Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty
How on earth do you want the NFL to *protect* defensive players more? Not allowing anyone to block? I don't even know what you are talking about. Also, let's make the seperation of 'chop' blocks and 'cut' blocks. They are different. A chop block is where a defensive guy is being blocked and another player comes in and takes out his legs. A cut block is where the defensive player is not already being blocked and someone goes low and cuts out their legs. These are allowed because it's not realistic or reasonable to think that a running back is going to be able to block a 250 pound linebacker running at full speed by hitting him high everytime. The linebacker would run him over. Cut blocks can result in knee or leg injury, but again, EVERY play can result in injury. You can't just take EVERYTHING out of the game of football.
|
I agree stopping a large linebacker without trying to destabilize him from the legs would be difficult...but I'm not the only viewer to suggest stopping cut blocks to improve safety:
Quote:
Sports: Stop the chop? Broncos called out
Many suggest the league outlaw the cut block and eliminate the potential for the chop block, which can cost up to $20,000 in fines. As long as legs and ankles continue to be broken, the cut block likely will be revisited by the league in the offseason, and there appears a growing sentiment against it.
|
Thanks for clarifying the difference between cut and chop blocks. I usually just see the terms used interchangeably, as in this quote: "Chopping, cutting, chop blocking...call it whatever you want, but the act of hitting a defender in his shins to nullify him is as dangerous now as it ever was."
The Dangers of Chop Blocking - Roll 'Bama Roll.
My point is that both blocks are dangerous...so why shouldn't the NFL just cut the cut blocks? Games continue to evolve as people decide risks are too great and therefore redefine what moves are a foul or not, so why not continue to have contact sports evolve toward more safety?
Quote:
|
Now YOU'RE reasoning is seriously flawed and make no sense... The NFL is going to have the same amount of wins every year, you know. So let's disregard that part of what you said.. Now to the viewers. Obviously the NFL wants as many viewers as possible. Now, how in the hell would the NFL gain viewers by making the game more dangerous, which leads to more injuries to star players? How do they gain viewers from the marquee players being injured and not playing? If Peyton Manning gets hurt for the Colts, there is a 100% chance that less viewers would watch their games. So you should re-think you're reasoning because it MAKES NO SENSE.
|
There may be the same number of wins, but if American football were toned down still more, made even safer, WOULD AS MANY PEOPLE WATCH? Would the games bring in as much money per game? Doubtful, seeing as how you and others disparage so much the idea of American football becoming like flag football.
Quote:
|
As for players being informed.. This isn't a normal job by any means. You honestly think that there are many NFL players who don't understand that any play on any given day could end their career? These guys have been playing the game their whole lives, they've had injuries before... They know the potential risks.
|
They may know it could end their career...but since the NFL, for example, hasn't until recently informed players that going back into a game after a concussion can lead to even worse lifelong brain damage, I really don't know if players realized that or not, and I assume not.
Whether or not football is a normal job, employers and overseeing agencies STILL have to inform employees of the risks appropriately. I'm not saying the NFL is a completely nefarous organization, but I recognize that the NFL has not treated players well (again refer to the issues Jim Brown raises) and I feel it is fair to acknowledge that and expect compensation for the players.
Also, I think we simply disagree, Dirty, on whether the thrill of American football is worth the risks. I feel no and so I don't support American football. I would never let my child play it, for example. (Now THERE'S a debate issue!) I feel the best part of the game is the strategy (the variety of plays), and the throwing, running and catching. If it were touch football, I'd enjoy the game much more than contact football, because the game would still have the aspects I like, and I'd be
glad that the risks of injury were much reduced. Why do you *need* the bone-jarring contact of tackling to enjoy the game?