not sure about the rest of you but ...

[Dwinsgames]

what I witnessed last night was not football ....

least not anything I would consider football ....

just not certain how much of this new game I can stand , I see more physicality in local HS football with less flags /sigh

[X-Terminator]

Preaching to the choir, Dwins. I said almost the same thing last night when I was watching part of the game at a local bar with some friends. It's one of the main reasons why I want Goodell gone, because the pussification of the game under his watch has been more than I can stomach.

[tube517]

I turned it off early. I am watching more college now because of my college fantasy football team and am less interested in the NFL

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

[steelerdude15]

I turned it off early. I am watching more college now because of my college fantasy football team and am less interested in the NFL

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk

I've always liked college football, but not as much as the NFL. That's slowly changing. I'm becoming even more interested in college football because it's more physical, defenses can actually play defense, and unlike the NFL where it's all about the glamor, it's about the actual game in college.

[X-Terminator]

I've always liked college football, but not as much as the NFL. That's slowly changing. I'm becoming even more interested in college football because it's more physical, defenses can actually play defense, and unlike the NFL where it's all about the glamor, it's about the actual game in college.

The college game has its share of warts and shady characters, but other than that, you're spot-on. You may start to see more and more fans turning to college football as the NFL begins a slow descent into the abyss. At least I hope it does.

[86WARD]

Preaching to the choir, Dwins. I said almost the same thing last night when I was watching part of the game at a local bar with some friends. It's one of the main reasons why I want Goodell gone, because the pussification of the game under his watch has been more than I can stomach.

But can they go backwards and make the game more physical or is it past the point of no return?

[steelerdude15]

But can they go backwards and make the game more physical or is it past the point of no return?

That's a great question. It would be great if they did.

[SteelerFanInStl]

I've been saying this for the last few years. This is not the sport that I love. I've always been a lover of defense. Defensive players are not allowed to play any more.

[Lambert_Loonie]

All I can say is get used to it. NFL games won't be played with the same physicality that they were 2 years ago, let alone 15-20. As time goes on, it's going to be less and less physical.

And as if Goodell getting the boot would solve anything. Even if Roger Goodell gets the axe after this Ray Rice scandal, the owners are just going to vote in another meat puppet who's only goals in mind are ratings and revenue.

[Devilsdancefloor]

it makes me sick to look at the hit by upshaw even that is football boys and girls the PF calls on troy and mitchell where just as much BS

[Mojouw]

It will be interesting to see what the new drug policy does. If HGH use is as rampant as some suspect in football, getting it out of the game may actually be a path back to more physical football. If no HGH means a measurable decrease in average player size/speed, even slight, it may also allow traditional physical play to re-enter the league without these guys killing each other.

[steelreserve]

What they need for player safety is to throw out ALL the bullshit they've lawyered into existence since ESPN Concussion Sunday, and have ONE rule about it:

"No deliberately hitting an opponent in the head."

Period. That's it.

Note the word DELIBERATELY. It's the key to the whole thing. They say they're trying to change behavior, then fine. That addresses it, and without the need for six penalties and fines per game that have nothing to do with intent or safety, but are essentially just penalizing random accidents that happen all the time in sports.

If you're trying to knock someone out, we get it, that's not allowed anymore, and I don't think most fans have a problem with trying to curb that. What's not OK is throwing flags all the time when someone is just trying to make a normal play and gets an unlucky twist or turn, and now it fits some textbook definition. That easily accounts for 90%+ of all "illegal" hits on quarterbacks and "defenseless receivers" -- I mean, the players are not so stupid that they've heard the rules and just go "whoopty-doo, I'm going to ignore them and take penalties all day." Does anyone really believe that Troy Polamalu just randomly decided to go headhunting, with his team fighting for a stop in a game that was still close at that point? No, but it fit the definiteion of the rule anyway? Well, that's why these are BAD RULES.

