Unreal

[stillers4me]

If this is what we have to look forward to, the NFL has finally became 100% unwatchable. Makes you wonder if they will actually call these penalties FOR Ben or only on the defense. Oh..wait.....I already know that answer. :dizzy:

1031147160908308482

- - - Updated - - -

1030906603137060871

[tube517]

What a joke.

[pczach]

We are watching the destruction of the game of football.

When officials are forced to have this many judgement calls at high speed.....and the leading point of any human making a tackle is squaring the head to dead center of the target.....disaster will ensue.

[Dwinsgames]

here is another one ....

language warning !!!

1030955564136902656

[AtlantaDan]

We are watching the destruction of the game of football.

When officials are forced to have this many judgement calls at high speed.....and the leading point of any human making a tackle is squaring the head to dead center of the target.....disaster will ensue.

1031147160908308482
1030955564136902656

Clearly the refs have been told to use zero tolerance if it is a question of the tackler bringing down the full weight of his body on the QB (aka the Aaron Rodgers rule). Perhaps not a coincidence it was the Vikings who got flagged in the first video above.

Anthony Barr (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/1759765/anthony-barr) didn't get penalized for the hit that broke Aaron Rodgers (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/419780/aaron-rodgers)' collarbone last season, but if he were to make that same hit in 2018, the Vikings (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/page/MIN/minnesota-vikings) linebacker would be subject to a 15-yard penalty. ...

The reason Barr's hit would be a penalty this year is because the linebacker came down directly on top of Rodgers. According to Morelli, defenders will need to avoid doing that in 2018 or risk being called for a roughing the passer penalty.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/tackle-that-injured-aaron-rodgers-last-season-will-apparently-be-illegal-in-2018/

Football at this level causes physical carnage and you cannot eliminate it, regardless of whether the league tells the ref to flag anything that looks like it might result in injury. Assuming the game you are left with is still football - cannot have it both ways

It is only preseason and the owners already know they have a problem with the latest rules changes intended to reduce injuries.

This article on Jerry Jones comments on the new rule on use of the helmet in tackling, which apparently was applied in the video where the Pats were flagged. IMO the new use of helmet in tackling rule is going to be the flash point on sketchy calls deciding games this fall.

PFT’s Charean Williams asked Jones for his impressions of the prohibition on lowering the helmet to initiate and make contact with an opponent.

“Well, I didn’t like it,” ... It has you wondering or thinking surely we’re going to use common sense at the end of the day relative to lowering of the head."

This is the rule that Jones and his partners approved in March. While there may be some buyer’s remorse — especially since we’ve heard that the rule was sold as a simple extension of the prior rule against lining up an opponent and ramming him with the very top of the helmet — this is the rule.
If Jones doesn’t like the rule that he and his partners approved, he’s got 18 days to persuade them to tweak, revise, overhaul, or scrap it.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/08/19/jerry-jones-hopes-common-sense-prevails-with-helmet-rule/

[GoSlash27]

The league is in a bind. They are obliged to do everything they can to make an unsafe game "safe" in order to avoid lawsuits. Unfortunately, that can't be done without making the game unplayable... or at least unwatchable.

IMO if there isn't some kind of tort reform to address this issue, Football as we know it may die during our lifetime.

Best,
-Slashy

[Butch]

1031147160908308482
1030955564136902656

Clearly the refs have been told to use zero tolerance if it is a question of the tackler bringing down the full weight of his body on the QB (aka the Aaron Rodgers rule). Perhaps not a coincidence it was the Vikings who got flagged in the first video above.

Anthony Barr (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/1759765/anthony-barr) didn't get penalized for the hit that broke Aaron Rodgers (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/419780/aaron-rodgers)' collarbone last season, but if he were to make that same hit in 2018, the Vikings (https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/page/MIN/minnesota-vikings) linebacker would be subject to a 15-yard penalty. ...

The reason Barr's hit would be a penalty this year is because the linebacker came down directly on top of Rodgers. According to Morelli, defenders will need to avoid doing that in 2018 or risk being called for a roughing the passer penalty.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/tackle-that-injured-aaron-rodgers-last-season-will-apparently-be-illegal-in-2018/

Football at this level causes physical carnage and you cannot eliminate it, regardless of whether the league tells the ref to flag anything that looks like it might result in injury. Assuming the game you are left with is still football - cannot have it both ways

It is only preseason and the owners already know they have a problem with the latest rules changes intended to reduce injuries.

This article on Jerry Jones comments on the new rule on use of the helmet in tackling, which apparently was applied in the video where the Pats were flagged. IMO the new use of helmet in tackling rule is going to be the flash point on sketchy calls deciding games this fall.

PFT’s Charean Williams asked Jones for his impressions of the prohibition on lowering the helmet to initiate and make contact with an opponent.

“Well, I didn’t like it,” ... It has you wondering or thinking surely we’re going to use common sense at the end of the day relative to lowering of the head."

This is the rule that Jones and his partners approved in March. While there may be some buyer’s remorse — especially since we’ve heard that the rule was sold as a simple extension of the prior rule against lining up an opponent and ramming him with the very top of the helmet — this is the rule.
If Jones doesn’t like the rule that he and his partners approved, he’s got 18 days to persuade them to tweak, revise, overhaul, or scrap it.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/08/19/jerry-jones-hopes-common-sense-prevails-with-helmet-rule/

This new rule is an abomination and will end up ruining/deciding games. It is my understanding that the 1st time is a warning and if done twice is an ejection from the game. Cody Sensabaugh had a hit that was considered by the refs to be an example of this and he never even hit the receiver with his helmet. The most RIDICULOUS rule the NFL has ever considered to enforce.

As for the full weight on the QB that has been a rule for some time now not sure what all the fuss is, other than it seems to be selectively called...Hmmm imagine that. LOL

[Cyphon25]

I don't like to jump the gun on these things but there have been too many obviously bad calls involving the new rule already that it is getting really worrisome. The one on Coty Sensabaugh was terrible.

[Edman]

If this is what we have to look forward to, the NFL has finally became 100% unwatchable.

You say that as if the NFL wasn't halfway unwatchable already.

I don't watch full NFL games anymore.

[silver & black]

Like I've said numerous times.... I'm just about done with this because it's unwatchable anymore.

I will always be a fan of my team... and the game, but I don't recognize the game anymore... and the NFL is a joke.

[ALLD]

That call is an overreaction. Looked very clean to me. Also didn't look like he spread out and put his weight on the QB. If they won't allow the defense to tackle, then the QB should be down with 2-hand touch.

[pczach]

This is why you are seeing so many missed tackles.

When you are teaching tackling, you want the defender to square up with his shoulders and center himself. By definition, your head is centered between your shoulders. There is almost always going to be some contact with the helmet and the area you are tackling. They are even going to call if you lead with your helmet diving at someones legs. How the hell do you dive at someone to make a tackle and not lead with your head. If you aim off center to avoid helmet-first contact, your percentages of making the tackle go down considerably.

Some of these new rules and the way they are applied don't make any sense from a pure football standpoint. Players are literally having to think way too much about making a tackle, while the offensive players are able to just react naturally and quickly. The only thing an offensive player has to be wary of is lowering the head to strike a defender with the ball in their hand, and that's no picnic either.

