It Oughta Be Banned......

[piebaldpython]

I as gonna put this on the NFL thread but decided this should have a life of it's own outside the NFL thread.

Okay......here's my rant. Helmet-to-helmet hits and headhunting should be banned, just like crackback blocks are banned. ALL "hits" should go no higher than the upper chest. You can still crush somebody with an upper body hit but this headhunting and helmet-to-helmet stuff is assinine.

While I'm at it.....head-high brushback pitches should be banned. You are messing with people's livlihoods with that ridiculous head-hunting in baseball.

Fighting in any sport gets you tossed out of the game except for hockey. Wake the heck up, eliminate the fighting. You fight, you're gone. And yes, the referees know who the instigators are and if it's apparent/blatant that somebody was on a mission.....then only that player gets tossed.

These are SPORTS and the hooliganism that shows up just can't be tolerated. If you need to see illegal hits that bad, watch the UFC.

OK, time for me to calm the frig down.

[Jx2]

Apparently the No Fun League is cracking down on this. My only problem is not with suspension especialy when it comes to helmet to helmet hit. But with the lack of guidlines and the same rules being applied to "vicious hits". I have a problem with. Daunte Robinson hit was clean, the only thing he did wrong from the replays Ive saw was leading with the crown of the helmet. Which imo is more dangerous to him than to the other player. On the other side of it, I think James Harrison first knock out this weekend. Was as intital as it was meant to be, What I see and maybe I am being bias, he lunged after the defender and had the only player not of wrapped up his feet when he did it would of been a good clean hit. Now under the new rules that I agree with it did end up being a helmet to helmet hit.

Here is my big worry about the new rule. Say Ray Lewis has a clean shot at Chris Johnson over the middle or through a gap. Now he knows if he blows him up and its vicious he could be suspended, that pops in his mind and he decides to change his tatic. Johnson puts on a move and boom he's gone. I think this new rules should be helmet to helmet only. Other wise why even play defense. You already protect the QB's like a princess, and now every other offensive player might as well be wearing a red jersey as well. Or hell put flags on them. It use to be said Defense wins championships but with this, you could see hard nose defense's being more and more limited due to suspension where say a James Harrison is suspended but Ray Lewis is not for almost the same exact hit. Cos these will be more about player popularity than how vicious the hit was. Some guys will slide some will be made a example of.

Again, suspension for helmet to helmet hits I have NO problem with.

[Eric]

I agree (with the OP).

To those who say it's impossible to consistently rule on illegal hits, I respectfully disagree. Make some firm guidelines, provide adequate training to your officials, and enforce the rules on a regular basis.

The over-the-top hits have just gone way too far. If Harrison's hit on Cribbs and Robinson's hit on Jackson were legal and within the rules, then the rules need to be changed.

Preventable injuries are not "part of the game."

[Eric]

Apparently the No Fun League is cracking down on this. My only problem is not with suspension especialy when it comes to helmet to helmet hit. But with the lack of guidlines and the same rules being applied to "vicious hits". I have a problem with. Daunte Robinson hit was clean, the only thing he did wrong from the replays Ive saw was leading with the crown of the helmet. Which imo is more dangerous to him than to the other player. On the other side of it, I think James Harrison first knock out this weekend. Was as intital as it was meant to be, What I see and maybe I am being bias, he lunged after the defender and had the only player not of wrapped up his feet when he did it would of been a good clean hit. Now under the new rules that I agree with it did end up being a helmet to helmet hit.
This is my issue. Everybody says these hits were legal and "clean", and the Robinson hit winds up with two concussions. Is that the type of hit that should be clean and legal?? It's retarded. Fricking change the rules.


Here is my big worry about the new rule. Say Ray Lewis has a clean shot at Chris Johnson over the middle or through a gap. Now he knows if he blows him up and its vicious he could be suspended, that pops in his mind and he decides to change his tatic. Johnson puts on a move and boom he's gone. I think this new rules should be helmet to helmet only. Other wise why even play defense. You already protect the QB's like a princess, and now every other offensive player might as well be wearing a red jersey as well. Or hell put flags on them. It use to be said Defense wins championships but with this, you could see hard nose defense's being more and more limited due to suspension where say a James Harrison is suspended but Ray Lewis is not for almost the same exact hit. Cos these will be more about player popularity than how vicious the hit was. Some guys will slide some will be made a example of.
My counterpoint to this: Ray Lewis and James Harrison could try tackling and wrapping up the opposing players. Bone-rattling hits are NOT the only way to effectively stop the opposing player. Heck, they're not even the MOST effective way!

If it turns out that offensive players then have the advantage, then put rules in place to make it less favorable for them. Lighten up on pass interference calls, etc. It's not rocket science.

[sunvalleylaw]

I agree with PBP. There is no real way to make some sort of judgment call rule like "Vicious Hits" work without tons of controversy, and worse, players testing the line. Testing the line of such a rule will only lead to continued injury.

[R_of_G]

I also agree with the majority of PBP's post. As I'd said in the similar discussion in the NFL thread, I think many injuries can be avoided by declaring very specific rules and making sure they are enforced consistently by all officials.

I'm also glad you mentioned the head-hunting pitches in baseball. I understand the strategy involved in "bean ball" but I don't see how you can't back a guy off the plate just as easily by nailing him in the hip or the upper arm. Most of these guys throw upwards of 85-90 mph and sooner or later, they're going to kill someone. When a batter charges the mound, he's not allowed to take his bat with him, so why can a pitcher use a weapon? Personally, I'm of the opinion that if you really want to intimidate a batter, strike him the hell out.

The only thing I disagree with in the original post is the implication that fighting needs to be taken out of hockey. I am not one of those people who only enjoys hockey for the fighting, but I am one of those who thinks that if you take out the fighting, what you will see are a lot more slashing and stick foul incidents because there is no longer the deterrent factor which fighting has historically provided. The fighting in hockey is there for a reason. Yes, a lot of the fights are pre-meditated stupid affairs that have do little other than slow down the game, but in a sport that is that fast and that physical, eliminating the deterrent factor to cheap shot artists will only lead to more cheap shots.

[sunvalleylaw]

I will admit that I don't know enough about hockey to understand that at all, R_of_G. I guess I can understand that you are saying players have to be able to retaliate (by fighting) for cheap shots in order to deter more cheap shots, but why not just have or enforce rules about cheap shots in the first place, which would have to be enforced vigorously and seriously? It seemed like that used to be the rule back when olympic hockey was amateur. But like I said, I don't understand the game well enough to really comment.

[Jx2]

If the NFL was to set guidlines for vicous hits Id be fine with that. But as I said, without those I just feel it'll become a who's who game. I'll admit to be being bias on this topic though, these hits are what got me to watching the game in the first place. Greg Lloyd use to get fined all the time because of it hits on the QB. Of late though so much of the game has changed really in favor of the offense that it just seems like we are headed towards outdoor areana ball. Im sure that'll be fine for alot of fans, but if it does get that way. I'll stop watching. Im a defensive fan, I love the blow ups. One reason I fell that Troy Polomalu is the main plug for the Steelers. And what him play, he'll blow you up but 9 times out of 10 if you put a move on he has enough controll to still wrap up those feet and make the play.

On a side note, I think Ditka might have a point. If you want to keep the game real but reduce these kind of risk's. Remove the helmets, might be a bit extreme or over the top. But I can see his point. Other wise you will still have these plays, and adventually I figure the league will ban players who get suspended x amount of time.

Lastly there is no rule that says a player cannot bring a bat to the mound. If Im not mistaken, Id have to dig out my Ken Burns set, one player back in the 50's did take a bat with him. The reason I dont think you see it alot, because obviously when you charge the mound your pretty fired up and probably not thinking clearly in the first place. Is the same reason you ask a guy to step outside at a bar fight instead of smashing a bottle over his head. I dont really think pitchers should be throwing at guys heads, but Id love to see pitchers regain the inner part of the plate like they did in the golden age. Pitchin is still thin in baseball and if they started to take the mind set I own that spot I think it would really help alot of players.

[Bloozcat]

It's clear when you watch old NFL film that to a large extent violent hits have replaced wrapping up and tackling as the way to bring down an opponent in the modern game. This is especially true when the opponent is in his most vulnerable position such as a receiver who's concentrating on catching a pass and not on the human missle that is streaking towards him.

More emphasis is placed on jarring the ball loose for an incompletion or a fumble by huge hits today whereas in the past defending against the pass itself and short of that wrapping up and tackling the opponent after the reception was more the norm. Big hits have always been around but rather than being the occasional way to end a play it's now becomming the prefered method.

