@grote15 said:
I would suggest you reread my post above regarding the measurement of TV ratings in the digital age, Steve, LOL..
It's not just the NFL~TV ratings, as measured by traditional methods, are down across the board. You might want to do some research on the reasons why.
In addition, as I stared above, league revenue topped a record 14 billion last season. I don't think any NFL owner is staying up at night, lol..
Yea sure, and the Academy Awards ratings were way down and they blamed it on "measurement of TV ratings in the digital age" or whatever they called it. But we all know the reasons are similar to the NFL ratings decline.
The difference to me is that I couldn't care less about the Academy Awards, but I do care about the NFL.
Could care less if the ratings are up or down. It effects me none. I have plenty of options as well as everyone else.
I didn’t watch one Sunday NFL game last year during the regular season. I only watch NFL Red Zone with exception of the Sunday Nite games. As far as NFL ratings in general nothing comes close to them in ratings. Most programming is down. As Tim stated people have lots of different ways to watch
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
NFL Attendance Continues To Plummet As Empty Seat Epidemic Enters Week 15
As the NFL copes with a ratings slump and ESPN slashes $80 million in salaries after losing 15,000 subscribers a day in October, another major issue facing the league continued to play out in week 15 - terrible attendance.
Watched the play (thanks for posting) for the 100th time. To me it's a catch and ground causes him to fumble, (again, the old rule says "ground can't cause fumble") Dez is never touched by defender, so it's either a TD or Cowboys at the 2 yard line.
I read the above rule definition and, it's just stupid. He caught the ball and landed in bounds, there's no way he had time to make any other kind of "move", nor should he have had to. Some of you say the rule was applied correctly, maybe so. This was as the announcers were saying, "an incredible catch" and should never have been overturned.
Other than the Vikings with my son, I watched not one single second of football last year including the Super Bowl. This kind of crapola is one example, the kneeling during the anthem was another.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Someone should form special anthem league . No sports , just 3 hours of national anthem on a loop , half the people on this forum would be glued to the screen by the sounds of it.
in a strange sort of way I think the old rule, by using the "language" about the Football Move that we all detest, was at conflict with a basic rule about possession, being in bounds, being across the plane of the goal-line and being down by contact. I can only hope the new rule as it's written clarifies everything. past that, the League probably needs to get rid of some rules in conflict with each other so as not to confuse us.
I think the writing is on the wall for Dez no longer being a Cowboy for much longer, there is no way they will be paying him that absurd salary he is due this year, at this point he is massively overrated.
@perkdog said:
I think the writing is on the wall for Dez no longer being a Cowboy for much longer, there is no way they will be paying him that absurd salary he is due this year, at this point he is massively overrated.
He needs to pick up his game.....or I'm in agreement with you on this. Maybe they should write in some incentive clauses and make him earn his money.
It would also help if the refs would get his "catches" correct!!!!!
@keets said:
in a strange sort of way I think the old rule, by using the "language" about the Football Move that we all detest
As I said earlier in this thread, the words "football move" are nowhere in the rule. "Football Move" is a phrase announcers use to feign ignorance over the rule so they can create fake drama like Al & Collinsworth did during the Super Bowl earlier this year. Here is the current rule:
_ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch._
so there's a point, what is it?? every time we talk about this we are supposed to quote that whole rule --- or --- use the phrase Football Move?? I choose the latter and I expect you to go off on me when I do.
The new rule says that a ball is caught when the player has control, two feet or another body part down, and makes a football move such as a third step or reaching the ball toward the line to gain, or has the ball long enough to make such a move.
So two feet or body part and a football move
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@keets said:
but, Mark, does it actually say Football Move?? I'd hate to see Tabe blow a gasket.
Go to counseling with him. You are both worth saving
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@keets said:
so there's a point, what is it?? every time we talk about this we are supposed to quote that whole rule --- or --- use the phrase Football Move?? I choose the latter and I expect you to go off on me when I do.
