Is football too soft?

by dropdeadhomer on May 26, 2011 11:46 AM CDT

hiya peeps.

Recently read an article where LaMarr Woodley (?) was moaning about the new rules the owners have passed. Something he refers to as "The Steelers rule".

Now, he posits that Football is going (or has gone) all soft and fluffy.

Me, personally, I like to see a bit of blood and thunder in my teams defence. I wanna see the oppo's QB shaking and crying for his mummy, trying to dump the ball off (Jay Cutler anyone?). I want my team to be mean and nasty and maybe even a tad dirty. I wanna hear the thud. I wanna see players man up and celebrate a good hit. I want both teams to appreciate rough and tough football. I want a fair(ish), hard challenge that makes me "ooh" and call the wife in to watch the replay. I want the QB Dilfer'd (as i call it after watching that youtube vid posted the other day). I wanna watch 'old skool' defence. I want white helmets so the oppo can see his blood....well, you get the gist.

After all, what do these guys wear all the pads and protection for if it's slowly gonna turn into a non-contact type sport - ie, you can hit, put please ask first, get a signed agreement from the opposing player and then warn him of the impending act, not to be delivered with any force sufficient to knock himover or to disturb him in any fashion.....blimey, it's gonna turn into Tag football soon....stand still now if you've had your tag taken off you.

So, what do we think? When the season starts, is football going soft or is the balance between ooooff and protection just about right with the new rules?

Poll

With the new "Steelers" rule, has Football gone soft?

Yes

22 votes

No, it's still too physical & players need even more protection

4 votes

Nope, it's just about right now.

12 votes

38 votes | Poll has closed

This FanPost was created by a registered user of The Daily Norseman, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the staff of the site. However, since this is a community, that view is no less important.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

yes and no

I like seeing the bown rattling hits as much as the next guy. In fact, the two games i enjoy watching more than any are the two times the Steelers and Ravens play because you know that’s going to be a very hard hitting game. but the thing about it is, the hits need to be clean. NFL athletes need to set a precedent. They have many little eyes looking on them, from college, to high school to pop warner. They should form tackle, and use proper technique. they don’t need to be launching themselves head first into a player (defensless or not). Their feet should never leave the ground to tackle someone. Hit with your shoulder pad, not your helmet, it’s what they’re there for.

when asked by Dan Patrick if his name alluded to not making quick decisions in the pocket, Ponder calmly replied "As crazy as it sounds, my mom's maiden name is actually Superbowlwinner. All one word"

by filbert33 on May 26, 2011 12:00 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

Rec'd this

I agree. Love the big hits. Why else do I have the VHS “The Best of Thunder and Destruction: NFL’s Hardest Hits”. Everyone loves big hits, but you know what? I don’t like seeing a safety come up on an All-star receiver and spearing him with his helmet. When I look at that safety, I picture him as a weak, cheap, inferior competitor. There’s no place in the game for that and the last couple of years it’s gotten out of hand. I don’t disagree with the point the NFL is trying to make, but I do disagree with how they’re going about it. Some of the “illegal” hits they focused on and fined were perfectly OK in my book. I think it was Harrison’s hit on Massaquoi(sp?) from the Browns. That was perfectly fine. It was vicious as hell, but that is what this game is supposed to be. If the NFL wanted to fine him, ok, but they could have at least been honest about it and stated that he got fined be Massaquoi got hurt and that’s the only reason. The big hits are not all illegal, just avoid the helmet to helmet.

Skol!

by DM_Purp on May 26, 2011 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions

QB late-hit calls sometimes seem questionable.

Other than that a lot of calls are defensible.

by Jared_69 on May 26, 2011 1:04 PM CDT reply actions

i would agree

they sometimes put too much protection on the QB. and i felt there were a lot of legit hits last year that were fined or flagged just because it was a QB. I also can easily see a lot more of QB’s ‘acting’ just to get the flag, much like soccer players and basket ball players do. I think it happens now to some extent cough tom brady cough, but with the emphasis on safety, i could see it becoming much worse

by filbert33 on May 26, 2011 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions

It's unfortunate that this is part of the game as well

QBs will fake it. That’s not something you can avoid. If it’s in the rules, they’ll try to exploit it. Let’s all be honest, the refs have the toughest job in all of sports(way tougher than an ump behind the plate in baseball). They should be told by the rules committee that it’s perfectly fine with throwing the flag down on a questionable play and meet with a couple other refs to think it over for a second before deeming it unnecessary roughness or not. I don’t want to get into the “replay” stuff, but they should have one full-time official up in the booth that can get a couple looks at that play before making it an official penalty or not. I know that could open up a can of worms, but it’s such a huge penalty(15 yds either way), they can’t afford to completely botch a call like that.

Skol!

by DM_Purp on May 26, 2011 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions

You'd think that Helmet Spearing was Brand New

A never before used hitting technique. Like it was never used in the 90 years prior to the uproar of it being a “dirty” tactic.

Talk about a need to man up…

I admit it. I loved watching Benny Sapp fly head first and howling at a receiver, even though it often ended up with a complete miss (easy to dodge a man who’s feet are off the ground) or a penalty.

Top 10 NFL Rules Changes

This makes it pretty clear that the primary purpose of the rules changes is to increase the game scores because fans like higher scoring games. Anything that facilitates this “opening up the game” strategy is pursued.

A quick look at NFL rules changes thru the years is here. You can see the evolution and how it starts to go from improving game-play to playing-to-the-fans by facilitating higher scores.

It occurs to me that since the game is geared towards facilitating higher scores through passing, a team that takes advantage of the way the NFL is rule-structured will focus more on the passing game than the running game. That is, the game had been modified to make it easier to get higher scores through passing, so use that. The Vikings have been pretty retro in the run-oriented game we have, but when you have a beast like AP in the backfield, you put him to good use.

Back to the point… yeah, the NFL’s gotten soft with all it’s rule changes geared to increase scores and protect guys who are wearing huge ballistic padding from stem to stern. But then, I guess that’s why we don’t have a National Rugby League.

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on May 27, 2011 11:52 AM CDT reply actions

i think football helmets should be designed to protect the guy getting hit, not the hitter.
put the hard shell in the interior, and the soft padding on the exterior. that’ll do the trick!

by danny lloyd on May 27, 2011 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions

?

How does that protect the hitter vs the guy delivering? The helmet doesn’t know who initiated, it just absorbs the impact.

by CaP'M on May 27, 2011 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions

kinda joking here….but if you put the hard shell on the inside, it’s going to hurt your skull if you spear tackle someone. and, if the soft padding is on the outside, then it will hurt the recipient of the hit less than getting hit by a hard shell !!!

p.s. why don’t they make all cars with rubber bumpers that are all at the same height?

by danny lloyd on May 27, 2011 7:17 PM CDT up reply actions

I've actually heard they were studying military helmets which have the hard shell in the middle of two softer absorbing layers.

This would take the weapon aspect of the hard outer shell away and offer better protection for both players. To be honest though, I still love seeing paint chips fly off helmets on clean hard hits!

by CanadianViking on May 27, 2011 8:11 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm fine with the new rules except...

…in the case of QB’s. The NFL needs to quit protecting them so much and make them put on their big boy pants. It would suck if your teams QB got injured, but he should have got rid of the ball on time.

by M.Maguire on May 28, 2011 2:25 AM CDT reply actions

Protecting QBs

I agree that it does seem like the QBs are being coddled.

However, that being said, there’s another aspect to the equation. $,$$$,$$$$.

When your $20,000,000/year QB gets sacked and injured by a $1,000,000 DE, and is out for the rest of the year, that’s a lot of lost money lost. I think the QB protection rules are in place primarily to protect the Owner’s investment in the QB, more than the QB himself.

by DCPurple on May 29, 2011 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions