Limiting violence doesn’t limit NFL’s product
September 28, 2011
Professional football is a sport that
generates a lot of excitement during the weekend, and a lot of time
to kill during the week.
That’s why the discussion of player safety and
the balance of entertainment and protection comes up about three
times a year.
Radio show hosts need something to talk about
during the days that fall between games, and every once in a while
they waste everyone’s time by making an argument out of a
non-issue.
This past NFL off-season saw the
implementation of a new rule designed to protect players. Not all
players, mind you, but “defenseless players” specifically.
Surprisingly to me, many people have a problem
with this.
Apparently protecting defenseless players is a
very controversial subject.
The rule, in summary, prevents defensive
players from launching their bodies into players who have left the
ground to catch a ball.
Opponents of the rule fear will take the
“footballness” out of football. I use a fake word because people
take this position enjoy using the word “football” as a noun,
adjective, adverb and exclamation.
Case in point: Fox analyst and former player
John Lynch’s affinity for saying things like “That guy does nothing
but make football plays!” and “That sure was a helluvu football
play right there!”
Thanks for the insight, John.
Unfortunately, that type of rhetoric promotes
the ignorant “I am man, I like football, pain is good!” mentality
plaguing the fan base.
Football is a sport mostly supported by men
who don’t know how to deal with their aggression issues. But c’mon,
can’t you guys see how ridiculous your argument is?
“I don’t want to limit the chances of severe
injury – it takes away from the integrity of the game!” the idiot
radio caller said.
People like that are why I sometimes struggle
with being a fan.
I understand the appeal of being a “purist” (I
hate the designated hitter, for example), but I also think “purist”
can be a B.S. term applied to one’s self in order to mask fear of
change.
Punishing players that hit defenseless
receivers will not ruin the game of football. It may take a season
for everyone to adjust, leaving fans and players alike to deal with
the “growing pains” that come along with changing the norm.
Remember when a little girl attending a hockey
game died after she was hit in the head by a puck that went into
the stands? Only after the incident did the NHL decide to put up
nets around the vulnerable spots on the rink.
Do we want to wait to see the day a diminutive
receiver like DeSean Jackson gets hit by Troy Polamalu so severely
he won’t be able to walk again? Or worse?
For once, a professional sport league is being
proactive instead of waiting for something horrible to happen. And
what do they get for thinking progressively? They get vilified by
short-minded cavemen (and women, I don’t want to make it seem like
I don’t think women are dumb too) who are too ignorant to
rationalize the situation.
The safety of fellow human beings is more
important than the amount of ego he/she attached to his/her
favorite team.
I know hard hits are the thing highlight reels
are made of, but no sane human is going to say, “Real shame about
that career-ending neck injury, but man, did you see that hit!?
THAT WAS AWESOME!”
Actually, there probably will be people like
that. But I don’t have to like them.
And the NFL is right not to try to appeal to
them.
“font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px;”> You can follow him on Twitter:
“font-size: 12px; outline-style: initial; outline-width: 0px; outline-color: initial; font-weight: inherit; font-style: italic; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; padding: 0px; margin: 0px; border: 0px initial initial;”>
title=”@dantegeoffrey” href=”http://twitter.com/#!/DanteGeoffrey” target=”_blank”>@dantegeoffrey
