State of the game: Rick Reilly commentary

[Tunescribe]

My God Tunesscribe, don't you know how arrogant that statement is?

I was being facetious.

Here's the deal, at least where I'm coming from: I don't want to see the game change; I love it the way it is (actually liked it better 10 years ago, but I digress). The CTE Pandora's Box has been flung open and it's only going to get more attention. I'm just curious what it will mean going forward, for those who administer football at all levels and for the players themselves. I certainly do not advocate anti-football legislation in any form, but attempts to do so down the road won't surprise me depending on what medical research concludes. Hell, they just might develop a vaccine for it. Who knows?

 

[mb6592]

I was being facetious.

Here's the deal, at least where I'm coming from: I don't want to see the game change; I love it the way it is...

Then man up and defend your position. Hell, I wouldn't stop playing the game because of the risks. I'd rather live 50 fun/self determining/free years then 75 of what's been coming down the pike. And even if I did decide the risks were too great, I certainly wouldn't impose this cowardice on others.

Note: No offense to cowards is intended as I would never jump out of a f---ing plane, even with three parachutes.

 

[Tunescribe]

Then man up and defend your position. Hell, I wouldn't stop playing the game because of the risks. I'd rather live 50 fun/self determining/free years then 75 of what's been coming down the pike. And even if I did decide the risks were too great, I certainly wouldn't impose this cowardice on others.

There's nothing to "man-up" about; I simply was presenting this for discussion as something we likely (eventually) will be forced to deal with as fans who love the game. I don't know where it's headed, we can only guess. I've been a Pats season ticket holder for 20 years and certainly plan to continue.

Note: No offfense to cowards is intended as I would never jump out of a f---ing plane, even with three parachutes.

FYI, I used to skydive regularly ... quit after 191 jumps.

 

[DocHoliday]

Seat belts, modern speed limits, motorcycle helmets and limited smoking areas are all abominations that began with constitutionally dubious actions taken by the fed, and everyone who helped get them installed should have been arrested and tried for treason.


Sadly, the U.S. has become a bubble wrap society.

1.) Seat belts are justified because they keep you behind the wheel during collisions so you have a shot at avoiding me the pedestrian. Your little bit of freedom is taken away here to save my life.

2.) Driving on the road is a privilege, not a right. You abide by the rules, which are often there to protect me from you.

3.) Motorcycle helmets I agree with. It's your skin.

4.) Keep your cancer to yourself. Protecting me from you, so you don't have much of an argument for self-determination here.

 

[mb6592]

FYI, I used to skydive regularly ... quit after 191 jumps.

Damn, you're a wild person!

 

[Joker]

Note: No offense to cowards is intended as I would never jump out of a f---ing plane, even with three parachutes.

Off topic response but...when I was in my 20's I lived out west in New Mexico with a buddy just back from the 'Nam...one day he says "I got some buddies in a parachute exhibition jumping today, let's go watch..."..so we head on out into the high desert and set up with a bunch of other fools to watch this spectacle. Well, the plane comes overhead and they jump out of it.....as six of them are forming a ring mid air we notice one jumper waving at the others wildly...so, anyway, they pull their rips and this one jumper's chute fails...now , I think you're doing about 200 mph at that point, I'm not sure, but the guy is still falling as his buddies chutes are deployed...he pulls his emergency rip and it tangles up on opening....not good.....he hit the ground in front of us, not fifty feet away and bounced off the ground back up about six feet before the final thud.

Now here's the kicker....he's alive...smashed up bad with dozens of broken bones...just lying there like a pancake and his jarhead buddy comes running up to him screaming "take it like a man, Frosty...take it like a man...ooo rah!.."...well, I never saw Frosty again but I can tell you all one thing...the LAST thing I'm ever gonna do is jump out of some perfectly good airplane so I can "take it like a man!"...

 

[Tunescribe]

Damn, you're a wild person!

Not anymore. Got it out of my system.

 

[Zeus]

And the lawyers will keep litigating until no school district or college can afford liability insurance.

When that happens, the NFL will become professional wrestling with helmets and a ball, because the schools will no longer provide the amateur players.

Organized football better figure out a way to lessen the impact of injuries or it will cease to exist as we know it now.

Word in the insurance trade press is that insurers are already considering putting concusssion exclusions into liability policies. It's not that coverage will be too expensive; coverage will not be available.

That's a game changer.

 

[Tunescribe]

Word in the insurance trade press is that insurers are already considering putting concussion exclusions into liability policies. It's not that coverage will be too expensive; coverage will not be available.

That's a game changer.

