EJECTION !! The Penalty For 'Targeting' Hits

#176
#176
GAVol said:
Because the long term effects of concussions are being better understood and can be mitigated to a degree.
Click to expand...

IMO you can only mitigate them so much and still call the product on the field "football". There are just some inherent dangers associated with playing the game. Back to the NASCAR example, you could all but eliminate any risk by capping the cars at 70 MPH, but then it wouldn't still really be racing. I just wonder what the breaking point with fans is going to be before they start turning the games off because the product has become garbage. The changes to the game have already been massive, and in ten years the game may be unrecognizable compared to the one we all free up watching. I just wonder if this safety crusade will continue once people stop watching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#177
#177
bleedorange0037 said:
IMO you can only mitigate them so much and still call the product on the field "football". There are just some inherent dangers associated with playing the game. Back to the NASCAR example, you could all but eliminate any risk by capping the cars at 70 MPH, but then it wouldn't still really be racing. I just wonder what the breaking point with fans is going to be before they start turning the games off because the product has become garbage. The changes to the game have already been massive, and in ten years the game may be unrecognizable compared to the one we all free up watching. I just wonder if this safety crusade will continue once people stop watching.
Click to expand...

There are two sides to the debate, and you make a good argument from a "fan standpoint".

My main concern is that I think this will be a penalty that will almost never be called against an offensive player who leads with his helmet, or initiates contact "above the shoulders". What happens to the goal line dive?

What about a head slap by an offensive lineman?

We've all seen what can happen when NCAA officials, either individually, or as a group, decide to pick one particular rule to focus on. This new rule is going to be popular with some of them.

Heck, you can't hardly touch an NFL QB anymore, and if you even brush his helmet with your hand, it's "Roughing the Passer".

If they outlawed fighting in the NHL, and enforced it, would hockey lose a portion of it's fan base?

Going to be very interesting to watch this one play out.

Go Vols.
 
#178
#178
Interesting takes on VN, but we've a couple of high-horsed folks who relish demeaning others' opinions. Must feel great to be so superior. sheeeesh!
 
#179
#179
feathersax said:
Interesting takes on VN, but we've a couple of high-horsed folks who relish demeaning others' opinions. Must feel great to be so superior. sheeeesh!
Click to expand...

Not sure if you're talking about me, but that's not my intent. I just think in general we get way too hung up on romanticizing old school football. But if you watch old games, you can pick put a game from the 70s vs a game from the 90s vs a game from today. The game just inevitably changes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#180
#180
GreyWolf1129 said:
GA, I'm all for anything that makes the game safer. At every level. Meanwhile, back at the college level...

If, for sake of argument, the penalty would apply to a defender who makes contact with a ball carrier...either leading with his helmet, or making initial contact above the shoulders of the ballcarrier...

...then will the same penalty be called on the ballcarrier who lowers his helmet to meet a defender head-first?

If so, then I'm good with it. Level playing field.

Go Vols.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that they'll be cracking down on ball carriers lowering the helmet outside the tackle box. I'm not sure they'll ever be able to call it on inside runs where a RB gets his pad level down.
 
#181
#181
GAVol said:
Not sure if you're talking about me, but that's not my intent. I just think in general we get way too hung up on romanticizing old school football. But if you watch old games, you can pick put a game from the 70s vs a game from the 90s vs a game from today. The game just inevitably changes.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, and I'll try to look up some stats, but I feel like 30 years ago there simply weren't a whole of games with the sort of 49-45 scorelines that have become commonplace in recent years. It seems as though all the rule changes have served to benefit the offensive side of the ball, and the 14-10 type of defensive struggle has all but been legislated out of the game.
 
#182
#182
bleedorange0037 said:
I could be wrong, and I'll try to look up some stats, but I feel like 30 years ago there simply weren't a whole of games with the sort of 49-45 scorelines that have become commonplace in recent years. It seems as though all the rule changes have served to benefit the offensive side of the ball, and the 14-10 type of defensive struggle has all but been legislated out of the game.
Click to expand...
Definitely true. Part legislation and part coaches learning how to exploit speed.

30-40 years prior to that, there were a bunch of 6-3 games and Tennessee went unscored on for a season.
 
#183
#183
GAVol said:
Definitely true. Part legislation and part coaches learning how to exploit speed.

30-40 years prior to that, there were a bunch of 6-3 games and Tennessee went unscored on for a season.[u/]
Click to expand...


That was actually about 74 years ago.

But I get your point.
 
#184
#184
bleedorange0037 said:
I could be wrong, and I'll try to look up some stats, but I feel like 30 years ago there simply weren't a whole of games with the sort of 49-45 scorelines that have become commonplace in recent years. It seems as though all the rule changes have served to benefit the offensive side of the ball, and the 14-10 type of defensive struggle has all but been legislated out of the game.
Click to expand...

Although it requires going back a bit farther to the 1965 Tennessee-UCLA game, here is a great point to put your observation in perspective. According to Tom Mattingly, “The Vols had given up 30 points or more only 14 times in 476 games between the start of the 1915 season and the Vanderbilt game in 1965 and lost every one. Seven of Neyland's teams gave up 34 points or fewer for an entire season” (Mattingly: Vols, Bruins produced a classic in '65 » GoVolsXtra).
 
#186
#186
GAVol said:
I've said it before . . . People always freak out when football tries to get safer and then they forget why they were mad within a few months.
Click to expand...
True that. And the rulemakers know it and, consequently, pay only a scad of attention to the pain-mongering Colliseum-styled fans that holler on forums for blood at all costs as we have here on VN.