I will not be offended.
I didn't "go off" on you. You don't have to quote the whole rule. But, if you want to be correct, you would say "became a runner" or "has to become a runner".
Of course, with the rule replaced, this is now moot
Players will not be allowed to lower their head to initiate contact. Fouls will get a 15-yard penalty and even be subject to ejection.
That led to some concern from players, because hitting without using the helmet at all is incredibly difficult. It’s also how they’ve played the game their whole lives. But NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, at his press conference wrapping up the league meetings in Orlando, said the tone from the coaches and teams was of full support.
“There was very, very strong support for making those changes, in fact I would unanimous in the fact that we can take the head out of the game, we do want to make sure certain techniques aren’t used in our game,” Goodell said, speaking about the reaction of coaches to the rule. “They’re not in the best interest of our game at any level.”
It’s clear that officials will be allowed to use replay on any plays that could result in an ejection, something that Goodell said made the coaches more confident in the consistent enforcement of the rule. It would be the first time the league has used replay for a player safety issue. But the specifics of the rule are still being determined, such as which violations will lead to ejections. Goodell said the league will continue to work on the specifics of the rule.
Atlanta Falcons president and chair of the competition committee Rich McKay also said the reaction to the rule at the league meetings was positive.
“I think the coaches unanimously stood up and said, we’re with it, we understand it’s a major change and we take responsibility,” McKay said.
As for the players being wary of the effect on the game, Goodell asked for patience until they have seen the instructional videos and have heard more about how the rule will be enforced.
“You’re jumping ahead to the players, who haven’t had the chance to hear the discussion we’ve had,” Goodell said at his press conference, which was broadcast by NFL Network. “You’re reacting to players who have not yet heard that dialogue, heard the basis of why we came to where we came.
“I’d give them an opportunity first to understand what the play is before we make a lot of judgments about the ramifications.”
It’s understandable why players would be concerned, especially on the defensive side. Defensive players have seen many rules passed to restrict how they can play, with exorbitant fines when there’s a violation. The worst-case scenario behind the implementation of the new helmet rule is going to create some angst for those players.
“I don’t know how you’re going to play the game,” Washington Redskins cornerback Josh Norman told USA Today.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
It may be a move in the right direction long term. But behaviors like that are hard to break when they've played that way their whole lives/careers. Maybe for the first 3-5 years the fines should be levied to the Team instead of the Player. Would it still be unanimous?
52-90 All Sports, Mostly Topps, Mostly HOF, and some assorted wax.
They are also looking at eliminating kickoffs as well if they can’t make them safer. Easily the most dangerous play in the game
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
They are also looking at eliminating kickoffs as well if they can’t make them safer. Easily the most dangerous play in the game
m
<<< eliminating kickoffs >>>
That's been "looked at" for some years now...there is no way that is going to happen anytime soon.
It may happen in the 2019-2020 season if it’s not fixed this season. It’s a serious “bone” of contention. The rules they put in place have not worked
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Come on people.......Football is a contact sport. If they keep up with all these rule changes you might as well put dresses on them. It's a hard game and they know that going into it and get paid millions. They might as well limit NASCAR cars to 55 MPH too!
@DIMEMAN said:
Come on people.......Football is a contact sport. If they keep up with all these rule changes you might as well put dresses on them. It's a hard game and they know that going into it and get paid millions. They might as well limit NASCAR cars to 55 MPH too!
The problem is that until recently guys did not know going in of the brain damage they'd be suffering later on in life. Education is part of the process.
I think we can find a medium in which safety measures are implemented while preserving the essence of the game.
Personally, I feel the game is still as compelling and as hard hitting as it ever was. Guys today are bigger and faster than ever before.
Saying that the players are wearing dresses just because measures have been taken to reduce the frequency of head injuries is ridiculous and frankly speaking, nothing more than hyperbolic ignorance.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@DIMEMAN said:
Come on people.......Football is a contact sport. If they keep up with all these rule changes you might as well put dresses on them. It's a hard game and they know that going into it and get paid millions. They might as well limit NASCAR cars to 55 MPH too!
