
Dixon wrote:How many HS footballers have fathers in their 50's?


A lot. The world has changed since you were young. At a guess, I would venture that a sizable number (like close to 40% maybe even half) of families have 50-year old parents with a kid in high school. I was born in the baby boom, and my parents fit that bill -- and I have a sibling seven grades younger. Not surprising with a non-trivial number of parents in the 70s while a kid is in high school.


I don't see that. Not that I've studied it or gave it a lot of thought.


I suggest attending a HS football game or two.


So you really think there is some huge % of HS footballers where dad is over 50? I don't and I do attend HS football games.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby bambam » Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:46 am

Dixon wrote:So you really think there is some huge % of HS footballers where dad is over 50? I don't and I do attend HS football games.


I bet its 25% and I do attend some as a team doctor. You've only gotta be 32 years old when your kid is born to be 50 yo when he is a senior in high school
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:33 am

jazzcyclist wrote:If in the future, players are prevented by rule from hitting hard enough to disrupt receptions and cause fumbles, the game will essentially be no different than flag football.


Hyperbole alert.

Most fumbles are caused not by brutal hits. QB fumbles are mostly by hitting a throwing arm (it does not take all that much) or blind side hits. RB's and WR's fumble by the defender aiming at the ball with his hand or helmet. If you want to preserve the game, brutality needs to be reduced.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:06 am

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:If in the future, players are prevented by rule from hitting hard enough to disrupt receptions and cause fumbles, the game will essentially be no different than flag football.

Hyperbole alert.

Most fumbles are caused not by brutal hits. QB fumbles are mostly by hitting a throwing arm (it does not take all that much) or blind side hits. RB's and WR's fumble by the defender aiming at the ball with his hand or helmet. If you want to preserve the game, brutality needs to be reduced.

Deflection alert!
You completely ignored my main point which is that there’s nothing in the rules that calls for players to be penalized for hitting “too hard”. The problem in college football is that officials have been told to err on the side of offensive player, but often collisions happen too fast for the referees to determine if the hit was legal in real time. The result is that last year, players were ejected from games, only to have conference officials determine a few days later that these players shouldn’t have been ejected, and this led to demands by coaches that the implementation of the ruled be modified. As a result, this year all targeting penalties are subject to review by the replay officials to determine if the hit was legal or not. This year, I’ve witnessed a number of occasions in which players’ ejections were overturned by the replay officials after replays showed the hit to be legal. However, even when a player is reinstated, the penalty still stands, which has led many coaches to question why should the penalty still stand if the replay official determines the hit to be legal? I expect the rule to be further modified next year to account for this discrepancy.

Straw man alert!
I never made any statement about the cause of most fumbles. I was alluding specifically to blindside hits of the quarterback by a defensive player who is trying to get to the quarterback as QUICKLY as possible so that the hit is made before the quarterback throws the ball, and not after the ball is released. Similarly, defensive backs are trying to meet receivers as QUICKLY as possible. Simple physics tells us that the more kinetic energy that a defender brings to a collision, the more likely that collision is to cause a fumble or a dropped pass.

Throughout my life, football has constantly modified the rules regarding blocking and tackling technique to make the game safer. Do you remember when face masking, clothes lining, pile driving and horse collaring were still legal. I see the targeting rule as another step in this direction. There are many people who would like to see tackle football banned in the U.S. and perhaps you’re one of them. I'll admit that there are compelling reasons to ban tackle football, but let’s be honest, if officials ever decide to legislate hitting intensity, it would fundamentally change the game as we know it.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:51 am

jazzcyclist wrote:let’s be honest, if officials ever decide to legislate hitting intensity, it would fundamentally change the game as we know it.


This is the part where we fundamentally disagree. IMO, you can make the game safer, much safer, without it losing its character. Combination of rule and equipment changes could accomplish that.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:00 am

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:let’s be honest, if officials ever decide to legislate hitting intensity, it would fundamentally change the game as we know it.


This is the part where we fundamentally disagree. IMO, you can make the game safer, much safer, without it losing its character. Combination of rule and equipment changes could accomplish that.

I'm not saying the game can't be made safer, I'm only saying that if referees are ever put in position that part of their job is to judge not just hitting technique, but also hitting intensity, in real time, we will have crossed a line. The job of a referee should be objective, not subjective. It's one thing to shrink the strike zone, but it's something altogether different to put speed limits on the strike zone.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby lonewolf » Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:08 am

jazzcyclist wrote:[ The job of a referee should be objective, not subjective. .

I agree... this is not figure skating, gymnastics or diving where subjective scoring sometimes goes awry.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dutra5 » Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:39 am

Dixon wrote:
So you really think there is some huge % of HS footballers where dad is over 50? I don't and I do attend HS football games.


Depends on what you classify as huge. 25% easily. I'm at at least one every week.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:57 am

lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:[ The job of a referee should be objective, not subjective. .

