Rules changes from the competition committee - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

TyronePoole · 03-28-2012, 03:04 PM

I just don't know if I can satiate my blood lust without the crackback block on vulnerable players...

If violence is the #1 reason you watch football I honestly feel sorry for you

TyronePoole · 03-28-2012, 03:08 PM

I don't get the rationale behind not sending reviews up to the booth

Pujo · 03-28-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TyronePoole

I don't get the rationale behind not sending reviews up to the booth

I don't like the ref being overruled, makes him feel like an ass for no reason. He's just as capable of making the call as the guy in the booth.

***Wolfpack*** · 03-28-2012, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

Football isn't the most violent sport on earth by a long shot. That's just ridiculous.

As a side point, six boxers have died in the ring in the last five years.

Also, using "they wear helmets and pads" as an example of what makes the sport more brutal, rather than less... yeah, that's a fail.

I agree that boxing is more violent than football, but that won't matter one iota when the NFL is in court defending against lawsuits files by ex-players.

The NFL knows it has to be able to prove in a court of law they did everything they could do to minimize injury so, as much as people hate to hear this, these stricter rules just aren't going away.

***BradyFTW!*** · 03-28-2012, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I agree that boxing is more violent than football, but that won't matter one iota when the NFL is in court defending against lawsuits files by ex-players.

The NFL knows it has to be able to prove in a court of law they did everything they could do to minimize injury so, as much as people hate to hear this, these stricter rules just aren't going away.

Agreed- that point wasn't intended to be relevant to the impending lawsuits. Just a specific response to a pretty crazy assertion that someone made on this thread.

Personally, I don't hate to hear that the stricter rules aren't going away. Given all that we're learning about brain trauma resulting from even "incidental" (in football terms) hits to the head, I want to see the game adapt further. Maybe some people forget, but football wasn't always the game that it is today. A lot of the innovations that made the game what it is today came about due to concerns surrounding player safety. If football has to evolve some more to prevent widespread brain damage to its players, then so be it.

Triumph · 03-28-2012, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patchick

I'm honestly trying to tell you that there's a difference between a sport where the objective is physical injury, and a sport where physical injury is an inevitable side effect for some participants.

You claimed that American football is:

I disagreed with your reasoning. First off, a great many sports require protective headgear. If, as you say, protective gear requirements are a sign of brutality, then does the incredible violence of rugby, with its high injury rates, somehow not count? Is bare-knuckle boxing less brutal than boxing with gloves?

In your response, you suggested that death rate instead is the true marker of brutality. In that case, pole vaulting and surfing are far, far more brutal than, say, peaceable kickboxing.

I've never claimed that tackle football isn't violent, that would be silly. I'm just saying that unlike gladiator fights, football's objective isn't injury -- and that matters enormously in how you structure the rules.

Tell that to the Saints.

And, other teams had bounty programs. Its been going on for years. You want to keep NE from reaching the post season? Take out Brady.

***Joker*** · 03-28-2012, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pujo

I don't like the ref being overruled, makes him feel like an ass for no reason. He's just as capable of making the call as the guy in the booth.

I disagree...and I think,( for whatever reason Goodell has) that keeping replay in the hands of an official on the field , who has to walk to the replay booth, run the replay,re-run it to make sure on finer points and then return to the field for his ruling creates MORE advertising revenue spots, will lengthen the game and inundate us with repeating signal "Charter Oaks Federal Credit Union" commercials every gd'd time a replay is called for.

Put an official, a ref, in a dedicated replay box...have him relay the results to the ref on the field...what the fack is the problem???????????????????????? Rotate the refs on a per game basis...I don't get it...they don't want THIS???...once again, it all points to that white collar supercriminal in the Commissioner's office.

***Deus Irae*** · 03-28-2012, 10:57 PM

Unless the wording that's gone out was poorly done, the turnover review just repeats the error with last year's review of all touchdowns, in that it screws the guy who wants to argue that it was (a TD or turnover) and not the guy who's benefited from the called TD/turnover.

Additionally, it seems that the 'fix' for the goal line/TD issue wasn't done properly since, according to the wording I've seen so far, it's only endzone plays, and not plays that one team thinks was an endzone play (i.e. TD/Safety), but that the officials ruled otherwise (i.e. down inside the one yard line).

Hopefully the public language is just a bad explanation of the changes.

***Joker*** · 03-28-2012, 11:11 PM

Hopefully the public language is just a bad explanation of the changes.

in the real world...yes, hopefully...in Goodell World...well..we only have to look back as far as that meat headed erroneous memo back in 2006, the repercussions of which are STILL being felt every time anybody in the league steps on his own d!ck.