Hypotetical question:

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Lets assume a defender is faced with the following hypothetical situation:

If the defender does nothing the offensive player will run by the defender and score a TD or if the defender does X the player will not score a TD but there is a 1% chance the defender will be paralyzed. Should the defender do X?

 

[PatriotFan77]

If the defender does nothing and lets the guy score he isn't going to be a defender in the NFL for very long.

 

[I Augustus]

If the defender does nothing and lets the guy score he isn't going to be a defender in the NFL for very long.

Monty Beisel approves your message .

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

If the defender does nothing and lets the guy score he isn't going to be a defender in the NFL for very long.

I realize that.

Which means the only way to actually prevent the player from doing X is make it illegal, have the play result in a heavy on field penalty, plus a fine and for repeatedly doing X the player gets suspended from games and eventually the league.

Or maybe do what the NFL is doing that some people call turning it into flag football.

 

[Haley]

Isn't there a chance of injury on every single play?

Honestly, these guys aren't thinking about player health as a first priority. And they certainly aren't out there calculating injury chance percentages. They are thinking about the game they are playing and how to win it. If someone is unintentionally injured, that is a hazard of the game that every one of these players signed up for on day 1.

While I think the more major injuries should be mitigated, trying to make individual players make real-time decisions based on opponent injury chance is not the way.

 

[PlainOldEd]

I wouldn't say "health of the other player be damned" but on any given football play there is a chance of injury, you can't not make a play because someone might get hurt.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Isn't there a chance of injury on every single play?

Yes. But there are actions that increase of decrease the risk. Such as helmet on helmet, hitting the QB in the knees, etc.

 

[MassPats38]

In this hypothetical, are you answering the question objectively from a fan's perspective or subjectively from that player's perspective?

 

[Haley]

Yes. But there are actions that increase of decrease the risk. Such as helmet on helmet, hitting the QB in the knees, etc.

If you place these decisions on the player, you will never eliminate these injuries. They will still happen due to errors in judgement and ethics. There needs to be a better way.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

If you place these decisions on the player, you will never eliminate these injuries. They will still happen due to errors in judgement and ethics. There needs to be a better way.

Exactly. That is why I agree with what the NFL is doing, regarding increasing the penalties both on fields (yards) and off field ($ and suspensions) for making dangerous illegal plays and in some case making formerly legal plays that are dangerous illegal.

While some see this as making the game into flag football. I see two net changes 1) less injuries and 2) higher scoring games.

The first is a very good thing. The second isn't that bad and many would say makes the game more exciting.

 

[MassPats38]

Exactly. That is why I agree with what the NFL is doing, regarding increasing the penalties both on fields (yards) and off field ($ and suspensions) for making dangerous illegal plays and in some case making formerly legal plays that are dangerous illegal.

While some see this as making the game into flag football. I see two net changes 1) less injuries and 2) higher scoring games.

The first is a very good thing. The second isn't that bad and many would say makes the game more exciting.

This society, for better or worse, likes to see battles. It is why we it follows boxing, MMA, and football. The same arguments apply to any contact sport. The more you reduce the contact, the more you reduce the appeal of the sport. I would not watch flag football, regardless of the skills of the players, because it transforms the sport to one relying solely on speed and agility rather than size and strength. There is a point at which contact restrictions will change the fundamental nature of the sport. The changes to date have not had that effect as I believe they are necessary to adjust to the proportionately greater size, strength and speed of modern players in comparison to earlier versions of NFL players, but there could come a day where football could look much like basketball, at which point it will lose popularity.

Football has been compared to war, and I believe that comparison is appropriate. It calls on all physical and intellectual characteristics from the 11 men teams. Just like boxers, who endure headshot after headshot in competition, players know the risks and choose to assume them. They do so for the financial benefits they would not otherwise enjoy. Arguably the greatest boxer in history, Ali, has suffered the effects of his boxing career, but we do not outlaw boxing nor do we make the boxers wear headgear as that would change the sport. Applying that to football, people will not pay to watch players dance on the field, so I expect there is a limit to rules changes issued for the stated purpose of player safety. Ultimately, the sport is not safe. People will be injured in contact sports. The only way to reduce that statistic is to eliminate contact completely. Once that happens, it is not football anymore.

 

[TheSolderKing]

Regis, (A) Final Answer.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

but there could come a day where football could look much like basketball, at which point it will lose popularity.

I guess different stokes for different folks. I don't like basketball today. But thought the game was great as it was played in the 60s and 70s when it was about finesse, passing, and shooting and not overpowering and dunking. I don't like basketball because it has become hockey.

 

[Patriot Missile]

I guess different stokes for different folks. I don't like basketball today. But thought the game was great as it was played in the 60s and 70s when it was about finesse, passing, and shooting and not overpowering and dunking. I don't like basketball because it has become hockey.

I don't understand the hockey comparison.

 

[The-Hooded-One]

Yeah it make no sense really. If basketball had become hockey I'd sure watch a lot more basketball.

 

[Deus Irae]

So we post an inaccurate hypothetical and use that to defend league decisions?


We're now treating our sports like politics. :bricks:

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly. That is why I agree with what the NFL is doing, regarding increasing the penalties both on fields (yards) and off field ($ and suspensions) for making dangerous illegal plays and in some case making formerly legal plays that are dangerous illegal.

While some see this as making the game into flag football. I see two net changes 1) less injuries and 2) higher scoring games.

The first is a very good thing. The second isn't that bad and many would say makes the game more exciting.

The problem isn't solved by turning football into flag football. Spearing has ALWAYS been a penalty. So any helmet to anything hit is and has been illegal.
The problem is when you allow receivers to catch a pass without being allowed to be hit. A receiver is not 'defenseless' unless he put himself into a defenseless position. Essentially the new rulings are saying catching a pass should be an unfettered event, and that is wrong.
Additionally, it is very troubling that the trend has become if the hit is hard, it is therefore illegal.
Many more players are going to sustain injuries by trying to play based upon whehter the natural reaction would draw a penalty than where ever injured before it got so out of hand.

To answer the original question, anyone who has to think about whether they should make a play based upon calculating the probability of injury simply should choose a different sport to play.

 

[Haley]

Exactly. That is why I agree with what the NFL is doing, regarding increasing the penalties both on fields (yards) and off field ($ and suspensions) for making dangerous illegal plays and in some case making formerly legal plays that are dangerous illegal.

While some see this as making the game into flag football. I see two net changes 1) less injuries and 2) higher scoring games.

The first is a very good thing. The second isn't that bad and many would say makes the game more exciting.

This is not at all what I would have in mind. Making various activities penalties doesn't prevent them from happening. It is a band-aid effort to prevent some, while never preventing all.

What I would have in mind is better technology. Better equipment. Perhaps some rule changes if they can be statistically shown to greatly reduce serious injury. I might grudgingly put the kickoff change into that category, although the jury is still out on that.

But the suspensions and fines are not seeming to work. There seem to be just as many fines every year without significant rule changes. This would imply they aren't helping. But really, I don't know. I'd personally like to see some statistics on how well some of these injury reduction programs work.

Without the numbers, how can anyone here have any kind of informed opinion?

 

[Tunescribe]

There probably is a 1-percent chance of paralysis happening to every player on every play of every game. Same probably applies to the drive home afterward.

 

[Haley]

The question I always have gnawing at the back of my mind here is this. Why are the helmets proven to most reduce injury not mandated? Or at least those shown to be the most problematic disallowed. Why not incent the helmet manufacturers to research and create better equipment to prevent injury?

Until they do that, are they really taking the problem seriously at all?