PDA

View Full Version : Could three-point stance be outlawed to further protect players?


CloakNNNdagger
02-07-2010, 04:15 PM
The Associate Press release (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/thehuddle/post/2010/02/could-three-point-stance-be-outlawed-to-further-protect-players/1):

The NFL continues to explore ways to protect its players, particularly when it comes to head injuries. But could the league take matters too far and possibly dilute the essence of the game?

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said on CBS' Face the Nation on the morning before Super Bowl XLIV that the three-point stance could even be on the endangered list as the league looks for ways to minimize the impact of violent collisions in the trenches, long a byproduct of the game.

"As you'll see tonight, you'll see a lot of players that never get down in a three-point stance," Goodell said of the possibility of a rules change. "So it's possible that would happen."

With the exception of short-yardage situations, players began eschewing the four-point stance years ago, and many offensive linemen don't put their hands on the ground, particularly in passing downs. With an increased emphasis on shifting fronts and zone blitzes, even defensive linemen are standing up with more frequency.

Goodell is proud of the league's evolving stance on protecting players, the NFL's most recognizable, yet often most fragile assets.

"We have changed the game and we've changed the culture," he said. "And I think the rules changes that we've made over the last several years have made the game safer for our players.

"We need to continue to find new ways. There are techniques that are in the game that we think can lead to more serious injuries, whether they're head injuries, the high hits to the head. We've done a lot of changes to defenseless receivers to make sure that the players who are in that position are not subject to hits that can cause serious injury."

Texan4Ever
02-07-2010, 05:21 PM
I understand why the league would be concerned about head injuries but a possible banning of the three-point stance is absurd. Before the NFL takes such a step it should consult players and coaches, both former and current, and weigh there opinions in before making a final decsion.

b0ng
02-08-2010, 09:32 AM
That is literally the worst thing. Gooddell is a talk-radio commissioner.

Double Barrel
02-08-2010, 03:07 PM
Why not just give them flags and quit tackling altogether?

CloakNNNdagger
02-08-2010, 08:54 PM
An interesting point of view, as well as some interesting points of past history: As is, football is far too dangerous to play (http://www.nj.com/sports/njsports/index.ssf/2010/02/as_is_football_is_far_too_dang.html)

gary
02-08-2010, 09:09 PM
I am afraid of the Juice being taken out of football so to speak simply because of the high injury risk and it's slowly starting to happen. I just hope it does not go too far and take the joy out of the game.

hot pickle
02-08-2010, 09:50 PM
dana white should be the commish lol. this is getting ridiculous... football will disappear in 10 years if it keeps going the way it is now

HOU-TEX
02-09-2010, 09:35 AM
I understand why the league would be concerned about head injuries but a possible banning of the three-point stance is absurd. Before the NFL takes such a step it should consult players and coaches, both former and current, and weigh there opinions in before making a final decsion.

Agreed! I played in the trenches for many years as a DE and never sustained a concussion along the line. The few concussions I had were always in the open field or during "suicide" type drills. However, I only played up until a couple years in College, so I reckon the speed and power in NFL trenches are massive comparatively speaking. But still??

gary
02-09-2010, 06:06 PM
Here I go. Helmets and pads should be improved and I think it will be. But to fully take away the risk of head injury in a sport like football is impossible. The facts are there to prove this you may make things better of course. Having a doctor on sight but contact is what makes football the sport we all love and enjoy today. Almost every sport involves a bit of contact it's just the truth that is why I love sports. The best make it and the worst do not. Not just in sports but through out life there is a chance of injury or even death it's just the way it goes but the risk is very high in football due to the amount of impact involved it's not a safe sport by any means. That is why I do not mind a player wanting the most money the owner of the team will pay them simply because on any given play that just might be the end of their playing career you never know. Nothing on this Earth is ever 100 percent for certain but better gear and ways off the field in order to help improve the care is what should be done not take out plays from the game IMO. The bottom line is there are steps to take to better the care without making the game softer by taking the water out of it so to speak. I am for helping former players and players now just not this way.

CloakNNNdagger
02-09-2010, 09:57 PM
WELCOME TO THE NFL!

http://www.newyorker.com/images/2009/10/19/p465/091019_r18926a_p465.jpg

steelbtexan
02-09-2010, 10:45 PM
The NFL has already gone to far.

They should just play flg football and the QB's should wear dresses.

The Steel Curtian and old Raider/Cowboy defenses couldn't play in the NFL today.

mexican_texan
02-09-2010, 11:24 PM
I support Goodell's stand on safety. I don't like seeing this:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/pt/photos/2008/08/080822_NS_22cowlede10.jpg

http://i.usatoday.net/Wires2Web/20080828/2206259011_Buccaneers_Texans_Footballx.jpg

bah007
02-10-2010, 08:19 AM
I support Goodell's stand on safety. I don't like seeing this:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/pt/photos/2008/08/080822_NS_22cowlede10.jpg

http://i.usatoday.net/Wires2Web/20080828/2206259011_Buccaneers_Texans_Footballx.jpg

I've never seen a lineman get carted off the field with a head/neck injury because he got drilled from a three point stance.

This is one of those ideas where I like their intentions, but the idea is just flat out stupid.

TimeKiller
02-11-2010, 09:47 AM
I get the whole safety first thing but at some point football gets to be football, right?

Football = Violence
Violence = Ratings

CloakNNNdagger
02-20-2010, 01:56 PM
Concussions are definitely a concern. But what about enforcing the rules already in place and making appropriate "adjustments" rather than wholesale additions of rules (some of which make no real sense whatsoever) which will morph the game of NFL football as we know it to an unrecognizeable level?

NFL considers rules changes to combat concussions (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902973.html?referrer=emailarticle)

Hervoyel
02-20-2010, 08:43 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how taking the three point stance out is going to make these collisions any less intense. I think these men are just as capable of slamming into one another from an upright starting point as they are from being in a three point stance and since the name of the game is getting low and under the pads of your opponent I suspect we'd see even more injury issues as three hundred pound men try to go from an upright stance to a lower angle while charging forward into each other.

It just seems poorly thought out to me.

CloakNNNdagger
02-20-2010, 09:57 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how taking the three point stance out is going to make these collisions any less intense. I think these men are just as capable of slamming into one another from an upright starting point as they are from being in a three point stance and since the name of the game is getting low and under the pads of your opponent I suspect we'd see even more injury issues as three hundred pound men try to go from an upright stance to a lower angle while charging forward into each other.

It just seems poorly thought out to me.

While the NFL has concentrated more and more on protective and sophisticated body gear in general, and head gear specifically, I am reminded of something.

In 2008, when the NFL brought up changes for decreasing violent hits with the helmet, Mike Ditka made some comments (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08297/922140-233.stm) that at 1st may have seemed a little out there, but when one stops and thinks about it...............

Ditka said he understands why the NFL is taking a strong stance in protecting its multi-million dollar athletes, but he said it can't be done at the expense of changing the essence of the game.

"Football is a tough game," Ditka said. "You hate to see anyone get hurt whether it was 50 years ago or now. I know what the commissioner is trying to do, but I don't know if taking legal hits out of the game is going to make it any different."

Ditka said the only way to change the violent nature of the game would be by changing the equipment.

"I said a long time ago if you want to change the game take the mask off the helmet," he said. "It will change the game a lot. If you want to change the game and get it back to where people aren't striking with the head and using the head as a weapon, take the mask off the helmet.

"A lot of pretty boys aren't going to stick their face in there. If you're going to take hitting out of football, you might as well just call it soccer. That's what I believe. A lot of people will be disappointed I said that, but football is what it is. [Vince] Lombardi said it a long time ago. Football is not a contact game. Dancing is a contact game. Football is a collision sport."


Just a couple of months ago, Troy Aikman took it one step forward.


Aikman suggests getting rid of helmets (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/22/aikman-suggests-getting-rid-of-helmets/)

In the new issue of Sporting News, Hall of Fame quarterback Troy Aikman addresses the NFL's new sensitivity to head injuries.

And Aikman speaks from a position of authority; he admits that he suffered seven or eight concussions during 12 NFL seasons.

But he's concerned that the league's sudden interest in the issue could have unintended consequences. "My belief is that when you decide to play football -- just like those who choose to be firemen or policemen -- you are also accepting the inherent risks involved with the profession," Aikman writes. "You may break some bones. You may tear up your knee. And you may suffer head injuries."

We've often taken it a step farther. In America, 18-year-old men and women may choose to join the military. And they do so accepting the risk that they may die.

So why it is OK for kids barely out of high school to put their lives on the line and, suddenly, it's not OK for grown men making in some instances more than $10 million per year to suffer concussions?

We're not suggesting that the league should be reckless with the health of its players. But we agree with Aikman's concern that, at some point, the game could change -- both in the NFL and at lower levels of the sport.

So Aikman has suggested a radical possibility. Dump the helmets.

"For years," he writes, "I've said the best way to eliminate head injuries is to take away helmets. Players would be a lot less willing to jump in and stick their heads in if their noggins weren't protected.

"I used to say that tongue-in-cheek. But I'm starting to believe that's a pretty good idea."

Though we're not prepared to agree with him on that point, we definitely believe that removing the risk from football is roughly as nearly as unrealistic as removing the bullets from war.

CloakNNNdagger
02-21-2010, 09:45 AM
The NFL is stating that we will have some "definitive" results on the safety testing rankings of helmet manufacturers. This piece offers some interesting "safety" history on the NFL helmet. It gives significant reason, however, to view the upcoming results with a jaded eye. Is the fox enjoying the hen house?

NFL's helmet testing scrutinized
(http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=4908479&type=story)

rmartin65
02-21-2010, 01:27 PM
I agree with getting rid of helmets. I played hockey, and I used to hit people facemask to facemask. It was awesome. Guys were not going forward when I hit them.