Player safety but not for the Steelers

In past four games with the Ravens 2 (Heath and Hines) of our players have been knocked out of the game with helmet to helmet hits and Ben's nose was broke with a punch to the face from Ngata. However not one of these fouls by the Ratbirds have been penalized.
I think it was Chris Carr who went helmet to helmet on a pretty vicious hit on Miller knocking him out with no flag. Earlier in that game Ngata's first went right into Ben's facemask breaking his nose and knocking him out a few plays, no flag. And then Sunday night Ray Lewis ends Hines night earlier with an obvious helmet to helmet hit no flag!!!!
Catching a pattern?? Fines the next week don't matter, Flags do!!! Why is every other team protected by the threat of flags but not the Steelers??? Come on Roger this is way beyond rediculous!

 

well said my friend...but I am afraid you are preaching to the choir on this one

 

Yeah I know...we all know lol. I just wanted to get it there instead of complaining to my non- steeler friends who say oh well

 

I really wish there was something we could actually do about it. I loath ole rog like nothing else.

 

I had a buddy watching a game with me and my dad not long ago and he brought up a great idea about the commish or certainly lack thereof in our case should have terms like the President and other politicians. I say let the players vote on ol' Rog and his possible opponents every four years. With our great disdain for the way he and the crooked officials treat us on a daily basis I'm sure we could have him ousted after one term. Mike Wilbon of PTI had a great point about Goddell when he said quit trying to fine everybody in a uniform and go be commissioner of the PGA or some non-contact league. I'm sure if it ever came to a term situation other than Brady and the other golden boys Roger G. wouldn't have a chance to keep his throne. I think a fomer player and or coach with years of experience and knowledge of the game would be a perfect choice. Don't get me wrong I'm not condoning the players turning themselves into missiles everytime they make a tackle and looking to turn someone's lights out but some of the basis textbook tackles that are made and are flagged and fined for in today's game is both sickening and takes alot of the passion and fire out of the game. Certainly would keep the league interesting and more exciting. What are some opinions out there?

 

I'm all for rules that protect players. Rules that eliminate unnecessary risk to players' health. But note the word "unnecessary."

Football is a violent sport. The players like it that way. The fans like it that way. The coaches like it that way. But it seems that the NFL is attempting to legislate out a great portion of the violence from the game of football. In my opinion, this has as much, if not more, to do with liability issues (I don't think it is a coincidence that the new rules were implemented immediately following law suits against the NFL by players who sustained head injuries while playing football in the league...this combined with the concern of providing health care costs for retired players) than with a genuine concern for player safety. So, on the one hand, we have the desire of current players, fans, and coaches to maintain the sport they love as it has been for many years and, on the other, we have a league that is wanting to protect itself financially.

So how do we eliminate the unnecessary but maintain the necessary violence in the game of football we all love?

I'm not sure what the solution is, but, whatever it is, it doesn't include the current rules. As Ray Lewis was recently said, "You can't stop playing defense the way defense has always been created to play. When the receiver has the ball, your job is to disengage him from the ball." If indeed Ray is right, and I think he is, the hits that have the greatest potential to disengage a receiver from the ball will be hits to the upper body. Now does this mean that hits to the head are necessary or wanted by players, fans, or coaches? Absolutely not. However, the language of the rules and the implementation of the rules are such that any hit on a defenseless receiver above the waist and below the neck have a very high probability of being flagged and fined. That is legislation that takes too much away from the objective of defenses and, ultimately, from the game we have all come to enjoy. And, of course, it also encourages players to employ tactics that might not be illegal by the rules of the game but violate a shared code of honor amongst players. As Ryan Clark recently said, "So it's going to turn into if you're going to fine me $40,000, I might as well put him to sleep for real or I might as well blow his knee out." Now I personally don't think Ryan has any intention of going out and trying to put anyone to "sleep," but his point is clear: the rules are taking away the options for defensive players that are attempting to play winning football. As he also said, "'Am I supposed to let him catch it and then wait for him and hug him?' Should I throw a pillow at him? Should I blow a whistle? `Hey look, I'm about to tackle you.' No, that's not football.'' I couldn't agree more.

 

Well here is another point,we get more calls and flags our way then at home.

 

My response to the new rules--I watch less football and spend less money on it. I used to have NFL ticket and watch every game Thursday-Monday, go to several Steeler's home games a year/ playoffs/Superbowl and maybe an away game. Now I watch the Steeler game at home and that's it. It's not as though I'm trying to make a grand statement by boycotting the NFL, the product as a whole is less appealing than previous years so I'm less interested.

 

Football is a violent game played by violent people.
The players knew this going in, they signed on the dotted line.
They know they can be seriously hurt at any time. Thats why they get paid so much money.

 

I don't think that's quite right. It's not like the more violent sports get paid more money. Rugby Union was amateur until the 1990's. Soccer and baseball players get paid huge amounts, and while there are cases of horrific injuries, they're not exactly the most "contact" of sports.

Football players get paid so much money because the sport is a mass-income generating entertainment product that they are part of. As such, it's only sensible that you try and look after your players.

BUT I'm still furious about the fines. Think of it this way:
Concussions and brain injuries are something that the NFL does have to recognise and adapt to (in the same way that they tried to help players from losing all their money once they retired).
But do you "fix" the problems of player safety by fining players for hits in a seemingly arbitrary way? No. Clearly, that just leaves too much room for inconsistency, covering over bad/missed calls, and targetting individual players (like Clark or Harrison) which, while it's obviously meant to "make an example", instead affects the competitiveness of the game as a whole.
As Hines said, if they really cared about player safety, they would make them play without helmets. The issue with all of these fines is that it's trying to appease things which simply aren't compatible.

 

Think of it as a penalty system at your own place of work. What if there were a vague rule that everyone had to follow, but the following week there were some close calls that they docked your check for? Did you learn anything or was the problem fixed?

 

The issue is what the fines are for. This is where it's getting confused, I think. For example, is it to improve player safety? As Clark has said, this doesn't seem to make sense. Improving the viewer's experience? Football is a contact sport, we want to see contact. Rectifying bad calls on the day? Suggests a problem with the imposition of the rules more than anything else. It strikes me that the fines are trying to satisfy a lot of separate issues, and in doing so aren't actually addressing any of them.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one. You said exactly what I've been thinking lately.