These guys are just too big, too strong, and too fast for even a conditioned body to take these violent hits. And no matter how conditioned a player is, there's nothing that can be done to strengthen the head, the knees, the ankles, and the spine...and that's where these hits are taking their greatest toll.

Hitting without any attempt to wrap up and tackle should be scrutinized by the NFL and I'd favor a rule change to support this. Violent hits to the head should be outlawed, draw a suspension and loss of pay for that game for the offender.

[R_of_G]

I will admit that I don't know enough about hockey to understand that at all, R_of_G. I guess I can understand that you are saying players have to be able to retaliate (by fighting) for cheap shots in order to deter more cheap shots, but why not just have or enforce rules about cheap shots in the first place, which would have to be enforced vigorously and seriously? It seemed like that used to be the rule back when olympic hockey was amateur. But like I said, I don't understand the game well enough to really comment.

It's not necessarily the players that receive the cheap shots that do the retaliating, but some of their more brawny teammates. For instance, with the some of the 80's Oilers teams, guys knew that if they took a cheap shot at Gretzky, on their next shift Sementko was coming after them. That alone was enough to deter a lot of people from taking liberties with Gretzky.

[R_of_G]

More emphasis is placed on jarring the ball loose for an incompletion or a fumble by huge hits today whereas in the past defending against the pass itself and short of that wrapping up and tackling the opponent after the reception was more the norm. Big hits have always been around but rather than being the occasional way to end a play it's now becomming the prefered method.

I'd have to say this phenomenon is a direct result of the recent changes in enforcing defensive pass interference. Defensive backs are acutely aware that the NFL has put an emphasis on scoring and the way games are being called now, if a defender does much more than even look at a receiver, he'll be flagged for pass interference. To combat this, they've developed techniques to hit the receiver as soon as the ball gets there in an effort to cause an incomplete pass. Like Eric said, to avoid hits like those, the officials will either need to ease up on pass interference calls or we should get used to a lot of 51-45 final scores and the NFL will become the NBA where nobody plays defense and the last team to possess the ball wins.

[piebaldpython]

Here is my big worry about the new rule. Say Ray Lewis has a clean shot at Chris Johnson over the middle or through a gap. Now he knows if he blows him up and its vicious he could be suspended, that pops in his mind and he decides to change his tatic. Johnson puts on a move and boom he's gone. I think this new rules should be helmet to helmet only. Other wise why even play defense. You already protect the QB's like a princess, and now every other offensive player might as well be wearing a red jersey as well.

C'mon R & G...if Ray Lewis can't CRUNCH somebody with a legitimate thru-the numbers shot then he ought to stay the heck home. As to RED jerseys....aren't all defensive players wearing them? I mean, they take such umbrage at illegal crackback blocks!! I mean that in jest.

As to hockey....living in Philly, the home of the Broad Street Bullies....I've heard that "well, it's hockey and fightin' is necessary" rant for year. What a crock that is. C'mon, play the game the way it's supposed to be played (i.e. the way Europeans play it) and with good, hard checks. Make spearing illegal. I remember well the clamor over Ted Green who was a masterful stick fighter. That has NO place in hockey.

Sorry for another rant......but there just is NO place in sports for this kind of stuff. There is NO excuse for it whatsoever.

Guys get concussions enough off legitimate plays. I'm thinking of when Kolb got flattened by a tackle by the Packers. He got hurt but it was a good, hard play and oh well. Nothing cheap about it.

[sunvalleylaw]

It's not necessarily the players that receive the cheap shots that do the retaliating, but some of their more brawny teammates. For instance, with the some of the 80's Oilers teams, guys knew that if they took a cheap shot at Gretzky, on their next shift Sementko was coming after them. That alone was enough to deter a lot of people from taking liberties with Gretzky.

Always good to discuss this stuff with you guys. It is interesting to hear the different opinions I guess R_of_G's explanation makes me believe even more that enforcement of rules against cheap shots or other fouls in the first place is far superior. The way you describe provides an incentive to staff the team so there is an enforcer thug on the ice to protect the Gretzkys of the game. If cheap play (and fighting) are not allowed, and those rules are actively and consistently enforced, there is no need for this sideshow that takes away from actual hockey. If the euros and old school amateur play could do it, the current pro league can too, . . . if the powers that be have the will or desire to do so.

EDIT: R_of_G, euro stick battle scrums are no good either and would have to be also penalized. I just refuse to believe that our athletes cannot be trained to restrain themselves from violence on the field in any fashion.

