Started By
Message
re: Will mUSChamp has a fix for these excessive targeting calls ...
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:30 pm to randomways
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:30 pm to randomways
quote:
In 10-15 years, people aren't going to give the issue a second thought as a new generation of players grows up with their playing style informed by the targeting rules from the start. It's going to be rough for a while longer, but the rules will have their intended effect eventually.
This. The transition years will continue to be difficult, but at least we are seeing officials correctly walk back targeting calls in some instances. Early on, it seemed like if there was any remote helmet to helmet they would say insufficient evidence to overturn... I think defining "forceable" and "defenseless" has helped, and the rule will continue to get reworked/tweaked.
With that said, if Muschamp's idea had been the first attempt at a solution, I think we'd already be in a better place.
0
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:31 pm to lsufball19
quote:
In 10-15 years, I think more kids will be playing soccer and baseball. Youth participation in football has already declined a lot recently. I expect that trend to continue.
Possibly (though I have my doubts about baseball, whose popularity has been declining for decades) but what's your definition of youth? Are high school football teams hurting for participation?
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:33 pm to lsufball19
quote:
Honestly, this is what I don't even understand anymore. The NFL, to my understanding, was sued large in part because they had conducted research as to the effects of head trauma and intentionally hid that information from the players. Now that everyone who hasn't been living under a rock is fully aware of the risks involved and dangers of CTE, there should be no basis to sue if you were provided notice of all the potential dangers and decided to take that risk anyways. Let's take baseball, for instance. A pitcher throws a pitch that hits someone in the face, causing serious injury and head trauma. Player was wearing a helmet and the pitcher didn't throw at the batter intentionally. Should the pitcher be ejected for an act that wasn't intentional? Does the batter sue major league baseball? No, it's just an unfortunate reality of the sport in certain situations. Football is a violent sport. They wear pads and helmets for a reason. The people who play these sports, in the year 2018, are well aware of all the inherent health risks involved. If they still choose to partake, that's on them. I realize we live in a litigious society, but if I'm a judge and a football player sues with all the knowledge we have know about brain injuries, I'm not even entertaining awarding him damages.
I'm not saying you're wrong, because I do agree with you that the rules will never be brought backwards, but I also think the logic by the decision makers is flawed.
But people who are currently suing are suing for things that happened in the past, not 2018. If people are still suing and winning large judgments in 2028, that would be a more notable point.
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:34 pm to scrooster
Brilliant
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:35 pm to randomways
quote:
Possibly (though I have my doubts about baseball, whose popularity has been declining for decades) but what's your definition of youth? Are high school football teams hurting for participation?
I recall reading an article awhile back and it pertained to high school football
ETA: Here's on article that discusses it
LINK
Looks like the nunbers are even worse for ages 6-12
quote:
Participation nationally among kids ages 6-12 has fallen by nearly 30 percent between 2008 and 2016, according to data from the Sports and Fitness Industry Association.
LINK
This post was edited on 9/18/18 at 1:40 pm
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:40 pm to lsufball19
quote:
I recall reading an article awhile back and it pertained to high school football
ETA: Here's on article that discusses it
LINK
Interesting article. The downslide isn't dramatic but significant. I wonder how much is due to the parents rather than the kids.
I've always believed that football would eventually go away (but not in the next 10-15 years) simply because the more advanced the society gets, the less tolerant it is of violence. But there's always going to be an instinct toward violence in people, and there's no other American sport that really addresses this instinct, so the pushback against dropping football will continue a lot longer than we might expect.
Edit: I should have said "American team sport" because boxing and wrestling and that MMA thing are obviously violent.
This post was edited on 9/18/18 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:42 pm to randomways
quote:
Interesting article. The downslide isn't dramatic but significant. I wonder how much is due to the parents rather than the kids.
see my edit and the additional article. Participation is much more significant for kids ages 6-12. And of course it's the parents, but parents have to sign off on their kids playing football. If they don't allow it, they won't play.
quote:
I've always believed that football would eventually go away (but not in the next 10-15 years) simply because the more advanced the society gets, the less tolerant it is of violence. But there's always going to be an instinct toward violence in people, and there's no other American sport that really addresses this instinct, so the pushback against dropping football will continue a lot longer than we might expect.
agreed. funny thing is, soccer has every bit as much risk for CTE, much like boxing with repetition of lighter blows to the head, but people rarely talk about it because it isn't a violent sport by nature.
This post was edited on 9/18/18 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:46 pm to lsufball19
quote:
Looks like the nunbers are even worse for ages 6-12
quote:
Participation nationally among kids ages 6-12 has fallen by nearly 30 percent between 2008 and 2016, according to data from the Sports and Fitness Industry Association.
LINK
Yeah, that's a bit uglier. Seems like a mixed bag to me. A drop in participation between the ages of 6-12 would cause a drop in kids playing in high school. On the other hand, 6-12 year olds don't have the best judgment, so it might not be all bad that they're not playing football. I have two nephews (11 and 12) who play and they've had some unpleasant incidents on those fields from kids doing stupid things.
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:48 pm to randomways
I wonder if those numbers include flag football. I know a lot of my buddies are only allowing their kids to play flag football when they're that young and won't let them play contact football until middle school. Flag football seemingly has become pretty popular in my area, so who knows.
This post was edited on 9/18/18 at 1:50 pm
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:52 pm to lsufball19
quote:
I think more kids will be playing soccer
This is how you know America has the ghey. Bad.
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:55 pm to lsufball19
quote:
I wonder if those numbers include flag football. I know a lot of my buddies are only allowing their kids to play flag football when they're that young and won't let them play contact football until middle school. Flag football seemingly has become pretty popular in my area, so who knows.
Hard to say. The way the quote is set up in the paragraph after the one telling us that participation has declined in the 6-12 year old group seems to imply that the distinction is being made between tackle and flag, but since the person being quoted didn't use the statistic herself, they could be unrelated.
Posted on 9/18/18 at 1:55 pm to Pavoloco83
quote:
This is how you know America has the ghey. Bad.
huh?
Posted on 9/18/18 at 2:28 pm to I Bleed Garnet
Meaning he views soccer as a ghey sport.
Posted on 9/18/18 at 2:29 pm to scrooster
quote:
Meaning he views soccer as a ghey sport.
Rhetorical question.
Didn’t know that sports could be ghey.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News