The problem is that until recently guys did not know going in of the brain damage they'd be suffering later on in life. Education is part of the process.
I think we can find a medium in which safety measures are implemented while preserving the essence of the game.
Personally, I feel the game is still as compelling and as hard hitting as it ever was. Guys today are bigger and faster than ever before.
Saying that the players are wearing dresses just because measures have been taken to reduce the frequency of head injuries is ridiculous and frankly speaking, nothing more than hyperbolic ignorance.
You didn't read the "might as well" part of my post. Come on man!
@DIMEMAN said:
Come on people.......Football is a contact sport. If they keep up with all these rule changes you might as well put dresses on them. It's a hard game and they know that going into it and get paid millions. They might as well limit NASCAR cars to 55 MPH too!
The problem is that until recently guys did not know going in of the brain damage they'd be suffering later on in life. Education is part of the process.
I think we can find a medium in which safety measures are implemented while preserving the essence of the game.
Personally, I feel the game is still as compelling and as hard hitting as it ever was. Guys today are bigger and faster than ever before.
Saying that the players are wearing dresses just because measures have been taken to reduce the frequency of head injuries is ridiculous and frankly speaking, nothing more than hyperbolic ignorance.
You didn't read the "might as well" part of my post. Come on man!
I did. It doesn't change the essence of your post.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@DIMEMAN said:
Come on people.......Football is a contact sport. If they keep up with all these rule changes you might as well put dresses on them. It's a hard game and they know that going into it and get paid millions. They might as well limit NASCAR cars to 55 MPH too!
The problem is that until recently guys did not know going in of the brain damage they'd be suffering later on in life. Education is part of the process.
I think we can find a medium in which safety measures are implemented while preserving the essence of the game.
Personally, I feel the game is still as compelling and as hard hitting as it ever was. Guys today are bigger and faster than ever before.
Saying that the players are wearing dresses just because measures have been taken to reduce the frequency of head injuries is ridiculous and frankly speaking, nothing more than hyperbolic ignorance.
You didn't read the "might as well" part of my post. Come on man!
I did. It doesn't change the essence of your post.
Sure it does. It's not the players ...... it's the people making the stupid rules. And the players have known for a long time about head injuries and the effects that steriods can have on them later in life.
@DIMEMAN said:
Come on people.......Football is a contact sport. If they keep up with all these rule changes you might as well put dresses on them. It's a hard game and they know that going into it and get paid millions. They might as well limit NASCAR cars to 55 MPH too!
The problem is that until recently guys did not know going in of the brain damage they'd be suffering later on in life. Education is part of the process.
I think we can find a medium in which safety measures are implemented while preserving the essence of the game.
Personally, I feel the game is still as compelling and as hard hitting as it ever was. Guys today are bigger and faster than ever before.
Saying that the players are wearing dresses just because measures have been taken to reduce the frequency of head injuries is ridiculous and frankly speaking, nothing more than hyperbolic ignorance.
You didn't read the "might as well" part of my post. Come on man!
I did. It doesn't change the essence of your post.
Sure it does. It's not the players ...... it's the people making the stupid rules. And the players have known for a long time about head injuries and the effects that steriods can have on them later in life.
You are incorrect again. The effects of brain damage and the links to CTE is a very new phenomenon. If anything, the league has been behind the curve in addressing the issue.
This has nothing to do with steroids. Not sure where you even got that.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
it seems an eventuality that Football as we know and grew up with will no longer be played. it is a dangerous, violent game and always has been, but historic changes have been to add equipment or adapt with subtle rule changes. in my mind part of the problem is the evolution of College Football giving the pro's bigger, faster and more skilled players.
in the past 20 years the abilities of the players has eclipsed what can be done with equipment to protect them. the League is left with nothing to do but make rule changes. will they outlaw the roll-tackle?? I think someday, yes. will they require only tackling above the waist?? as ridiculous as that sounds I could see it happening.
it is sort of strange, but can remember as a young adult wondering about Football players dying in their 50-s and early 60's. it didn't make sense to me that the best conditioned athletes in the world would die so young.