Best get used to it folks, we may have hit the top technology wise with helmets etc so the rules now have to step in and prevent the inevitable.
 
#187
#187
overseasorange said:
[/B]
I would say that a free college education is compensation :hi:
Click to expand...
College football is a job, untaxed but a job. Think not only that the education is compensation (not free as such) but it also means that the student-athlete may not be burdened with a ton of debt post-grad.
 
#190
#190
The wussification of football now continues into the college ranks. Personally, I love seeing Bama and UF players writhe in pain on the 50 yard line. It's a man thang.
 
#191
#191
GAVol said:
Not sure if you're talking about me, but that's not my intent. I just think in general we get way too hung up on romanticizing old school football. But if you watch old games, you can pick put a game from the 70s vs a game from the 90s vs a game from today. The game just inevitably changes.
Click to expand...

Not you, GaVol. Your posts insightful & respectful even when I disagree. Your living among dawgs is difficult enough, 'bro.
 
#192
#192
GreyWolf1129 said:
GA, I'm all for anything that makes the game safer. At every level. Meanwhile, back at the college level...

If, for sake of argument, the penalty would apply to a defender who makes contact with a ball carrier...either leading with his helmet, or making initial contact above the shoulders of the ballcarrier...

...then will the same penalty be called on the ballcarrier who lowers his helmet to meet a defender head-first?

If so, then I'm good with it. Level playing field.

Go Vols.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what Goodell did.....He took one crappy rule and added another crappy rule to ot instead of just revising the one they had
 
#193
#193
Pretty much if ur a.defender and the WR runs a slant you have to let him catch it, turns his head to look at you, let him decide if he wants to cut left or right, then you can try to tackle

Now just imagine that being a 240 lb TE/FB and ur a 180 lb Nickel or Safety....just remember wait till he knows ur there so he can decide what he wants to do first or youll get penalized for hitting a defenseless player
 
#194
#194
Vol865 said:
Pretty much if ur a.defender and the WR runs a slant you have to let him catch it, turns his head to look at you, let him decide if he wants to cut left or right, then you can try to tackle

Now just imagine that being a 240 lb TE/FB and ur a 180 lb Nickel or Safety....just remember wait till he knows ur there so he can decide what he wants to do first or youll get penalized for hitting a defenseless player
Click to expand...
:crazy:
Did you read the rule?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#195
#195
Many people will get ejected for accidental hits or something caused by the opponent. In sports at this level at these speeds, players important to their teams will get ejected and people will get pizzed off.
69699.gif
 
#196
#196
99gator said:
it just saddens me that not only is this stuff happening, it's happening over a lie.

they don't care about making players safer. they care about lawsuits.

and at the end of the day, players are still going to be seriously injured and the game i love will soon become unrecognizable.

and usually, the results are the opposite of what was intended. i fon't know if there are any hockey fans here, but the game has become more dangerous since they all but eliminated fighting.
Click to expand...

All players at every level should be required to sign a waiver.

That'll end most lawsuits quick.
 
#197
#197
#198
#198
ScreaminVolHawkins said:
you have no idea what you're talking about.

"When you play an NCAA sport, you have to sign a waiver that relinquishes your right to make money off your likeness as an NCAA athlete." Ed OBannon is suing for this exact thing.

Read this:

Ed O'Bannon vs. the NCAA: The antitrust lawsuit explained - SBNation.com
Click to expand...

I think you have no idea what he was talking about. I'm almost 100% certain he meant all players should be required to sign a waiver that says something to the effect of "Football, by its nature is a contact sport with some inherent risk of injury, and your participation will be completely at your own risk." It easily makes sense at the college and pro levels where you are dealing with adults, but is a bit dicier at the lower levels where you are dealing with minor children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#199
#199
99gator said:
oh, i understand.

look, this stuff ticks me off because i am old enough now to understand that everything is political. which is why i do follow politics. damn near everything has a political angle to it.

well, this is no different. i named activities earlier that have resulted in death and no one cares. even if i ignored those activities that were actual jobs, there are others i did not list. riding a horse and snow skiing cause more fatalities than football.

so, why football? why do we gnash our teeth over football? why does no one have a problem with a 15 year old doing evil knievel stuff with a motorcycle, but we are freaking out over football? why is no one looking to ban skydiving, but football has to be transformed? how about cheerleading? there have been serious cheerleading injuries. 42 cheerleaders died from cheerleading activities from 1982 through 2007. no one cares.

i believe i have the answer to my question. i won't go there because this is not a political forum. we could debate about it, but this much i know for sure. it's political.
Click to expand...

did we land on the moon? i believe i have the answer but this isnt a political forum. who killed JFK? i know but i wont write it here because this isnt a political forum. will xbox 1 be better than PS4? no, probably not. but its political.

oh, i am saying you are full of crud-o-la. you sound like you saw a UFO or bigfoot. these are college kids, most people do not want to see them get seriously injured for playing the game. sensitive viewers even tune in for the big bowl games. they are protecting their market the way they think is best. DC's have already been teaching this.

What will be interesting is what if someone sues after all these rules?
 
#200
#200
bleedorange0037 said:
I think you have no idea what he was talking about. I'm almost 100% certain he meant all players should be required to sign a waiver that says something to the effect of "Football, by its nature is a contact sport with some inherent risk of injury, and your participation will be completely at your own risk." It easily makes sense at the college and pro levels where you are dealing with adults, but is a bit dicier at the lower levels where you are dealing with minor children.
Click to expand...

did you read the link? that situation is directly applicable to the one he and you are talking about. waivers do not end lawsuits. read the link
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top