AP: Goodell-NFL could ban 3-point stance

[Hitman#21]

I like Goodell, i just dont like this rule change.

[jpillian]

Also- ironically enough maybe reducing the amount of equipment the players wear might help. Switch back to leather helmets. I doubt you see guys flying into a tackle leading with their head. Watch old school football- it was more like rugby with takedowns and arm tackles.

....

I'd heard that take recently as well. Not something that would of occurred to me, but might make some sense.

[boobiemiles]

There is nothing worst than a manager that has no idea how to manage what he is managing. I played football, and assumed the risk I could get hurt. These players get paid to assume that risk. All occupations comes with risks. You can't make the game any safer. In MLB you assume the risk you won't get hit in the head by a fast ball at 90 mph. We can always ban tackling and name football, golf.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You can't make the game any safer.

That is clearly incorrect.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It seems like the NFL is diving into the shallow end head first on this issue.

There is a lot of conflicting research out there and there is still a lot of research being done. Sure, it's the commissioner's job to act in the best interest of the sport and its players. However, lets see some results from some of the other measures. Upgraded equipment, Fines/Penalties, etc.

I still think the #1 problem in the NFL is that players use their helmet as a weapon. How many times do we see a running back lower his head and run into a tackle? Just about every time they touch the ball.

I would rather see them get really tough on the obvious things like that as well as equipment deficiencies before they do stupid things like banning the 3 point stance.

Also- ironically enough maybe reducing the amount of equipment the players wear might help. Switch back to leather helmets. I doubt you see guys flying into a tackle leading with their head. Watch old school football- it was more like rugby with takedowns and arm tackles.

....

I really doubt that Goodell wants to ban the 3-point stance. Everyone forgets that he is a labor attorney by trade. Everything is a negotiation to him.

If you notice, he always stakes out these hard positions and then works his way back from then. This is why the NFLPA hired a lawyer to replace Upshaw.

Upshaw would hear "Ban the 3 point stance," panic, and give up 2 percent of revenue. And then take credit for "saving football."

Everything Goodell has said and done over the last two years is aimed to cause dissention in the ranks of the players union.

[blitzpackage]

First, these experts need to reevaluate these new helmet designs. Sure they may be safer for the wearer, but as mentioned earlier these things are egregiously used as weapons. The players think they are invincible, and that is the last thing you need when you combine all-world athleticism with copious amounts of machismo. They need to back off the "safety" of these helmets so the players will actually feel vulnerable. I know that sounds crazy....but there was no way in the world I was going to lead-in with my helmet full speed in highschool - the thing barely fit me correctly.

Second, Herr Goodell needs to implement standardized, weekly testing for HGH and any other performance enhancing drug. From what I remember there is no test for HGH at the moment.... but maybe someone can clarify for me. In 2008, Upshaw agreed to a urine test but not a blood test on behalf of the NFLPA(when a proper test is developed), but that should be unacceptable. If you are discussing removing the f'n 3-point stance, you need to put more pressure on the NFLPA to institute this without negotiation. Let's remove the 'ragers' who don't belong in the game anyway before we whittle away at the foundations of the sport.

I know some in this thread have dismissed others by saying 'experts' know that the 3-point is dangerous and who are we to question their expertise....but c'mon. I've been watching football for going on 20 years now and I can't recall once where a player sustained a head or neck injury over the length of a football as a result of the stance. It's always been the violent hits that occur outside the trenches or the fluke plays that were just bad luck. If you can't prevent those it's idiotic to even consider removing the very first thing coaches teach you in Pop Warner. Just my opinion.

[DGREENHULK]

1st this is FN CRAZY...

2nd if we go to 2 hand touch rules then Los is screwed he hasn't gotten 2 hands on anything in 3 yrs....

[skinzfan72]

My question is how do they plan on hikeing the ball? I can just imagine:doh:

[GhostofSparta]

My question is how do they plan on hikeing the ball? I can just imagine:doh:

The QB will start with the ball in shotgun (after all, the closer to the LOS, the more imminent danger he is in) and the Defense will have to count to 5-Mississippi before they can rush/blitz.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I know some in this thread have dismissed others by saying 'experts' know that the 3-point is dangerous and who are we to question their expertise....but c'mon. I've been watching football for going on 20 years now and I can't recall once where a player sustained a head or neck injury over the length of a football as a result of the stance. It's always been the violent hits that occur outside the trenches or the fluke plays that were just bad luck. If you can't prevent those it's idiotic to even consider removing the very first thing coaches teach you in Pop Warner. Just my opinion.