What kind of liability policies? You mean, school liability policies? I don't think schools can be held liable for athletic injuries but I could be mistaken.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I didn't go through this whole thread. My 2 cents is, the problems causing concussions is twofold. 1) NFL defenders don't tackle correctly anymore. They go for the big hit, using their shoulders, hardly ever wrapping up, and sometimes with their heads down, hence leading to head and neck injuries, and many missed tackles or tackles being hurdled. 2) They go for the big hit because of media. You didn't see the big hits 10 times a day on 50 cable channels back in the day, now everyone is trying to get on TV, get on Sportcenter's top 10 plays. The fundamentals of tackling are completely lost, and it's been that way for many years. I'm 51 years old, and I guarantee you I still know how to tackle. Wrap the legs or waist with your arms and believe me, the guy is going down just as effectively as a shot to the head or upper chest. Our coaches always told us, wherever the waist/trunk goes that's where the body goes (don't fall for jukes). All that is lost in lieu of shoulder tackles. Sure they work, but they can be easily avoided or juked.

The last point is obviously there is something wrong with the helmets. You practically see at least 2 concussions a game. You never saw that in the 70's or 80's. The speed and size of the players has increased, but they are using the same kind of helmets. Obviously the padding inside the helmets has to be looked at as well. I'm so surprised other more protective materials haven't been added or substituted for the current padding.

 

[manxman2601]

Seat belts, speed limits, motorcycle helmets, booster seats, sanitary needles for tattoos, food inspectors and limited areas for public smoking all say hello.

The straw man waves right back

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

1.) Seat belts are justified because they keep you behind the wheel during collisions so you have a shot at avoiding me the pedestrian. Your little bit of freedom is taken away here to save my life.

2.) Driving on the road is a privilege, not a right. You abide by the rules, which are often there to protect me from you.

3.) Motorcycle helmets I agree with. It's your skin.

4.) Keep your cancer to yourself. Protecting me from you, so you don't have much of an argument for self-determination here.

Seatbelts to protect pedestrians from being hit by flying drivers? That has to be the most absurd reason I've ever heard. I'd be surprised if that has ever happened in the entire world. Look, you can make a rock solid case why seatbelts are a good idea (for the driver), why helmets are a good idea, why brushing your teeth 3 times a day is a good idea, and why exercising 3 times a week is a good idea. But which good ideas should people be compelled to follow by law? It's a question the founding fathers pondered and the answer they came up with was its better to be free to do the wrong thing than forced to do the right thing as long as you only harm yourself.

I could put you in a cell and feed you and care for you so you live to 100, and we could do the same for football players. But it's none of our business what they do, and we're not helping people by removing their freedoms.

 

[Observer]

Seatbelts to protect pedestrians from being hit by flying drivers? That has to be the most absurd reason I've ever heard. I'd be surprised if that has ever happened in the entire world. Look, you can make a rock solid case why seatbelts are a good idea (for the driver), why helmets are a good idea, why brushing your teeth 3 times a day is a good idea, and why exercising 3 times a week is a good idea. But which good ideas should people be compelled to follow by law? It's a question the founding fathers pondered and the answer they came up with was its better to be free to do the wrong thing than forced to do the right thing as long as you only harm yourself.

I could put you in a cell and feed you and care for you so you live to 100, and we could do the same for football players. But it's none of our business what they do, and we're not helping people by removing their freedoms.

Uncle, you need to reread what he's saying. It is not about mandating a good idea, it is about mandating against those behaviors that lead to injury to innocents other than yourself. What he was saying is that in the event of a minor collision, the seatbelt keeps you the driver in control so that you can take corrective action instead of being thrown from your seat and your vehicle careening into me on the sidewalk. You are perfectly happy inside your car, glad to be okay while I am dead on the sidewalk through no fault of mine.

The rest of your "points" have no point. No one is talking about making not toothbrushing illegal. Feel free to not brush, eat junk food, whatever as long as you foot your own bill of dental fees, liposuction, whatever...

 

[MassPats38]

I am all for implementation of (or reduce, if soft helmets help) technology to make the game safer. If people are mislead into playing a dangerous game, then they should be compensated and I would certainly feel bad for those participants. As for rules, if limited plays create unnecessary risk of injury, lose those plays. The rest, I am perfectly fine with as it is part of the game.

For anyone professing surprise at what happens to NFL players post-retirement, stories of players enduring lifelong damage should be a news flash to nobody who reads the news. This article is from 1988, and this one is from 2001. I remember watching a story on a relatively young and retired defensive lineman (late 20s) who had sustained so much nerve damage playing the game that he wore a body brace and couldn't pick up his toddler out of fear of dropping the kid. That was before this concussion 'newsflash', which given the force of these impacts probably shouldn't be all that surprising given the nature of concussions and the force of impacts in the game.