@Justacommeman said:
They are also looking at eliminating kickoffs as well if they can’t make them safer. Easily the most dangerous play in the game
m
<<< eliminating kickoffs >>>
That's been "looked at" for some years now...there is no way that is going to happen anytime soon.
It may happen in the 2019-2020 season if it’s not fixed this season. It’s a serious “bone” of contention. The rules they put in place have not worked
m
I would be totally shocked if the NFL did that, and I think it's an easy call that they won't.
For example the opening kickoff in football is one of the most exciting moments in team sports, and the other "returns" are quite interesting as well such as a long punt return for a touchdown. If they eliminate kickoffs, would they also eliminate punt returns which arguably are nearly if not equally as dangerous as kickoff returns.
Eliminating all this would change quite a bit of the dynamics of the game. Frankly, i'm not worried about it because it simply isn't going to happen.
@Justacommeman said:
They are also looking at eliminating kickoffs as well if they can’t make them safer. Easily the most dangerous play in the game
m
<<< eliminating kickoffs >>>
That's been "looked at" for some years now...there is no way that is going to happen anytime soon.
It may happen in the 2019-2020 season if it’s not fixed this season. It’s a serious “bone” of contention. The rules they put in place have not worked
m
I would be totally shocked if the NFL did that, and I think it's an easy call that they won't.
For example the opening kickoff in football is one of the most exciting moments in team sports, and the other "returns" are quite interesting as well such as a long punt return for a touchdown. If they eliminate kickoffs, would they also eliminate punt returns which arguably are nearly if not equally as dangerous as kickoff returns.
Eliminating all this would change quite a bit of the dynamics of the game. Frankly, i'm not worried about it because it simply isn't going to happen.
I disagree but I won’t be shocked either way. Just too many injuries. A compromise would be to only have the opening kickoff and the second half kickoff.Maybe have kickoffs in the final two minutes as well to account for onside kicks
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
Yea sure, and the Academy Awards ratings were way down and they blamed it on "measurement of TV ratings in the digital age" or whatever they called it. But we all know the reasons are similar to the NFL ratings decline.
The difference to me is that I couldn't care less about the Academy Awards, but I do care about the NFL.
Could care less if the ratings are up or down. It effects me none. I have plenty of options as well as everyone else.
I didn’t watch one Sunday NFL game last year during the regular season. I only watch NFL Red Zone with exception of the Sunday Nite games. As far as NFL ratings in general nothing comes close to them in ratings. Most programming is down. As Tim stated people have lots of different ways to watch
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Only one way to watch an NFL game live and in person at the stadium, and that is to be there live and in person at the stadium.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-17/nfl-attendance-continues-plummet-empty-seat-epidemic-enters-week-15
NFL Attendance Continues To Plummet As Empty Seat Epidemic Enters Week 15
As the NFL copes with a ratings slump and ESPN slashes $80 million in salaries after losing 15,000 subscribers a day in October, another major issue facing the league continued to play out in week 15 - terrible attendance.
Who cares? NFL ratings are down and they will continue to go down. Its a useless sport anymore. College rules.
IT CAN'T BE A TRUE PLAYOFF UNLESS THE BIG TEN CHAMPIONS ARE INCLUDED
People the NFL is here to stay and the so called XFL is nothing but a joke.
Watched the play (thanks for posting) for the 100th time. To me it's a catch and ground causes him to fumble, (again, the old rule says "ground can't cause fumble") Dez is never touched by defender, so it's either a TD or Cowboys at the 2 yard line.
I read the above rule definition and, it's just stupid. He caught the ball and landed in bounds, there's no way he had time to make any other kind of "move", nor should he have had to. Some of you say the rule was applied correctly, maybe so. This was as the announcers were saying, "an incredible catch" and should never have been overturned.
Other than the Vikings with my son, I watched not one single second of football last year including the Super Bowl. This kind of crapola is one example, the kneeling during the anthem was another.
Someone should form special anthem league . No sports , just 3 hours of national anthem on a loop , half the people on this forum would be glued to the screen by the sounds of it.
in a strange sort of way I think the old rule, by using the "language" about the Football Move that we all detest, was at conflict with a basic rule about possession, being in bounds, being across the plane of the goal-line and being down by contact. I can only hope the new rule as it's written clarifies everything. past that, the League probably needs to get rid of some rules in conflict with each other so as not to confuse us.
I think the writing is on the wall for Dez no longer being a Cowboy for much longer, there is no way they will be paying him that absurd salary he is due this year, at this point he is massively overrated.
He needs to pick up his game.....or I'm in agreement with you on this. Maybe they should write in some incentive clauses and make him earn his money.
It would also help if the refs would get his "catches" correct!!!!!
As I said earlier in this thread, the words "football move" are nowhere in the rule. "Football Move" is a phrase announcers use to feign ignorance over the rule so they can create fake drama like Al & Collinsworth did during the Super Bowl earlier this year. Here is the current rule:
_ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:
(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, until he has the ball long enough to clearly become a runner. A player has the ball long enough to become a runner when, after his second foot is on the ground, he is capable of avoiding or warding off impending contact of an opponent, tucking the ball away, turning up field, or taking additional steps (see 3-2-7-Item 2).
Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.
If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch._
so there's a point, what is it?? every time we talk about this we are supposed to quote that whole rule --- or --- use the phrase Football Move?? I choose the latter and I expect you to go off on me when I do.
I will not be offended.
The biggest problem I have with Collingsworth is his uncanny resemblance to that guy on American Pickers , or verse vicsa
Well the new rule passed with no opposition
The new rule says that a ball is caught when the player has control, two feet or another body part down, and makes a football move such as a third step or reaching the ball toward the line to gain, or has the ball long enough to make such a move.
So two feet or body part and a football move
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
but, Mark, does it actually say Football Move?? I'd hate to see Tabe blow a gasket.
Go to counseling with him. You are both worth saving
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I didn't "go off" on you. You don't have to quote the whole rule. But, if you want to be correct, you would say "became a runner" or "has to become a runner".
Of course, with the rule replaced, this is now moot
Aw, you say the nicest things
Going to need a larger roster
Players will not be allowed to lower their head to initiate contact. Fouls will get a 15-yard penalty and even be subject to ejection.
That led to some concern from players, because hitting without using the helmet at all is incredibly difficult. It’s also how they’ve played the game their whole lives. But NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, at his press conference wrapping up the league meetings in Orlando, said the tone from the coaches and teams was of full support.
“There was very, very strong support for making those changes, in fact I would unanimous in the fact that we can take the head out of the game, we do want to make sure certain techniques aren’t used in our game,” Goodell said, speaking about the reaction of coaches to the rule. “They’re not in the best interest of our game at any level.”
It’s clear that officials will be allowed to use replay on any plays that could result in an ejection, something that Goodell said made the coaches more confident in the consistent enforcement of the rule. It would be the first time the league has used replay for a player safety issue. But the specifics of the rule are still being determined, such as which violations will lead to ejections. Goodell said the league will continue to work on the specifics of the rule.
Atlanta Falcons president and chair of the competition committee Rich McKay also said the reaction to the rule at the league meetings was positive.
“I think the coaches unanimously stood up and said, we’re with it, we understand it’s a major change and we take responsibility,” McKay said.
As for the players being wary of the effect on the game, Goodell asked for patience until they have seen the instructional videos and have heard more about how the rule will be enforced.
“You’re jumping ahead to the players, who haven’t had the chance to hear the discussion we’ve had,” Goodell said at his press conference, which was broadcast by NFL Network. “You’re reacting to players who have not yet heard that dialogue, heard the basis of why we came to where we came.
“I’d give them an opportunity first to understand what the play is before we make a lot of judgments about the ramifications.”
It’s understandable why players would be concerned, especially on the defensive side. Defensive players have seen many rules passed to restrict how they can play, with exorbitant fines when there’s a violation. The worst-case scenario behind the implementation of the new helmet rule is going to create some angst for those players.
“I don’t know how you’re going to play the game,” Washington Redskins cornerback Josh Norman told USA Today.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<<< now working on new tackling rule >>>
2 hand touch or just 1 hand touch?
It may be a move in the right direction long term. But behaviors like that are hard to break when they've played that way their whole lives/careers. Maybe for the first 3-5 years the fines should be levied to the Team instead of the Player. Would it still be unanimous?
They are also looking at eliminating kickoffs as well if they can’t make them safer. Easily the most dangerous play in the game
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<<< eliminating kickoffs >>>
That's been "looked at" for some years now...there is no way that is going to happen anytime soon.
It may happen in the 2019-2020 season if it’s not fixed this season. It’s a serious “bone” of contention. The rules they put in place have not worked
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I can't wait for the no helmets and flags on each hip rule to come out.
Come on people.......Football is a contact sport. If they keep up with all these rule changes you might as well put dresses on them. It's a hard game and they know that going into it and get paid millions. They might as well limit NASCAR cars to 55 MPH too!
Pitch clock!!!!!!!
The problem is that until recently guys did not know going in of the brain damage they'd be suffering later on in life. Education is part of the process.
I think we can find a medium in which safety measures are implemented while preserving the essence of the game.
Personally, I feel the game is still as compelling and as hard hitting as it ever was. Guys today are bigger and faster than ever before.
Saying that the players are wearing dresses just because measures have been taken to reduce the frequency of head injuries is ridiculous and frankly speaking, nothing more than hyperbolic ignorance.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
You didn't read the "might as well" part of my post. Come on man!
I did. It doesn't change the essence of your post.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Sure it does. It's not the players ...... it's the people making the stupid rules. And the players have known for a long time about head injuries and the effects that steriods can have on them later in life.
You are incorrect again. The effects of brain damage and the links to CTE is a very new phenomenon. If anything, the league has been behind the curve in addressing the issue.
This has nothing to do with steroids. Not sure where you even got that.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
it seems an eventuality that Football as we know and grew up with will no longer be played. it is a dangerous, violent game and always has been, but historic changes have been to add equipment or adapt with subtle rule changes. in my mind part of the problem is the evolution of College Football giving the pro's bigger, faster and more skilled players.
in the past 20 years the abilities of the players has eclipsed what can be done with equipment to protect them. the League is left with nothing to do but make rule changes. will they outlaw the roll-tackle?? I think someday, yes. will they require only tackling above the waist?? as ridiculous as that sounds I could see it happening.
it is sort of strange, but can remember as a young adult wondering about Football players dying in their 50-s and early 60's. it didn't make sense to me that the best conditioned athletes in the world would die so young.
now it becoming clear why that happened.
I would be totally shocked if the NFL did that, and I think it's an easy call that they won't.
For example the opening kickoff in football is one of the most exciting moments in team sports, and the other "returns" are quite interesting as well such as a long punt return for a touchdown. If they eliminate kickoffs, would they also eliminate punt returns which arguably are nearly if not equally as dangerous as kickoff returns.
Eliminating all this would change quite a bit of the dynamics of the game. Frankly, i'm not worried about it because it simply isn't going to happen.
I disagree but I won’t be shocked either way. Just too many injuries. A compromise would be to only have the opening kickoff and the second half kickoff.Maybe have kickoffs in the final two minutes as well to account for onside kicks
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......