NFL 2017

[Malintent]

You will not see a change. Some sports are more barbarically primitive than others... This is the second worse of them (boxing being the basest). This is some dumb shit that a lot (majority?) of Americans seem to enjoy watching... I'd say go ahead and stop watching it... the Bronze Age is over... enough with the Gladiators in Arenas already.

Second worst? Seriously? At least American Football players wear armour.

Rugby players wear no helmets or padding; sometimes players will wind some tape around their heads to prevent their ears from being torn off; and most of them wear gum shields these days to stop their teeth being knocked out, but that's it.

And don't get started on Australian Rules Football, Gaelic Football, or Hurling (all three of which are very similar to one another, with the exception that in Hurling, players are armed with big sticks).

There are plenty of sports more barbaric than American Football.

I was being US-centric... only commenting on the state of American sports... since American football was the topic. I even (loosely) specified that in the response you quoted by referring specifically to "Americans".

 

[bilby]

You will not see a change. Some sports are more barbarically primitive than others... This is the second worse of them (boxing being the basest). This is some dumb shit that a lot (majority?) of Americans seem to enjoy watching... I'd say go ahead and stop watching it... the Bronze Age is over... enough with the Gladiators in Arenas already.

Second worst? Seriously? At least American Football players wear armour.

Rugby players wear no helmets or padding; sometimes players will wind some tape around their heads to prevent their ears from being torn off; and most of them wear gum shields these days to stop their teeth being knocked out, but that's it.

And don't get started on Australian Rules Football, Gaelic Football, or Hurling (all three of which are very similar to one another, with the exception that in Hurling, players are armed with big sticks).

There are plenty of sports more barbaric than American Football.

I was being US-centric... only commenting on the state of American sports... since American football was the topic. I even (loosely) specified that in the response you quoted by referring specifically to "Americans".

Fair enough. I mis-interpreted the 'Americans' qualifier as mere recognition that the specific sport in question is not particularly popular outside the USA. My apologies.

 

[blastula]

After last week, now I know Rams and Goff aren't ready for the big stage yet. 3 quarters of Wentz was better than a full game from Goff. One quarter of Foles was also better. This was at home so no excusing it as road loss like in Minnesota. The bigger news is Wentz's injury. Maybe they can call up Jeff Garcia? It was a very good game though, so was that Ravens-Steelers game. Roethlisberger continues to rape opposing defenses in final drives.

On the bright side for Rams, at least they didn't lose to Miami.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

On the bright side for Rams, at least they didn't lose to Miami.

Well, someone has to.

 

[Malintent]

I was being US-centric... only commenting on the state of American sports... since American football was the topic. I even (loosely) specified that in the response you quoted by referring specifically to "Americans".

Fair enough. I mis-interpreted the 'Americans' qualifier as mere recognition that the specific sport in question is not particularly popular outside the USA. My apologies.

No worries... I've actually never met someone from outside the US that even knows anything about (American) football. It does seem uniquely popular here...

About that armor, though... My understanding of the evolution of football gear is that headgear was the first of any protective clothing worn.. they were soft leather helmets.. but not a "helmet" that we would recognize today... closer to a swimmer's head cap than what we see on football players today... eventually, the headgear became clad in a hard shell... and injuries went up. The increase in injury was due to impact from the helmet... so, protecting the head caused more injury to the rest of the body... subsequently, all of the padding you see worn today in football is to protect the player from a helmet impact.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

It was a very good game though, so was that Ravens-Steelers game. Roethlisberger continues to rape opposing defenses in final drives.

I've heard that the Ravens' defensive coordinator is now in the witless protection program after letting the Steelers do the same thing in the December 2016 game.

 

[Elixir]

Lots of parity in the NFL this year. Jets beat the mighty Chefs, then lose to the lowly Donks. Go figure.

 

[repoman]

I was being US-centric... only commenting on the state of American sports... since American football was the topic. I even (loosely) specified that in the response you quoted by referring specifically to "Americans".