The problem is not trying to promote player safety. The problem is that they've gone so far overboard in trying to have a written definition for anything that could be a dangerous play that they're doing far more harm than good. It's about as effective as those mandatory minimum sentences and "three strikes" laws that yeah, probably keep a few criminals off the streets, but then sentence 10,000 people to life in prison for shit like shoplifting $3 worth of batteries or not having enough money for the pizza guy. After a lot of bullshit, people figured out that one-size-fits-all does not work for things that are a judgment call, and it's better to let judges be judges, or in this case, let referees be referees, because a rule is not going to do it for you.

Yes, this would require referees to make judgment calls. There's nothing wrong with that - certainly not as wrong as the blind way of doing it now. I only worry that the referees themselves couldn't do it, since they've been trained for so long to follow the asinine rules that they'd still have them in the back of their heads as guidelines. The major-conference college refs are trained just as badly. So there could be a bit of an officiating crisis. But hopefully they'd learn eventually.

That is about the only way I can see to save the game of football-as-we-once-knew-it.

[tube517]

I've always liked college football, but not as much as the NFL. That's slowly changing. I'm becoming even more interested in college football because it's more physical, defenses can actually play defense, and unlike the NFL where it's all about the glamor, it's about the actual game in college.

Yeah, I was up late Sat night watching the small conference games (My WR played for Boise lol) and they were fun to watch.

[Craic]

The problem is a lot more complicated than it's being made out to be here, and frankly, I'm still a little shocked at the cavalier way some think about the health and life of an NFL player. I've said it numerous times, the players are bigger, are faster, and are stronger. That means, based on pure mathematics, the impacts are a ton more dangerous than they used to be. The game has changed simply due to the change in biophysics of the players. There's no going away from that.

So, is that it? No, absolutely not. There are other things that have changed, which account for as much if not more fault for injuries and thus, the new rules. Changing those things will both make the game more physical, and make it safer. What are they?

• Remove about ninety percent of the passing interference rules. Make a receiver have to fight to get off his mark, and fight to stay on his path along the route. I'm not talking about holding or arm bars, but bumping shoulders, using the upper part of the arm to slow a receiver down, and allowing a whole lot more contact.
  
  Why would this be effective? Because it tremendously slows down the receivers. And when they're slowed down, impacts aren't nearly has brutal. On top of that, it will keep CBs closer to receivers, which means safeties won't be able to line them up from twenty yards away and t-off on them, because there's just as good of a chance that they'd injure their own man.

• Remove the O line's ability to clutch and grab people. Go back to an older school of blocking.
  
  Why would this be effective? When QBs have four, five, six seconds behind the line of scrimmage, plays break up and people run free. This will force QBs to throw faster, which means shorter routes. And again, it's a return to an older style of football.

• Keep the Kickoff where it's at.
  
  I posted in another thread that after the change in 1994 moving the kickoff to the 30, they've finally pulled their head out and moved it back up to the thirty-five. It was a stupid change in '94 to provide "more excitement" to the game. Instead, it provided more injury.

• Cut the padding in half in shoulder pads and other gear.
  
  The more a person feels invulnerable, the more they'll act like it. If they weren't wearing helmets last night, I guarantee that you'd only have had maybe one penalty for head-on-head contact of any type. This has been a problem since they moved away from leather helmets, and you can follow the trend of penalties, from spearing to its current renditions as a result.

• Add another five yards to each side of the field.
  
  Why? Part of the reason that impacts are so brutal now is because we have three-hundred pound lineman who are almost as fast as Linebackers in the 60's. It is nothing to now have 280-300+ pounders running the forty in the high four second range. And as for 250 plus pound DEs, TWENTY-FIVE DE's ran a four second forty. So, the mathematics again are easy. More pounds + faster speeds make for less running lanes, which makes it easier to line up bigger hits.

Do these things, and also keep the rules about aiming for the head or neck, and you'll have a much more physical, but much less penalized game, with less injuries. And, the injuries you will see, will be ankle, knee, and muscle injuries from running, or from being dragged down. And the fact of the matter is, those are a thousand times more acceptable than head injuries.

EDIT: Oh, and the biggest one? Cut salaries to the point where they have to work during the week. Yeah, I know, it'll never happen. But the exact same scenario happened in the Rugby universe where the minute players started getting paid by clubs to the point that they didn't have to work during the week, the injuries skyrocketed, and players who spanned the two eras say that it is night and day—that playing Rugby now is literally scary because of the injury factor.

[steelreserve]

The problem is a lot more complicated than it's being made out to be here, and frankly, I'm still a little shocked at the cavalier way some think about the health and life of an NFL player.

...

Do these things, and also keep the rules about aiming for the head or neck, and you'll have a much more physical, but much less penalized game, with less injuries. And, the injuries you will see, will be ankle, knee, and muscle injuries from running, or from being dragged down. And the fact of the matter is, those are a thousand times more acceptable than head injuries.

Those are all good points, but I think really any rule they can make in the NFL is not going to affect the fundamental issue: Most players collide with either another player or the ground on virtually every play. Because of that, it is going to be a dangerous sport with or without hemlet-to-helmet contact. The occasional big hit is what gets the attention and the flags - but is that what causes problems, or is it the fact that you were probably jarred but not knocked out somewhere on the order of 100,000 to 200,000 times from childhood through adulthood?

It's the same way that everyone knows boxers end up dumber than a bag of hammers, but it's probably not from the 5 times they were knocked out in their career, it's from getting punched in the head 500 times a night. No rule whatsoever is going to remove that problem from football, unless you barred blocking and tackling. It's like people have taken this idea that helmet-to-helmet hits are responsible for all the dangers in football, but blocking or slamming into the ground over and over is just fine. Bullcrap; that jolts your brain around just like any other hit. If anything, I have to give Goodell and his henchmen credit for so expertly managing to set the helmet-to-helmet BS up as an attention-magnet and actually getting everybody to take the bait.

You keep mentioning rugby players as the model for safe play and form tackling. Rugby players get CTE too. So do occasional players from other sports like hockey and soccer. And on the other hand, lots of NFL players absorb a huge amount of punishment and, for whatever reason, don't get CTE. What that tells me is that - just like with any other ailment - some people are just more vulnerable to it than others, and for now nobody has any idea why. Some people can smoke cigarettes all their lives without getting cancer, and then some die off when they're in their 40s and 50s. Some people eat tons of greasy meals and junk food and have low cholesterol; others watch their diet every day and still struggle with weight problems and heart disease. We don't have a reason for it other than random luck.

I would call football one of those dangerous behaviors that puts you at risk of health problems, but at this point we all know the risks, and there IS a significant reward if you make it far enough. The ones I feel sorry for are the guys who played in past decades when nobody had any idea of the dangers involved, just like in the 1940s nobody had figured out that smoking was bad for you. It's out there now, so you understand the risk you're taking and move on. You're not going to be able to take the fundamental danger out of the sport, and Goodell is foolish to pretend he can. He's keeping everybody distracted for now, but doing INCREDIBLE damage to the game in the process. Most of these rule changes get rushed through with near-unanimous support and fanfare, because "oh-my-god-what-kind-of-monster-would-want-people-to-be-brain-damaged" ... which isn't the issue, it's that they're making rules that do nothing to prevent brain damage, but you have to go along or get shouted down because OMG. Running the show by media frenzy is a good way to wind up with nothing but band-aids and facades, and the commissioner should be ashamed for participating in such a sham.

[silver & black]

I haven't watched an NFL game yet this year. I know the Raiders are horrible but, that really has nothing to do with it. I can't stand all the damn flags. It's a never ending display of flags and commercials. I never thought I would lose interest but, I just don't care that much anymore. The only thing that resembles football anymore is the ball.

[Craic]

Those are all good points, but I think really any rule they can make in the NFL is not going to affect the fundamental issue: Most players collide with either another player or the ground on virtually every play. Because of that, it is going to be a dangerous sport with or without hemlet-to-helmet contact. The occasional big hit is what gets the attention and the flags - but is that what causes problems, or is it the fact that you were probably jarred but not knocked out somewhere on the order of 100,000 to 200,000 times from childhood through adulthood?