I agree... this is not figure skating, gymnastics or diving where subjective scoring sometimes goes awry.


There is plenty of judgement calls in team sports. I can generally assess brutality of a hit a lot easier than ball/strike or safe/out in baseball. Handball in soccer, kick the puck in hockey, "intentional" foul in basketball...all judgement calls, commonly called incorrectly or requiring a replay. These are just a few that come quickly to mind.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:47 pm

Pego wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:[ The job of a referee should be objective, not subjective. .

I agree... this is not figure skating, gymnastics or diving where subjective scoring sometimes goes awry.


There is plenty of judgement calls in team sports. I can generally assess brutality of a hit a lot easier than ball/strike or safe/out in baseball. Handball in soccer, kick the puck in hockey, "intentional" foul in basketball...all judgement calls, commonly called incorrectly or requiring a replay. These are just a few that come quickly to mind.

I'm not very familiar with the rules of soccer and hockey, but your baseball example contradicts your argument IMO. The strike zone is defined in purely objective terms, not subjective ones. The fact that some umpires chose to ignore this definition is besides the point, because in theory, a robot could call balls and strikes with 100% accuracy. Also note that umpires aren't required to determine if a pitch was too fast, which is the correct baseball analogy for what you're advocating for football, they're only required to determine the location of the pitch. Can you imagine the endless number of rhubarbs that baseball fans would have to endure, if umpires started calling balks because a pitch was too fast?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Pego » Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:02 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Pego wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:[ The job of a referee should be objective, not subjective. .

I agree... this is not figure skating, gymnastics or diving where subjective scoring sometimes goes awry.


There is plenty of judgement calls in team sports. I can generally assess brutality of a hit a lot easier than ball/strike or safe/out in baseball. Handball in soccer, kick the puck in hockey, "intentional" foul in basketball...all judgement calls, commonly called incorrectly or requiring a replay. These are just a few that come quickly to mind.

I'm not very familiar with the rules of soccer and hockey, but your baseball example contradicts your argument IMO. The strike zone is defined in purely objective terms, not subjective ones. The fact that some umpires chose to ignore this definition is besides the point, because in theory, a robot could call balls and strikes with 100% accuracy. Also note that umpires aren't required to determine if a pitch was too fast, which is the correct baseball analogy for what you're advocating for football, they're only required to determine the location of the pitch. Can you imagine the endless number of rhubarbs that baseball fans would have to endure, if umpires started calling balks because a pitch was too fast?


This is not my analogy. All I am saying is that all team sports have judgement calls and listed a few. Whether it is a rule or not is immaterial, it is the official's judgement call. I would like to see football to be devoid of unnecessary brutality and listed a few ways how to achieve that. You disagree, so be it.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:30 pm

Jazz, whether you like it or not, whether its wussification in your eyes, the threat of litigation against the league FAR outweighs the 'pureness' of the game, old-school-style. MMA/UFC had better enjoy their hay-day now, because it too will soon be in the cross-hairs. We, as a culture, are moving AWAY from the Roman Colosseum gladiator spectacle, I, like pego, advocate a change now to safeguard the players who have been brought up to believe more violent is better. It's been more street thuggery than athletic prowess.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:32 pm

Pego wrote:This is not my analogy. All I am saying is that all team sports have judgement calls and listed a few. Whether it is a rule or not is immaterial, it is the official's judgement call. I would like to see football to be devoid of unnecessary brutality and listed a few ways how to achieve that. You disagree, so be it.

We all have our own biases that we bring to a debate. I have the biases of a non-physician who was born and raised in the U.S. and started playing organized football at the age of nine. You have the biases of a neurologist who was born and raised in Europe and wasn't exposed to American football until you were an adult. Perhaps if I had your background I would see things differently. Perhaps in the future, I will come around to your position. I support efforts to make the game safer, and over the last five years or so, the unnecessarily roughness rule has been gradually expanded to make it safer, and all the officials have done is react to the rule changes, not make up new rules of their own. However, I believe that expanding the rule in the manner that you've described is a bridge too far, because I believe it would change the game as fundamentally as baseball would be changed if pitchers had speed limits imposed on their pitches, subject to the whims of the umpires. Reasonable minds can disagree, and I guess this one of those instances.

:wink:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Mon Oct 28, 2013 4:36 pm

Marlow wrote:Jazz, whether you like it or not, whether its wussification in your eyes, the threat of litigation against the league FAR outweighs the 'pureness' of the game, old-school-style. MMA/UFC had better enjoy their hay-day now, because it too will soon be in the cross-hairs. We, as a culture, are moving AWAY from the Roman Colosseum gladiator spectacle, I, like pego, advocate a change now to safeguard the players who have been brought up to believe more violent is better. It's been more street thuggery than athletic prowess.

