Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

  1. #1
    Administrator Array title="fansince'76 has a reputation beyond repute"> fansince'76's Avatar
    Galagon 2004 Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Gender
    Posts
    14,554

    The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Yeah, I’m angry. I’m angry about the new “enforcement” of the tackles against “defenseless” players rule. I’m angry, but not for the reasons that you may think.

    I understand that at all levels of football, there is a movement to reduce head injuries. Good. I’m all for it. By all means, make the game safer. However, it can be done within the confines of keeping the game the way it was meant to be played.

    Here is my problem: In Roger Goodell, we have a commissioner that has neither the experience nor the ethics to enforce this rule.

    Let's look at the ethical problem that we face with this enforcement. Goodell has been adamant in his push for an 18-game season. He wishes to do this by eliminating two preseason games. You see, Goodell notices all those empty seats at the preseason games, and that monetary calculator that he had installed in place of an actual brain starts counting the missing revenue in each seat. Therefore, his logical conclusion is to extend the season.

    Now the commissioner would have us believe that with every hard hit he now places one hand over his heart and gets teary eyed over those poor young men in which he is emotionally vested. Excuse me why I stick a finger down my throat.

    Goodell knows that an extension of the season by two games raises the risk of injury to a starting player by approximately 15%. While talking out of one side of his mouth about how much he cares, he is pushing an agenda that is detrimental to the health of the players. His hypocrisy is amplified by the fact that he is using this new enforcement as actual leverage for adding two games. By his logic, the crackdown on hard hits will enable players to play more games. Again, he ignores the fact that not all hard hits are illegal and that more games will take a greater toll on the body of EVERY starter, not just those who receive those hits.

    Perhaps Goodell’s lack of ethics is even more obvious in the fact that after being approached over and over again into investing more money into post retirement pensions and medical plans, he has balked every time at placing any of the billions of dollars of profit into helping players after they leave the game. If he is so emotionally vested, then where is the sympathy and support for those players who spent a career making the NFL the most lucrative sport in the world? The NFL has no problem cashing in on the DVDs that celebrate the hard hits these players inflicted or received while playing, so please explain how a person with even the slightest bit of morality can not only ignore those players now, but also wave a tear soaked hanky at those same sort of plays made last week.

    The newest decision coming from the commissioner’s office is just another arbitrary ruling made by a man who is painfully showing his lack of practical football experience. Make no mistake about it, a commissioner who had played the game would have approached this issue in a different way. Goodell would have us believe that every time the head of a defenseless player is hit, it’s a penalty. Even the most casual of fans know that NFL football is played at such a level that it is impossible to stop trajectory, or predict how the ball carrier is going to react. If this ruling is all about “following the rules”, then enforce the holding calls that hamstring defensive players. Goodell is not going to do that. It was never any more about the “rules” then it was about “caring”. It's about justifying his agenda.

    Be prepared for the result of the pressure that is going to be laid at the feet of the NFL refs. There is no way that Goodell will allow the brunt of this ruling to continue to be piled at his door. You can bet that he has already spoken to the head of officiating and mandated that they start enforcing his ruling. From the viewpoint of the fan this is going to mean we will have to endure refs (who are only human) to make educated guesses as to what just happened in a bang-bang play. Was it a hit to the shoulder or the head? With the right amount of pressure applied by the commissioner, the refs are going to err on the side of job security. That means a 15-yard penalty and an automatic first down for every “guess” made by the officials. This is the end result of a commissioner that has no idea of how to differentiate between the inherent violence of the game and a legitimate intent to cause harm.

    No one wants to see players injured. Anyone who pretends to think that there is a portion of fans who do is simply building a strawman argument. What fans want is a commissioner who is less arbitrary and less money driven. Let all the decisions that come out of Goodell’s office be less about how he can put finances before
    fans, and all of us will be able to take the medicine, knowing that it's sweetened with good intentions.



    © 2010 Steelers Universe




  2. #2
    SteelerSal
    Guest

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Um,,,,Gary, you need to give Perry the reps I just gave you by mistake.

    Good article!!