It is a disaster that will have a negative affect on watching the game. Officials will decide many games with these ridiculous calls. Fans will be outraged. Owners will be outraged. Viewership will slowly drop as the game becomes more unrecognizable to long-time fans.

They have to hope they can win over new fans that aren't accustomed to watching the more physical brand of football, because they are losing traditional fans left and right if they don't figure out a way to protect players while also keeping an extremely watchable product.

[steelreserve]

The door should have been closed on lawsuits after the first concussion studies came out and the first settlement was reached. You are now aware of the risks of playing the game, anyone who played it while unaware was compensated; anyone who chooses to continue playing it is fully aware of that risk and waives any claim to damages. Period, end of story, game continues as-is.

But unfortunately since the league is run by lawyers now, they don't know how to do anything except keep lawyering. So they try to fix things that can't be fixed by making rules to cover their asses.

Could you make boxing "safe" by banning blows to the head? I don't know, but it wouldn't be boxing, and people wouldn't watch it. And actually I do know - you still wouldn't make it safe.

The really sad thing is that this type of change may be exactly what the new up-and-coming Millennial fan base wants. An entire generation has been raised to be dipshits who value arguing over rules more than actual results, and who cannot even fathom that anything rough or violent could be fun or entertaining. Rather, it is something that should be banned, by another rule to protect us from ourselves.

It is hilarious to me how people mock the "Puritan" ways of past generations implying that they had too many rules and didn't know how to enjoy life - and yet here they are wanting to make more rules and ban more things than anyone ever. Unless it has to do with drinking and sleeping around (or at least that's the public stance, but in reality they want more rules and stiffer penalties over that too.) It's as if there's an entire generation of idiots who can't even function without official approval, and it's kind of frightening.

[AtlantaDan]

This is why you are seeing so many missed tackles.

When you are teaching tackling, you want the defender to square up with his shoulders and center himself. By definition, your head is centered between your shoulders. There is almost always going to be some contact with the helmet and the area you are tackling. They are even going to call if you lead with your helmet diving at someones legs. How the hell do you dive at someone to make a tackle and not lead with your head. If you aim off center to avoid helmet-first contact, your percentages of making the tackle go down considerably.

Some of these new rules and the way they are applied don't make any sense from a pure football standpoint. Players are literally having to think way too much about making a tackle, while the offensive players are able to just react naturally and quickly.

At least one player who has been regarded as a pretty good defender agrees

1031202104461807616
1031205147261657088
1031205579862073345

[fansince'76]

Like I've said numerous times.... I'm just about done with this because it's unwatchable anymore.

I will always be a fan of my team... and the game, but I don't recognize the game anymore... and the NFL is a joke.

:iagree:

[Mojouw]

I cant remember what rule change it was a handful of years ago, but the same thing happened in the preseason. Tons of flags got thrown. Everyone freaked out. Then the regular season came along and nothing changed from the previous season.

Lesson? Let’s all see how the game gets called in the regular season.

As to the game ~ this gets said all the time. Many forewarned the death of the league when they outlawed the headslap and instituted the Mel Blount rule.

[Dwinsgames]

The rule is flawed from the start ....

there is no way to tackle other than from the side that there will not be some sort of helmet contact ...

it defies the laws of physics ... when a human runs their head is automatically leaned forward by nature and slightly in front of the rest of the body ...

two people running towards one another even if you do not attempt to tackle the first thing to collide will be heads ( unless they are fat guys ) ...

should we be scouting RB's who run straight up and down , and why do only defenders get flagged RBs - WR -TE's all lower their heads to some degree before taking impact ...

we could be seeing 60-56 scores with these sort of rules , drives will never be stopped unless there is a turnover

[pczach]

I cant remember what rule change it was a handful of years ago, but the same thing happened in the preseason. Tons of flags got thrown. Everyone freaked out. Then the regular season came along and nothing changed from the previous season.

Lesson? Let’s all see how the game gets called in the regular season.

As to the game ~ this gets said all the time. Many forewarned the death of the league when they outlawed the headslap and instituted the Mel Blount rule.




The thing is...it has changed. That's at least part of the reason viewership is down.

I know it feels like people are overreacting, but to those of us who played this game and spent a large part of our lives learning how to play the game, the rules don't make sense. Not because I learned one way and I'm so set in my old school approach that I recoil at any change. It's that I played the game to much and understand it in a way that tells me that football can't be played the way it was because of anatomy and physics, and the proximity of the head to the required hitting area.

It's hard to find a perfect analogy, but it's like asking an airplane to fly without air touching the wings.

Imagine playing bumper cars or demolition derby, but only being able to hit the other cars with an area that sticks out to the side 24 inches and is recessed behind the front bumper 18 inches. How do you hit the other cars without hitting the front bumper when everyone is moving at 100 mph and all the cars are making sudden moves trying to simultaneously avoid each other and to hit each other? It's an impossibility IMO.

[BlackAndGold]

The product for the game is so bad.

Unless the Steelers are playing, I'll be enjoying the watching the NBA and NHL.



Btw, any idea who came up with this rule? Had to be a dumbass who wears a suit and never played the sport in their life.

[Mojouw]

The thing is...it has changed. That's at least part of the reason viewership is down.

I know it feels like people are overreacting, but to those of us who played this game and spent a large part of our lives learning how to play the game, the rules don't make sense. Not because I learned one way and I'm so set in my old school approach that I recoil at any change. It's that I played the game to much and understand it in a way that tells me that football can't be played the way it was because of anatomy and physics, and the proximity of the head to the required hitting area.

It's hard to find a perfect analogy, but it's like asking an airplane to fly without air touching the wings.

Imagine playing bumper cars or demolition derby, but only being able to hit the other cars with an area that sticks out to the side 24 inches and is recessed behind the front bumper 18 inches. How do you hit the other cars without hitting the front bumper when everyone is moving at 100 mph and all the cars are making sudden moves trying to simultaneously avoid each other and to hit each other? It's an impossibility IMO.
Of course it has changed. The game has changed numerous times and every single time people say that its dying or not the same or whatever other negative take. Then everyone adjusts to the new normal and things are fine.

The viewership thing is a bit of a red herring. For years, TV viewership in general was falling off. The NFL was immune to that and so TV contracts kept going up. The last two years or so viewership has fallen a bit, but I believe it is still less than the fall in other live TV stuff. The only thing that matters is what the networks are willing to pay next time the contracts come due. Other than that it is just hand wringing.

I mean the game hasn’t made common sense for half my life. The NBA is doing fine with touch foul rules that make defense almost impossible if the refs feel like calling things. But it works out in the end. Same with the NFL.

Plus I have heard about basically 1 call a game due to the new rules that has folks freaking out. Again, this has happened several times before during the preseason when officials are calling things very close in order to establish the new rules and patterns. Then the regular season roles around, the games start to matter, and the calls fall off.

[teegre]

football can't be played the way it was because of anatomy and physics



it defies the laws of physics ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQR1r1KTjaE&app=desktop&persist_app=1

[Butch]

Of course it has changed. The game has changed numerous times and every single time people say that its dying or not the same or whatever other negative take. Then everyone adjusts to the new normal and things are fine.