I don't know if people somehow believed boxing, and now MMA, were more brutal sports, so NFL players would dance into their twilight years unscathed. Earl Campbell, a force of nature in his playing years, could not walk by the age of 45. In 1960, Gifford was so badly concussed by a hit from Bedarik that he didn't play again until 1962. They did the "NFL legends" ceremony in Houston before the 2004 Super Bowl. Did anyone watching that believe those gents in their 40s and 50s looked good? If you paid attention to the sport, to the stories of Lyle Alzado and Bill Romanowski, rage and physical damage should not be a revelation. It is, however, the sport.

When asked in interviews, many of the players asked have responded they wouldn't trade their years in the sport, despite the effects. I suspect one of the hardest aspects of this concussion assessment is discerning when depression is attributable to damage, and when it is attributable to missing the applause and fame. Football demands aggression and violence, and frankly that is what makes it entertaining (if the NFL became flag football, I would have no interest in it and I suspect many would join me in that opinion). If you feel bad for the participants, then I suspect you do not watch boxing or MMA, as that is the future for those participants as well.

Nobody forces players to play football. They have to fight to get in the NFL. There is no gun to their head when they sign an NFL contract. These guys are not mental competency cases, and much like many singers or actors/actresses, the entertainment industry is apt to milk every ounce of possible ratings without regard to their well-being. When you make the game less interesting, fewer people pay, the salaries go down, and ultimately the market for the skill disappears. The question is are these guys, on the whole, better off with football or without it? I suspect they are better off in the typical case.

 

[Observer]

To me the question is not about whether football will be illegal, etc. I am sure it will stay. Boxing is around even though the dangers of boxing are probably more serious than most other sports. The question is how palatable it will be for many people to watch it when the realization is that they are paying young men to hurt themselves for their entertainment. Parents may not let their kids play or watch, it will become uncool to wear NFL jerseys, etc. People will still be able to play it as much as they want (just as people climb without harness, jump off planes, and dive off cliffs); it just won't be big business that it is right now - not that there is anything wrong with that. People should be playing a sport for their own entertainment, not getting compensated (even if it is extremely well) to suffer for mine.

As far as protective equipment and helmets go, most opinion on this forum seems to be that blood and bruising is somehow better than long term brain injury and I tend to agree but I don't think the football industry sees it that way. See, long term injury is good stuff to debate about but does not directly affect the enjoyment of the game at hand. Blood streaming down someone's head is quite vivid though, and if that happens with regularity people will find it unpalatable to watch.

 

[Deus Irae]

1.) Seat belts are justified because they keep you behind the wheel during collisions so you have a shot at avoiding me the pedestrian. Your little bit of freedom is taken away here to save my life.

2.) Driving on the road is a privilege, not a right. You abide by the rules, which are often there to protect me from you.

3.) Motorcycle helmets I agree with. It's your skin.

4.) Keep your cancer to yourself. Protecting me from you, so you don't have much of an argument for self-determination here.

What you claim are justifications are garbage, and the anti-smoking crowd may be the biggest bunch of asshats ever to infest mankind*. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.



*And no, I don't smoke either cigarettes or marijuana.

 

[Observer]

What you claim are justifications are garbage, and the anti-smoking crowd may be the biggest bunch of asshats ever to infest mankind*. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.



*And no, I don't smoke either cigarettes or marijuana.

I am curious to know what your take on smoking is. Should they be permissible everywhere?

 

[Deus Irae]

...The rest of your "points" have no point. No one is talking about making not toothbrushing illegal. Feel free to not brush, eat junk food, whatever as long as you foot your own bill of dental fees, liposuction, whatever...

Except that you're wrong to say that nobody is talking about this stuff. People are talking about doing such things. They want bans on plastic surgery, junk food taxes, limitations on soft drink sizes, bans on soft drinks and junk food in school vending machines, etc...

 

[Deus Irae]

I am curious to know what your take on smoking is. Should they be permissible everywhere?

It is not the place of the government to force private owners to make smoking either accepted or not-accepted. If a property owner wants to allow smoking in some/all/none of his establishment, that's his business.

Remember, what used to be was smoking allowed everywhere. Non-smokers griped that they just wanted a small space for themselves, and they got non-smoking sections mandated. Now, many places aren't even allowed smoking sections, and some cities/towns are trying for outright bans, or as close to it as they think they can get without getting legally smacked down.

The camel's nose, not surprisingly, has led to pretty much the whole damned camel getting into the tent.

 

[Observer]

Except that you're wrong to say that nobody is talking about this stuff. People are talking about doing such things. They want bans on plastic surgery, junk food taxes, limitations on soft drink sizes, bans on soft drinks and junk food in school vending machines, etc...

Sometimes people get carried away with this stuff and don't know when to stop. I think common sense will prevail and junk food and candy won't be banned anytime soon. Makes you wonder though - we do make drugs illegal and if you somehow carry that argument far enough, you could probably convince yourself that it is justifiable to ban candy, and junk food, and all of the things you mentioned.