Did you miss my earlier post?
jazzcyclist wrote:It has to start at little league because once a bad habit is learned, it's hard to unlearn it. Also TV networks need to quit glorying blow-up hits by playing the Jadaveon Clowney hit on a loop video for months on end. Kids have a natural tendency to emulate what they see being glorified. Perhaps instead of glorifying these hits, the networks shouldn't show these hits at all when they're showing a game's highlights, or at least pixelize them, as though they're trying to censor a lewd act being committed.


EDIT: As I've mentioned earlier, I would like to see the NFL bring back bump-and-run coverage, since it would drastically reduce the frequency of the most violent collisions. Also, what about expanding the in-the-grasp rule so that defenders who are rushing quarterbacks from the blindside only have to touch him in the back in order to get a sack?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Marlow » Mon Oct 28, 2013 5:07 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:what about expanding the in-the-grasp rule so that defenders who are rushing quarterbacks from the blindside only have to touch him in the back in order to get a sack?

??!! Then how will they cause a fumble? That rule-change ain't gonna happen!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:50 am

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:what about expanding the in-the-grasp rule so that defenders who are rushing quarterbacks from the blindside only have to touch him in the back in order to get a sack?

??!! Then how will they cause a fumble? That rule-change ain't gonna happen!

Just thinking outside the box. Remember, the NFL was considering eliminating kickoffs in the name of safety, a move that would be equally controversial IMO. What people have to understand is that the goal of all defensive players is to arrive at their target as quickly as possible, which means that they're running as fast as possible, which means that they're building up as much kinetic energy as possible. It's simple physics and I can't envision a rule change in tackle football that would force defensive players to deliver less kinetic energy to their targets, while not discouraging them from getting to their targets as quickly as possible.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Marlow » Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:18 am

jazzcyclist wrote:It's simple physics and I can't envision a rule change in tackle football that would force defensive players to deliver less kinetic energy to their targets, while not discouraging them from getting to their targets as quickly as possible.

They won't outlaw hard hitting, but they are cracking down on head shots, either leading with the head, or targeting the head. Just at look at how rugby handles it. Driving your shoulder into someone's gut - good; spearing head on head - bad.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21081
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:16 am

More depressing news about some former football players, including Hall of Famers Tony Dorsett and Joe DeLamielleure.

According to ESPN, Dorsett, fellow Hall of Famer Joe DeLamielleure, former All-Pro Leonard Marshall and an as-yet unidentified fourth former player have undergone brain scans and been evaluated by doctors at UCLA over the past three months. During the exams, the report said, doctors discovered a buildup of tau, an abnormal protein that indicates CTE and constricts brain cells in areas that control memory and emotions, among other functions. The protein was also discovered in autopsies of former players Junior Seau and Mike Webster.

CTE, a condition scientists believe is brought on by repeated head trauma, has been linked to cases of depression and dementia, particularly cases involving former football players in recent years.

Dorsett appeared on ESPN’s "Dan LeBatard Is Highly Questionable" show Wednesday and confirmed the UCLA tests. The former Dallas Cowboys legend also admitted to problems with memory, emotional distress and thoughts of suicide.

"I've thought about crazy stuff, sort of like, 'Why do I need to continue going through this?' " said Dorsett, who admitting to getting lost while driving to places he’s been to many times before. "I'm too smart of a person, I like to think, to take my life, but it's crossed my mind."

The 59-year old also said he boarded a flight to Los Angeles for the testing at UCLA, but had repeated difficulty remembering why he was onboard the plane during the flight, a common occurrence for him.

Dorsett said he’s prone to outbursts at his family members, including his wife, and has been diagnosed as clinically depressed.

"It's painful, man, for my daughters to say they're scared of me,” Dorsett told ESPN.

Dorsett, who retired following the 1988 season, said he knows his problems were caused by playing football, a sentiment DeLamielleure seconded.

“I can guarantee you my CTE, my tau, came from hits, came from blows to the head,” DeLamielleure told “Outside the Lines.”

http://www.nbcsports.com/football/nfl/t ... -signs-cte
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dixon » Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:27 pm

The thing is the game of football came about back when people weren't as big/strong/fast as they are today. It was never meant to be played by 240 pounders with 4.5 speed who can bench a VW. Then to work at getting bigger, faster and stronger, whoa! You cannot play the game anymore and not expect injuries and conditions. So if you decide to take that risk it's all on you. Why is that aspect of this being ignored? I knew as a HS kid not to ram my head into opposing players, this is news? Hell yes it's a dangerous deal out there and if a person is real concerned don't be there.

I was a defensive back also and had a ton of chances to hit a receiver with my helmet....stupid...move and I knew it, I could break my neck and I knew this. For these players to act like they had no idea they could cause damage to themselves playing ...the human missle....????

This is the worst season I've ever seen for silly calls trying to play it safe. especially at the NCAA level, some are ridiculous.

All you footballers out there who played on the kickoff team know about that hit where the guy doesn't see you and here you come...WHACK!!!!!!!!!!!!....that is football, Now they are coming down on that play. Hell, just dump the kickoff all together, take it on the 20.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1336
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests