Nick Ruffin

[AUsince72 11,084]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

I played football in high school. No, I was never informed- nor did I know intuitively- that I could very well sustain significant, long-term brain damage from repeated collisions that showed little to no immediate effects.

I'm glad that you were able to play many years of football without experiencing any effects that you were not prepared for. Not all are so lucky.

Well, I guess I stand corrected that not everybody would know but even at 10 years old the mere fact that I had to wear a helmet told me something...

EDIT: ..and I'm actually not kidding about the form I mention. From this day moving forward, perhaps they really should distribute this to each and every potential football player. Then, nobody can say they never knew why they wore helmets and pads.

Yes. I knew why I wore a helmet. It was to protect my head. What I didn't realize is that helmets don't actually do a lot to protect your brain.

So you continued playing football knowing that you might lose significant brain function, suffer depression or have fits of violent rage- among other things- as early as your 40s because of it?

Hey, I know where you're coming from about the years into the future side of it... I get that, I do.

I'm just saying that if the mere fact that playing a violent sport that's dangerous enough to have to wear a helmet to keep your brains from splattering out of your ears doesn't dissuade you from doing it anyway, then who exactly are you blaming for the issues you have developed years later? So, who's responsible for making your decisions for you? ....and just forget the true kids for a minute. Let's talk the "adults". Okay, so now, here in 2014 it's all over the news, tv, internet, and they probably DO basically have that form that I mentioned distributed. Yet, I don't see anybody quitting due to that knowledge. So, 20 years from now, who are the current players going to blame? The only way to stop this is to change the game to touch football or quit playing. And I don't see any fans (you and me, even while discussing this) taking a stand and saying, I'm gonna quit watching football because these guys might suffer injury that shows up in 20 years.

Hey, I think it's terrible that these people who suffer dibilitating injuries are suffering. I really do. But my question is...who is there to blame but themselves? Just who has been conspiring for decades to keep these guys playing? Me and you because we "feed the beast" by watching? Why not? Hey, we contributed to their demise.

[McLoofus 35,182]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

I played football in high school. No, I was never informed- nor did I know intuitively- that I could very well sustain significant, long-term brain damage from repeated collisions that showed little to no immediate effects.

I'm glad that you were able to play many years of football without experiencing any effects that you were not prepared for. Not all are so lucky.

Well, I guess I stand corrected that not everybody would know but even at 10 years old the mere fact that I had to wear a helmet told me something...

EDIT: ..and I'm actually not kidding about the form I mention. From this day moving forward, perhaps they really should distribute this to each and every potential football player. Then, nobody can say they never knew why they wore helmets and pads.

Yes. I knew why I wore a helmet. It was to protect my head. What I didn't realize is that helmets don't actually do a lot to protect your brain.

So you continued playing football knowing that you might lose significant brain function, suffer depression or have fits of violent rage- among other things- as early as your 40s because of it?

Hey, I know where you're coming from about the years into the future side of it... I get that, I do.

I'm just saying that if the mere fact that playing a violent sport that's dangerous enough to have to wear a helmet to keep your brains from splattering out of your ears doesn't dissuade you from doing it anyway, then who exactly are you blaming for the issues you have developed years later? So, who's responsible for making your decisions for you? ....and just forget the true kids for a minute. Let's talk the "adults". Okay, so now, here in 2014 it's all over the news, tv, internet, and they probably DO basically have that form that I mentioned distributed. Yet, I don't see anybody quitting due to that knowledge. So, 20 years from now, who are the current players going to blame? The only way to stop this is to change the game to touch football or quit playing. And I don't see any fans (you and me, even while discussing this) taking a stand and saying, I'm gonna quit watching football because these guys might suffer injury that shows up in 20 years.

Hey, I think it's terrible that these people who suffer dibilitating injuries are suffering. I really do. But my question is...who is there to blame but themselves? Just who has been conspiring for decades to keep these guys playing? Me and you because we "feed the beast" by watching? Why not? Hey, we contributed to their demise.

Good points- I do struggle with my participation in it as a fan- but I would argue that there's a very large distance between where we are and flag football.

The potential for injury exists in all sports. Folks are just trying to prevent unnecessary head injury in football. Nobody said anything about changing the rules when Drake's foot started pointing the wrong direction the other day.

[AUbritt 611]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

I played football in high school. No, I was never informed- nor did I know intuitively- that I could very well sustain significant, long-term brain damage from repeated collisions that showed little to no immediate effects.

I'm glad that you were able to play many years of football without experiencing any effects that you were not prepared for. Not all are so lucky.

^^^This explains a lot about McLoofus.

I hope everyone here will take it into account when trying to decipher his posts or when subjected to his otherwise inexplicable fits of rage.

[AUsince72 11,084]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

I played football in high school. No, I was never informed- nor did I know intuitively- that I could very well sustain significant, long-term brain damage from repeated collisions that showed little to no immediate effects.

I'm glad that you were able to play many years of football without experiencing any effects that you were not prepared for. Not all are so lucky.

Well, I guess I stand corrected that not everybody would know but even at 10 years old the mere fact that I had to wear a helmet told me something...

EDIT: ..and I'm actually not kidding about the form I mention. From this day moving forward, perhaps they really should distribute this to each and every potential football player. Then, nobody can say they never knew why they wore helmets and pads.

Yes. I knew why I wore a helmet. It was to protect my head. What I didn't realize is that helmets don't actually do a lot to protect your brain.

So you continued playing football knowing that you might lose significant brain function, suffer depression or have fits of violent rage- among other things- as early as your 40s because of it?

Hey, I know where you're coming from about the years into the future side of it... I get that, I do.

I'm just saying that if the mere fact that playing a violent sport that's dangerous enough to have to wear a helmet to keep your brains from splattering out of your ears doesn't dissuade you from doing it anyway, then who exactly are you blaming for the issues you have developed years later? So, who's responsible for making your decisions for you? ....and just forget the true kids for a minute. Let's talk the "adults". Okay, so now, here in 2014 it's all over the news, tv, internet, and they probably DO basically have that form that I mentioned distributed. Yet, I don't see anybody quitting due to that knowledge. So, 20 years from now, who are the current players going to blame? The only way to stop this is to change the game to touch football or quit playing. And I don't see any fans (you and me, even while discussing this) taking a stand and saying, I'm gonna quit watching football because these guys might suffer injury that shows up in 20 years.

Hey, I think it's terrible that these people who suffer dibilitating injuries are suffering. I really do. But my question is...who is there to blame but themselves? Just who has been conspiring for decades to keep these guys playing? Me and you because we "feed the beast" by watching? Why not? Hey, we contributed to their demise.

Good points- I do struggle with my participation in it as a fan- but I would argue that there's a very large distance between where we are and flag football.

The potential for injury exists in all sports. Folks are just trying to prevent unnecessary head injury in football. Nobody said anything about changing the rules when Drake's foot started pointing the wrong direction the other day.

Cool. Yes, I believe we're in agreement on the head injury front... I hope they can fix it as well (and hopefully without helmets that make football players look like bobble-head dolls). I guess the conservative in me just feels like we should all be accountable for our own decisions. As for Drake's injury... I know right? Next they'll be mandating that all football players wear flip-flops so that they don't grab into the turf.

[eibua12 81]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

I played football in high school. No, I was never informed- nor did I know intuitively- that I could very well sustain significant, long-term brain damage from repeated collisions that showed little to no immediate effects.

I'm glad that you were able to play many years of football without experiencing any effects that you were not prepared for. Not all are so lucky.

^^^This explains a lot about McLoofus.

I hope everyone here will take it into account when trying to decipher his posts or when subjected to his otherwise inexplicable fits of rage.

Yes Drain Bramage

[McLoofus 35,182]

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

I played football in high school. No, I was never informed- nor did I know intuitively- that I could very well sustain significant, long-term brain damage from repeated collisions that showed little to no immediate effects.

I'm glad that you were able to play many years of football without experiencing any effects that you were not prepared for. Not all are so lucky.

^^^This explains a lot about McLoofus.

I hope everyone here will take it into account when trying to decipher his posts or when subjected to his otherwise inexplicable fits of rage.

You know, AUbritt, I've had about enough outta you. Meet me in the parking lot after work, or after my afternoon nap, or... well, whatever is convenient for you should work, really.

[AUbritt 611]

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

I played football in high school. No, I was never informed- nor did I know intuitively- that I could very well sustain significant, long-term brain damage from repeated collisions that showed little to no immediate effects.

I'm glad that you were able to play many years of football without experiencing any effects that you were not prepared for. Not all are so lucky.

^^^This explains a lot about McLoofus.

I hope everyone here will take it into account when trying to decipher his posts or when subjected to his otherwise inexplicable fits of rage.

You know, AUbritt, I've had about enough outta you. Meet me in the parking lot after work, or after my afternoon nap, or... well, whatever is convenient for you should work, really.

OK, sounds good. I'll check my schedule and get back to you.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Good points- I do struggle with my participation in it as a fan- but I would argue that there's a very large distance between where we are and flag football.

The potential for injury exists in all sports. Folks are just trying to prevent unnecessary head injury in football. Nobody said anything about changing the rules when Drake's foot started pointing the wrong direction the other day.

Cool. Yes, I believe we're in agreement on the head injury front... I hope they can fix it as well (and hopefully without helmets that make football players look like bobble-head dolls). I guess the conservative in me just feels like we should all be accountable for our own decisions. As for Drake's injury... I know right? Next they'll be mandating that all football players wear flip-flops so that they don't grab into the turf.

Man, I have to admit, I cringe when I think about those bobble-head helmets. Seems a fate worse than a concussion. I keed... I think.

[AUsince72 11,084]

Good points- I do struggle with my participation in it as a fan- but I would argue that there's a very large distance between where we are and flag football.

The potential for injury exists in all sports. Folks are just trying to prevent unnecessary head injury in football. Nobody said anything about changing the rules when Drake's foot started pointing the wrong direction the other day.

Cool. Yes, I believe we're in agreement on the head injury front... I hope they can fix it as well (and hopefully without helmets that make football players look like bobble-head dolls). I guess the conservative in me just feels like we should all be accountable for our own decisions. As for Drake's injury... I know right? Next they'll be mandating that all football players wear flip-flops so that they don't grab into the turf.

Man, I have to admit, I cringe when I think about those bobble-head helmets. Seems a fate worse than a concussion. I keed... I think.

AGREED!!!!

[homersapien 11,393]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

Actually, when I started playing in 1967, I didn't know the risks of concussion. No one did.

Granted, I played with various injuries including broken bones and sprains including a separated shoulder. And 45 years later I have a bad knee and a finger that has been bent and useless ever since.