The viewership thing is a bit of a red herring. For years, TV viewership in general was falling off. The NFL was immune to that and so TV contracts kept going up. The last two years or so viewership has fallen a bit, but I believe it is still less than the fall in other live TV stuff. The only thing that matters is what the networks are willing to pay next time the contracts come due. Other than that it is just hand wringing.

I mean the game hasn’t made common sense for half my life. The NBA is doing fine with touch foul rules that make defense almost impossible if the refs feel like calling things. But it works out in the end. Same with the NFL.

Plus I have heard about basically 1 call a game due to the new rules that has folks freaking out. Again, this has happened several times before during the preseason when officials are calling things very close in order to establish the new rules and patterns. Then the regular season roles around, the games start to matter, and the calls fall off.
This is the part that worries me, selective enforcement of a rule. It's like landing on the QB with your full weight. I have heard of it and remember it being called in several Steelers games. Why it wasn't called on Rodgers I will never know. Thing is if this rule is not taken off the books it will ultimately be called and will cost some team a win.

[AtlantaDan]

Plus I have heard about basically 1 call a game due to the new rules that has folks freaking out. Again, this has happened several times before during the preseason when officials are calling things very close in order to establish the new rules and patterns. Then the regular season roles around, the games start to matter, and the calls fall off.

Look at the replay above of the Vikings penalty and then look at the linked replay (could not embed) of the tackle of McCarron by Myles Garrett where McCarron breaks his collarbone.

http://www.espn.com/video/clip?id=24403988

Consider which looks worse in terms of the player landing on the QB (we know which one resulted in an injury) while only one was penalized. Strict enforcement is one thing - randomness is what is frustrating

[pczach]

Of course it has changed. The game has changed numerous times and every single time people say that its dying or not the same or whatever other negative take. Then everyone adjusts to the new normal and things are fine.

The viewership thing is a bit of a red herring. For years, TV viewership in general was falling off. The NFL was immune to that and so TV contracts kept going up. The last two years or so viewership has fallen a bit, but I believe it is still less than the fall in other live TV stuff. The only thing that matters is what the networks are willing to pay next time the contracts come due. Other than that it is just hand wringing.

I mean the game hasn’t made common sense for half my life. The NBA is doing fine with touch foul rules that make defense almost impossible if the refs feel like calling things. But it works out in the end. Same with the NFL.

Plus I have heard about basically 1 call a game due to the new rules that has folks freaking out. Again, this has happened several times before during the preseason when officials are calling things very close in order to establish the new rules and patterns. Then the regular season roles around, the games start to matter, and the calls fall off.


Why is soccer growing in popularity in our country? Viewership has gone up for that sport as it has become an alternative to American football. Fans of football are leaving for some reasons. Whether it's rule changes, politics on gameday, kids learning and playing the game instead of football for safety reasons, or anything else....something is making people move away from the sport. I don't claim to completely understand all the dynamics of it, but there has been an erosion of the fan base in pro football.

I guess the difference between this and some other rule changes over the years is how hard this hits at what the game is built on.....physicality and tackling. It is a game that is fundamentally won by the team that imposes its will through physical dominance at the line of scrimmage and the ability to tackle with extreme force to impose their will. Everyone keeps talking about the big hits that running backs and wide receivers are taking from helmet-to-helmet hits, yet it is the linemen and linebackers that take the majority of the punishment to the head from the repeated collisions on every snap.

Not only have the rules changed, but players can receive penalties for a hit, or even be removed from the game and suspended. And all this is based on a rule that is impossible to fully comply with because of the nature of the game and the limitations of humans to be able to react quickly enough to avoid at hit when an offensive player lowers his head to protect themselves, or when an offensive player is hit by another player first, and it changes the angle the defender is taking which results in a hit to the helmet which is completely unintended and unavoidable.

They can eliminate kickoffs. They can stop the running start on kicks. They can change what is or isn't pass interference. They can eliminate chop blocks.

They can do all those things even if I don't like it because all of the things above change the way the game is played....but changes in technique can be coached, and simply changing alignments lessens the speeds that players collide with one another.

The new rules on helmet contact are trying to literally change the way the game was designed to be played at its core, while also ignoring that it is impossible to comply with for reasons I stated above. You cannot tackle without the head being in direct proximity to the target. It is literally impossible to avoid at times, even when the player does everything right in an attempt to obey the rule. This is going far beyond anything they have done previously. When players can be ejected and suspended from games because another player hits a ball carrier or receiver first and knocks them into another player's helmet coming over to make a play while also trying not to make contact with the helmet, the game gets worse in multiple ways.

I think this is going to get worse....not better as the year goes on. You are going to see guys get flagged for unavoidable helmet contact, then see players breaking tackles because defenders are unsure how to attack without drawing a penalty.....and defenses are going to get shredded. It affects the players psychologically, it directly affects the play on the field, and it causes officials to have more influence on the outcome of games IMO.

I hope you are correct and that this somehow works itself out. I just don't see it this time.

[teegre]

As far as viewership goes...

The ability for people to stream games has reduced the TV numbers. People no longer “have” to use cable and/or DirecTV.

Similarly, my dad pays for the Sunday Ticket, and anywhere between 10 - 16 people watch at his house. That is only ONE subscriber, but 10 - 16 pairs of eyes.

[Dwinsgames]

As far as viewership goes...

The ability for people to stream games has reduced the TV numbers. People no longer “have” to use cable and/or DirecTV.

Similarly, my dad pays for the Sunday Ticket, and anywhere between 10 - 16 people watch at his house. That is only ONE subscriber, but 10 - 16 pairs of eyes.


no way I could watch the game like that ....

I like to watch it in quiet LOL and see the game without distractions ( yes I am a Party pooper when it comes to football )

[teegre]

no way I could watch the game like that ....

I like to watch it in quiet LOL and see the game without distractions ( yes I am a Party pooper when it comes to football )

:nod:

To clarify, the rule is “No talking during the game”. The extended family wasn’t used to it, at first, but they quickly learned that asking me about my week was strictly reserved for commercials and/or halftime.

[Mojouw]

Why is soccer growing in popularity in our country? Viewership has gone up for that sport as it has become an alternative to American football. Fans of football are leaving for some reasons. Whether it's rule changes, politics on gameday, kids learning and playing the game instead of football for safety reasons, or anything else....something is making people move away from the sport. I don't claim to completely understand all the dynamics of it, but there has been an erosion of the fan base in pro football.

I guess the difference between this and some other rule changes over the years is how hard this hits at what the game is built on.....physicality and tackling. It is a game that is fundamentally won by the team that imposes its will through physical dominance at the line of scrimmage and the ability to tackle with extreme force to impose their will. Everyone keeps talking about the big hits that running backs and wide receivers are taking from helmet-to-helmet hits, yet it is the linemen and linebackers that take the majority of the punishment to the head from the repeated collisions on every snap.

Not only have the rules changed, but players can receive penalties for a hit, or even be removed from the game and suspended. And all this is based on a rule that is impossible to fully comply with because of the nature of the game and the limitations of humans to be able to react quickly enough to avoid at hit when an offensive player lowers his head to protect themselves, or when an offensive player is hit by another player first, and it changes the angle the defender is taking which results in a hit to the helmet which is completely unintended and unavoidable.

