NFL Topic

[GolfLug]

35 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

Not only that. They suspended him for the rest of the season.  I guess there is a track record on him. Guy is appealing it.

Yah, I'm not sure how much traction he will get. They're gonna protect. It's here to stay. Tough all the way around. Hope Pittman okay long term.   

[Beastie]

The hit was pretty hard. I thought it would be penalty  and an exclusion as soon as I saw it( not based on my opinion of the hit but just what I thought the refs would do.)

Football, like Rugby, is an impact sport. The nature of the game is inherently dangerous. Rugby is currently trying to change the rules of the game and the culture to minimise the risk of serious brain injuries and trauma caused by concussions. To truly make the game safe means changing the sport so much that it is no longer the same game. It’s the same for the NFL, a major part of the attraction IS the impacts and collisions. Take it away and we might as well watch basketball. 
 
part of the driver for Rugby trying to make itself safer is threat of future lawsuits from ex players and their families. Is it the same for the NFL? 
I love watching Rugby and NFL,  and I loved playing Rugby, but I’m pleased my kids did gymnastics and soccer( although sadly neither stuck at golf for long)

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, Beastie said:

I love watching Rugby and NFL,  and I loved playing Rugby, but I’m pleased my kids did gymnastics and soccer( although sadly neither stuck at golf for long)

Soccer concussions are a thing, too.

It's OT, so I'll keep it at that, though.

[Beastie]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Soccer concussions are a thing, too.

It's OT, so I'll keep it at that, though.

Yes they are, but  it’s less of a problem.

[klineka]

1 hour ago, Beastie said:

It’s the same for the NFL, a major part of the attraction IS the impacts and collisions. 

I strongly disagree with this, especially knowing what we now know about the long term affects that head injuries can have on people.

I'm cool with the game changing to be safer if it means less players end up having severe brain injuries in the long term.

If I wanted the major component of my sports entertainment to be impacts and collisions I'd go watch UFC, boxing, WWE, etc.

[mcanadiens]

9 hours ago, klineka said:

If I wanted the major component of my sports entertainment to be impacts and collisions I'd go watch UFC, boxing, WWE, etc.

Ok. Maybe we are kind of playing games with the phrase "major component", but American football is absolutely a collision sport. @Beastie called it "a major part of the attraction". You can appreciate a lot of various aspects of the sport as you will, but heavy physical contact is an inherent part of the game and always has been. It is really impossible to separate it and still have any trace of the game we know.

[klineka]

1 hour ago, mcanadiens said:

You can appreciate a lot of various aspects of the sport as you will, but heavy physical contact is an inherent part of the game and always has been. 

That doesn't mean that there can't and shouldn't be rules in place to try and keep players safe and minimize the negative long term affects of repeated collisions. 

 

2 hours ago, mcanadiens said:

It is really impossible to separate it and still have any trace of the game we know.

The "game we know" isn't the game that people 70 years ago knew, every sport changes over time. Obviously I'm not saying that the NFL should become a flag football league or something, but I don't think it is a bad thing that player safety is being prioritized over big hits. Should players today not wear helmets and pads? They didn't used to. 

These athletes are people too, they're husbands, fathers, etc who have lives/people that care about them outside of football. Their long term health/safety should be more important than the short term enjoyment people get from watching them get laid out by another grown man. Yes I understand that they knew what they signed up for when playing football, so did Police Officers or Firefighters, but just because there is a risk doesn't mean precautions shouldn't be taken to minimize the risk. Might be a bit of an extreme example but nobody bats an eye when Police Officers and Firefighters implement new safety measures to protect their health/safety but if the NFL does it it's suddenly a bad thing? 

[iacas]

8 minutes ago, klineka said:

That doesn't mean that there can't and shouldn't be rules in place to try and keep players safe and minimize the negative long term affects of repeated collisions.

Cool, but what's your answer to the original question about what you think about this specific hit?

Football is still a violent sport, with injuries, even on perfectly clean plays.

9 minutes ago, klineka said:

These athletes are people too, they're husbands, fathers, etc who have lives/people that care about them outside of football. Their long term health/safety should be more important than the short term enjoyment people get from watching them get laid out by another grown man.

There are degrees of that, too. Players who are in the NFL for awhile have all sorts of ailments not related to concussions. Their knees are crap, many will break their hands or arms or bruise bones left and right. Their backs take a beating. Etc.

Since the topic is so ambiguous, with everyone having a different place at which they'd draw the line… it's probably pointless to discuss, since we'll never be on the same page as we're all picturing different levels of "too much" or whatever.

---

So, again… the original question… your response?

[klineka]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

Cool, but what's your answer to the original question about what you think about this specific hit?

Football is still a violent sport, with injuries, even on perfectly clean plays.

Based on how the rule is written it absolutely is a penalty, but IMO the ejection and suspension were both too much especially since he hit him with the shoulder, not direct helmet to helmet contact, and the defender didn't leave his feet to do the hit. If that was his second illegal hit in the game then there could be a stronger case for an ejection, but if that was his first one that game then I think both the ejection and suspension are too much.

The rule states:

Quote

Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, even if the initial contact is lower than the player’s neck, and regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him

And defenseless posture for a receiver is:

Quote

A receiver attempting to catch a pass who has not had time to clearly become a runner. If the player is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player

 

[mcanadiens]

13 minutes ago, klineka said:

Might be a bit of an extreme example but nobody bats an eye when Police Officers and Firefighters implement new safety measures to protect their health/safety but if the NFL does it it's suddenly a bad thing? 

No. And they have changed things quite a lot over the last 20 years or so. The rules governing targeting are largely a good and necessary thing, but the enforcement of those rules does necessarily require very fine judgements in a sport where tackling a player to the ground is a necessary part of it. 

Heck, I remember when they put out the NFL's Greatest Hits videos when I was a kid. Makes one cringe to think that damage some of those guys took when they were on the wrong end of them. Things do change.  At the same time, collisions and the risk of injury that comes with it are part of the game. It wouldn't really be football without them. So there is a lot of gray area with some of these plays.

Specifically to the play in question, I'm not sure what that defender is supposed to do. Minshew throws a ball that requires Pittman to dive in the direction of the defender to make the catch.  Naturally the defender is trying to make a play to break up that pass. In the fractions of a second the guy reacts. It is silly to say that Kazee was intending to hit Pittman in the head. It was an unfortune combination of timing and angles. Do you really expect the safety to stand aside in that situation?

 

 

[iacas]

20 minutes ago, klineka said:

Based on how the rule is written it absolutely is a penalty, but IMO the ejection and suspension were both too much especially since he hit him with the shoulder, not direct helmet to helmet contact, and the defender didn't leave his feet to do the hit.

That, plus the fact that it happened so fast and the defender was clearly going low, is about where I land. It also felt like the ejection was punishing the result (concussion), not the actual play. I think if Pittman got up and ran back to the huddle, it may have just been the penalty.

(Word is the ejection came from New York.)

[Vinsk]

The ejection was not warranted. Penalty yes, but no ejection.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

The ejection was not warranted. Penalty yes, but no ejection.

And as noted, a suspension for the rest of the season without pay.

😜

[Vinsk]

5 minutes ago, iacas said:

And as noted, a suspension for the rest of the season without pay.

😜

Asinine. He needs to appeal this and get some talking heads on it.

[iacas]

Fine-worthy or no?

It's getting ridiculous, IMO, these fines.

[saevel25]

Yea, that is a stupid fine. It wasn't like he made a terrible gesture at the Cincy player. 

[iacas]

If he had flipped him off, then sure. Absolutely. Barely pointing at the guy?

[klineka]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Fine-worthy or no?

It's getting ridiculous, IMO, these fines.

And this one