At the risk of provoking wisecracks, I also remember suffering concussions that stunned me for minutes at a time. (It felt like I was under water and nearby voices were faint and far away.) And this was the result of practice drills trying to create the biggest impact when firing off at each other. (A buddy and I figured out we only had to do it once if we generated enough of a head-on crash to really impress the coach.)

We laughed about it. At least after we regained consciousness. But those were the days of universal ignorance when it comes to sports medicine.

So don't come at me with your toughness argument. This isn't about toughness. It's about science. If football doesn't adjust to the facts with technique and/or equipment, it could lead to the downfall of the the sport.

And btw, people are not mature mentally until their early or mid-20's. That's why 18-20 year-olds make such good combat soldiers.

[homersapien 11,393]

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

I played football in high school. No, I was never informed- nor did I know intuitively- that I could very well sustain significant, long-term brain damage from repeated collisions that showed little to no immediate effects.

I'm glad that you were able to play many years of football without experiencing any effects that you were not prepared for. Not all are so lucky.

Well, I guess I stand corrected that not everybody would know but even at 10 years old the mere fact that I had to wear a helmet told me something...

EDIT: ..and I'm actually not kidding about the form I mention. From this day moving forward, perhaps they really should distribute this to each and every potential football player. Then, nobody can say they never knew why they wore helmets and pads.

Yes. I knew why I wore a helmet. It was to protect my head. What I didn't realize is that helmets don't actually do a lot to protect your brain.

So you continued playing football knowing that you might lose significant brain function, suffer depression or have fits of violent rage- among other things- as early as your 40s because of it?

Yeah, it was also a weapon. At least it was when I played.

[AUsince72 11,084]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

Actually, when I started playing in 1967, I didn't know the risks of concussion. No one did.

Granted, I played with various injuries including broken bones and sprains including a separated shoulder. And 45 years later I have a bad knee and a finger that has been bent and useless ever since.

At the risk of provoking wisecracks, I also remember suffering concussions that stunned me for minutes at a time. (It felt like I was under water and nearby voices were faint and far away.) And this was the result of practice drills trying to create the biggest impact when firing off at each other. (A buddy and I figured out we only had to do it once if we generated enough of a head-on crash to really impress the coach.)

We laughed about it. At least after we regained consciousness. But those were the days of universal ignorance when it comes to sports medicine.

So don't come at me with your toughness argument. This isn't about toughness. It's about science. If football doesn't adjust to the facts with technique and/or equipment, it could lead to the downfall of the the sport.

And btw, people are not mature mentally until their early or mid-20's. That's why 18-20 year-olds make such good combat soldiers.

I agree with you 100% about the dangers of football and I feel terrible for those who suffer the debilitating effects from it. My argument was not about toughing it out but rather who are they blaming.

If you're interested there is a complete back and forth between McLoofus and myself discussing this very same thing (very long actually) and hopefully you'll see that I'm not slamming the injured.

[homersapien 11,393]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

Actually, when I started playing in 1967, I didn't know the risks of concussion. No one did.

Granted, I played with various injuries including broken bones and sprains including a separated shoulder. And 45 years later I have a bad knee and a finger that has been bent and useless ever since.

At the risk of provoking wisecracks, I also remember suffering concussions that stunned me for minutes at a time. (It felt like I was under water and nearby voices were faint and far away.) And this was the result of practice drills trying to create the biggest impact when firing off at each other. (A buddy and I figured out we only had to do it once if we generated enough of a head-on crash to really impress the coach.)

We laughed about it. At least after we regained consciousness. But those were the days of universal ignorance when it comes to sports medicine.

So don't come at me with your toughness argument. This isn't about toughness. It's about science. If football doesn't adjust to the facts with technique and/or equipment, it could lead to the downfall of the the sport.

And btw, people are not mature mentally until their early or mid-20's. That's why 18-20 year-olds make such good combat soldiers.

I agree with you 100% about the dangers of football and I feel terrible for those who suffer the debilitating effects from it. My argument was not about toughing it out but rather who are they blaming.

If you're interested there is a complete back and forth between McLoofus and myself discussing this very same thing (very long actually) and hopefully you'll see that I'm not slamming the injured.

If by "blaming" you are referring to the NFL's position on brain injury, perhaps you should watch the Frontline piece or read the book it was based on.

Football has changed enormously since I played, for the better. It changed as a result of knowledge.

[AUsince72 11,084]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

Actually, when I started playing in 1967, I didn't know the risks of concussion. No one did.

Granted, I played with various injuries including broken bones and sprains including a separated shoulder. And 45 years later I have a bad knee and a finger that has been bent and useless ever since.

At the risk of provoking wisecracks, I also remember suffering concussions that stunned me for minutes at a time. (It felt like I was under water and nearby voices were faint and far away.) And this was the result of practice drills trying to create the biggest impact when firing off at each other. (A buddy and I figured out we only had to do it once if we generated enough of a head-on crash to really impress the coach.)

We laughed about it. At least after we regained consciousness. But those were the days of universal ignorance when it comes to sports medicine.

So don't come at me with your toughness argument. This isn't about toughness. It's about science. If football doesn't adjust to the facts with technique and/or equipment, it could lead to the downfall of the the sport.

And btw, people are not mature mentally until their early or mid-20's. That's why 18-20 year-olds make such good combat soldiers.

I agree with you 100% about the dangers of football and I feel terrible for those who suffer the debilitating effects from it. My argument was not about toughing it out but rather who are they blaming.

If you're interested there is a complete back and forth between McLoofus and myself discussing this very same thing (very long actually) and hopefully you'll see that I'm not slamming the injured.

If by "blaming" you are referring to the NFL's position on brain injury, perhaps you should watch the Frontline piece or read the book it was based on.

Football has changed enormously since I played, for the better. It changed as a result of knowledge.

No, not referring to any official position or stance. Here's the crux of my position that I made in my earlier conversation

"Hey, I know where you're coming from about the years into the future side of it... I get that, I do.

I'm just saying that if the mere fact that playing a violent sport that's dangerous enough to have to wear a helmet to keep your brains from splattering out of your ears doesn't dissuade you from doing it anyway, then who exactly are you blaming for the issues you have developed years later? So, who's responsible for making your decisions for you? ....and just forget the true kids for a minute. Let's talk the "adults". Okay, so now, here in 2014 it's all over the news, tv, internet, and they probably DO basically have that form that I mentioned distributed. Yet, I don't see anybody quitting due to that knowledge. So, 20 years from now, who are the current players going to blame? The only way to stop this is to change the game to touch football or quit playing. And I don't see any fans (you and me, even while discussing this) taking a stand and saying, I'm gonna quit watching football because these guys might suffer injury that shows up in 20 years.

Hey, I think it's terrible that these people who suffer dibilitating injuries are suffering. I really do. But my question is...who is there to blame but themselves? Just who has been conspiring for decades to keep these guys playing? Me and you because we "feed the beast" by watching? Why not? Hey, we contributed to their demise."

Again, I'm not saying players, for years, haven't really been getting hurt and haven't suffered lifelong problems. I DO get that.

However, take a look at the players today. They ARE given this knowledge...heck, you can't turn on your computer and go to the internet without seeing a story on it anymore... but I haven't seen NOT ONE player quit with all of this new knowledge saying "it's too dangerous for me". And I seriously doubt that in the decades football has been in existence, had this been implanted in their psyche's from the beginning, you STILL wouldn't have seen players quitting.

So again, my point is who are they blaming with these lawsuits for decisions that THEY made themselves and we all know, they would have made the same decisions to play even WITH that info because they are still doing it today.

[homersapien 11,393]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

Actually, when I started playing in 1967, I didn't know the risks of concussion. No one did.

Granted, I played with various injuries including broken bones and sprains including a separated shoulder. And 45 years later I have a bad knee and a finger that has been bent and useless ever since.

At the risk of provoking wisecracks, I also remember suffering concussions that stunned me for minutes at a time. (It felt like I was under water and nearby voices were faint and far away.) And this was the result of practice drills trying to create the biggest impact when firing off at each other. (A buddy and I figured out we only had to do it once if we generated enough of a head-on crash to really impress the coach.)

We laughed about it. At least after we regained consciousness. But those were the days of universal ignorance when it comes to sports medicine.

So don't come at me with your toughness argument. This isn't about toughness. It's about science. If football doesn't adjust to the facts with technique and/or equipment, it could lead to the downfall of the the sport.

And btw, people are not mature mentally until their early or mid-20's. That's why 18-20 year-olds make such good combat soldiers.

I agree with you 100% about the dangers of football and I feel terrible for those who suffer the debilitating effects from it. My argument was not about toughing it out but rather who are they blaming.

If you're interested there is a complete back and forth between McLoofus and myself discussing this very same thing (very long actually) and hopefully you'll see that I'm not slamming the injured.

If by "blaming" you are referring to the NFL's position on brain injury, perhaps you should watch the Frontline piece or read the book it was based on.

Football has changed enormously since I played, for the better. It changed as a result of knowledge.

No, not referring to any official position or stance. Here's the crux of my position that I made in my earlier conversation

"Hey, I know where you're coming from about the years into the future side of it... I get that, I do.

I'm just saying that if the mere fact that playing a violent sport that's dangerous enough to have to wear a helmet to keep your brains from splattering out of your ears doesn't dissuade you from doing it anyway, then who exactly are you blaming for the issues you have developed years later? So, who's responsible for making your decisions for you? ....and just forget the true kids for a minute. Let's talk the "adults". Okay, so now, here in 2014 it's all over the news, tv, internet, and they probably DO basically have that form that I mentioned distributed. Yet, I don't see anybody quitting due to that knowledge. So, 20 years from now, who are the current players going to blame? The only way to stop this is to change the game to touch football or quit playing. And I don't see any fans (you and me, even while discussing this) taking a stand and saying, I'm gonna quit watching football because these guys might suffer injury that shows up in 20 years.

Hey, I think it's terrible that these people who suffer dibilitating injuries are suffering. I really do. But my question is...who is there to blame but themselves? Just who has been conspiring for decades to keep these guys playing? Me and you because we "feed the beast" by watching? Why not? Hey, we contributed to their demise."

Again, I'm not saying players, for years, haven't really been getting hurt and haven't suffered lifelong problems. I DO get that.

However, take a look at the players today. They ARE given this knowledge...heck, you can't turn on your computer and go to the internet without seeing a story on it anymore... but I haven't seen NOT ONE player quit with all of this new knowledge saying "it's too dangerous for me". And I seriously doubt that in the decades football has been in existence, had this been implanted in their psyche's from the beginning, you STILL wouldn't have seen players quitting.

So again, my point is who are they blaming with these lawsuits for decisions that THEY made themselves and we all know, they would have made the same decisions to play even WITH that info because they are still doing it today.

Well, without reference to a specific lawsuit, your point is inchoate. I understand the lawsuits being made against the NFL, for example, when they denied it was a valid issue and refused to provide assistance to players or even support the research.

It reminds me of the tobacco industry simply denying the connection of their product to cancer.

[AUsince72 11,084]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

Actually, when I started playing in 1967, I didn't know the risks of concussion. No one did.

Granted, I played with various injuries including broken bones and sprains including a separated shoulder. And 45 years later I have a bad knee and a finger that has been bent and useless ever since.

At the risk of provoking wisecracks, I also remember suffering concussions that stunned me for minutes at a time. (It felt like I was under water and nearby voices were faint and far away.) And this was the result of practice drills trying to create the biggest impact when firing off at each other. (A buddy and I figured out we only had to do it once if we generated enough of a head-on crash to really impress the coach.)

We laughed about it. At least after we regained consciousness. But those were the days of universal ignorance when it comes to sports medicine.

So don't come at me with your toughness argument. This isn't about toughness. It's about science. If football doesn't adjust to the facts with technique and/or equipment, it could lead to the downfall of the the sport.

And btw, people are not mature mentally until their early or mid-20's. That's why 18-20 year-olds make such good combat soldiers.

I agree with you 100% about the dangers of football and I feel terrible for those who suffer the debilitating effects from it. My argument was not about toughing it out but rather who are they blaming.

If you're interested there is a complete back and forth between McLoofus and myself discussing this very same thing (very long actually) and hopefully you'll see that I'm not slamming the injured.

If by "blaming" you are referring to the NFL's position on brain injury, perhaps you should watch the Frontline piece or read the book it was based on.

Football has changed enormously since I played, for the better. It changed as a result of knowledge.

No, not referring to any official position or stance. Here's the crux of my position that I made in my earlier conversation

"Hey, I know where you're coming from about the years into the future side of it... I get that, I do.

I'm just saying that if the mere fact that playing a violent sport that's dangerous enough to have to wear a helmet to keep your brains from splattering out of your ears doesn't dissuade you from doing it anyway, then who exactly are you blaming for the issues you have developed years later? So, who's responsible for making your decisions for you? ....and just forget the true kids for a minute. Let's talk the "adults". Okay, so now, here in 2014 it's all over the news, tv, internet, and they probably DO basically have that form that I mentioned distributed. Yet, I don't see anybody quitting due to that knowledge. So, 20 years from now, who are the current players going to blame? The only way to stop this is to change the game to touch football or quit playing. And I don't see any fans (you and me, even while discussing this) taking a stand and saying, I'm gonna quit watching football because these guys might suffer injury that shows up in 20 years.

Hey, I think it's terrible that these people who suffer dibilitating injuries are suffering. I really do. But my question is...who is there to blame but themselves? Just who has been conspiring for decades to keep these guys playing? Me and you because we "feed the beast" by watching? Why not? Hey, we contributed to their demise."

Again, I'm not saying players, for years, haven't really been getting hurt and haven't suffered lifelong problems. I DO get that.

However, take a look at the players today. They ARE given this knowledge...heck, you can't turn on your computer and go to the internet without seeing a story on it anymore... but I haven't seen NOT ONE player quit with all of this new knowledge saying "it's too dangerous for me". And I seriously doubt that in the decades football has been in existence, had this been implanted in their psyche's from the beginning, you STILL wouldn't have seen players quitting.

So again, my point is who are they blaming with these lawsuits for decisions that THEY made themselves and we all know, they would have made the same decisions to play even WITH that info because they are still doing it today.

Well, without reference to a specific lawsuit, your point is inchoate. I understand the lawsuits being made against the NFL, for example.

I'm not so smart so I don't know what "inchoate" means w/out looking it up but I'm not referring to any specific lawsuit either. It just seemed like the right thread and conversation to bring up something that had been bugging me about the current culture of trying to pass the blame on to others that seems to be injecting itself now into contact sports also.

Not sure what else I can tell you.

***Although I will admit, that my original post sounded a LOT harsher towards injured players than I meant for it to and if I were able, I would certainly soften it up.

[cooltigger21 0]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

Actually, when I started playing in 1967, I didn't know the risks of concussion. No one did.

Granted, I played with various injuries including broken bones and sprains including a separated shoulder. And 45 years later I have a bad knee and a finger that has been bent and useless ever since.

At the risk of provoking wisecracks, I also remember suffering concussions that stunned me for minutes at a time. (It felt like I was under water and nearby voices were faint and far away.) And this was the result of practice drills trying to create the biggest impact when firing off at each other. (A buddy and I figured out we only had to do it once if we generated enough of a head-on crash to really impress the coach.)

We laughed about it. At least after we regained consciousness. But those were the days of universal ignorance when it comes to sports medicine.

So don't come at me with your toughness argument. This isn't about toughness. It's about science. If football doesn't adjust to the facts with technique and/or equipment, it could lead to the downfall of the the sport.

And btw, people are not mature mentally until their early or mid-20's. That's why 18-20 year-olds make such good combat soldiers.

I agree with you 100% about the dangers of football and I feel terrible for those who suffer the debilitating effects from it. My argument was not about toughing it out but rather who are they blaming.

If you're interested there is a complete back and forth between McLoofus and myself discussing this very same thing (very long actually) and hopefully you'll see that I'm not slamming the injured.

If by "blaming" you are referring to the NFL's position on brain injury, perhaps you should watch the Frontline piece or read the book it was based on.

Football has changed enormously since I played, for the better. It changed as a result of knowledge.

No, not referring to any official position or stance. Here's the crux of my position that I made in my earlier conversation

"Hey, I know where you're coming from about the years into the future side of it... I get that, I do.

I'm just saying that if the mere fact that playing a violent sport that's dangerous enough to have to wear a helmet to keep your brains from splattering out of your ears doesn't dissuade you from doing it anyway, then who exactly are you blaming for the issues you have developed years later? So, who's responsible for making your decisions for you? ....and just forget the true kids for a minute. Let's talk the "adults". Okay, so now, here in 2014 it's all over the news, tv, internet, and they probably DO basically have that form that I mentioned distributed. Yet, I don't see anybody quitting due to that knowledge. So, 20 years from now, who are the current players going to blame? The only way to stop this is to change the game to touch football or quit playing. And I don't see any fans (you and me, even while discussing this) taking a stand and saying, I'm gonna quit watching football because these guys might suffer injury that shows up in 20 years.

Hey, I think it's terrible that these people who suffer dibilitating injuries are suffering. I really do. But my question is...who is there to blame but themselves? Just who has been conspiring for decades to keep these guys playing? Me and you because we "feed the beast" by watching? Why not? Hey, we contributed to their demise."

Again, I'm not saying players, for years, haven't really been getting hurt and haven't suffered lifelong problems. I DO get that.

However, take a look at the players today. They ARE given this knowledge...heck, you can't turn on your computer and go to the internet without seeing a story on it anymore... but I haven't seen NOT ONE player quit with all of this new knowledge saying "it's too dangerous for me". And I seriously doubt that in the decades football has been in existence, had this been implanted in their psyche's from the beginning, you STILL wouldn't have seen players quitting.

So again, my point is who are they blaming with these lawsuits for decisions that THEY made themselves and we all know, they would have made the same decisions to play even WITH that info because they are still doing it today.

Well, without reference to a specific lawsuit, your point is inchoate. I understand the lawsuits being made against the NFL, for example, when they denied it was a valid issue and refused to provide assistance to players or even support the research.

It reminds me of the tobacco industry simply denying the connection of their product to cancer.

I get all of that but when does personal responsibility come into play. With your reference to Cancer, I knew that when I was a kid growing up in the 70's My grandfather died from that then and we all knew why. With the former players there is some validity to their claims. What I don't want to see is someone 20 years from now coming back and saying they didn't know and wanting money.

[homersapien 11,393]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

Actually, when I started playing in 1967, I didn't know the risks of concussion. No one did.

Granted, I played with various injuries including broken bones and sprains including a separated shoulder. And 45 years later I have a bad knee and a finger that has been bent and useless ever since.

At the risk of provoking wisecracks, I also remember suffering concussions that stunned me for minutes at a time. (It felt like I was under water and nearby voices were faint and far away.) And this was the result of practice drills trying to create the biggest impact when firing off at each other. (A buddy and I figured out we only had to do it once if we generated enough of a head-on crash to really impress the coach.)

We laughed about it. At least after we regained consciousness. But those were the days of universal ignorance when it comes to sports medicine.

So don't come at me with your toughness argument. This isn't about toughness. It's about science. If football doesn't adjust to the facts with technique and/or equipment, it could lead to the downfall of the the sport.

And btw, people are not mature mentally until their early or mid-20's. That's why 18-20 year-olds make such good combat soldiers.

I agree with you 100% about the dangers of football and I feel terrible for those who suffer the debilitating effects from it. My argument was not about toughing it out but rather who are they blaming.

If you're interested there is a complete back and forth between McLoofus and myself discussing this very same thing (very long actually) and hopefully you'll see that I'm not slamming the injured.

If by "blaming" you are referring to the NFL's position on brain injury, perhaps you should watch the Frontline piece or read the book it was based on.

Football has changed enormously since I played, for the better. It changed as a result of knowledge.

No, not referring to any official position or stance. Here's the crux of my position that I made in my earlier conversation

"Hey, I know where you're coming from about the years into the future side of it... I get that, I do.

I'm just saying that if the mere fact that playing a violent sport that's dangerous enough to have to wear a helmet to keep your brains from splattering out of your ears doesn't dissuade you from doing it anyway, then who exactly are you blaming for the issues you have developed years later? So, who's responsible for making your decisions for you? ....and just forget the true kids for a minute. Let's talk the "adults". Okay, so now, here in 2014 it's all over the news, tv, internet, and they probably DO basically have that form that I mentioned distributed. Yet, I don't see anybody quitting due to that knowledge. So, 20 years from now, who are the current players going to blame? The only way to stop this is to change the game to touch football or quit playing. And I don't see any fans (you and me, even while discussing this) taking a stand and saying, I'm gonna quit watching football because these guys might suffer injury that shows up in 20 years.

Hey, I think it's terrible that these people who suffer dibilitating injuries are suffering. I really do. But my question is...who is there to blame but themselves? Just who has been conspiring for decades to keep these guys playing? Me and you because we "feed the beast" by watching? Why not? Hey, we contributed to their demise."

Again, I'm not saying players, for years, haven't really been getting hurt and haven't suffered lifelong problems. I DO get that.