I'm not exactly sure that you'd be able to see on tv some sort of direct connection between the 3-point stance and a concussion, though...at least not like you would from seeing a violent hit. Whatever role the 3-point stance is supposed to play in increased concussions, I highly doubt it's something you'd be able to spot from the couch while drinking beers or anything lol ...

[Digger]

How about instead of tackling they have 'down by being stared at real hard'.

[John Lydon]

There is nothing worst than a manager that has no idea how to manage what he is managing. I played football, and assumed the risk I could get hurt. These players get paid to assume that risk. All occupations comes with risks. You can't make the game any safer. In MLB you assume the risk you won't get hit in the head by a fast ball at 90 mph. We can always ban tackling and name football, golf.

Exactly. This is why these guys make millions because they are willing to assume the risk. Most fans watch football for its violence. No one wants to see an arm tackle, drag to the ground stop on an openfield runner. If they keep trying to make the game safer with all these ridiculous and limiting rules, football will cease to be.

To whoever said that if football doesn't get safer there will be a shortage of players, I hope you were kidding. Ask any of your injured friends if they would do it all over again if given the chance. I bet they would. 3 surgeries as a result of playing and I would do it all again just to be able to put on a Skins uni, let alone get the multi - million paycheck that came along with it.

[OWUeagleMD]

Exactly. This is why these guys make millions because they are willing to assume the risk. Most fans watch football for its violence. No one wants to see an arm tackle, drag to the ground stop on an openfield runner. If they keep trying to make the game safer with all these ridiculous and limiting rules, football will cease to be.

To whoever said that if football doesn't get safer there will be a shortage of players, I hope you were kidding. Ask any of your injured friends if they would do it all over again if given the chance. I bet they would. 3 surgeries as a result of playing and I would do it all again just to be able to put on a Skins uni, let alone get the multi - million paycheck that came along with it.

Facts are facts. Less people are playing football now than 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years ago, and 50 years ago. The game is waning at the educational levels because people are becoming more aware of the safety issues it presents. This isn't speculation.

And people watching football for the violence isn't exactly a great argument for it to continue, even if the guys are making millions of dollars as a result. Many of the players aren't fully aware of the health concerns when they enter into the agreement, and even if they were, that doesn't absolve the viewing public from the responsibility of attempting to make their jobs safer. A concerned society has insisted upon making certain professions safer probably since the beginning of time, certainly since the industrial revolution.

There comes a time when you need to ask yourself if watching football is a moral activity. Will it take a player's dieing on the field for the football viewing public to recognize this reality? If so, it doesn't say much for our collective intelligence. No one disputes that cigarettes cause major health defects, despite the fact that they take years to take their toll.

[Perky72]

Boxing dying out has almost nothing to do with how injurious it is or any changes made to make it less injurious. Or any moral issues. It's due to too many PPVs vs. free TV/low-tier cable access, corrupt promoters, incompetent organizations, terrible heavy-weights, and the rise of MMA which is better on all those fronts.

Concussions and big hits aren't a result of lineman in 3 point stances.

Those hits come from tackles and open field hits, rarely do you see a Derrick Dockery come out of a 3 point stance and give Jay Ratliff a concussion.

You see it on freak plays like London Fletcher and Bryon Westbrook

I think the recent research storm is about sub-concussive injuries, not full concussions. The sub-concussive ones build up over time, and can even happen during practice, so could actually be mitigated per play even when lineman "lightly" collide. I'm pretty skeptical at how big a problem it is for older players, but don't mind tweaking rules/equipment IF it turns out to be a common issue. But something like changing the three-point stance now is a premature overreaction imo.

[bedlamVR]

You know' date=' in 1960, if someone had said, "We need to fix boxing. It's too dangerous," people would have said, "You're crazy! It's perfect. It's the second most popular sport in the country and is only going to continue growing."

Of course, no one really watches boxing now.

If football doesn't do something, there is a very real chance that within a generation, no one in their right mind will allow their kids to play football.

To be honest, there is NO chance I would let a child of mine play football right now. My best friend is probably going to be on disability within the next five years due to a back injury that is a direct result of high school football. I have another friend that walks with a slight limp due to high school football. And I know too many guys with bad backs because of it.

Participation in high school football is already down something like 20 percent versus a generation ago.

The NFL could be looking at a real labor supply problem within another generation - just like boxing.[/quote']

I understand what you are saying but as has been said the decline in boxing popularity is nothing to do with people not wanting to watch a barbaric sport but more to do with outside factors like the promotion of the sport and TV rights etc .

In fact over here in the UK one of the fastest growing participation sports is boxing as people see it is more important to get children into structured programs to express themselves in and keep fit than wrap them in bubble wrap and hope nothing ever happens .

I also understand what you say about injuries, but kids pick up injuries everywhere . I know people who cannot walk properly and will probably need further sugary because they played soccer, or rugby or fell off their bicycles . One of the guys I went to school with had his life destroyed by going to work and was involved in a terrible accident during a summer job just before he went to study Law at UNI .

That said if there are ways the sport can be made safer for the participants long term then it has to be looked into . I am skeptical about the importance of the three point stance but I am not a researcher on the subject .

We watch the sport because we enjoy the sport, the fact it is violent is coincidental . I used to be a big motorsports fan (F1) and I used really enjoy the racing . I knew people who thought a race with no big crashes was no fun but I used to enjoy the racing . Then the safety crew got onto the sports and made things safer (although I am not sure how refueling makes things safer) and now there is no racing on the track it is all in the pit stops and selecting the right tyres and car set up etc etc ..

Yes make the game safer if possible but changing how the game is played doesn't make it safer or better . Changes have to be good for the game long term .

[aREDSKIN]

This is not from the Onion?

Can we please ban Goodell?

Goodell has simply been abysmal for the NFL. I can't understand why the owners hired him in the first place.

[No_Pressure]

There are risks with everything. You wouldn't see NASCAR putting governors on their cars to only go 100 because a deadly accident is 90% more likely at a higher speed. You let people do what they will and hope that a catastrophic accident doesn't occur.

If someone decides to be an offensive lineman in high school or college they understand the risks involved in terms of injuries they could sustain. Hell even without injury there is a good chance your knees will deteriorate at a faster pace than a normal human being amongst other things. You know what you're getting into. The use of the 2 point stance isn't because today's linemen are afraid of collisions it's because more than half the time they are pass protecting and staying in the 2 point stance for a lot of running plays can help keep the defense off balance. Maybe your guy will assume its a pass and go flying up field on your outside and it's really a delayed shotgun draw play that gets broken for 25 yards.

Goodell is really trying everything he can to **** up the game. The only thing I've been really happy about since he got in was the change on the force out rule.

[MrJL]

I'd heard that take recently as well. Not something that would of occurred to me, but might make some sense.

Actually, players have cut down on the number of pads they wear these days. Increasing them might slow people down so the big hits are less big.

This whole eliminate the three point stance thing was mentioned in an issue of Time magazine a couple of weeks ago by the way.

[IronMike]

It is clear that the Commissioner has an obligation to make the game safer for the players. Concussions, and the long term health effects of multiple concussions, on ex-players is a legitimate concern. As others have said in this thread, the improved helmets have now become a weapon, and techniques have evolved to use this weapon as part of the game.

I only played in high school, but I can only imagine the violence in the current NFL game with the size and speed of current players. I also played club rugby in college. It did not take long to change the skills and techniques when you do not have a helmet! I recall two players who were an excellent high school running back and line-backer trying to play rugby: they put their heads down just before the collision. You could hear two heads meeting, it sounded like smashing two coconuts together. They both survived, both had concussions. They did not play like that again! Tackles are different in rugby when you have no pads (only a cup) to protect your body.

I would like to see medical studies of rugby players, and the number and severity of their concussions. I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but perhaps one step in addressing the problem may be to eliminate helmets.

:helmet: