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 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: 1268
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: 1339
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: 10199
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: 10859
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: 10199
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: 10859
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: 1268
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: 10199
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: 10859
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: 10199
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: 21088
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: 10859
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: 10859
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: 21088
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: 10859
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: 21088
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: 10859
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: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:07 pm

Dixon wrote: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.

Actually the game was much more violent back in the day. 100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt came very close to banning football due to the rash of deaths and catostrophic injuries. 50 years ago, clotheslining, facemasking, headshots and practically everything except eye gouging was still legal. Many of these old timers with CTE played in the era when players were smaller and slower, but we're just finding out about them now.

Dixon wrote: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....????

But these players don't have broken necks, they have CTE, and even you admitted you only found out about CTE recently just like the rest of us. Furthermore, Dorsett was a running back, not a defensive hit man, a la Ronnie Lott. Then there are folks like Jim McMahon who played quarterback, a position where you never initiate contact with anyone. If it was a simple as playing "smart" as you've suggested, you would have never gotten the 4-5 concussions that you've admitted to sustaining during your career.

Dixon wrote: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.

Amen to this.

Dixon wrote: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.

Like you, I probably sustained 4 or 5 concussions from the time I started playing organized football in little league until my football career ended in high school. Just think of all the extra concussions we would have likely sustained if we had played college and pro football where the hits would have been much more violent than the ones we experienced, and keep in mind that CTE is due to cumulative injuries, it's not a one-time thing.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dixon » Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:44 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Dixon wrote: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.

Actually the game was much more violent back in the day. 100 years ago, Teddy Roosevelt came very close to banning football due to the rash of deaths and catostrophic injuries. 50 years ago, clotheslining, facemasking, headshots and practically everything except eye gouging was still legal. Many of these old timers with CTE played in the era when players were smaller and slower, but we're just finding out about them now.

Dixon wrote: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....????

But these players don't have broken necks, they have CTE, and even you admitted you only found out about CTE recently just like the rest of us. Furthermore, Dorsett was a running back, not a defensive hit man, a la Ronnie Lott. Then there are folks like Jim McMahon who played quarterback, a position where you never initiate contact with anyone. If it was a simple as playing "smart" as you've suggested, you would have never gotten the 4-5 concussions that you've admitted to sustaining during your career.

Dixon wrote: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.

Amen to this.

Dixon wrote: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.

Like you, I probably sustained 4 or 5 concussions from the time I started playing organized football in little league until my football career ended in high school. Just think of all the extra concussions we would have likely sustained if we had played college and pro football where the hits would have been much more violent than the ones we experienced, and keep in mind that CTE is due to cumulative injuries, it's not a one-time thing.


No need to debate/argue degrees/reasons etc for violence in football, the real issue is what can realistically be done about it and still have the game?
Dixon
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Pego » Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:22 pm

Dixon wrote:No need to debate/argue degrees/reasons etc for violence in football, the real issue is what can realistically be done about it and still have the game?


Yes, and I am convinced it is doable by a combination of some rule changes (enforcement of existing rules even more so), equipment adjustments and teaching the kids from the very beginning (flag) different attitudes. The game would look a little different, but, as jazzcyclist observed, it is a lot different than what it was as late as a few decades ago. I am a relative newcomer to it (45 years) and the change is quite obvious.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dixon » Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:37 pm

Pego wrote:
Dixon wrote:No need to debate/argue degrees/reasons etc for violence in football, the real issue is what can realistically be done about it and still have the game?


Yes, and I am convinced it is doable by a combination of some rule changes (enforcement of existing rules even more so), equipment adjustments and teaching the kids from the very beginning (flag) different attitudes. The game would look a little different, but, as jazzcyclist observed, it is a lot different than what it was as late as a few decades ago. I am a relative newcomer to it (45 years) and the change is quite obvious.