It's the same way that everyone knows boxers end up dumber than a bag of hammers, but it's probably not from the 5 times they were knocked out in their career, it's from getting punched in the head 500 times a night. No rule whatsoever is going to remove that problem from football, unless you barred blocking and tackling. It's like people have taken this idea that helmet-to-helmet hits are responsible for all the dangers in football, but blocking or slamming into the ground over and over is just fine. Bullcrap; that jolts your brain around just like any other hit. If anything, I have to give Goodell and his henchmen credit for so expertly managing to set the helmet-to-helmet BS up as an attention-magnet and actually getting everybody to take the bait.

Yes and no. The problem is the bruising of the brain—concussions. While there is some truth to what you're saying, the big issue today are the "take your head off" hits that do in one hit what a thousand tackles around the waist will do. That's the big issue. Not because your brain gets jolted around a little, but because your brain gets slammed into your cranium, and then slammed into the other side of your cranium as well. A normal tackle simply doesn't cause that kind of problem because our bodies are made to deal with it. We're not made to deal with high impact head shots.

And in truth, it's not Goodell or his "henchmen." It's the advance of science. A couple weeks ago I sat in a class dealing with TBI, and it was simply amazing, and eyeopening how far the science has come.

You keep mentioning rugby players as the model for safe play and form tackling. Rugby players get CTE too. So do occasional players from other sports like hockey and soccer. And on the other hand, lots of NFL players absorb a huge amount of punishment and, for whatever reason, don't get CTE. What that tells me is that - just like with any other ailment - some people are just more vulnerable to it than others, and for now nobody has any idea why. Some people can smoke cigarettes all their lives without getting cancer, and then some die off when they're in their 40s and 50s. Some people eat tons of greasy meals and junk food and have low cholesterol; others watch their diet every day and still struggle with weight problems and heart disease. We don't have a reason for it other than random luck.

If you re-read my post, you'll find that I've actually said Rugby is getting as bad as football now. So yes, Rugby players are getting more and more injuries. They're getting them precisely because they're becoming reckless with their bodies in the same way the NFL has been for the last forty years.

I would call football one of those dangerous behaviors that puts you at risk of health problems, but at this point we all know the risks, and there IS a significant reward if you make it far enough. The ones I feel sorry for are the guys who played in past decades when nobody had any idea of the dangers involved, just like in the 1940s nobody had figured out that smoking was bad for you. It's out there now, so you understand the risk you're taking and move on. You're not going to be able to take the fundamental danger out of the sport, and Goodell is foolish to pretend he can. He's keeping everybody distracted for now, but doing INCREDIBLE damage to the game in the process. Most of these rule changes get rushed through with near-unanimous support and fanfare, because "oh-my-god-what-kind-of-monster-would-want-people-to-be-brain-damaged" ... which isn't the issue, it's that they're making rules that do nothing to prevent brain damage, but you have to go along or get shouted down because OMG. Running the show by media frenzy is a good way to wind up with nothing but band-aids and facades, and the commissioner should be ashamed for participating in such a sham.

But, this logic doesn't make sense. To state it a different way, you're saying, "Since we know it's dangerous, the people make the choice and there's no reason to take away any of the danger." Let's apply that to the police force. Should police not work to take away dangerous scenarios? Miners today know what black-lung and mine-collapses mean and can do, so should we not work to make mining more safe because they know the danger when they get into it? I won't waste time with the twenty or so other professions that I'm thinking about.

And, I'm interested to know how you think stopping someone from crashing into someone else's head at full speed will do nothing to stop possible damage to the brain in the future. That's like saying "making the speed limit fifteen miles an hour instead of fifty will not stop traffic fatalities." It does. And so does cutting down on hitting the head.

My problem with all these rules are that they're made necessary precisely because the NFL is trying to make a faster sport. I agree with you the sport's being ruined, but it's not being ruined by penalties for hitting the head. It's being ruined by constantly creating rules that speeds the game up, and then scrambling to fix the unintended consequences of those rules.

[ALLD]

It was half commercials. They sped up the game to allow for more advertising!

[Count Steeler]

The good: Ben got a roughing the passer call.

The bad: What a freakin' assume hit by Upshaw. Something every Steeler fan would love to have on their team's defense. And that is a penalty in the new NFL.

[steelreserve]

Yes and no. The problem is the bruising of the brain—concussions. While there is some truth to what you're saying, the big issue today are the "take your head off" hits that do in one hit what a thousand tackles around the waist will do. That's the big issue. Not because your brain gets jolted around a little, but because your brain gets slammed into your cranium, and then slammed into the other side of your cranium as well. A normal tackle simply doesn't cause that kind of problem because our bodies are made to deal with it. We're not made to deal with high impact head shots.

And in truth, it's not Goodell or his "henchmen." It's the advance of science. A couple weeks ago I sat in a class dealing with TBI, and it was simply amazing, and eyeopening how far the science has come.


If you re-read my post, you'll find that I've actually said Rugby is getting as bad as football now. So yes, Rugby players are getting more and more injuries. They're getting them precisely because they're becoming reckless with their bodies in the same way the NFL has been for the last forty years.



But, this logic doesn't make sense. To state it a different way, you're saying, "Since we know it's dangerous, the people make the choice and there's no reason to take away any of the danger." Let's apply that to the police force. Should police not work to take away dangerous scenarios? Miners today know what black-lung and mine-collapses mean and can do, so should we not work to make mining more safe because they know the danger when they get into it? I won't waste time with the twenty or so other professions that I'm thinking about.

And, I'm interested to know how you think stopping someone from crashing into someone else's head at full speed will do nothing to stop possible damage to the brain in the future. That's like saying "making the speed limit fifteen miles an hour instead of fifty will not stop traffic fatalities." It does. And so does cutting down on hitting the head.

My problem with all these rules are that they're made necessary precisely because the NFL is trying to make a faster sport. I agree with you the sport's being ruined, but it's not being ruined by penalties for hitting the head. It's being ruined by constantly creating rules that speeds the game up, and then scrambling to fix the unintended consequences of those rules.

The answer to that is that no, you should not be making these rules to prevent hits to the head, because you CAN'T prevent them. We're at the minimum. The players know you're not allowed to do it, so almost every single time two players collide helmet-to-helmet, it's accidental. I guess you could reduce them further if you told both offensive and defensive players they're not allowed to try and make plays.

But to use your analogy of reducing the speed limit, sure you COULD reduce injuries by dropping the speed limit to 15 miles an hour - but that would make driving pretty unappealing, and you'd find a different way to get around. I don't want to watch football at the equivalent of 15 miles per hour, which is really what it would take to eliminate these collisions - most of which I repeat are ACCIDENTAL - from happening. It is simply a product where in order to make it completely safe, you would also make it cease to function.

To go back to your other point about dangerous professions like police and mining ... those are EXCELLENT examples of why football is never going to be completely safe. You can make as many safety improvements as you want, but nothing will ever change the fact that there is inherent danger in chasing down wanted criminals, or in operating heavy machinery a mile under the earth.

OK, well let's say you were concerned that too many police officers were getting shot trying to arrest people late at night. So you D) make a rule saying there's no more arresting people after 10 p.m. Does it stop them from getting shot? Of course. But you now have an ineffective police force, and you conclude there's no way to eliminate that particular problem entirely.

Better yet, take the mining example. One day someone decides that they've done great at getting rid of lung disease and equipment accidents, but there are too many cave-ins, so they pass a law saying you can only make the tunnels half as wide, and you have to use 4 times as many supports as before. So you do that, and it becomes less profitable so you have to lay off half your workers, and as it turns out, the new rules didn't do anything and cave-ins happen just as often. So they decide you can only make the tunnels a quarter as wide, and you have to use 10 times as many supports, so you do that and still the same number of cave-ins happen because it turns out there's nothing available that will solve that problem. So they tell you the miners can only work 2-hour shifts, and that still doesn't solve anything, and eventually it becomes impossible to operate the mine at all. That's more what we're dealing with.