But then, that gets back to my jaded opinion that in professional sports, the powers that be believe that blood sport sells, and that is what makes money, and money is what matters. Nero fiddles on . . .

As far as the football, and Jx2's reaction goes, again, some want to see the uber hits. But trying to draw a line allowing extreme hits will just lead to judgment calls, and the line being tested, and injuries continuing to happen along the way. A restructuring of the rules would be necessary, maybe including the pass interference rules.

I used to love to see Paul Skansi (late 70's and 80's Seahawks tight end from Gig Harbor, WA) run a quick in or hook into the middle and drag down the catch from the air for a first down, absorbing a good and often hard, but clean hit on the way. He was a good, tough tight end with soft hands. With today's hits, he could not have done it. Blooz is right about the body. No matter how conditioned you are, the nervous system stuff protected by your skull and spine, cannot take what is going on now. That is a known fact.

[R_of_G]

C'mon R & G...if Ray Lewis can't CRUNCH somebody with a legitimate thru-the numbers shot then he ought to stay the heck home.

That was JX, not me who made the comment about Ray Lewis. I agree with you on that one.



As to hockey....living in Philly, the home of the Broad Street Bullies....I've heard that "well, it's hockey and fightin' is necessary" rant for year. What a crock that is. C'mon, play the game the way it's supposed to be played (i.e. the way Europeans play it) and with good, hard checks. Make spearing illegal. I remember well the clamor over Ted Green who was a masterful stick fighter. That has NO place in hockey.


It's primarily the European players that I've observed are the first ones to to use their sticks in the post-whistle scrums. Ans mind you, this is what I'm talking about, not spearing or blatant slashing during actual play, all of which are typically called vigorously by the officials and result in punitive measures from the league offices. What I am talking about in many cases is what you see in the get-togethers after the whistle. Pushing and shoving and gloves in the face are the standard behaviors here, but more and more I see the little swipe here, the little slash there, and yes, it's more often than not the European players who do this. Drop the gloves and settle your differences like men or skate away and realize it's not worth it. Either one is more acceptable to me than the using the stick.

Sorry to have taken us off the original topic, though this side discussion is interesting.

[piebaldpython]

This has been an interesting discussion and I have enjoyed it thoroughly. In no particular order, I'd like to throw a few things out there:

With most NEW stadiums now returning to grass fields, instead of rock-hard Astroturf, there are more concussions than ever for ONE reason....head-hunting and helmet-to-helmet hits. How hard is to lower one's sights and blast a guy thru the numbers and not the helmet. Also, in addition to better fields, the quality of the padding has gotten better and that helps to cut down on other injuries.

In baseball, if a pitcher wants the inside part of the plate, he just has to throw inside. Umpires don't mind calling that inside strike either. If he has to buzz the batter inside, so be it, just not at the head.

[DeanEVO_Dude]

Inherently there are two problems (as I see it) with some of what I am reading here:

1. A helmet-down hit to the numbers is "Spearing" which is illegal in the NFL.

2. Most of the problems are because of the helmets themselves. The safety of the players and the improvement in the equipment have lead to a "feeling of invincibility" by the players. There are fewer concussions and such in both Ausie Football and Rugby combined than there are in the NFL. You might ask why... if you know about those other two sports, you know that they wear no safety equipment (helmets, pads, etc.). Why would there be fewer head-related injuries in a sport that does not equip its players with protection? Simple human nature takes over, preservation and safety are a concious thought instead of "the equipment will protect me" mentality. If the NFL went back to the leather helmets and "barely-there" pads of the 50s, there would be fewer head-related injuries on the field, and the game would be more enjoyable (IMHO) than it is now. It would be more competitive due to an increased skill requrement (i.e. you would actually have to tackle someone, not just throw your body at the other player/ball carrier). The urge to just dive, head-first, at the player with the ball would be reduced, and your need to try and anticipate his moves and adjust would need to be improved (skill increase).

The same thing has happened in NASCAR, the cars are all the "same" and it is up to the "drivers' skill." This is (IMHO) a load of BS! Yes, the driver's skill and ability to adjust his driving style to the car and available adjustment, but it only goes so far. The way it is set up now, there will never be another Allan Kulwicki (driver/owner) to win the championship there, it is stacked against the small guy. The only difference in the cars is the stickers on them, they might as well take all the decals off except the sponsors (auto makers do not sponsor drivers like they did in the 60s and early 70s anymore). It is only the decals that give the cars a slight resemblence to what the consumer drives on the road everyday.

Just wanted to put my $.02 worth in here. These are the reasons that I don't give two-s**ts for either of thse two sports much.

[Eric]

2. Most of the problems are because of the helmets themselves. The safety of the players and the improvement in the equipment have lead to a "feeling of invincibility" by the players. There are fewer concussions and such in both Ausie Football and Rugby combined than there are in the NFL. You might ask why... if you know about those other two sports, you know that they wear no safety equipment (helmets, pads, etc.). Why would there be fewer head-related injuries in a sport that does not equip its players with protection? Simple human nature takes over, preservation and safety are a concious thought instead of "the equipment will protect me" mentality. If the NFL went back to the leather helmets and "barely-there" pads of the 50s, there would be fewer head-related injuries on the field, and the game would be more enjoyable (IMHO) than it is now. It would be more competitive due to an increased skill requrement (i.e. you would actually have to tackle someone, not just throw your body at the other player/ball carrier). The urge to just dive, head-first, at the player with the ball would be reduced, and your need to try and anticipate his moves and adjust would need to be improved (skill increase).
That's a very interesting point. I had only given it a passing thought, but I'll roll it around a bit more in my head and see what comes out.

[R_of_G]

2. Most of the problems are because of the helmets themselves. The safety of the players and the improvement in the equipment have lead to a "feeling of invincibility" by the players. There are fewer concussions and such in both Ausie Football and Rugby combined than there are in the NFL. You might ask why... if you know about those other two sports, you know that they wear no safety equipment (helmets, pads, etc.). Why would there be fewer head-related injuries in a sport that does not equip its players with protection? Simple human nature takes over, preservation and safety are a concious thought instead of "the equipment will protect me" mentality. If the NFL went back to the leather helmets and "barely-there" pads of the 50s, there would be fewer head-related injuries on the field, and the game would be more enjoyable (IMHO) than it is now. It would be more competitive due to an increased skill requrement (i.e. you would actually have to tackle someone, not just throw your body at the other player/ball carrier). The urge to just dive, head-first, at the player with the ball would be reduced, and your need to try and anticipate his moves and adjust would need to be improved (skill increase).

This is something Mike Ditka, who knows a thing or two about tough football, has been saying for a few days now on many of the ESPN talk shows and the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me.

[Tig]

While I don't want the NFL to get too wimpy and over regulated, there has to be a limit on intentional hits of mass destruction. Intent has to be proved, similar to the different degrees of a felony.

In short, a helmet is designed to protect the wearer, not to be used as a weapon.

[DeanEVO_Dude]

While I don't want the NFL to get too wimpy and over regulated, there has to be a limit on intentional hits of mass destruction. Intent has to be proved, similar to the different degrees of a felony.

In short, a helmet is designed to protect the wearer, not to be used as a weapon.

It's not so much that the helmet is "designed" as a weapon, but that it offers the wearer so much protection that he does not have to think about safety. Due to the superior protection, he is able to throw himself into the play "head first."

Think of it this way, two people standing on the edge of a bridge 2000 feet above the ground, one wearing a parachute, the other wearing no parachute... Which one would have no issues with falling off/loosing ballance? Easy right? Extreme, I know, but it is the same thing with the safety of all the equipment the players in the NFL...

[omegadot]

Yeah, there's no taking fighting out of the NHL. The game has developed a dynamic specifically for it's inclusion. It's an aspect of the sport.

[sunvalleylaw]

Yeah, there's no taking fighting out of the NHL. The game has developed a dynamic specifically for it's inclusion. It's an aspect of the sport.
I suppose you are correct, and that it would be very hard to change it now.

And I guess that is why I am not a fan. I hate the sideshow. Likewise in baseball with the whole beanball, rush the plate, bench clearing thing. I guess some fans like that sideshow stuff. I would rather see a sport being played.

[R_of_G]

It's not necessarily that all fans that are against removing fighting from hockey enjoy the fighting as a sideshow or bonus attraction, though clearly there are many fans who do seem to enjoy that more than the actual game and I have little respect for those people.

Honestly, I'd much rather see a hard-hitting clean game with tough defense and no fights, but I am glad that aspect of the game is present because I don't like what the game can often become when it's not. Consenting adults fighting beats slashing and stick fouls any day. That's when people really get hurt.