Fair enough. I mis-interpreted the 'Americans' qualifier as mere recognition that the specific sport in question is not particularly popular outside the USA. My apologies.

No worries... I've actually never met someone from outside the US that even knows anything about (American) football. It does seem uniquely popular here...

About that armor, though... My understanding of the evolution of football gear is that headgear was the first of any protective clothing worn.. they were soft leather helmets.. but not a "helmet" that we would recognize today... closer to a swimmer's head cap than what we see on football players today... eventually, the headgear became clad in a hard shell... and injuries went up. The increase in injury was due to impact from the helmet... so, protecting the head caused more injury to the rest of the body... subsequently, all of the padding you see worn today in football is to protect the player from a helmet impact.

can the outside of the helmet be padded so it does not cause bruising on impact?

 

[bilby]

No worries... I've actually never met someone from outside the US that even knows anything about (American) football. It does seem uniquely popular here...

About that armor, though... My understanding of the evolution of football gear is that headgear was the first of any protective clothing worn.. they were soft leather helmets.. but not a "helmet" that we would recognize today... closer to a swimmer's head cap than what we see on football players today... eventually, the headgear became clad in a hard shell... and injuries went up. The increase in injury was due to impact from the helmet... so, protecting the head caused more injury to the rest of the body... subsequently, all of the padding you see worn today in football is to protect the player from a helmet impact.

can the outside of the helmet be padded so it does not cause bruising on impact?

Presumably the players want to keep the size and weight of the helmet down, both for comfort and to reduce the risk of neck injuries.

Although I reckon people would pay good money to watch footballers trying to play in helmets with the same diameter as their shoulders

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No worries... I've actually never met someone from outside the US that even knows anything about (American) football. It does seem uniquely popular here...

About that armor, though... My understanding of the evolution of football gear is that headgear was the first of any protective clothing worn.. they were soft leather helmets.. but not a "helmet" that we would recognize today... closer to a swimmer's head cap than what we see on football players today... eventually, the headgear became clad in a hard shell... and injuries went up. The increase in injury was due to impact from the helmet... so, protecting the head caused more injury to the rest of the body... subsequently, all of the padding you see worn today in football is to protect the player from a helmet impact.

can the outside of the helmet be padded so it does not cause bruising on impact?

Physics is still a problem, a person moving in one direction, will have their brain go bump, when taken to a dead stop. Inertia and all. What a helmet helps do is reduce injuries caused by impacts directly to the head.

 

[ronburgundy]

where do you snowboard that people bash each other over the heads with their boards? I suppose you play chess by shoving their Queen up your opponent's ass? and in soccer, how many times do you have to kick someone in the face to score a point, again?

But seriously... you are having a problem with logical composition.

No, you have a major ignorance problem. You singled out US football and its "American" fans as uniquely "barbaric" second only to boxing. NFL players are no more trying to injure each other than rugby players or even soccer players whenever they slide-tackle which can and does break ankles. In each sport, they are trying to stop the other team from advancing the ball and regain possession of it. That is the nature of each of these sports that have appeal to most humans, not just "babaric" "Americans". In the NFL, pads are worn precisely to minimize injury. Most injuries are incidental yet inevitable to the game, just as they are in most "non-contact" sports.

Accusing US football and its fans of a special type of barbarism is rationally defensible on if the actual resulting injuries of the sport are on a whole qualitatively more extreme level. That is objectively not the case, so it is irrational to make such a huge distinction between those sports.

Your comment about snowboarding shows woeful ignorance of concussions. Few, concussions in or ouside the NFL are caused by one person hitting another in the head. Heads hitting the ground is the #1 cause, and snowboarding (along with most other sports) have that in spades. The appeal of such winter sports is precisely the threat of massive injury when a person is flying through the air at 60mph. How is a sport where the winner is the person who risks their life to the greatest extent by going the fastest and highest not "barbaric"?
Unless one applies a childishly simplistic notion of the concept, the NFL is not uniquely "barbaric" in the world of sport.