However, take a look at the players today. They ARE given this knowledge...heck, you can't turn on your computer and go to the internet without seeing a story on it anymore... but I haven't seen NOT ONE player quit with all of this new knowledge saying "it's too dangerous for me". And I seriously doubt that in the decades football has been in existence, had this been implanted in their psyche's from the beginning, you STILL wouldn't have seen players quitting.

So again, my point is who are they blaming with these lawsuits for decisions that THEY made themselves and we all know, they would have made the same decisions to play even WITH that info because they are still doing it today.

Well, without reference to a specific lawsuit, your point is inchoate. I understand the lawsuits being made against the NFL, for example, when they denied it was a valid issue and refused to provide assistance to players or even support the research.

It reminds me of the tobacco industry simply denying the connection of their product to cancer.

I get all of that but when does personal responsibility come into play. With your reference to Cancer, I knew that when I was a kid growing up in the 70's My grandfather died from that then and we all knew why. With the former players there is some validity to their claims. What I don't want to see is someone 20 years from now coming back and saying they didn't know and wanting money.

Personal responsibility comes into play after you understand the facts. The NFL was doing everything they could to deny the facts, just like the tobacco industry.

But more to the point, if the game doesn't adjust to the facts, it will suffer.

[AUsince72 11,084]

What gets me is that when you have these split second reactions from the offensive player ducking his head and the defensive player can't alter his trajectory he still gets flagged for that.

I'm about to get a lot of people really mad at me, but I've gone back and watched that play a few times, and I believe the right call was made. The rule states "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, fist, elbow or shoulder. When in question, it is a foul. (Rule 2-27-14)" (via afca.com). Did Nick intentionally try and hit the WR high in an attempt to injure him? No, probably not. Was it a split second mistake? Yes. But as the way the rule is written, a flag should have been and was thrown. The WR was considered a defenseless player whether he makes that catch or not, and Nick hit him high with his shoulder. Even if it was in question, the last sentence of the rule states that he should indeed have been penalized.

I don't think that the rule is necessarily a good rule, these days you can hardly breathe on WRs without getting flagged, but the rule is part of the game right now and Nick broke it. Plain and simple.

Well I can see a penalty but not targeting or ejection. It is what they are going to call in that situation so you might as well adjust to it. I've said it before. Nick made the mistake of trying to blow up the receiver instead of using proper technique to tackle him like he should. Do that and their won't be any question. He'll learn from it hopefully.

Again, from afca.com: "Note: Beginning in 2013, ejection from the game is a part of the penalty for violation of both Rule 9-1-3 and Rule 9-1-4."

Well they're going to turn it into flag football anyway. The NFL is headed there and the rest of it will follow. It won't be long before tackling quarterbacks will be illegal. Political correctness is killing the game.

Unfortunately you may be right. But it's not "political correctness". Its the medical facts. The game will have to adapt.

http://www.pbs.org/w...ague-of-denial/

Here's an idea...

From the time they are children in pee wee through to where they are adults in the NFL, those who want to play the game of tackle football be given a piece of paper every year that simply states "TACKLE FOOTBALL IS A GAME OF PHYSICAL COLLISION. IT IS DANGEROUS AND YOU COULD BE HURT IN DEBILITATING WAYS THAT CAN, AND PROBABLY WILL, AFFECT YOUR FUTURE PHYSICAL & MENTAL CONDITION."

I can't believe all the cry-baby morons who never realized that football could hurt them. "Oh you mean, I could be hurt?"

You know the risks, and you only have yourself to blame... and don't act like nobody warned you...

Actually, when I started playing in 1967, I didn't know the risks of concussion. No one did.

Granted, I played with various injuries including broken bones and sprains including a separated shoulder. And 45 years later I have a bad knee and a finger that has been bent and useless ever since.

At the risk of provoking wisecracks, I also remember suffering concussions that stunned me for minutes at a time. (It felt like I was under water and nearby voices were faint and far away.) And this was the result of practice drills trying to create the biggest impact when firing off at each other. (A buddy and I figured out we only had to do it once if we generated enough of a head-on crash to really impress the coach.)

We laughed about it. At least after we regained consciousness. But those were the days of universal ignorance when it comes to sports medicine.

So don't come at me with your toughness argument. This isn't about toughness. It's about science. If football doesn't adjust to the facts with technique and/or equipment, it could lead to the downfall of the the sport.

And btw, people are not mature mentally until their early or mid-20's. That's why 18-20 year-olds make such good combat soldiers.

I agree with you 100% about the dangers of football and I feel terrible for those who suffer the debilitating effects from it. My argument was not about toughing it out but rather who are they blaming.

If you're interested there is a complete back and forth between McLoofus and myself discussing this very same thing (very long actually) and hopefully you'll see that I'm not slamming the injured.

If by "blaming" you are referring to the NFL's position on brain injury, perhaps you should watch the Frontline piece or read the book it was based on.

Football has changed enormously since I played, for the better. It changed as a result of knowledge.

No, not referring to any official position or stance. Here's the crux of my position that I made in my earlier conversation

"Hey, I know where you're coming from about the years into the future side of it... I get that, I do.

I'm just saying that if the mere fact that playing a violent sport that's dangerous enough to have to wear a helmet to keep your brains from splattering out of your ears doesn't dissuade you from doing it anyway, then who exactly are you blaming for the issues you have developed years later? So, who's responsible for making your decisions for you? ....and just forget the true kids for a minute. Let's talk the "adults". Okay, so now, here in 2014 it's all over the news, tv, internet, and they probably DO basically have that form that I mentioned distributed. Yet, I don't see anybody quitting due to that knowledge. So, 20 years from now, who are the current players going to blame? The only way to stop this is to change the game to touch football or quit playing. And I don't see any fans (you and me, even while discussing this) taking a stand and saying, I'm gonna quit watching football because these guys might suffer injury that shows up in 20 years.

Hey, I think it's terrible that these people who suffer dibilitating injuries are suffering. I really do. But my question is...who is there to blame but themselves? Just who has been conspiring for decades to keep these guys playing? Me and you because we "feed the beast" by watching? Why not? Hey, we contributed to their demise."

Again, I'm not saying players, for years, haven't really been getting hurt and haven't suffered lifelong problems. I DO get that.

However, take a look at the players today. They ARE given this knowledge...heck, you can't turn on your computer and go to the internet without seeing a story on it anymore... but I haven't seen NOT ONE player quit with all of this new knowledge saying "it's too dangerous for me". And I seriously doubt that in the decades football has been in existence, had this been implanted in their psyche's from the beginning, you STILL wouldn't have seen players quitting.

So again, my point is who are they blaming with these lawsuits for decisions that THEY made themselves and we all know, they would have made the same decisions to play even WITH that info because they are still doing it today.

Well, without reference to a specific lawsuit, your point is inchoate. I understand the lawsuits being made against the NFL, for example, when they denied it was a valid issue and refused to provide assistance to players or even support the research.

It reminds me of the tobacco industry simply denying the connection of their product to cancer.

I get all of that but when does personal responsibility come into play. With your reference to Cancer, I knew that when I was a kid growing up in the 70's My grandfather died from that then and we all knew why. With the former players there is some validity to their claims. What I don't want to see is someone 20 years from now coming back and saying they didn't know and wanting money.

Personal responsibility comes into play after you understand the facts. The NFL was doing everything they could to deny the facts, just like the tobacco industry.

But more to the point, if the game doesn't adjust to the facts, it will suffer.

You actually added to this since my last reply so I'll respond to your addition (and I won't get into a tobacco debate...that's another forum) by re-iterating that I feel the way I do about these people who pass blame or, in your case above, sue an entity such as the NFL this way. If you look at today's players (2014) as the example.... They HAVE this information. They probably now have this information crammed down their throats... Yet, have you seen ANYBODY quit playing football saying "oh, well now that I know they have these studies, football is too dangerous"? Well, I think we all know that the players of yesteryear, whether they're suing or just simply poor-mouthing to the press about "I didn't know", would have taken the same information and did the same thing.... which is keep playing football.

[alexava 6,973]

That is not much different than what happened with nick. The receiver was decending. The carrier in your pic is straight up.

The difference is in this pic you can see the kid's arms are wrapping around the offensive player vs Ruffin crossed his arms and lowered his shoulder just to hit him. I hate this about most all Defensive backs (pro or college) in today's football. They are afraid to wrap up and drive through the Offensive player. Instead they want to get the big hit and stand over them to get on SportsCenter. Quit worrying about that and wrap up.

I am not being argumentative but in a collision like this the arms are not needed and just in the way if you wrap up. you are not trying to tackle as much as you are trying to seperate the the ball from the receiver. i am all for protection which is why i agree with the call on the field. I just think the ejection should have been overturned when the replay showed no head contact.

[eibua12 81]

So I was agruing with and LSU fan that Nick wasn't headhunting and played with the youtube video here is the best I could do. Notice the ball has NOT hit the ground Nick is in great position until the receiver dips down and Nick uses his arms

[tiger88 934]

Here's a thought, why not just focus on tackling the guy and not worry about knocking him into next month.

Where is the fun in that! IMHO if he had executed a form tackle, exploding through the receiver and wrapping up that young man would/may have some broken ribs and a concussion from his head snapping and smacking into the ground. AIMHO a form tackle at full speed can and will knock a guy into the next month more than blowing him up.

I completely disagree. He gets a penalty if he wraps him up and form tackles there. The problem is, it's hard to form tackle when you're going that fast and hit that high.

I'm not saying don't knock the crap out of peoplr, I'm saying don't go for knock out hits. He went for too big of a hit there imo.

[Guest jojo1515]

Can we please stop quoting quotes of quotes of another quote about another quote? This thread is unreadable to those not quoting 17 freaking quotes. I haven't read it but I'm sure the discussion is interesting. I'll never know because I refuse to read through 12 quotes, then 13 quotes, and then 14 quotes. It never ends until the serial quoters stop talking. /rant

[ShocksMyBrain 9,368]

Can we please stop quoting quotes of quotes of another quote about another quote? This thread is unreadable to those not quoting 17 freaking quotes. I haven't read it but I'm sure the discussion is interesting. I'll never know because I refuse to read through 12 quotes, then 13 quotes, and then 14 quotes. It never ends until the serial quoters stop talking. /rant

I agree.

Some boards have a limit on how many quotes can be nested within each other.

[tiger88 934]

Can we please stop quoting quotes of quotes of another quote about another quote? This thread is unreadable to those not quoting 17 freaking quotes. I haven't read it but I'm sure the discussion is interesting. I'll never know because I refuse to read through 12 quotes, then 13 quotes, and then 14 quotes. It never ends until the serial quoters stop talking. /rant

I agree.

Some boards have a limit on how many quotes can be nested within each other.

I agree.