They can eliminate kickoffs. They can stop the running start on kicks. They can change what is or isn't pass interference. They can eliminate chop blocks.

They can do all those things even if I don't like it because all of the things above change the way the game is played....but changes in technique can be coached, and simply changing alignments lessens the speeds that players collide with one another.

The new rules on helmet contact are trying to literally change the way the game was designed to be played at its core, while also ignoring that it is impossible to comply with for reasons I stated above. You cannot tackle without the head being in direct proximity to the target. It is literally impossible to avoid at times, even when the player does everything right in an attempt to obey the rule. This is going far beyond anything they have done previously. When players can be ejected and suspended from games because another player hits a ball carrier or receiver first and knocks them into another player's helmet coming over to make a play while also trying not to make contact with the helmet, the game gets worse in multiple ways.

I think this is going to get worse....not better as the year goes on. You are going to see guys get flagged for unavoidable helmet contact, then see players breaking tackles because defenders are unsure how to attack without drawing a penalty.....and defenses are going to get shredded. It affects the players psychologically, it directly affects the play on the field, and it causes officials to have more influence on the outcome of games IMO.

I hope you are correct and that this somehow works itself out. I just don't see it this time.

Teegre nailed the viewership thing. Everything is down. The NFL is less down than other things. The viewers just went away because they have no desire to watch TV and consume content under the traditional forced pay cable packaging that the NFL operates under. I love the NFL and used to watch 4 games per week. I stopped paying for cable and now I watch 1. Additionally, the NFL totally over-reached when their viewership was at all time high around 2012-2014 or so. Thursday, 3 Sunday game slots, and Monday night has over-exposed and diluted the product. People don't like to watch crappy games involving crappy teams. For instance the games that rated the best last year all involved the Steelers, Cowboys, or Packers. Teams with big fanbases. But that Tennessee-Indy match-up had people avoiding watching it. Some over-view here -- https://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-ratings-faced-steeper-declines-in-2017-2018-1

As to the game and physics, I agree. I've been arguing that for years. The NFL is asking refs to legislate physics in real-time and ensure that the product looks good in HD super-slow-motion replay. A totally impossible task. That being said, the game needs to change. It is sad, but the physical and violent sport where it is a contest of wills has to end or the NFL as a multi-billion dollar industry is over. This is a league that expanded by a tick under 9 billion dollars in revenue between 2001 and 2016. https://www.statista.com/statistics/193457/total-league-revenue-of-the-nfl-since-2005/. For the owners that is a staggering ROI.

The NFL has to balance several mutually exclusive things. Parts of its audience are people who understand and accept the violence of the sport and the damage it does and could cause. These folks have no problem with it and do not blame the NFL or the players for this reality. Another part of the audience wants to watch the NFL, but doesn't want to be reminded of the damage it does and could cause. These folks question whether they NFL is doing enough to curb the injuries and culture that celebrates them around the game. Another segment of the audience is peripheral to the game(s) and enjoys watching but questions the concussion stuff (something that it seems no other sport is grappling with - lets not go down this rabbit hole, we can all agree the NFL has the most visible problem) and the recent spate of high profile injuries. Hears statements from players that there really isn't much regard for player safety and sees the annual 3-6 deaths during college practices that happens almost never in other sports -- and they draw the conclusion (with the help of certain sectors of the media that use the NFL to attract eyeballs) that the sport is mired in outdated culture of violence and toxic attitudes that they do not want to be associated with.

If we make the almost certainly flawed assumption that viewers/fans of the NFL can be divided into those 3 groups above - then the NFL is faced with keeping things the same and only capturing the first pool of viewers. Incidentally, demographics show this pool of viewers is aging, spends a bit less money on things, and is not all that attractive to advertisers. In contrast, the second two pools of viewers/fans is the right demographics for advertisers, is spending money on the things being advertised, and represents the "growth sectors" of the market. Wonder which pools of fans the NFL decision makers have decided to placate. They assume that those fans that fall in Pool #1 are not going anywhere. They are likely wrong - some will leave but at least half won't.

The NFL has never been very interested in how "secure" the status of some people as fans was or wasn't. The rise of fantasy football and gambling caused a ton of people to tune in. But what if they no longer play fantasy? Are they still watching games or do they just drift away? Combine the NFL's marketing of the games based on star players (Aaron Rodgers and the Packers take on JJ Watt and the Texans!) with a fantasy stat focus (that ticker at the bottom of the screen didn't start adding specific stat lines for shits and giggles) with those players being injured and "VIOLA!" less people give a crap about watching the game.

I could go on an on about this. I think it is fascinating how the NFL perceives its product one way and the people that is actually selling it to have almost totally different takes! That combined with the NFL leaderships inability and unwillingness to decide what its "core precepts" are and stick to them makes for some just awful decisions. I would argue that a league that ONLY had 2 games on Sunday and one game on Monday and said "Look, we know it is violent and we know that individuals are going to get catastrophically injured but that is a choice that people can make. We are doing X, Y, and Z to mitigate this and we have set up A, B, and C to assist our current and former players through all stages of their lives." would be a smaller league in terms of profits and viewership, but more stable over time. Instead they have come off as solely motivated by profits, as attempting to hide concussion data the same way Big Tobacco hid cancer info, and having a callous disregard for any player not currently making the league money. As a result, they are going to suffer ups and downs like any other entertainment product.

To return to your specific point about the nature of how the game is actually played, that raises another really interesting point. It can no longer be taken as a given that basically most young males played a bit of football at some point. Add in women, who have little opportunity to play and learn the game if they wanted to, and you have large segments of your audience or potential audience who doesn't understand why people are getting hurt. You have two choices, better educate folks about the fundamentals of the sport (and we all know how much Americans like nuanced and detailed things explained to them) or you can try and just remove the thing that people are complaining about.

This post is now far too long and likely only interests me. I am not trying to convince anyone that the current rules and perspectives taken by the league are good or correct, but that if we step back we can begin to see why they are happening.

[pczach]

Teegre nailed the viewership thing. Everything is down. The NFL is less down than other things. The viewers just went away because they have no desire to watch TV and consume content under the traditional forced pay cable packaging that the NFL operates under. I love the NFL and used to watch 4 games per week. I stopped paying for cable and now I watch 1. Additionally, the NFL totally over-reached when their viewership was at all time high around 2012-2014 or so. Thursday, 3 Sunday game slots, and Monday night has over-exposed and diluted the product. People don't like to watch crappy games involving crappy teams. For instance the games that rated the best last year all involved the Steelers, Cowboys, or Packers. Teams with big fanbases. But that Tennessee-Indy match-up had people avoiding watching it. Some over-view here -- https://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-ratings-faced-steeper-declines-in-2017-2018-1

As to the game and physics, I agree. I've been arguing that for years. The NFL is asking refs to legislate physics in real-time and ensure that the product looks good in HD super-slow-motion replay. A totally impossible task. That being said, the game needs to change. It is sad, but the physical and violent sport where it is a contest of wills has to end or the NFL as a multi-billion dollar industry is over. This is a league that expanded by a tick under 9 billion dollars in revenue between 2001 and 2016. https://www.statista.com/statistics/193457/total-league-revenue-of-the-nfl-since-2005/. For the owners that is a staggering ROI.

