I think we should just stop tackling all together, and play Flag Football. FAR less injuries that way, and less injury potential.

Right...just the girly league now. Thry should just go no pads and have swords necause these players are just here for are entertainment. There not even real people.

I never said anything about "girly". Femininity does not imply weakness, women do not imply weakness, and being "girly" vs "manly" does not imply weakness. Unless you think women are weak creatures, in which that is a personal problem.

Actually...all sports are for pure entertainment. It does nothing to further society or themselves as individuals. So yes, they get paid to entertain, and they understand that. The sole purpose of sporting events is for the public's entertainment, it has been that way for ages. Plus, flag football is looking out for safety by reducing the amount of contact.

I fully support removing helmet to helmet hits from the game and leaning with the head towards a defenseless or otherwise unassuming player because that player is not willingly putting his "head" on the line. However, a RB who chooses to lower his shoulder head first into a defender is just that, a choice.

Last edited by d_stanton2lions on Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:21 am; edited 2 times in total

I think we should just stop tackling all together, and play Flag Football. FAR less injuries that way, and less injury potential.

Right...just the girly league now. Thry should just go no pads and have swords necause these players are just here for are entertainment. There not even real people.

I never said anything about "girly". Femininity does not imply weakness, woman do not imply weakness, and being "girly" vs "manly" does not imply weakness. Unless you think woman are weak creatures, in which that is a personal problem.

Actually...all sports are for pure entertainment. It does nothing to further society or themselves as individuals. So yes, they get paid to entertain, and they understand that. The sole purpose of sporting events is for the public's entertainment, it has been that way for ages. Plus, flag football is looking out for safety by reducing the amount of contact.

Wow_________________

vikingsvikings wrote:

I don't understand most of that, but I can tell it's probably inaccurate.

I think we should just stop tackling all together, and play Flag Football. FAR less injuries that way, and less injury potential.

Right...just the girly league now. Thry should just go no pads and have swords necause these players are just here for are entertainment. There not even real people.

I never said anything about "girly". Femininity does not imply weakness, women do not imply weakness, and being "girly" vs "manly" does not imply weakness. Unless you think women are weak creatures, in which that is a personal problem.

Actually...all sports are for pure entertainment. It does nothing to further society or themselves as individuals. So yes, they get paid to entertain, and they understand that. The sole purpose of sporting events is for the public's entertainment, it has been that way for ages. Plus, flag football is looking out for safety by reducing the amount of contact.

I fully support removing helmet to helmet hits from the game and leaning with the head towards a defenseless or otherwise unassuming player because that player is not willingly putting his "head" on the line. However, a RB who chooses to lower his shoulder head first into a defender is just that, a choice.

No peel back blocks? What are you supposed to do then, when the situation calls for it?

Just have to block up above the waist

When i read it, i was thinking it referred to any block that occurred the behind the play. Like when a WR is comes from the middle of the field to block some poor LB who's 15 yards behind the play and completely lays him out (ala the Hines Ward on Keith Rivers block).

Yeah, that's what I first thought as well. If It's just above the waist then that's reasonable. They are asking a lot from these players though, to have to do every play at full game speed.

A hit like this cost Lance Louis millions of dollars.

Yes, and guys get injured from clean tackles. You can't avoid injuries in the sport of football. If a guy is running and his head isn't on a swivel and a guy levels him with a clean block, then I see no problem with it. It'd be like the NBA calling a foul on the guy who sets a screen when the defender didn't see it coming and he gets knocked down._________________Sigbet with El Ramster; OKC wins title = I win. IND wins title = he wins.

I never said anything about "girly". Femininity does not imply weakness, women do not imply weakness, and being "girly" vs "manly" does not imply weakness. Unless you think women are weak creatures, in which that is a personal problem.

I never said anything about "girly". Femininity does not imply weakness, women do not imply weakness, and being "girly" vs "manly" does not imply weakness. Unless you think women are weak creatures, in which that is a personal problem.

Back to your Women's Studies class! Wow.

So you have a problem with Women's equality now?