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Array title="LLT has a reputation beyond repute"> LLT's Avatar
    Anime BlackJack Champion! 3 Reel Treasure Slots Champion! Submarine Champion! Yahtzee Champion! Battleball Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Posts
    5,393

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelerSal View Post
    Um,,,,Gary, you need to give Perry the reps I just gave you by mistake.

    Good article!!
    LOL!! Thanks Sal.
    "I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play"

    -- Jack Lambert --

  4. #4
    SteelerSal
    Guest

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    You have it now, Perry.

    Gary got a freebie.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Array title="Butch is a splendid one to behold"> Butch's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Gender
    Posts
    2,189

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Excellent post and I totally agree this guy is all about the Dollar. He is ruining the sport with his stupid rule changes. This year the hits, before that play the stupid pro bowl before the Superbowl, talking about playing a Superbowl overseas, and extending the season. I really can't stand this guy, I just wish there was something the fans could do to get him out of office.

  6. #6
    Super Moderator Array title="LLT has a reputation beyond repute"> LLT's Avatar
    Anime BlackJack Champion! 3 Reel Treasure Slots Champion! Submarine Champion! Yahtzee Champion! Battleball Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Posts
    5,393

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by Butch View Post
    Excellent post and I totally agree this guy is all about the Dollar. He is ruining the sport with his stupid rule changes. This year the hits, before that play the stupid pro bowl before the Superbowl, talking about playing a Superbowl overseas, and extending the season. I really can't stand this guy, I just wish there was something the fans could do to get him out of office.
    ...And dont forget "flex scheduling", which sounds like a great ideal for those of us sitting on our couches on sunday nights...but fans (like my brother) who have bought tickets for a 3 pm game...and prepare to fly in from out of town...get told "sorry...but the game has been moved to 7pm". My brother had to leave a game during the 3rd quarter because of flex scheduling to make his flight.

    Hey..screw the fan who spend his hard earned cash to support his team...we have TV revenue to worry about!!!!!
    Last edited by LLT; 11-01-2010 at 10:34 AM.
    "I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play"

    -- Jack Lambert --

  7. #7
    Spaghetti Time Array title="Chidi29 has a brilliant future"> Chidi29's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Posts
    7,392

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    I've been meaning to get around to this but haven't had the time.

    To start with, a well written article LLT. I hope you continue to write editorals and since this is your third, I assume you will be. Look forward to reading them.

    But I have to disagree with you on a couple points.

    When I first saw someone make the point of the NFL being hypocritical for advocating player safety yet pushing for an 18 game schedule, I agreed. It seemed hypocritical.

    But I think what Goodell is looking for is the ability to have a game that doesn't have flagrant hits that cause severe injury or the potential to do so unnecessary. We can have an 18 game schedule and that potential eliminated. I'd think, or like to think, that he realizes player's safety will always be in jeporday when they step out onto the field. If we truly wanted to eliminate the risk for injury, we wouldn't play football. Instead of a Super Bowl, we'd play Charades to determine a champion. (Mendenhall! If it wasn't Jaws the first time, why would it be the sixth!). I smell a sitcom brewing.

    Think of it this way.

    Player safety has always said to have been important to commissioner. Bell, Rozelle, Taglibue, and Goodell, you name it.

    More games have always been added to the schedule. We've gone from 10 to 12 to 14 and finally to 16 as I recall.

    If you want to still call it hypocritical, fine by me. But it isn't an issue central to Goodell. He's doing the same thing the people befre him did.

    I agree with you that this heavier enforcement in rules is due to outside influence and not because Goodell weeps at night because someone got hurt (though the thought of Goodell weeping might be a happy one in the mind of some fans).But as I wrote, I think it's something that has to be done. If they don't do it now, Congress will do it later. Or the NFLPA will file a lawsuit and the league will be up a certain creek without a paddle.

    I know you wrote this before the fact so I'm not trying to blame you for it, but the NFL has seemed within their boundaries so far. Not a single player has been suspended and there have still been some big hits. Heck, Merriweather lit up a guy the week after getting hit with a 50K fine. Dansy knocked Ocho out of the game.