 

[TSwizzle]

No worries... I've actually never met someone from outside the US that even knows anything about (American) football. It does seem uniquely popular here...

It would appear the NFL is gaining popularity in the UK, or London at least with chatter about basing an NFL team in London. There are a number of NFL games played at Wembley Stadium in London. Still a niche market as soccer dominates.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

where do you snowboard that people bash each other over the heads with their boards? I suppose you play chess by shoving their Queen up your opponent's ass? and in soccer, how many times do you have to kick someone in the face to score a point, again?

But seriously... you are having a problem with logical composition.

No, you have a major ignorance problem. You singled out US football and its "American" fans as uniquely "barbaric" second only to boxing. NFL players are no more trying to injure each other than rugby players or even soccer players whenever they slide-tackle which can and does break ankles. In each sport, they are trying to stop the other team from advancing the ball and regain possession of it. That is the nature of each of these sports that have appeal to most humans, not just "babaric" "Americans". In the NFL, pads are worn precisely to minimize injury. Most injuries are incidental yet inevitable to the game, just as they are in most "non-contact" sports.

Accusing US football and its fans of a special type of barbarism is rationally defensible on if the actual resulting injuries of the sport are on a whole qualitatively more extreme level. That is objectively not the case, so it is irrational to make such a huge distinction between those sports.

Your comment about snowboarding shows woeful ignorance of concussions. Few, concussions in or ouside the NFL are caused by one person hitting another in the head. Heads hitting the ground is the #1 cause, and snowboarding (along with most other sports) have that in spades. The appeal of such winter sports is precisely the threat of massive injury when a person is flying through the air at 60mph. How is a sport where the winner is the person who risks their life to the greatest extent by going the fastest and highest not "barbaric"?
Unless one applies a childishly simplistic notion of the concept, the NFL is not uniquely "barbaric" in the world of sport.

I've played the sport and without doubt players certainly attempt to and hope to injure opposing players. Getting players out of the game increases their chances for victory. If you think players don't intentionally try to injure - legally most of the time - you're living in a different world.

Perhaps some here have played the flag version of the sport at an organized level. I only did that when I was in the service as we competed for a post trophy. Without a doubt it was less brutal as there was no collision factor. The body on body physicality was more like basketball.

And yes, a league like that would never get the ratings the NFL does presently. But much of what happens in the NFL should be illegal, just as gladiator combat is illegal today. Or maybe we should make fencing a fight to the death so it gets more viewership. People would no longer be interested in non-lethal fencing.

 

[ronburgundy]

where do you snowboard that people bash each other over the heads with their boards? I suppose you play chess by shoving their Queen up your opponent's ass? and in soccer, how many times do you have to kick someone in the face to score a point, again?

But seriously... you are having a problem with logical composition.

No, you have a major ignorance problem. You singled out US football and its "American" fans as uniquely "barbaric" second only to boxing. NFL players are no more trying to injure each other than rugby players or even soccer players whenever they slide-tackle which can and does break ankles. In each sport, they are trying to stop the other team from advancing the ball and regain possession of it. That is the nature of each of these sports that have appeal to most humans, not just "babaric" "Americans". In the NFL, pads are worn precisely to minimize injury. Most injuries are incidental yet inevitable to the game, just as they are in most "non-contact" sports.

Accusing US football and its fans of a special type of barbarism is rationally defensible on if the actual resulting injuries of the sport are on a whole qualitatively more extreme level. That is objectively not the case, so it is irrational to make such a huge distinction between those sports.

Your comment about snowboarding shows woeful ignorance of concussions. Few, concussions in or ouside the NFL are caused by one person hitting another in the head. Heads hitting the ground is the #1 cause, and snowboarding (along with most other sports) have that in spades. The appeal of such winter sports is precisely the threat of massive injury when a person is flying through the air at 60mph. How is a sport where the winner is the person who risks their life to the greatest extent by going the fastest and highest not "barbaric"?
Unless one applies a childishly simplistic notion of the concept, the NFL is not uniquely "barbaric" in the world of sport.