Those are also both perfect examples of professions where people know the danger involved when they're getting into it, and the ones who choose to accept it are compensated in some other way. A lot of police officers take that risk because they feel they're serving the public good (others probably because they like the authority, who are the ones we call "asshole cops"). It probably doesn't hurt either that they're well taken-care of with benefits and retirement and so on. Miners have a terrible job and all things being equal, not many would do it voluntarily, so they have to raise the pay until it's high enough or someone is desperate enough to ignore the risks and do it anyway.

More importantly than ALL of that: Plenty of people stay away from both of those jobs because it's not worth it to them. They have a choice and they choose not to. That's the way it will probably be with football. In 20 years, it may well be like boxing is now. You could make boxing a lot safer too, if you made a rule saying "no hitting in the head" ... but then it wouldn't really be boxing, would it?

[fansince'76]

I haven't watched an NFL game yet this year. I know the Raiders are horrible but, that really has nothing to do with it. I can't stand all the damn flags. It's a never ending display of flags and commercials. I never thought I would lose interest but, I just don't care that much anymore. The only thing that resembles football anymore is the ball.

I listened to the Steelers/Browns game on the radio and watched the Steelers/Ravens game until the 2 BS "hitting too hard" flags the Steelers got when I turned that off. Other than that, I haven't watched any of it either. Outside of the Steelers, I'm simply not interested anymore.

[Aussie_steeler]

• Cut the padding in half in shoulder pads and other gear.
  
  The more a person feels invulnerable, the more they'll act like it. If they weren't wearing helmets last night, I guarantee that you'd only have had maybe one penalty for head-on-head contact of any type. This has been a problem since they moved away from leather helmets, and you can follow the trend of penalties, from spearing to its current renditions as a result.

• Bingo.
  
  I played all my football with no padding or helmets. Just a mouth guard.
  
  I was taught and I quickly learnt to tackle in a way that did not put my head or neck at risk.
  
  Took one head hit my entire career, and that was because I was laying on the ground and as I tried to stand up I copped a knee to the head.
  
  
  If you guys had to play a physical game of football ( any code -- nfl, rugby union, rugby league, Aussie Rules etc) without all that padding you would know the value of protecting your head and not using it as a hammer.
  
  
  I say bring back leather helmets and play without any padding. ( and Roger, women love looking at human body, not a body wrapped up in armour)

[Craic]

Steelreserve:

I'll just repost Aussie steeler as my answer, because he nails it. I don't buy for one minute that every helmet to helmet hit is accidental. Those hits still get on ESPN.

It's not Goodell that's "Ruined the game." It's ESPN Football that's ruined the game—the bigger the hit, the bigger the highlight on ESPN. And that correlates into a bigger contract due to name recognition in the age of free agency.

Bingo.

I played all my football with no padding or helmets. Just a mouth guard.

I was taught and I quickly learnt to tackle in a way that did not put my head or neck at risk.

Took one head hit my entire career, and that was because I was laying on the ground and as I tried to stand up I copped a knee to the head.


If you guys had to play a physical game of football ( any code -- nfl, rugby union, rugby league, Aussie Rules etc) without all that padding you would know the value of protecting your head and not using it as a hammer.


I say bring back leather helmets and play without any padding. ( and Roger, women love looking at human body, not a body wrapped up in armour)[/LIST]

[NCSteeler]

What i saw was brown getting hit exactly like Mitchell hit their guy with no flag. I don't care how you rule it just do it the damn same all the time


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[steelreserve]

Steelreserve:

I'll just repost Aussie steeler as my answer, because he nails it. I don't buy for one minute that every helmet to helmet hit is accidental. Those hits still get on ESPN.

It's not Goodell that's "Ruined the game." It's ESPN Football that's ruined the game—the bigger the hit, the bigger the highlight on ESPN. And that correlates into a bigger contract due to name recognition in the age of free agency.