    Personally, this whole situation has been blown out of proportion.

  8. #8
    Administrator Array title="fansince'76 has a reputation beyond repute"> fansince'76's Avatar
    Galagon 2004 Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Gender
    Posts
    14,554

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chidi29 View Post
    Personally, this whole situation has been blown out of proportion.
    Not when someone like Polamalu speaks out about it, at least IMO. It's one thing for a guy like Harrison to say something about it, but when someone like Troy says it, it's more likely that there is something to it. Additionally, Rooney has publicly chastised the league office over this and Tomlin has too. If anyone has blown this thing out of proportion, it's been the media.




  9. #9
    Spaghetti Time Array title="Chidi29 has a brilliant future"> Chidi29's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Posts
    7,392

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by fansince'76 View Post
    Not when someone like Polamalu speaks out about it, at least IMO. It's one thing for a guy like Harrison to say something about it, but when Troy says it, it seems like there is something to it. Additionally, Rooney has publicly chastised the league office over this and Tomlin has too. If anyone has blown this thing out of proportion, it's been the media.
    I didn't specifically say the players blew it out of proportion. I'd agree that the media made a bigger deal about it then it really is.

  10. #10
    Super Moderator Array title="LLT has a reputation beyond repute"> LLT's Avatar
    Anime BlackJack Champion! 3 Reel Treasure Slots Champion! Submarine Champion! Yahtzee Champion! Battleball Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Posts
    5,393

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chidi29 View Post
    I didn't specifically say the players blew it out of proportion. I'd agree that the media made a bigger deal about it then it really is.
    Thanks for the Kudos Chidi...greatly appreciated.

    Here is my problem.

    You are correct in saying that the season has been extended prior to Goodell being the commish...and it also would be correct in saying that the game has became more "violent" due to better conditioning and weight programs. Goodell would use both of those facts to back up his proposal to extend the season by 2 games.

    The problem is that the inherent violence ,that is now part of the game, does not begin or end with head to head hits. There is enough physical contact...enough extreme "pushing" of players bodies...that the extension of the season by two more games will ensure injuries...will ensure playoff games that involve teams that have lost starting players. I think we have reached a "critical limit" to the amount of games that players can realistically be involved in, when you consider post-season play.

    The other side of this problem is that Goodell has put the onus of these hits upon the defensive players. How long before these highly competitive offensive players see the loop hole of turning a 1 yard game (or loss) into a 15 yard penalty by simply ducking their head into the defensive player. By Goodells own enforcement (see Harrisons hit against Massaquoi as the WR was lowering his body to grab the loose ball) of the rule, that is a flagrant unsportmanlike hit and should be flagged. Theoretically we could end up with MORE head/neck injuries due to Goodells arbitrary enforcement and lack of football experience.
    Last edited by LLT; 11-06-2010 at 01:31 PM.
    "I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play"

    -- Jack Lambert --

  11. #11
    Spaghetti Time Array title="Chidi29 has a brilliant future"> Chidi29's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Posts
    7,392

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by LLT View Post
    Thanks for the Kudos Chidi...greatly appreciated.

    Here is my problem.

    You are correct in saying that the season has been extended prior to Goodell being the commish...and it also would be correct in saying that the game has became more "violent" due to better conditioning and weight programs. Goodell would use both of those facts to back up his proposal to extend the season by 2 games.

    The problem is that the inherent violence ,that is now part of the game, does not begin or end with head to head hits. There is enough physical contact...enough extreme "pushing" of players bodies...that the extension of the season by two more games will ensure injuries...will ensure playoff games that involve teams that have lost starting players. I think we have reached a "critical limit" to the amount of games that players can realistically be involved in, when you consider post-season play.