I've played the sport and without doubt players certainly attempt to and hope to injure opposing players.

No moreso than in every contact sport. And even many non-contact sports determine the winner by those that risk the greatest injury by hurling their body the fastest and farthest through their air, down a hill, across the ice, etc.).
How is it any less barbaric to cheer for someone to risk their life to win a game just because that risk didn't directly involve contact with another participant?

Getting players out of the game increases their chances for victory.

Just as true in almost every sport. Even in non-contact sports like tennis, when a player sees the other has a mild injury, they intentionally play in ways to make the injury worse to force the opponent out of the match.

Perhaps some here have played the flag version of the sport at an organized level. I only did that when I was in the service as we competed for a post trophy. Without a doubt it was less brutal as there was no collision factor. The body on body physicality was more like basketball.

There is only no collision factor in flag football because there is no actual sport taking place. No one is actually trying because it is pure exhibition, no one is watching, and no one cares because nothing is at stake. Adults actually trying at flag football would still lead to collisions because it would mean people running at high speeds on intersecting paths. This is proven in every NFL game, where players trying to avoid contact still make violent contact. This happens when opposing or same-team players are going for thrown ball, or when same-team players are both trying to deflag a runner. Also, it is inherent to blocking and without blocking, flag football would be more of an unwatchable bore than its zero-interest proves it already is.

And yes, a league like that would never get the ratings the NFL does presently.

It would never make a penny of profit, which is why zero humans watch it unless their kid is playing.

But much of what happens in the NFL should be illegal, just as gladiator combat is illegal today.

More people suffer paralysis or death from rugby, should rugby be illegal?
More kids die from baseball than football every year? Should baseball be illegal?
50% of all severe head injuries are from bicycling and skateboarding, should those be illegal?
US football is not significantly more dangerous than many of the most popular sports or physical activities done for recreation, so should the most popular sports and recreational activities be illegal?

If you don't think all these should be illegal, then you are a hypocrite.

Or maybe we should make fencing a fight to the death so it gets more viewership.

Although purely by accident, that is your only valid point. Almost no one on the planet cares about fencing because it has zero risk. If not for it being forced on everyone during the Olympics, no one would engage in it or watch it.
That supports my point that almost all popular sports involve serious risk and many involve injury levels similar to US football. So yeah, if you want to be a coward who confines the precious children to padded bubbles, then go ahead and make most sports illegal. If you want to be an ignorant reactionary hypocrite jumping on the mindless "football is evil" bandwagon, then single out the NFL as "barbaric".

 

[TSwizzle]

No, you have a major ignorance problem. You singled out US football and its "American" fans as uniquely "barbaric" second only to boxing. NFL players are no more trying to injure each other than rugby players or even soccer players whenever they slide-tackle which can and does break ankles. In each sport, they are trying to stop the other team from advancing the ball and regain possession of it. That is the nature of each of these sports that have appeal to most humans, not just "babaric" "Americans". In the NFL, pads are worn precisely to minimize injury. Most injuries are incidental yet inevitable to the game, just as they are in most "non-contact" sports.

The major difference between NFL and soccer is there is very little (legal) contact between players. NFL on the other hand, most players get some robust contact on every play, most of it is ok but the Smith-Schuster hit was way over the top and excessive in my opinion and the NFL's opinion. Rugby there is a bit more contact but there is technique as to how you tackle the player in possession of the ball. You can't just batter another player, it's not allowed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, you have a major ignorance problem. You singled out US football and its "American" fans as uniquely "barbaric" second only to boxing. NFL players are no more trying to injure each other than rugby players or even soccer players whenever they slide-tackle which can and does break ankles. In each sport, they are trying to stop the other team from advancing the ball and regain possession of it. That is the nature of each of these sports that have appeal to most humans, not just "babaric" "Americans". In the NFL, pads are worn precisely to minimize injury. Most injuries are incidental yet inevitable to the game, just as they are in most "non-contact" sports.