The huge/obvious difference from today from back in the day is the athletes involved. every NFL has a dozen 300 pounders and 4.4 sprinters. It's the...velocity...these guys play with today. Jim Brown was a freak at 6-2 230 pounds with speed, that is now the norm. These guys are just too big/fast/strong anymore. The game has to change to fit the athletes playing it.

They do need to eliminate the long distance hit, yep....no kickoffs and punts. I could live with that, take it on the 20 and give 45 yards for a punt, or take it on the 20 there. We have guys lifting weights so they can be more dangerous....wow!
Last edited by Dixon on Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:39 pm

Dixon wrote:the real issue is what can realistically be done about it and still have the game?

Indeed, this is the central question that we've all been dancing around. Can hard hits be legislated out of the game without fundamentally changing the game itself? Because as long as you as allow players to collide into one another at full speed, you're going to have concussions, no matter how small you make the strike zone. IMO, the goal should be to minimze them, not eliminate them.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Nov 07, 2013 5:16 pm

Dixon wrote:They do need to eliminate the long distance hit, yep....no kickoffs and punts. I could live with that, take it on the 20 and give 45 yards for a punt, or take it on the 20 there. We have guys lifting weights so they can be more dangerous....wow!

Long distance hit is a good description. The idea is to minimize long distance hits (opportunities players have to hit at full speed) by legislating "speed bumps" into the game. Eliminating kick-offs would be a good start. I don't know about eliminating punts, since the fair catch already eliminates a lot of the long distance hit opportunities. However, I would like to see bump-and-run coverage brought back, or even better yet, ban zone defenses.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dutra5 » Thu Nov 07, 2013 7:40 pm

Big hits get most of the attention when they happen for those who like big hits and they get the most attention from the rules makers however I'm not sure that's the biggest problem. I would also guess that the NFL doesn't want anyone thinking about this too much.

Aren't a lot of players who have, at least publicly "front seven" guys whether it's offense or defense? A doctor on one of the sports radio shows said that there was a study done on offensive linemen which showed over 10,000 head blows for the typical NFL lineman if he played in the league a certain amount of time. Whether that also included lower levels of play as well I'm not sure. His point was that it was more than the blow em up hits which are causing the problems but that the NFL is focusing on the big hits in part to draw attention away from the other, probably unlegislaturable, problems which could cause parents to not allow kids to play.
Dutra5
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:51 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Dixon » Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:58 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Dixon wrote:They do need to eliminate the long distance hit, yep....no kickoffs and punts. I could live with that, take it on the 20 and give 45 yards for a punt, or take it on the 20 there. We have guys lifting weights so they can be more dangerous....wow!

Long distance hit is a good description. The idea is to minimize long distance hits (opportunities players have to hit at full speed) by legislating "speed bumps" into the game. Eliminating kick-offs would be a good start. I don't know about eliminating punts, since the fair catch already eliminates a lot of the long distance hit opportunities. However, I would like to see bump-and-run coverage brought back, or even better yet, ban zone defenses.


When I argue with rugby fans over which sport is the roughest it is the velocity NFLers hit with that settles that argument. Rugby more of a running wrestling match, nobody getting a 40 yard running start to hit someone.

I guess the NFL could...

Dump those Thursday night games, how do you talk safety and have these guys play two games in 4 days?

How about anyone called for hitting with the helmet gives up 3 points for his team? That would send a message and change things dramatically. I know it sounds goofy but I guarantee it would work.

Eliminate the kickoff as mentioned. You really can't dump the punt.
Dixon
 
Posts: 1339
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 12:35 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Pego » Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:51 am

Dutra5 wrote:there was a study done on offensive linemen which showed over 10,000 head blows for the typical NFL lineman if he played in the league a certain amount of time


This is one of the situations where a redesigned helmet would help. Make it entirely for protection without being an offensive weapon.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:19 pm

Pego wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:there was a study done on offensive linemen which showed over 10,000 head blows for the typical NFL lineman if he played in the league a certain amount of time


This is one of the situations where a redesigned helmet would help. Make it entirely for protection without being an offensive weapon.

I just had a conversation with some co-workers, who like me, played little-league, organized football while simultaneously playing school-yard tackle football when they were growing up. So at school we played tackle football at recess without pads, and after school, you went home, put your pads on, and went to practice for your little league team. In retrospect, none of us had any concussions or serious injuries from our school-yard games, because we didn't hit like we did once we put our pads on. All of the concussions and broken limbs came from football played wearing helmets and pads. So every day, the normal instinct of self-preservation caused us to adjust our style of play without even thinking about it. I'm guessing that if you minimized the armour that players could wear, players would instinctively adjust their blocking and tackling technique without changing any rules.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10859
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby TN1965 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:01 pm

"Report: NFL head injuries have led to drastic youth football participation decline"

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutd ... --nfl.html
TN1965
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby bambam » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:50 pm

Pego wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:there was a study done on offensive linemen which showed over 10,000 head blows for the typical NFL lineman if he played in the league a certain amount of time


This is one of the situations where a redesigned helmet would help. Make it entirely for protection without being an offensive weapon.


Some recent studies, Pego, showing no difference in level of impact to the brain using several different types of helmets. They concluded that there not be a way to design a helmet to eliminate the effects of multiple hits, or very punishing hits.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:06 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Pego wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:there was a study done on offensive linemen which showed over 10,000 head blows for the typical NFL lineman if he played in the league a certain amount of time


This is one of the situations where a redesigned helmet would help. Make it entirely for protection without being an offensive weapon.

I just had a conversation with some co-workers, who like me, played little-league, organized football while simultaneously playing school-yard tackle football when they were growing up. So at school we played tackle football at recess without pads, and after school, you went home, put your pads on, and went to practice for your little league team. In retrospect, none of us had any concussions or serious injuries from our school-yard games, because we didn't hit like we did once we put our pads on. All of the concussions and broken limbs came from football played wearing helmets and pads. So every day, the normal instinct of self-preservation caused us to adjust our style of play without even thinking about it. I'm guessing that if you minimized the armour that players could wear, players would instinctively adjust their blocking and tackling technique without changing any rules.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby 26mi235 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:08 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Pego wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:there was a study done on offensive linemen which showed over 10,000 head blows for the typical NFL lineman if he played in the league a certain amount of time


This is one of the situations where a redesigned helmet would help. Make it entirely for protection without being an offensive weapon.

I just had a conversation with some co-workers, who like me, played little-league, organized football while simultaneously playing school-yard tackle football when they were growing up. So at school we played tackle football at recess without pads, and after school, you went home, put your pads on, and went to practice for your little league team. In retrospect, none of us had any concussions or serious injuries from our school-yard games, because we didn't hit like we did once we put our pads on. All of the concussions and broken limbs came from football played wearing helmets and pads. So every day, the normal instinct of self-preservation caused us to adjust our style of play without even thinking about it. I'm guessing that if you minimized the armour that players could wear, players would instinctively adjust their blocking and tackling technique without changing any rules.


Might work when the incentives are to win a game of pick-up ball. When the incentives ramp up, it is not clear that the natural tendency to converse oneself would play a prominent enough role - pro ball seems to indicate that such is probably not the case. There are no controlled experiments out there.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Frontline: League of Denial

Postby Pego » Fri Nov 15, 2013 4:08 am

bambam wrote:
Pego wrote:
Dutra5 wrote:there was a study done on offensive linemen which showed over 10,000 head blows for the typical NFL lineman if he played in the league a certain amount of time


This is one of the situations where a redesigned helmet would help. Make it entirely for protection without being an offensive weapon.


Some recent studies, Pego, showing no difference in level of impact to the brain using several different types of helmets. They concluded that there not be a way to design a helmet to eliminate the effects of multiple hits, or very punishing hits.


This may be so. What I am saying is that the helmet should not be a weapon. Soft helmet may not protect the head any better, but it will not inflict the kind of impact the current helmets do.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mighty Favog and 9 guests