Describing a sport with gender-specific terms is just as "wrong" as describing a sport with racial-specific terms.

I never said anything about "girly". Femininity does not imply weakness, women do not imply weakness, and being "girly" vs "manly" does not imply weakness. Unless you think women are weak creatures, in which that is a personal problem.

Back to your Women's Studies class! Wow.

So it's ok to use gender-type terms to speak down to an action or style but it's not ok to use racial-type terms in the same manner?

Definitely makes sense.
:
This game is getting too White(y) or Black(y) for me is not ok, but saying something is girly is ok? Awesome!

One cant get into that here
Two obviously was mocking your statements about how you think it should be just flag football but i guess you couldn't tell up there on yoyr high horse.
Three a female child would be less strong and tough physically then a grown man so its not a stereotype its fact_________________

vikingsvikings wrote:

I don't understand most of that, but I can tell it's probably inaccurate.

Yes, and guys get injured from clean tackles. You can't avoid injuries in the sport of football. If a guy is running and his head isn't on a swivel and a guy levels him with a clean block, then I see no problem with it. It'd be like the NBA calling a foul on the guy who sets a screen when the defender didn't see it coming and he gets knocked down.

I'd actually compare it to a flagrant or hard deliberate foul in the backcourt while the other 8 guys are playing the game in the front court.

Basically, the guy who is being blindsided isn't looking because he is 20 yards behind the play. Should he have his head on a swivel? Sure. But should the player that "blocks" him go out of his way to make a deliberately hard block that doesn't affect the outcome of the play? No.

Note: i have no problem with the block if the defender is chasing or gaining on the ball carrier. That block has to be made. I'm strictly talking about the player that is jogging behind so he can make it to the huddle for the next play. That block has no place in the game. It's just dirty._________________

I never said anything about "girly". Femininity does not imply weakness, women do not imply weakness, and being "girly" vs "manly" does not imply weakness. Unless you think women are weak creatures, in which that is a personal problem.

Back to your Women's Studies class! Wow.

So it's ok to use gender-type terms to speak down to an action or style but it's not ok to use racial-type terms in the same manner?

Definitely makes sense.
:
This game is getting too White(y) or Black(y) for me is not ok, but saying something is girly is ok? Awesome!

One cant get into that here
Two obviously was mocking your statements about how you think it should be just flag football but i guess you couldn't tell up there on yoyr high horse.
Three a female child would be less strong and tough physically then a grown man so its not a stereotype its fact

The lowering your head rule will apply equally to offensive and defensive players and while its drastic is probably a good change, players are just getting too big and too fast to continue with the current hitting style. To everyone whose arguing this will change the game-- duh, that's the point to make a less violent NFL. Football isn't baseball, it doesn't even mimic stasis, instead its in a constant state of flux-- you think this is the same game it was in the 90s, was the 90s the same game as in the 70s, the 70s vs. The 50s, etc the game has constantly shifted to a slightly less violent more pass friendly environment as players have become larger and faster in order to stay ahead of the curve and the situation the sport faced in the early 1900s-- reform forced by presidential decree in order to avoid being banned entirely. I guess i don't get why anyone thought the NFL of today was going to avoid the evolution it had undergone in every previous era.

In case anyone's skeptical of what I'm saying try watching. Old games on youtube-- not highlights, games.

I'm conflicted. I'm worried because I don't all the possible negative effects this could have on the game. Then again I'd be ecstatic if NFL players actually learned how to tackle again instead of just ramming into other player and letting physics handle the rest.

I'm conflicting. I'm worried because I don't all the possible negative effects this could have on the game. Then again I'd be ecstatic if NFL players actually learned how to tackle again instead of just ramming into other player and letting physics handle the rest.

thats really where the problem comes in. not a single person who tackles like they should really gets affected by any of the rule changes. square your shoulders and hit them at the waist....problem solved. same with this rule if you wanna truck stick someone square your shoulders and lead with your shoulder._________________

vikingsvikings wrote:

I don't understand most of that, but I can tell it's probably inaccurate.