See, I don't think they're deliberately trying to hit in the head. They're trying to hit HARD, and there are definite advantages to that beyond getting your name on the ESPN highlight reel, specifically making your opponent drop the ball. So defenders aren't going to stop doing that, because that's a major way to make a play.

Offensive players aren't going to stop fighting for yardage either, or stop trying to spin and twist and duck when faced with a hit. That's the other half of how these helmet hits happen.

Yes, yes, I get the argument. If it was all form tackles and wrapping the player up, you wouldn't have as many head injuries. But, it's never going to be all form tackles and wrapping the player up. If they went back to wearing leather helmets, players would be more careful about keeping their heads out of the way. But, they're never going to go back to leather helmets. They're both nice talking points, but they just aren't going to happen.

In light of those two facts, our choices are to either have football-as-we-know-it with exciting play and some head injuries, or to have a watered-down version of football with penalty flags every two or three plays and just as many head injuries. They've made rules, and the players have tried to adjust to match the rules, and all that happens is that penalties are now called for ordinary events in the normal run of play.

The main positive effect on head injuries that can happen is that the players themselves know what the risks are now, and rule or no rule, try to avoid knocking themselves/each other out. Of course they're going to try to avoid it; no one is that stupid. The other positive effect is that players and teams will get smarter about not rushing people back into games, taking the right amount of time off, and ultimately, when to quit before you do yourself permanent harm. All the in-game stuff is crap; beyond a very basic level of "no intentionally trying to go headhunting" it's all just a bunch of red tape that wrecks the enjoyability of the game.

Kickoffs belong in a place where they can usually be run back unless it's an outstanding kick. They're part of the game. An important part. If we shouldn't have them anymore because the players hit each other too hard, it sounds like we're talking about starting a different sport.

[Steelerette]

If they ban everything except bean curd, water, and 20 minutes of cardio, there will be a lot less injuries.

[MrPgh]

Let's get one thing out of the way: Goodell possibly getting fired in the near future is not going to bring back old-time football.

Fans can bitch and moan about anything they want - that's what fans do. But when the team does it it just looks pathetic. Other teams have had an easier time adjusting to the new rules. The Steelers haven't because instead of trying to adjust, they just get the pouty face. At some point, the organization just needs to suck it up and accept this is the way the NFL is. Fighting it is just going to get them 8-8 again, or worse.

[X-Terminator]

Let's get one thing out of the way: Goodell possibly getting fired in the near future is not going to bring back old-time football.

Fans can bitch and moan about anything they want - that's what fans do. But when the team does it it just looks pathetic. Other teams have had an easier time adjusting to the new rules. The Steelers haven't because instead of trying to adjust, they just get the pouty face. At some point, the organization just needs to suck it up and accept this is the way the NFL is. Fighting it is just going to get them 8-8 again, or worse.

But when the refs make 2 horrible calls like they did in that game, they have every right to complain. They had a conference about Mitchell's hit, and they STILL got it wrong. Referee incompetence should be called out every time, and it seems like it gets worse every year with all of these new rules coming out. Just let them play football already!

[steelreserve]

But when the refs make 2 horrible calls like they did in that game, they have every right to complain. They had a conference about Mitchell's hit, and they STILL got it wrong. Referee incompetence should be called out every time, and it seems like it gets worse every year with all of these new rules coming out. Just let them play football already!

Don't forget the bad call that went in our favor, on the sack that should've ended our first drive. I felt almost guilty that we still had the ball after that. Horrible call.

Even worse: After every one of these idiot flags, the announcers go, "There it is, see, you can't tell if he really hit him in the head, but under the new rules they're told to err on the side of caution - GOOD CALL BY THE OFFICIALS!"

Many people, once they hear it repeated often enough, will start to believe it.

[fansince'76]

Let's get one thing out of the way: Goodell possibly getting fired in the near future is not going to bring back old-time football.

I realize that. And that's why I'm tuning out.