JackBauer
Hall of Fame Poster
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 25,365
- Reaction score
- 7,823
Not really, the rule was already in place. The only change is how it is being enforced.
Do you understand the meaning of the word "emphasis"?
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Not really, the rule was already in place. The only change is how it is being enforced.
Amen. The 18 game thing is ridiculous and should be put out to pasture immediately.
Yet what Haley said is a very cogent point (and I'm glad you edited your first response to him).
There is a difference between a vicious hit and an illegal one.
“We can’t and won’t tolerate what we saw Sunday,” Anderson said Monday. “We’ve got to get the message to players that these devastating hits and head shots will be met with a very necessary higher standard of accountability. We have to dispel the notion that you get one free pass in these egregious or flagrant shots.”
They've outlawed "contact" after 5 yards.
No. Tackles and hard hitting can take places more than 5 yds downfield. You just can't impede a receiver's route.
That's not "outlawing contact after 5 yards".
Let's be careful with our writing out there.
Haley's point would be more apt if the NFL wasn't demonstrating that it is moving away from contact at pretty much every opportunity.
In order to still have a sport, the NFL needs fans. There are not many fans in the "no contact at all" voting category. I believe your fearful conclusion that all contact will be removed from the sport is not well founded.
That being said, I do understand that you might fear what you deem to be excessive contact loss. I guess everyone is going to have a slightly different meter on this. But personally, I do think the sport should make efforts to mitigate career-ending injuries where they can.
Keep in mind, even with respect to helm-to-helm we are still only adding enforcement to an existing rule that applies only to defenseless receivers. Other helm-to-helm is still completely legal.
If you think Tom Brady is going to pick up the phone and call James Harrison and plead with him not to retire because the game needs his passion, think again.
Told that the Steelers outside linebacker was seriously considering retirement because of his $75,000 fine handed out for his helmet-to-helmet hit on Cleveland Browns receiver Mohamed Massaquoi on Sunday, Brady said he wouldn’t be saddened to see Harrison leave the game.
“I’d love for him to retire,” Brady joked. “If he retired, it would make me very happy.”
The NFL is trending towards the elimination, or severe restriction, of contact, with various stated reasons for doing so. This isn't really debatable. The only question is where the trend finally stops.
In NFL history, how many players have been paralyzed due to helmet-to-helmet contact? How many players' careers ended specifically because of the type of helmet-to-helmet contact that is being eliminated by this "existing rule"?
This is incorrect. Furthermore, that "existing rule" is about 2 years old.
You are unclear in your own mind on this. First you say elimination, then you say severe restriction, and then "The only question is where the trend finally stops". 100% Elimination was the point of my quoted comment.
I believe the language I used was "career-ending injuries". We see people washing out of the league all the time due to injuries. How many are preventable? Hard to say but does that mean we should make no effort?
I beg to differ.
NFL Videos: What is an illegal hit?
The Defenseless Receiver Rule: Under the old rule, the NFL only looked to eliminate helmet-to-helmet hits on defenseless receivers. Now, it's going to be tossing flags at shoulder and forearm hits to the head or neck area on a defenseless receiver.
I'm not unclear at all. You've taken the most extreme outcome and banked on "That's not happening". I've merely noted that lesser outcomes are possible, and that the trend is current. Feel free to read all my posts regarding this on this thread.
I never stated it wasn't. I posted that video to show you the contents of that rule since you stated my interpretation was incorrect. If you would recall, I stated:The "existing rule" has been in effect since 2009.
In order to see how much this can possibly be botched up, we as Patriot fans need to look no further than the modified pass interference calls and begin to make our comparisons there.
Apparently you have already forgotten the reason for this discussion. I stated this:
"He had a couple decent points but mostly this is hyperbole. No one is advocating the removal of all contact from the sport. Not really sure why people keep repeating that mantra when it so obviously isn't the case."
Removing all contact is exactly that. 100% elimination. Additionally I stated I understood your fear of losing more contact that you'd like to see in the sport. That was all I said on that subject. Yet somehow you are trying to argue with me on a point I've never made.
The reason I took the most extreme outcome was because that was the Hyperbole used in the VIDEO that you posted. I didn't just come up with that one my own.
I never stated it wasn't. I posted that video to show you the contents of that rule since you stated my interpretation was incorrect. If you would recall, I stated:
"Keep in mind, even with respect to helm-to-helm we are still only adding enforcement to an existing rule that applies only to defenseless receivers. Other helm-to-helm is still completely legal."
Which you said was incorrect. Hence I linked you that video.
Are you following this at all or just throwing out straw men at me?
As I noted, you took the most extreme position. Flag football, after all, has contact. Hell, baseball has contact, given that players tag other players. It took someone being hyperbolic about Schlereth's alleged hyperbole to try pushing that one by the board. Congrats on that.
The irony of you tossing out the straw man comment when you're going with "100% elimination" is very amusing, so thanks for the chuckle. However, the "existing rule" is from 2009, as I noted. Pointing that out was not a straw man at all.
Im a fan of the if you injure a player you are out as long as the other guy is out idea. no fines, you give someone a concussion and they are out a month, so are you. simple as that.