The NFL has to balance several mutually exclusive things. Parts of its audience are people who understand and accept the violence of the sport and the damage it does and could cause. These folks have no problem with it and do not blame the NFL or the players for this reality. Another part of the audience wants to watch the NFL, but doesn't want to be reminded of the damage it does and could cause. These folks question whether they NFL is doing enough to curb the injuries and culture that celebrates them around the game. Another segment of the audience is peripheral to the game(s) and enjoys watching but questions the concussion stuff (something that it seems no other sport is grappling with - lets not go down this rabbit hole, we can all agree the NFL has the most visible problem) and the recent spate of high profile injuries. Hears statements from players that there really isn't much regard for player safety and sees the annual 3-6 deaths during college practices that happens almost never in other sports -- and they draw the conclusion (with the help of certain sectors of the media that use the NFL to attract eyeballs) that the sport is mired in outdated culture of violence and toxic attitudes that they do not want to be associated with.

If we make the almost certainly flawed assumption that viewers/fans of the NFL can be divided into those 3 groups above - then the NFL is faced with keeping things the same and only capturing the first pool of viewers. Incidentally, demographics show this pool of viewers is aging, spends a bit less money on things, and is not all that attractive to advertisers. In contrast, the second two pools of viewers/fans is the right demographics for advertisers, is spending money on the things being advertised, and represents the "growth sectors" of the market. Wonder which pools of fans the NFL decision makers have decided to placate. They assume that those fans that fall in Pool #1 are not going anywhere. They are likely wrong - some will leave but at least half won't.

The NFL has never been very interested in how "secure" the status of some people as fans was or wasn't. The rise of fantasy football and gambling caused a ton of people to tune in. But what if they no longer play fantasy? Are they still watching games or do they just drift away? Combine the NFL's marketing of the games based on star players (Aaron Rodgers and the Packers take on JJ Watt and the Texans!) with a fantasy stat focus (that ticker at the bottom of the screen didn't start adding specific stat lines for shits and giggles) with those players being injured and "VIOLA!" less people give a crap about watching the game.

I could go on an on about this. I think it is fascinating how the NFL perceives its product one way and the people that is actually selling it to have almost totally different takes! That combined with the NFL leaderships inability and unwillingness to decide what its "core precepts" are and stick to them makes for some just awful decisions. I would argue that a league that ONLY had 2 games on Sunday and one game on Monday and said "Look, we know it is violent and we know that individuals are going to get catastrophically injured but that is a choice that people can make. We are doing X, Y, and Z to mitigate this and we have set up A, B, and C to assist our current and former players through all stages of their lives." would be a smaller league in terms of profits and viewership, but more stable over time. Instead they have come off as solely motivated by profits, as attempting to hide concussion data the same way Big Tobacco hid cancer info, and having a callous disregard for any player not currently making the league money. As a result, they are going to suffer ups and downs like any other entertainment product.

To return to your specific point about the nature of how the game is actually played, that raises another really interesting point. It can no longer be taken as a given that basically most young males played a bit of football at some point. Add in women, who have little opportunity to play and learn the game if they wanted to, and you have large segments of your audience or potential audience who doesn't understand why people are getting hurt. You have two choices, better educate folks about the fundamentals of the sport (and we all know how much Americans like nuanced and detailed things explained to them) or you can try and just remove the thing that people are complaining about.

This post is now far too long and likely only interests me. I am not trying to convince anyone that the current rules and perspectives taken by the league are good or correct, but that if we step back we can begin to see why they are happening.



Fantastic response. You make a lot of great points.

It's one of those subjects that you could go back and forth about causation for hours. There is so much in play here and so many angles to come at this from in regards to football, to the business aspect of the game, to the injury and medical side of things, the effect that officials have on games because of rules and the changes in the way they are enforced, etc...

Great post. I'm getting tired just reading what you and I have just posted.

:drink:

[Shoes]

As far as viewership goes...

The ability for people to stream games has reduced the TV numbers. People no longer “have” to use cable and/or DirecTV.

Similarly, my dad pays for the Sunday Ticket, and anywhere between 10 - 16 people watch at his house. That is only ONE subscriber, but 10 - 16 pairs of eyes.


Send me a good link Bro, I'm done paying for this crap.

[AtlantaDan]

Teegre nailed the viewership thing. Everything is down. The NFL is less down than other things. The viewers just went away because they have no desire to watch TV and consume content under the traditional forced pay cable packaging that the NFL operates under.

Great post.

The contention all ratings are down certainly is the official NFL party line to explain ratings turning downward significantly since 2015. Unfortunately for a league trying to convince broadcasters they are getting a good return on their investment and hoping that the next round of broadcast rights sales will result in even more $$$, it may have to explain why declining ratings are the new normal for every sport given the growing popularity of the NBA, which operates under the same TV distribution system.

At the end of the 2017-18 regular season, NBA ratings were up across all four networks when compared to last season. ABC led the way at +17%, while TNT was +13%, ESPN +4% and NBA TV +1%. It was the NBA’s highest-rated season in five years. The audience growth was led by hard-to-reach young adults, with ratings for 18-34 demographic up by 14% and the 18-49 age group up by 15%. The median age of the NBA viewer is relatively young at 42, compared to the NFL (50) and Major League Baseball (57)....

There are a number of reasons why the NBA is gaining in popularity, especially with young adults. One reason is the games are not too long. An average NBA game in regulation lasts around 2 hours and 15 minutes. The 48-minute game has end to end action, looks good on television and has a lot of scoring. By comparison, in 2017, an average nine-inning Major League Baseball game lasted a record high three hours and five minutes. MLB is now trying to address this with rules changes including limiting manager, coach and player visits to the pitching mound. The average length of an NFL game in regulation (60 minutes of game clock time) is even longer at three hours and seven minutes, with only 11 minutes in which the football is actually in play. A televised NFL game now has an average of 70 ads.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2018/04/25/the-2017-18-season-was-great-for-the-nba/#580ec7b32ecb

As the article embedded in this tweet states (if you click on the link in the tweet it should get around the WSJ paywall), some NFL owners may be considering whether franchise values are close to a market top and that it might be time to start considering cashing out.

1031193043498684416

I am old enough to remember the shift from baseball to the NFL as the most popular U.S. sport. For a variety of reasons, including attention spans, more boys (& girls) playing basketball than football when growing up, and football participation being impacted by the sport potentially causing brain damage, a similar shift from the NFL to the NBA may be coming in the U.S. The NBA already leaves the NFL in the dust outside of the U.S. (although both sports trail far behind what the rest of the world calls football).

[Mojouw]

Send me a good link Bro, I'm done paying for this crap.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nflstreams/ -- and any sub-threads that show up on game-day. At most you have to close 2-3 ad pop-ups and then switch at half-time because someone goes down.

Google "Wiziwig" and there will be 2-5 sites (.to, .ru., .co, etc) that come up. Part of a larger community of streamers that fractured after someone arrested the folks running the servers (or at least threatened to sue them). Used to require software. Now is just streaming links. Quality and availability varies. Typically 2-5 links per Steelers game -- gotta just find the one that works best on your internet rig. Tons of pop-ups.

Google search "sports are free" used to be a couple great streaming sites based around that term. Always stable. Always high quality. Now, hit or miss.

USTVNOW - typically has one or two games a Sunday and very frequently the Steelers are one of them.


Are all of these great quality? Nope. But I can't even watch the ESPN stream legally via their app (used to split the cost with my brother) because it crashes under the load of an NFL game. The illegal ones almost never crash and only tend to go offline when the NFL decides to care.

My point, build an app where I can watch the game I want and it actually works for the entire game and doesn't stutter, lag, and crash -- I will gladly pay a fee to use it. But since the NFL and its broadcast partners are too short-sighted to do that, I'm gonna pirate everything I can.

Honestly, all you have to do is be a bit internet savvy about viruses and whatnot, but a search term of "NFL FREE STREAMING" is going to find you some manner of feed for the game you want every-time.

I've been watching the Steelers like something described above for over 12 years -- screw giving the NFL and the Networks tons of $$$. They don't show you the games you want and their technology doesn't work when they do. ESPN and NFL network streams are almost unwatchable.

- - - Updated - - -


Great post.

The contention all ratings are down certainly is the official NFL party line to explain ratings turning downward significantly since 2015. Unfortunately for a league trying to convince broadcasters they are getting a good return on their investment and hoping that the next round of broadcast rights sales will result in even more $$$, it may have to explain why declining ratings are the new normal for every sport given the growing popularity of the NBA, which operates under the same TV distribution system.

At the end of the 2017-18 regular season, NBA ratings were up across all four networks when compared to last season. ABC led the way at +17%, while TNT was +13%, ESPN +4% and NBA TV +1%. It was the NBA’s highest-rated season in five years. The audience growth was led by hard-to-reach young adults, with ratings for 18-34 demographic up by 14% and the 18-49 age group up by 15%. The median age of the NBA viewer is relatively young at 42, compared to the NFL (50) and Major League Baseball (57)....

There are a number of reasons why the NBA is gaining in popularity, especially with young adults. One reason is the games are not too long. An average NBA game in regulation lasts around 2 hours and 15 minutes. The 48-minute game has end to end action, looks good on television and has a lot of scoring. By comparison, in 2017, an average nine-inning Major League Baseball game lasted a record high three hours and five minutes. MLB is now trying to address this with rules changes including limiting manager, coach and player visits to the pitching mound. The average length of an NFL game in regulation (60 minutes of game clock time) is even longer at three hours and seven minutes, with only 11 minutes in which the football is actually in play. A televised NFL game now has an average of 70 ads.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2018/04/25/the-2017-18-season-was-great-for-the-nba/#580ec7b32ecb

As the article embedded in this tweet states (if you click on the link in the tweet it should get around the WSJ paywall), some NFL owners may be considering whether franchise values are close to a market top and that it might be time to start considering cashing out.

1031193043498684416

I am old enough to remember the shift from baseball to the NFL as the most popular U.S. sport. For a variety of reasons, including attention spans, more boys (& girls) playing basketball than football when growing up, and football participation being impacted by the sport potentially causing brain damage, a similar shift from the NFL to the NBA may be coming in the U.S. The NBA already leaves the NFL in the dust outside of the U.S. (although both sports trail far behind what the rest of the world calls football).

The other major thing is that TV made the NFL overtake baseball. The internet will help the NBA overtake the NFL.

NFL tailored itself to TV but has failed to embrace the internet. The NBA has went all in on the internet. Go to Youtube and see the highlight and discussion videos about the NBA that are not licensed. The NBA allows them to exist because all press is good press kinda thing. The NFL actively seeks and destroys these types of things on the internet. Gee, wanna guess which is more popular with young people globally? Maybe the sport you can instantly find on your phone for free.

I could rant about this all day. The NFL is governed by a bunch of folks that fundamentally do not understand the technological and cultural shifts that are underway in how people consume media/entertainment. Adapt or die. They are not adapting very well.

[st33lersguy]

The NFL would be wise to get rid of this rule. It will make it difficult for defenders to play, refs to call, and fans to watch

[AtlantaDan]

We are watching the destruction of the game of football.

When officials are forced to have this many judgement calls at high speed.....and the leading point of any human making a tackle is squaring the head to dead center of the target.....disaster will ensue.

No worries

Penalties under the new use of helmet in tackling rule may be subject to replay review by Al Riveron - that will fix everything :rolleyes:

“That was discussed by the Competition Committee,” Riveron said regarding the possibility of using replay review for helmet rule calls. “I know it’s been brought up again. But as you know we have rules and bylaws that we have to adhere to. Can that change before we go into the regular season? I don’t know but that’s part of what the Competition Committee will discuss as we go along here, and there’s always the possibility.”

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/08/20/riveron-hints-at-possibility-of-replay-for-helmet-rule/

"We have rules and bylaws that we have to adhere to" - until we don't adhere to them because we just keep making stuff up on the fly

[EzraTank]

Just give them a belt with two flags already.

[pczach]

No worries

Penalties under the new use of helmet in tackling rule may be subject to replay review by Al Riveron - that will fix everything :rolleyes:

“That was discussed by the Competition Committee,” Riveron said regarding the possibility of using replay review for helmet rule calls. “I know it’s been brought up again. But as you know we have rules and bylaws that we have to adhere to. Can that change before we go into the regular season? I don’t know but that’s part of what the Competition Committee will discuss as we go along here, and there’s always the possibility.”

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/08/20/riveron-hints-at-possibility-of-replay-for-helmet-rule/

"We have rules and bylaws that we have to adhere to" - until we don't adhere to them because we just keep making stuff up on the fly





https://media.giphy.com/media/urH7OHTkPAqEo/giphy.gif

[teegre]

Send me a good link Bro, I'm done paying for this crap.

Just come on over to my parents’ house.

Your choice: couch, chair, or on the floor amongst the smorgasbord of Legos. :lol:

[stillers4me]

1031699135034847232

[stillers4me]

The price of Sunday Ticket has skyrocketed. We got our bill and they were charging us (longtime customers) 6 payments of $66! Just shy of $400! By the time Russ got done with them, we are are paying one payment of $89. Way less than driving a 60 mile round trip to Martino's and buying food/drink every Sunday.

[86WARD]

NFL teams are teaching players to tackle like rugby players with their head behind the player. That tackle was text book what they are teaching. Far from any sort of penalty...lol.

[AtlantaDan]

The price of Sunday Ticket has skyrocketed. We got our bill and they were charging us (longtime customers) 6 payments of $66! Just shy of $400! By the time Russ got done with them, we are are paying one payment of $89. Way less than driving a 60 mile round trip to Martino's and buying food/drink every Sunday.

Time for me to have my annual conversation with DirecTV to threaten to cancel DirecTV unless they cut a deal (which they always do). This time I will actually mean it since I stream far more on Netflix and Amazon Prime than what I rarely watch these days on DirecTV. If DirecTV sold a Sunday Ticket + college football standalone package for a reasonable fee I would dump DirecTV ASAP.

[teegre]

If DirecTV sold a Sunday Ticket + college football standalone package for a reasonable fee I would dump DirecTV ASAP.

#truth

[AtlantaDan]

Coaches joining players in criticizing the new helmet rule

Some, including Minnesota Vikings (http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/_/name/min/minnesota-vikings) coach Mike Zimmer, even believe it might end up leading to how games are decided.

"It's going to cost some people some jobs -- playoffs, jobs, the whole bit I'm guessing," Zimmer said. "We haven't had any called on us so far. It's just hard to figure out. No one has ever said to me, 'Hey. Don't worry about it, we're going to call it less or we'll get it straightened out in the regular season. Or we're going to come up with a revised rule.' No one has ever said that."

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/24429528/mike-zimmer-minnesota-vikings-helmet-rule-cost-some-people-jobs

As the league office plans to add to the confusion

The league will also assemble an updated video tutorial that will be distributed to game officials, coaches and players once the final preseason games are played and in time for teams preparing for their regular-season openers, according to sources....

The revised video will be prepared by Al Riveron, the league's vice president of officials, with assistance from other league executives. It will include proper and erroneous applications by game officials, which one source said has generated a "predictable hysteria" because it is the first time the new rule is being officiated....

One influential league source said the NFL is looking at a "probable three-year" adjustment to the new emphasis that will change behavior with consistent application.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/24430389/nfl-update-teaching-video-helmet-contact-rule-league-officials-discuss-rule-conference-call

Characteristically arrogant touch with the snide remark that anyone not on board with this change is engaging in "predictable hysteria"

Back in the day when it could do no wrong the NFL could ride out a three year period of discontent on something like this - the league probably does not get it but after the multiple screwups since Goodell became commissioner there is no goodwill left and those days are long gone

[Mojouw]

Like the Wu-Tang Clan said - Cash.Rules.Everything.Around.Me.

The segment of fans that care enough to complain and worry about the rules adjustements are at most a third of the people who watch and spend money on the NFL and the products advertised during NFL games.

To attract and retain advertisers (which is the most important part of all this) AND ensure continued participation in youth football — the league has to be able to sell that the game is safe. Viola! Dumbass rule changes.

The NFL can survive multiple debated calls that decide games far far easier than it can survive another Ryan Shazier or Mike Utley type of injury.

This is not to say that the rule changes actually accomplish anything, but they appear to be doing something. That’s all that matters.

We can post all the video clips, quotes from those directly involved in the game, and whatever else we want and the NFL central offices DO NOT CARE. Because the current way the game is played leads to a slow death of the league as growth industry due to people being turned against the violent consequences. Changing the game runs the risk of a fast death by too much change too quickly, but it also has a far greater chance at “saving” football - at least as a money making enterprise.

C.R.E.A.M.

[AtlantaDan]

Like the Wu-Tang Clan said - Cash.Rules.Everything.Around.Me.

The segment of fans that care enough to complain and worry about the rules adjustements are at most a third of the people who watch and spend money on the NFL and the products advertised during NFL games.

To attract and retain advertisers (which is the most important part of all this) AND ensure continued participation in youth football — the league has to be able to sell that the game is safe. Viola! Dumbass rule changes.

The NFL can survive multiple debated calls that decide games far far easier than it can survive another Ryan Shazier or Mike Utley type of injury.

This is not to say that the rule changes actually accomplish anything, but they appear to be doing something. That’s all that matters.

We can post all the video clips, quotes from those directly involved in the game, and whatever else we want and the NFL central offices DO NOT CARE. Because the current way the game is played leads to a slow death of the league as growth industry due to people being turned against the violent consequences. Changing the game runs the risk of a fast death by too much change too quickly, but it also has a far greater chance at “saving” football - at least as a money making enterprise.

C.R.E.A.M.

Of course the 1/3 that cares are the league's base - as a NASCAR fan has explained to me, when NASCAR attempted to broaden the sport's appeal by diversifying from its Southern roots and constantly rejiggering the rules for how to win the championship, it lost the base and its popularity (in both attendance and ratings) went into free fall after the 2008 depression. That economic hurt caused fans to cut back on going to the track, which became permanent as fans realized they did not miss the experience that much. Once a habit is broken it often is not resumed.

Agreed having players paralyzed is not a good look for the NFL, but as has been discussed here and elsewhere, football is a violent game and players get hurt. Here is Mike Utley's description of how he was paralyzed, which apparently had nothing to do with the improper use of a helmet under the new rule

The Lions were playing the Los Angeles Rams at the Pontiac Silverdome. On the first play of the fourth quarter, Lions’ quarterback Erik Kramer threw a pass over the outstretched arms of the Rams’ David Rocker.

Utley moved forward to block Rocker at his mid-thighs to take his legs out.

“He has to defend himself,” Utley recalls. “His hands have to come down…

“He caught me, and he pulled me down. I hit my head on the turf and broke my neck at C-5, -6, -7, and became instantly paralyzed.”

https://magazine.wsu.edu/2010/10/27/living-for-a-cure/

IMO the helmet rule and other cosmetic changes are efforts to nibble at the problem of football injuries, but are not going to stop the decline in youth participation for parents who are aware of what even the league has finally conceded is the link between playing football and brain damage.

Of course there are other PR steps to take. Maybe current and former players will now quit saying they would not let their sons play football and attribute their change of heart to the new helmet rule - or if it is just a matter of better PR maybe the league should direct that any current player saying that will be suspended and any former player saying that will lose their pension.

[Mojouw]

Of course the 1/3 that cares are the league's base - as a NASCAR fan has explained to me, when NASCAR attempted to broaden the sport's appeal by diversifying from its Southern roots and constantly rejiggering the rules for how to win the championship, it lost the base and its popularity (in both attendance and ratings) went into free fall after the 2008 depression. That economic hurt caused fans to cut back on going to the track, which became permanent as fans realized they did not miss the experience that much. Once a habit is broken it often is not resumed.

Agreed having players paralyzed is not a good look for the NFL, but as has been discussed here and elsewhere, football is a violent game and players get hurt. Here is Mike Utley's description of how he was paralyzed, which apparently had nothing to do with the improper use of a helmet under the new rule

The Lions were playing the Los Angeles Rams at the Pontiac Silverdome. On the first play of the fourth quarter, Lions’ quarterback Erik Kramer threw a pass over the outstretched arms of the Rams’ David Rocker.

Utley moved forward to block Rocker at his mid-thighs to take his legs out.

“He has to defend himself,” Utley recalls. “His hands have to come down…

“He caught me, and he pulled me down. I hit my head on the turf and broke my neck at C-5, -6, -7, and became instantly paralyzed.”

https://magazine.wsu.edu/2010/10/27/living-for-a-cure/

IMO the helmet rule and other cosmetic changes are efforts to nibble at the problem of football injuries, but are not going to stop the decline in youth participation for parents who are aware of what even the league has finally conceded is the link between playing football and brain damage.

Of course there are other PR steps to take. Maybe current and former players will now quit saying they would not let their sons play football and attribute their change of heart to the new helmet rule - or if it is just a matter of better PR maybe the league should direct that any current player saying that will be suspended and any former player saying that will lose their pension.

That could all be true. But when has the NFL ever been farsighted and logical under the leadership of Goodell, Jones, Kraft, and other new guard owners? Never.

So they will continue to apply cosmetic adjustments in an increasingly desperate and scattershot attempt to ensure advertisers keep paying enough so the TV deals go through. Everything else is secondary.

It’s just sad that the owners and people who grew the NFL into the success it was are being pushed aside in favor of owners and officials whose only motivation is increased revenue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AtlantaDan]

That could all be true. But when has the NFL ever been farsighted and logical under the leadership of Goodell, Jones, Kraft, and other new guard owners? Never.

So they will continue to apply cosmetic adjustments in an increasingly desperate and scattershot attempt to ensure advertisers keep paying enough so the TV deals go through. Everything else is secondary.

It’s just sad that the owners and people who grew the NFL into the success it was are being pushed aside in favor of owners and officials whose only motivation is increased revenue.

Agreed - even with far sighted leadership IMO the league probably would be screwed. This is how the league has been marketed since its rise that surpassed baseball, starting in the late 1950s with the New York Giants in the nation's media capital, until the wave crested with the Steelers-Ravens AFC championship game around the time the CTE connection could no longer be ignored.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKeAX9rmzbk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qNj6jUcPN8

By trying to run away from the violence now Goodell and the owners are essentially replaying this scene from Casablanca - cannot unring the bell of what made the game so popular


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

[Mojouw]

Agreed - even with far sighted leadership IMO the league probably would be screwed. This is how the league has been marketed since its rise that surpassed baseball, starting in the late 1950s with the New York Giants in the nation's media capital, until the wave crested with the Steelers-Ravens AFC championship game around the time the CTE connection could no longer be ignored.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKeAX9rmzbk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qNj6jUcPN8

By trying to run away from the violence now Goodell and the owners are essentially replaying this scene from Casablanca - cannot unring the bell of what made the game so popular


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

I actually think that you could and should decouple the marketing, enjoyment, and evaluation of football from the violence. But that is part of another larger and very intangible discussion.

The things coming out of the Maryland program right now, the idiot at one of the Carolina schools (I think) that argues head injuries aren't happening, the numerous college coaches that talk of "building men" and "creating warriors" and on and on conspire to create the perception that football at the NCAA and NFL levels has a violence problem.

Many casual or non-football fans/followers perceive the game as suffering from a toxic culture that glorifies violence and injury for their own sake. In other words, tons of people figure that Burfict isn't the exception, but rather the inevitable outcome of the whole system.

I truly believe that this is what the NFL is attempting to respond to, but since they are a bunch of morons and out of touch billionaires they are totally bungling the operation.

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone used to think this was cool and awesome:

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2014/0715/tittle_header6_1600x900.jpg

Now a majority of the population that the NFL's advertisers are targeting reject just about everything in this image. And therein lies the rub.

[Mojouw]

Takes forever to load, but here are all 50 helmet hits flagged so far this preseason:

https://deadspin.com/heres-every-hit-thats-been-penalized-under-the-nfls-hel-1828494909

33 games and 50 penalties - that's about 1.5 per game.

Maybe it won't really be much if that drops to less than one a game in the regular season?

[AtlantaDan]

I actually think that you could and should decouple the marketing, enjoyment, and evaluation of football from the violence. But that is part of another larger and very intangible discussion.

The things coming out of the Maryland program right now, the idiot at one of the Carolina schools (I think) that argues head injuries aren't happening, the numerous college coaches that talk of "building men" and "creating warriors" and on and on conspire to create the perception that football at the NCAA and NFL levels has a violence problem.

The coach/moron in CTE denial was Larry Fedora from UNC. And this is the stuff that goes public - imagine the mindset in the coaches rooms at some programs

1019629919989567489
1019644666608803840

[BnG_Hevn]

Look at the defender's right shoulder, he clearly tries to "drive it into the QB". I agree with the call. He could have laid the hit and not driven the shoulder as though he intended to hurt him.

[Mojouw]

The coach/moron in CTE denial was Larry Fedora from UNC. And this is the stuff that goes public - imagine the mindset in the coaches rooms at some programs

1019629919989567489
1019644666608803840

Well considering the coaching staff at Maryland just killed a kid, I’m certainly m it’s pretty horrific.

That’s the stuff that needs to change regardless of anything else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mojouw]

https://www.nationalfootballpost.com/belichick-on-new-helmet-rule-its-not-a-change-for-us/

The Hoodie likes it...

[steelreserve]

Look at the defender's right shoulder, he clearly tries to "drive it into the QB". I agree with the call. He could have laid the hit and not driven the shoulder as though he intended to hurt him.

I mean, it's not even about whether or not he tried to drive his shoulder into the QB.

It's that you SHOULD be able to do that.

Fuck this shit.

[Dwinsgames]

I mean, it's not even about whether or not he tried to drive his shoulder into the QB.

It's that you SHOULD be able to do that.

Fuck this shit.

it is still tackle football isnt it ?

or is it ?

[Dwinsgames]

for those of you who thought these "bad calls" will be relaxed once the season starts .....


what if I told you these " bad calls" are now also receiving fines from the league office ?

would you still feel as though they will be greatly relaxed in a few weeks when the season starts ?

well here is this penalty worthy let alone fine worthy ?

game has gone to hell and I have been witness to it happening

1032643855869390849

[Dwinsgames]

how much the game has changed in my lifetime alone ....


1033452744932306944

[HollywoodSteel]

how much the game has changed in my lifetime alone ....


1033452744932306944

I think the call on that play is pretty clear: down by contact. No fumble.

[Hawkman]

I think the call on that play is pretty clear: down by contact. No fumble.

All they needed was the chair.

[Steeldude]

Maybe this will help the younger fans understand what the older fans mean by football isn't the same as it was in the past.

[Iron Steeler]

Should we call this the Aaron Rodgers Rule?

[Hawkman]

Maybe this will help the younger fans understand what the older fans mean by football isn't the same as it was in the past.

Nah, their too busy on their cellphones.:hmm:

[HollywoodSteel]

Nah, their too busy on their cellphones.:hmm:

Why are those things mutually exclusive? I watched the clip and am reading this thread on a phone.

I can imagine what they said in the 50s:
These kids with their damn televisions... ruining the game by watching it.

[Steeldude]

Nah, their too busy on their cellphones.:hmm:

Haha

[Mojouw]

how much the game has changed in my lifetime alone ....


1033452744932306944

But is that honestly better? Sure it has changed - everything has changed in the last 40+ years. But is a QB getting suplexed and tossed on his head a better "product" (because that is what this is)? I mean at no point was Bradshaw getting out of the defenders grasp or making a pass so calling in the grasp or just whistling it dead prior to him getting planted on his head is somehow worse because of toughness or something?

The one you posted earlier is absolutely ridiculous however.

What I would like to know are random odd things. If leading with the helmet by any player on offense or defense is out, wouldn't that mean that RBs jumping over the pile would be by definition a penalty?

Everything changes over time. I mean people don't seem to care as much about baseball, but can you imagine Bob Gibson today? No way. He would get thrown out of the league. I mean look at this:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4a0L8jVMAEQq0S.jpg

[Steeldude]

Look at the defender's right shoulder, he clearly tries to "drive it into the QB". I agree with the call. He could have laid the hit and not driven the shoulder as though he intended to hurt him.

That's a good point.