[Jx2]

I think the fights and stuff just bring out a small group of fans. To me a blow up hit is similar to a accident in NASCAR. You have a group of fans that dont really follow but enjoy watching waiting for such things. Wrong or right it is what it is. I think most of these fans are more drawled to boxing and mma but when those things arnt on they look for it else where.

[piebaldpython]

Yeah, there's no taking fighting out of the NHL. The game has developed a dynamic specifically for it's inclusion. It's an aspect of the sport.

It's very easy to get rid of the fighting........you're out for the remainder of the game and your team plays shorthanded for 10 minutes.

R & G mentioned slashing and stick fouls. Get tough and eliminate as much of that as possible with punitive penalties. It can be done.

I'm 54 and back in the late 60s, the Boston Bruins had a defenseman named Ted Greene. A darn good player who also was infamous for wielding a mean stick. He carved some guy up one nite and there was an outcry over it. I can't remember all the details but the NHL got rid of that stuff quick.

Unfortunately, the NHL sees $$$$$ and they don't want to kill their cash cow and so they let the hooliganism continue under the guise of "boys will be boys".

[sunvalleylaw]

It's not necessarily that all fans that are against removing fighting from hockey enjoy the fighting as a sideshow or bonus attraction, though clearly there are many fans who do seem to enjoy that more than the actual game and I have little respect for those people.

Honestly, I'd much rather see a hard-hitting clean game with tough defense and no fights, but I am glad that aspect of the game is present because I don't like what the game can often become when it's not. Consenting adults fighting beats slashing and stick fouls any day. That's when people really get hurt.

R_of_G, you seem to identify the fighting as a method of dealing with violent acts and aggression on the ice, and that it means there will be less of the euro style slashing. That still identifies the problem as one of enforcement of rules against fouls and unfair play. I just cannot agree that allowing fighting is the best way to deal with it. Also, I question whether it is truly consensual.

In sport, one is generally not liable civilly or criminally for aggressive play, as long as it is a part of play. But when one intentionally harms, one is liable. Someone intentionally blows out a soccer player's knee in an indoor co-ed game, one is likely to get sued. Fighting can lead to battery charges, and has. Only in NHL hockey is it somehow allowed. Aggressive contact is a part of many other sports, including football. But if an offended running back pulled off his helmet and punched the linebacker in the face, he would face consequences.

I want to clarify my statement above, that when I say it is hard to change it now, I mean because it would appear (from my very limited exposure to the issues) that those in charge have either no desire, or no will, or both, to change it. As PBP says, it is not impossible to change at all, it just takes doing it. It has become "part of the game" in the pros because that has become the expectation, over time of allowing it to become that way. Expectations can be changed. But I agree that those in charge do not want to risk viewership over attempting such a change.

It is a similar thing with the hits in football, and the bean balls in baseball. Just have clear rules of behavior in sport, and enforce them consistently.

[R_of_G]

Also, I question whether it is truly consensual.

... But if an offended running back pulled off his helmet and punched the linebacker in the face, he would face consequences.



In the vast majority of hockey fighting, both parties drop the gloves and agree to fight. The scenario you describe, where one party drops the gloves and attacks an unwilling opponent is rare in the NHL, and in the handful of cases where it happens the player is penalized heavily during the game, typically with a game misconduct (ejection) and a major penalty to his team leaving them shorthanded for five minutes which is an eternity in hockey. Additionally, the league imposes fines and suspensions for such acts. But again, this is rarely the case. Watch any highlight of a hockey fight and what you will see are two guys who agree to fight each other.

We could debate the issue endlessly, but it's not changing anytime soon. Even with increasing suspensions and harsher penalties, what you'll get is less fighting, but you will never eliminate it entirely. There are still fights in baseball, and the penalties get harsher all the time; there are still fights in football, though with all that padding I still can't quite figure out the point of it; there are still fights in basketball despite the harshest anti-fighting rules in any sport after the Kermit Washington incident; and, like it or not, there are still fights in non-NHL hockey leagues where the penalties are far more severe. It can be reduced, it can't be eliminated.

[Commodore 64]

Inherently there are two problems (as I see it) with some of what I am reading here:

2. Most of the problems are because of the helmets themselves. The safety of the players and the improvement in the equipment have lead to a "feeling of invincibility" by the players. There are fewer concussions and such in both Ausie Football and Rugby combined than there are in the NFL. You might ask why... if you know about those other two sports, you know that they wear no safety equipment (helmets, pads, etc.). Why would there be fewer head-related injuries in a sport that does not equip its players with protection? Simple human nature takes over, preservation and safety are a concious thought instead of "the equipment will protect me" mentality. If the NFL went back to the leather helmets and "barely-there" pads of the 50s, there would be fewer head-related injuries on the field, and the game would be more enjoyable (IMHO) than it is now. It would be more competitive due to an increased skill requrement (i.e. you would actually have to tackle someone, not just throw your body at the other player/ball carrier). The urge to just dive, head-first, at the player with the ball would be reduced, and your need to try and anticipate his moves and adjust would need to be improved (skill increase).


I don't disagree, but there is a minor problem with this. Nobody would watch it. Just like nobody watches Aussie football, rugby, or soccer in the US.

[Jx2]

I think the biggest reason americans dont watch those sports. Is because we are asorbed by the big 3 and even Nascar. Soccer has tried but to catch on statewide will probably take another 10 years or better if ever. Fans complain about the money, crying antics and everything else in "our" sports but bottom line we still pay to watch. Ive tried to get into Rugby when I find it on tv, but it hasnt worked to well. Mainly because when I was a kid we'd play back yard football everyday, rain shine snow sleet didnt matter. Even had Wayne's World moments in the snow to put cars back on the roads. But when the conditions got so bad we couldnt hardly move we'd play rugby based on the rules we thought they used. Now those where some crazy mma style events based around a ball.

[FusedGrooves]

NFL = soft!

Come to Australia and play Rugby League.

Helmets, padding and all that crap is for pussies.

BTW - I am anti fooseball of all kinds. Soccor, American Fooseball, Rugby league, Rugby union and Australian rules or 'aerial ping pong'.....

Motorsport FTWFL - if it's got 2 wheels even better.

*edit* sorry I'm not meaning to sound harsh whatsoever....esp with the whole 'pussies' comment hahahaha I'm a motorcycle racer through and through so seeing the injuries from that, but also Australian style football I see the whole american football thing as kinda funny that they wear so much gear.....they do hit hard though and some of the hits are impressive....but watch some Rugby league (youtube 'State of Origin') and you'll see hits just as big/hard as NFL but these guys don't wear helmets or the gear that you guys do.....I see all football players as dumbarsed meatheads who rape, pillage and get paid way too much. Bring on the old days where footballers where everyday ppl, working every day jobs, and played on the weekends....!

cheers

[DeanEVO_Dude]

I don't disagree, but there is a minor problem with this. Nobody would watch it. Just like nobody watches Aussie football, rugby, or soccer in the US.

I beg to differ with you on this, I would begin to watch again. Get these primadonnas off the damn field (and race track), and let the guys do their job that they are being paid for. I have no actual evidence to back this up, but I think that the percentage of peopel who watch to see the "big-hit" or the "big-wreck" is fairly small, less than 15% I think. Most people that watch sports want to see the game played, they want to see the skilled player make an outsanding play. They want to see 10 or 12 guys going side-by-side around Talladega at close to 200mph. They don't want to see Jimmy Johnson whine about someone taping his bumper on the track or that so-and-so wouldn't move out of the way and let him go by!

You are in Ohio, I am in Colorado, we don't watch Rugby or Ausie Football, or soccer for that matter, because they are niche sports in this country. I don't watch because I like American Football, grew up knowing about it and watching it, seeing guys with skill, like Lynn Swan and Butch Johnson make amazing plays. What, exactly, is wrong with that? why did it "have to change with the times"? Is it not enough to know the rules, have abilities and skill that make you one of 1200 (out of a country of 300,000,000) people to be picked to play, and play clean and honestly?

Botom line (for me), most people watch the game to see one team play better/smarter/luckier football than the other team. Not to see some guy make a devestating (clean or otherwise) hit on the ball carrier. What football needs is 30 head coaches like Tom Landry, Paul Brown, or Vince Lombardi back in the league, not these whimp-asses, like Barry Switzer or Dan Reeves! And, owners that care as much for the integrity of the game as they do for the money it makes them.

Thank you and sorry for the rant. (steps down from his soap-box)

[DeanEVO_Dude]

...
I want to clarify my statement above, that when I say it is hard to change it now, I mean because it would appear (from my very limited exposure to the issues) that those in charge have either no desire, or no will, or both, to change it. As PBP says, it is not impossible to change at all, it just takes doing it. It has become "part of the game" in the pros because that has become the expectation, over time of allowing it to become that way. Expectations can be changed. But I agree that those in charge do not want to risk viewership over attempting such a change.

It is a similar thing with the hits in football, and the bean balls in baseball. Just have clear rules of behavior in sport, and enforce them consistently.

I agree, and the leagues and owner are very short-sighted on this one, as I stated earlier, IMHO, most people want to see the game played, the race raced, etc. Only a small portion only want to see the big fight, big hit, big wreck. I think, most viewers, MORE viewers, would be quite happy and satisfied with a clean, well contested, sporting event. Simple. Face facts, why would a person sit in the stands, in April, in Alabama, with no shade, for 3-5 hours, to see what may never happen (Mark Martin won the May, 1997 race at Talladega, not one caution, green from the first lap to the last!).

[Bloozcat]

What I'd hate to see is for the NFL to descend into is something akin to "professional" wrestling with its theater of violence. Unlike wrestling where the violence is mainly faked with the injuries choreographed and staged for the most part (occasionally by mistake someone really gets hurt), in the NFL the injuries are all too real. In other words, I don't want to see the NFL turned into the Roman Colosseum with the league turning the blind eye to (or condoning) the violence so long as the masses are entertained.

[R_of_G]

What football needs is 30 head coaches like Tom Landry, Paul Brown, or Vince Lombardi back in the league, not these whimp-asses, like Barry Switzer or Dan Reeves!

Reeves hasn't coached in the NFL since leaving the Falcons in 2003, and by my count it's been 13 years since Switzer's last season with the '97 Cowboys. This is not to say that some of today's coaches wouldn't qualify as "whimp-asses" but since I don't know what your criteria were for assigning that label, I couldn't really say. What I can say is that I wouldn't call guys like Rex Ryan or Tom Cable or Jeff Fisher a name like that to their faces unless I knew I was prepared to run for my life.

[Bloozcat]

What I can say is that I wouldn't call guys like Rex Ryan or Tom Cable or Jeff Fisher a name like that to their faces unless I knew I was prepared to run for my life.

Rex Ryan? You wouldn't have to run very far...:rollover

(I do get your point though, R_of_G)

[R_of_G]

Rex Ryan? You wouldn't have to run very far...:rollover

(I do get your point though, R_of_G)

True. :)

[DeanEVO_Dude]

Reeves hasn't coached in the NFL since leaving the Falcons in 2003, and by my count it's been 13 years since Switzer's last season with the '97 Cowboys. This is not to say that some of today's coaches wouldn't qualify as "whimp-asses" but since I don't know what your criteria were for assigning that label...

Yes, I know that Reeves and Switzer have not coached in years, my point was that the other three I did mention had no problem benching someone who messed up on or off the field. They also emphasized the fundementals of the game in their coaching. Didn't put up with any s**t! Strict disciplinarians, that is what the NFL needs to go back to.


...What I can say is that I wouldn't call guys like Rex Ryan or Tom Cable or Jeff Fisher a name like that to their faces unless I knew I was prepared to run for my life.

Yeah, I woldn't say it to their faces, either... I'm a lover, not a fighter! LOL
Really, there are some good coaches, you named some of them, but in the NFL, I don't think there is ONE coach that would bench a "star" because he messed up off the field. Greed and Free-agency has had a (IMO) majorly negative effect on the game of pro football, almost to the point of ruin.

[R_of_G]

I don't think there is ONE coach that would bench a "star" because he messed up off the field. Greed and Free-agency has had a (IMO) majorly negative effect on the game of pro football, almost to the point of ruin.

Seems to me we hear reports all the time about guys that are benched without details being disclosed. Perhaps the coaches aren't making the reasons known to the press to avoid the ridiculous circus that comes along with such things, but the guys are nonetheless losing playing time. Best exampe is Bill Bellichick. I despise the guy but there's no doubt he's a coach that believes in discipline first regardless of the star-power of the player involved.

I agree that money/greed plays a role, but I hesitate to bash free agency. With strict salary-cap regulations (particularly at the rookie level) you can avoid a lot of the ridiculous figures we have now, and still have a workable free-agent market. It's a lot better than the alternative, where these guys go back to being treated like property instead of employees. I understand an entry draft to theoretically provide some form of parity, but after a certain amount of time these guys should have the right to choose where to play.