    The other side of this problem is that Goodell has put the onus of these hits upon the defensive players. How long before these highly competitive offensive players see the loop hole of turning a 1 yard game (or loss) into a 15 yard penalty by simply ducking their head into the defensive player. By Goodells own enforcement (see Harrisons hit against Massaquoi as the WR was lowering his body to grab the loose ball) of the rule, that is a flagrant unsportmanlike hit and should be flagged. Theoretically we could end up with MORE head/neck injuries due to Goodells arbitrary enforcement and lack of football experience.
    I find it hard to accept your first point. I'm sure the same things were said before when the schedule was extended to sixteen. 14 was enough; the game couldn't handle a sixteen game schedule. It's hard to get any tangible data on your claim that would show an increase in danger that we haven't seen before.

    As to your second point, you don't decide against a rule/enforcement because someone is going to find a loophole. If we didn't create or enforce laws because someone is going to attempt to exploit it, there wouldn't be any laws. If in your mind the rule is going to do an overall good, you enact/enforce it and deal with the loopholes as they appear.

  12. #12
    Super Moderator Array title="LLT has a reputation beyond repute"> LLT's Avatar
    Anime BlackJack Champion! 3 Reel Treasure Slots Champion! Submarine Champion! Yahtzee Champion! Battleball Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Posts
    5,393

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chidi29 View Post
    I find it hard to accept your first point. I'm sure the same things were said before when the schedule was extended to sixteen. 14 was enough; the game couldn't handle a sixteen game schedule. It's hard to get any tangible data on your claim that would show an increase in danger that we haven't seen before.

    In the 2007 Investigation Into NFL Players' Injuries by congress it was determined that:
    1) not only violent collisions but also "other aspects of the game" can and do cause injuries.
    2) Pro Football "can exact a physical and mental toll on players"
    3) Players’ injuries and current health conditions (for example, excess weight and sleep apnea) might have long-term consequences for their health.
    4) every week except for week 1 and week 8 that year had a minimum of 10% of nfl players listed as injured in some manner.
    http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_nfl.html

    That being said....what would lead a thinking man to believe that extending the season....yet again...will not have an adverse effect on players?


    As to your second point, you don't decide against a rule/enforcement because someone is going to find a loophole. If we didn't create or enforce laws because someone is going to attempt to exploit it, there wouldn't be any laws. If in your mind the rule is going to do an overall good, you enact/enforce it and deal with the loopholes as they appear.
    No...you enforce a rule based on intent and on cause...NOT on result. If the cause of the head to head collision is an offensive player lowering his head...then the flag should be thrown on the offensive player. Just plain old common sense.
    "I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play"

    -- Jack Lambert --

  13. #13
    Spaghetti Time Array title="Chidi29 has a brilliant future"> Chidi29's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Posts
    7,392

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by LLT View Post
    In the 2007 Investigation Into NFL Players' Injuries by congress it was determined that:
    1) not only violent collisions but also "other aspects of the game" can and do cause injuries.
    2) Pro Football "can exact a physical and mental toll on players"
    3) Players’ injuries and current health conditions (for example, excess weight and sleep apnea) might have long-term consequences for their health.
    4) every week except for week 1 and week 8 that year had a minimum of 10% of nfl players listed as injured in some manner.
    http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_nfl.html

    That being said....what would lead a thinking man to believe that extending the season....yet again...will not have an adverse effect on players?




    No...you enforce a rule based on intent and on cause...NOT on result. If the cause of the head to head collision is an offensive player lowering his head...then the flag should be thrown on the offensive player. Just plain old common sense.
    I'm not denying that football doesn't cause injury. It would be ludicrous to deny that fact. But that wasn't my point.

    My point was that people have always said that the current number of games was the maximum that could be allowed. The same arguments were brought up when going from 10 to 12, 12 to 14, and 14 to 16. What makes this time different? That was what I was asking.

    When did I say that you enforce a rule based on result? I specifically said that you rule it based on an overall good to eliminate shots to the head. You were talking about potential loopholes and I countered that by saying you create the rule anyway for the reason I stated. I never denied that you don't throw the flag on the offensive player. I didn't comment on that.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Array title="GBMelBlount has a reputation beyond repute"> GBMelBlount's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Da Burgh!
    Gender
    Posts
    5,944

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chidi29 View Post

    When did I say that you enforce a rule based on result? I specifically said that you rule it based on an overall good to eliminate shots to the head.
    Chidi, you seem to be defending Goodell's decisions (which is your right) but it seems that his decisions are based on the result.


    “Happy are those who dream dreams and are ready to pay the price to make them come true.”

    ~Leon Joseph Cardinal Suenens

  15. #15
    Spaghetti Time Array title="Chidi29 has a brilliant future"> Chidi29's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Posts
    7,392

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by GBMelBlount View Post
    Chidi, you seem to be defending Goodell's decisions (which is your right) but it seems that his decisions are based on the result.
    I didn't say that they weren't. I stated why you should enforce rules in my opinion.

    If a player gets seriously hurt, it will garner more attention. That is obvious. And it may be tough for the NFL to be able to look at every hit, meaniing they miss an illegal hit that wasn't flagged and a player didn't get hurt on. Which is why I've suggested teams sending tape into the league if they see a possible illegal hit.

    Did Lavelle Hawkins get hurt on the hit by Ernie Sims? I know Rivers didn't get seriously hurt on the Babin hit. Two examples of result not being a factor.

    EDIT: Heck, Brees was fine after getting hit by Harrison. James was fined. Result wasn't the reason why it got the NFL's attention.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute"> zulater's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fair Hill Md.
    Posts
    12,757

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Here's my two issues with Goodell.

    Does anyone outside the league office want an 18 game schedule? It's all about money, but I think it could easily backfire. Because too much of a good thing lessens demand. Think games are getting blacked out now, just wait and see what an 18 game schedule will do for that. Plus if the league has to add roster spots, change IR rules, to compensate for two extra games much of what was gained financially will be lost right there.

    Playing games outside the continental U.S. And any and all thought to expanding outside our borders. Outside of the Bills playing a game or two in Toronto it makes absolutely no sense playing meaningfull NFL games on foreign soil. Again outside of Goodell and his butt munch inner cirlce who thinks this is a good idea?

    Oh yeah I also think he's completely arbitrary in the way he doles out punishment to the players.
    "A man's got to know his limitations."

  17. #17
    Super Moderator Array title="LLT has a reputation beyond repute"> LLT's Avatar
    Anime BlackJack Champion! 3 Reel Treasure Slots Champion! Submarine Champion! Yahtzee Champion! Battleball Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Posts
    5,393

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chidi29 View Post
    I didn't say that they weren't. I stated why you should enforce rules in my opinion.

    If a player gets seriously hurt, it will garner more attention. That is obvious. And it may be tough for the NFL to be able to look at every hit, meaniing they miss an illegal hit that wasn't flagged and a player didn't get hurt on. Which is why I've suggested teams sending tape into the league if they see a possible illegal hit.

    Did Lavelle Hawkins get hurt on the hit by Ernie Sims? I know Rivers didn't get seriously hurt on the Babin hit. Two examples of result not being a factor.

    EDIT: Heck, Brees was fine after getting hit by Harrison. James was fined. Result wasn't the reason why it got the NFL's attention.


    Here is the difference in what you and I are saying.

    You are equating "cause" with "injury".....whereas I am equating "cause" with "any" hit that is able to be fined. Simply put...Goodell does not have the experience or knowledge to differentiate between gross unsportsmanlike hits and the inherent violence that comes with the game NOR does he have the experience to understand that head to head hits can be initiated by either an offensive or defensive player.

    As far as the 18 game season goes....By your logic, since we have extended the season before, there is no end to the amount of games that can be played. I mean...hey...we went from 14 to 16, so why not go from 16 to 18....and 5 years from now (since we have extended the season before), we can extend it to 20 games. OBVIOUSLY there is a human factor that will limit the amount of games that can be played before we see a degradation of the level of play, and a big part of that limit is the abuse an athletes body can take even outside of head to head hits..

    THEREFORE....Goodell can NOT honestly wring his hands over these hits in the name of safety while:
    1) Pushing for an extension of the season
    2) failing to fine offensive players that are lowering their heads into collisions.

