OT: James Harrison threatens to quit over fine

[JackBauer]

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"?

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

You should try explaining that to the NFL:

“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.”

NFL to start handing out suspensions for vicious hits - Mark McGuire - Mark McGuire on local, regional and national sports - timesunion.com - Albany NY

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.

 

[shmessy]

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

I was careful, which is why I put the word contact in quotes. Anyone with an understanding of the history of football from 2003 forward should be able to understand what was meant by "contact".

 

[Haley]

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

This is incorrect. Furthermore, that "existing rule" is about 2 years old.

 

[IllegalContact]

the steelers rewarded him with a day off

James Harrison excused from practice | ProFootballTalk.com

 

[Ron Sellers]

It Is What It Is -- Brady to James Harrison: Please, retire

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.”

Steeler fans / Brady haters responding on sites like PFT and ESPN in 3 ... 2 ... 1

 

[Haley]

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.

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.

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"?

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?

This is incorrect. Furthermore, that "existing rule" is about 2 years old.

I beg to differ.
NFL Videos: What is an illegal hit?

 

[bakes781]

I'm already tired of hearing the players crying about the potential for an 18 game season. If it did happen they'd be eliminating 2 preseason games so essentially there's not that big of a difference. Should the players get more compensation? Yes of course. But that will also come at the expense of a rookie salary scale.

Harrison needs to shut up, because his IQ can't take the hits any more.

 

[Kontradiction]

Well, if he doesn't quit then he can always just kill himself. Either way, he's doing the world a favor.

 

[Deus Irae]

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'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 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?

Paralysis and spinal damage are the only two injuries that can occur in helmet-to-helmet contact situations that we can be sure were the result of only that hit. Even a severe concussion might have been a "career ending injury" only in the sense that it was the straw that broke the camel's back rather than as an individual instance. If the league was actually trying to avoid all career-ending injuries, it would, indeed, outlaw all contact.

I beg to differ.
NFL Videos: What is an illegal hit?

The "existing rule" has been in effect since 2009.

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.

NFL Passes Safety Proposals, Moves Closer to Becoming Two-Hand Touch -- NFL FanHouse

 

[UofApatsfan]

Why didn't he just retire before the season, head to head hits were illegal before the season started.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Goodell rescind/reduce the fine given that the NFL will do backflips to avoid painting the Steelers or any of their players in a negative light.

 

[Haley]

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.

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.

The "existing rule" has been in effect since 2009.

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?

 

[Kontradiction]

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.

 

[Gwedd]

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.

You mean the Refs handing out those "Polian Specials" to Patriots defenders?

 

[sbpatfan]

The NFL sucks at making rules, proof by this:

YouTube - Calvin Johnson Robbed of TD By Refs.. Lions vs. Bears Sept 12th 2010

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Haley]

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.

As I explained to you already, I took issue with the hyperbole used in the video. No contact were his words, not mine. He was the one talking about flag football and soccer. I simply pointed out the hyperbole. I can't imagine why you are taking issue with it. You haven't explained yourself yet.

But on a side note ... "alleged?" Really, you are going with that? This isn't a criminal prosecution for god's sake. xD People can decide for themselves if it is hyperbole. I say it is. I have a right to my opinion. I have a right to post it.

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.

All I've done is keep you honest, mate. You clearly are just looking to fight with someone. Bad day?

 

[RyanP421]

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.

That is a TERRIBLE idea.

Some players are more injury prone then others. There are way too many holes in this idea, man. No offense.