The major difference between NFL and soccer is there is very little (legal) contact between players.

Soccer involves a good deal of non-impact contact, and chippy tripping.

NFL on the other hand, most players get some robust contact on every play, most of it is ok but the Smith-Schuster hit was way over the top and excessive in my opinion and the NFL's opinion.

Most players don't get robust contact on every play. Most players are blocking or running. The QB, tackler(s), and the guy with the ball ultimately get the most contact on each play.

Rugby there is a bit more contact but there is technique as to how you tackle the player in possession of the ball. You can't just batter another player, it's not allowed.

I do wonder if there is any legitimacy to claiming head injuries are fewer in Rugby verse American Football.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Although purely by accident, that is your only valid point. Almost no one on the planet cares about fencing because it has zero risk. If not for it being forced on everyone during the Olympics, no one would engage in it or watch it.
That supports my point that almost all popular sports involve serious risk and many involve injury levels similar to US football. So yeah, if you want to be a coward who confines the precious children to padded bubbles, then go ahead and make most sports illegal. If you want to be an ignorant reactionary hypocrite jumping on the mindless "football is evil" bandwagon, then single out the NFL as "barbaric".

Right, danger is ever present. No one argues that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Although purely by accident, that is your only valid point. Almost no one on the planet cares about fencing because it has zero risk. If not for it being forced on everyone during the Olympics, no one would engage in it or watch it.
That supports my point that almost all popular sports involve serious risk and many involve injury levels similar to US football. So yeah, if you want to be a coward who confines the precious children to padded bubbles, then go ahead and make most sports illegal. If you want to be an ignorant reactionary hypocrite jumping on the mindless "football is evil" bandwagon, then single out the NFL as "barbaric".

Right, danger is ever present. No one argues that.

As a hockey fan, the NHL was always under fire over violence in the sport (even decades ago... fuck I'm getting old), including fighting. Yet baseball brawls were looked to as fanciful and football, well that is football.

The trouble we have these days now, is that we are understanding better and better the unseen damage that is occurring in impact sports. And we don't quite know the long term problems being caused with the game at the childhood level. We are entering an uncomfortable area that is pitting pragmatism, inertia, and entertainment against each other.

It is odd, the game used to be rougher, but the impacts have gotten worse as players are bigger, stronger, and faster. So using the old school baseline is likely a bad idea.

So we are left to ask ourselves, how much risk are we willing to let others take (and history shows, people are willing to take grave risks), to make potentially a good deal of money, and for how long. Or maybe the better question to ask is what protections are we willing to pay for, so that professional athletes don't take ridiculous risks after sustaining a significant injury for economic reasons.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

As a hockey fan, the NHL was always under fire over violence in the sport (even decades ago... fuck I'm getting old), including fighting. Yet baseball brawls were looked to as fanciful and football, well that is football.

Hence the joke, "I went to the fights last night, and a hockey game broke out."

The goons who took over for a couple of decades almost destroyed the sport. Baseball fights are very infrequent, and usually look more like a drunken fire drill than an actual conflict.

It will be interesting to see if the NFL adopts a "targeting" rule next year, and starts ejecting players.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

As a hockey fan, the NHL was always under fire over violence in the sport (even decades ago... fuck I'm getting old), including fighting. Yet baseball brawls were looked to as fanciful and football, well that is football.

Hence the joke, "I went to the fights last night, and a hockey game broke out."

The goons who took over for a couple of decades almost destroyed the sport. Baseball fights are very infrequent, and usually look more like a drunken fire drill than an actual conflict.

It will be interesting to see if the NFL adopts a "targeting" rule next year, and starts ejecting players.

If the NFL wants to control this behavior it merely needs to treat it like it treats off field behavior, something it has not done to this point.

I think in the end it is all about ratings, and people like drama, Elliot's final suspension and Jones's antics being good examples. These things keep people tuning in just as much as savage play on the field. The NFL's handlers know this, that it's all about the show, and that the show has many acts.