    To further exacerbate the issue....This IDIOT is doing all this in the midst of CBA negotiations. How much of a administrative amature do you have to be, to bring up issues like extending the season and extensive fines for arbitrary punishment while a negotiation is in progress!!!!????? He isnt doing the owners or players any favors at all....which is probably why his popularity plummeted amongst players even before this latest rule enforcement.
    Last edited by LLT; 11-08-2010 at 12:47 PM.
    "I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play"

    -- Jack Lambert --

  18. #18
    Spaghetti Time Array title="Chidi29 has a brilliant future"> Chidi29's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Posts
    7,392

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by LLT View Post
    Here is the difference in what you and I are saying.

    You are equating "cause" with "injury".....whereas I am equating "cause" with "any" hit that is able to be fined. Simply put...Goodell does not have the experience or knowledge to differentiate between gross unsportsmanlike hits and the inherent violence that comes with the game NOR does he have the experience to understand that head to head hits can be initiated by either an offensive or defensive player.

    As far as the 18 game season goes....By your logic, since we have extended the season before, there is no end to the amount of games that can be played. I mean...hey...we went from 14 to 16, so why not go from 16 to 18....and 5 years from now (since we have extended the season before), we can extend it to 20 games. OBVIOUSLY there is a human factor that will limit the amount of games that can be played before we see a degradation of the level of play, and a big part of that limit is the abuse an athletes body can take even outside of head to head hits..

    THEREFORE....Goodell can NOT honestly wring his hands over these hits in the name of safety while:
    1) Pushing for an extension of the season
    2) failing to fine offensive players that are lowering their heads into collisions.

    To further exacerbate the issue....This IDIOT is doing all this in the midst of CBA negotiations. How much of a administrative amature do you have to be, to bring up issues like extending the season and extensive fines for arbitrary punishment while a negotiation is in progress!!!!????? He isnt doing the owners or players any favors at all....which is probably why his popularity plummeted amongst players even before this latest rule enforcement.
    Which is why Goodell doesn't personally go back to the game and watch the hits.

    He has four time Pro Bowl safety Merton Hanks do it and file a report to Goodell.

    I understand there is an eventual limit but who's to say it is at 16? Why not 18? Why not 20? All I'm saying is that this same argument was brought up in the past (14 games is the limit! We can't go to 16) and the game has still thrived.

    From what I just heard on espn, Merton Hanks said that it's still the defensive players responsibility if the offensive player lowers his head. I don't know if I really agree with that, but it shows that the NFL isn't being hypocritical by not fining offensive players for something that'd be illegal in their eyes.

    As for your last point, you can't bring the whole NFL to a halt while these negotations are going on. The league is still talking with the union during this time and they won't get into serious discussion until after the season if I had to venture a guess. And as I wrote, this rule is partially put into place out of need. The league wants to try to get the union and Congress of its back for disregarding player safety.

  19. #19
    Super Moderator Array title="LLT has a reputation beyond repute"> LLT's Avatar
    Anime BlackJack Champion! 3 Reel Treasure Slots Champion! Submarine Champion! Yahtzee Champion! Battleball Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Posts
    5,393

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chidi29 View Post
    Which is why Goodell doesn't personally go back to the game and watch the hits.

    He has four time Pro Bowl safety Merton Hanks do it and file a report to Goodell.

    From what I just heard on espn, Merton Hanks said that it's still the defensive players responsibility if the offensive player lowers his head. I don't know if I really agree with that, but it shows that the NFL isn't being hypocritical
    No...that would be the NFL being stupid...that is a ludicrous statement.

    I understand there is an eventual limit but who's to say it is at 16? Why not 18? Why not 20? All I'm saying is that this same argument was brought up in the past (14 games is the limit! We can't go to 16) and the game has still thrived.
    I understand...but as one player said...There is already a 100% injury rate for NFL players. The OTHER problem is the hypocrisy of knowingly making a change to the NFL that will cause further injuries while trying to take the moral high ground in regards to wanting to stop NFL injuries.

    As for your last point, you can't bring the whole NFL to a halt while these negotations are going on. The league is still talking with the union during this time and they won't get into serious discussion until after the season if I had to venture a guess. And as I wrote, this rule is partially put into place out of need. The league wants to try to get the union and Congress of its back for disregarding player safety
    Goodell has put himself in the position of being little more than the mouthpiece to a handful of owners...this has taken away any sense of impartiality that he SHOULD be maintaining to the players during these negotiations. His push for two more games is going to push the players further away from the table and convince them that his interests are in line with the owners.
    "I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play"

    -- Jack Lambert --

  20. #20
    Spaghetti Time Array title="Chidi29 has a brilliant future"> Chidi29's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Posts
    7,392

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by LLT View Post
    No...that would be the NFL being stupid...that is a ludicrous statement.



    I understand...but as one player said...There is already a 100% injury rate for NFL players. The OTHER problem is the hypocrisy of knowingly making a change to the NFL that will cause further injuries while trying to take the moral high ground in regards to wanting to stop NFL injuries.



    Goodell has put himself in the position of being little more than the mouthpiece to a handful of owners...this has taken away any sense of impartiality that he SHOULD be maintaining to the players during these negotiations. His push for two more games is going to push the players further away from the table and convince them that his interests are in line with the owners.
    I do want to make sure we're on the same page in regards to offensive players lowering their heads. This is only referring to the "defenseless receiver" situations. When a ballcarrier is running, the defender can go helmet to helmet or shoulder to helmet. All that is still legal and won't warrant a fine.

    And the more I think about it, it would be ridiculous to fine offensive players in those defenseless situations for lowering their head. They're just protecting themselves. Defensive players aren't trying to do that.

    As I stated in one of my orignal posts on here, it isn't about the NFL wanting to eliminate injury. They realize they can't do that no matter how many games the schedule is. It's about taking out the flagrant hits which can be done even with adding another two games. Those hits have no place in any schedule.

  21. #21
    The Princess' Daddy! Array title="stlrtruck will become famous soon enough"> stlrtruck's Avatar
    Snake Champion! Burger Time Champion! Pacman Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 1

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dunedin, FL
    Posts
    1,776

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chidi29 View Post
    I do want to make sure we're on the same page in regards to offensive players lowering their heads. This is only referring to the "defenseless receiver" situations. When a ballcarrier is running, the defender can go helmet to helmet or shoulder to helmet. All that is still legal and won't warrant a fine.

    And the more I think about it, it would be ridiculous to fine offensive players in those defenseless situations for lowering their head. They're just protecting themselves. Defensive players aren't trying to do that.

    As I stated in one of my orignal posts on here, it isn't about the NFL wanting to eliminate injury. They realize they can't do that no matter how many games the schedule is. It's about taking out the flagrant hits which can be done even with adding another two games. Those hits have no place in any schedule.
    Just to make I sure I understand where you are coming from. You sound as if you are in agreement with Commissioner Goodell that the defensive player is responsible for the movement of the offensive player if it creates an impact that is helmet to helmet?


    60 MINS, 53 MEN, 1 NATION
    STEELERS NATION

  22. #22
    Spaghetti Time Array title="Chidi29 has a brilliant future"> Chidi29's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Posts
    7,392

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by stlrtruck View Post
    Just to make I sure I understand where you are coming from. You sound as if you are in agreement with Commissioner Goodell that the defensive player is responsible for the movement of the offensive player if it creates an impact that is helmet to helmet?
    I said that I didn't know if I really agreed on Hanks' take. What I've been wanting from the NFL is clarity in the rules because this is a situation where you get a lot of grey area. Explicit rules will help make hits more black and white, even if we still don't agree with them.

    I don't want to fine offensive players for lowering their heads. I think that's ludicrous to fine a player who is just covering up in an attempt to protect himself. That much I can say for sure.

  23. #23
    The Princess' Daddy! Array title="stlrtruck will become famous soon enough"> stlrtruck's Avatar
    Snake Champion! Burger Time Champion! Pacman Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 1

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Dunedin, FL
    Posts
    1,776

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chidi29 View Post
    I said that I didn't know if I really agreed on Hanks' take. What I've been wanting from the NFL is clarity in the rules because this is a situation where you get a lot of grey area. Explicit rules will help make hits more black and white, even if we still don't agree with them.

    I don't want to fine offensive players for lowering their heads. I think that's ludicrous to fine a player who is just covering up in an attempt to protect himself. That much I can say for sure.
    Well I agree with the last part. I also think it's unfair to fine a defensive player because the offensive player lowered himself. That's like if you and I were in a boxing match and I got penalized for punching you in the face every time you moved to protect yourself (I know probably a bad example).

    I do agree that it would be nice to see the NFL give a better definition of what constitutes an illegal hit and what constitutes legal. But from the sounds of recent ramblings from the commish, he's more interested in making defensive players responsible for the movement of the offensive player just before impact. That's as ludicrous as fining an offensive player for taking a defensive position when they know they are going to get hit.


    60 MINS, 53 MEN, 1 NATION
    STEELERS NATION

  24. #24
    Super Moderator Array title="LLT has a reputation beyond repute"> LLT's Avatar
    Anime BlackJack Champion! 3 Reel Treasure Slots Champion! Submarine Champion! Yahtzee Champion! Battleball Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Posts
    5,393

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chidi29 View Post
    I do want to make sure we're on the same page in regards to offensive players lowering their heads. This is only referring to the "defenseless receiver" situations. When a ballcarrier is running, the defender can go helmet to helmet or shoulder to helmet. All that is still legal and won't warrant a fine.
    And my problem is STILL the arbitrary enforcement of that "rule". In the Saints/Steelers game, Ward was hit ...from behind...in the head...while making a catch. How was that not a "flagrant hit" according to the leagues own standard?
    "I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play"

    -- Jack Lambert --

  25. #25
    Spaghetti Time Array title="Chidi29 has a brilliant future"> Chidi29's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Posts
    7,392

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by LLT View Post
    And my problem is STILL the arbitrary enforcement of that "rule". In the Saints/Steelers game, Ward was hit ...from behind...in the head...while making a catch. How was that not a "flagrant hit" according to the leagues own standard?
    I couldn't tell you which is why I want the league to be more clear with their rules.

    They may have looked at the hit and had a different perspective. I can't really say.

  26. #26
    Super Moderator Array title="LLT has a reputation beyond repute"> LLT's Avatar
    Anime BlackJack Champion! 3 Reel Treasure Slots Champion! Submarine Champion! Yahtzee Champion! Battleball Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Posts
    5,393

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    Quote Originally Posted by Chidi29 View Post
    I couldn't tell you which is why I want the league to be more clear with their rules.

    They may have looked at the hit and had a different perspective. I can't really say.
    Dont feel bad...most folk outside of Goodell's circle are scratching their heads at the randomness of the league's enforcement.
    "I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play"

    -- Jack Lambert --

  27. #27
    Super Moderator Array title="LLT has a reputation beyond repute"> LLT's Avatar
    Anime BlackJack Champion! 3 Reel Treasure Slots Champion! Submarine Champion! Yahtzee Champion! Battleball Champion!

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Gender
    Posts
    5,393

    Re: The Problem with Goodell (by LLT - October 31, 2010)

    For everyone watching this BS penalty-fest game. I totally called this type of crap in this editorial!!!! Word for word...here is what I said would happen.

    Be prepared for the result of the pressure that is going to be laid at the feet of the NFL refs. There is no way that Goodell will allow the brunt of this ruling to continue to be piled at his door. You can bet that he has already spoken to the head of officiating and mandated that they start enforcing his ruling. From the viewpoint of the fan this is going to mean we will have to endure refs (who are only human) to make educated guesses as to what just happened in a bang-bang play. Was it a hit to the shoulder or the head? With the right amount of pressure applied by the commissioner, the refs are going to err on the side of job security. That means a 15-yard penalty and an automatic first down for every “guess” made by the officials. This is the end result of a commissioner that has no idea of how to differentiate between the inherent violence of the game and a legitimate intent to cause harm.
    "I believe the game is designed to reward the ones who hit the hardest. If you can't take it, you shouldn't play"

    -- Jack Lambert --

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •