11/21/24
December 01, 2013
SportsFilter: The Sunday Huddle:
A place to discuss the sports stories that aren't making news, share links that aren't quite front-page material, and diagram plays on your hand. Remember to count to five Mississippi before commenting in anger.
Why anyone would want to play defense in today's NFL is beyond me. I've seen some of the most ridiculous "personal foul" calls on quarterbacks and receivers, at 15 (often) crucial yards a pop. It's getting difficult to watch for me, so I can just imagine how coaches must feel.
posted by dyams at 05:08 PM on December 01, 2013
I can think of several million reasons why someone would want to play defense in today's NFL. You know, speaking as a hundredaire.
posted by NoMich at 09:05 PM on December 01, 2013
I have no idea what I just saw at the end of that Giants-WashingtonFootballTeam game.
Completion on second down... Refs do not measure, call first down, move the chains and roll the down marker to "1"... Washington throw the ball 20 yards downfield and incomplete and then the Refs change their mind on the outcome of the prior down and shout "4th down!"
I... what?
posted by Mr Bismarck at 11:29 PM on December 01, 2013
Yeah, that officiating team is going to get fiiired. Because if I'm any coach in the league, I'm not putting up with that shit.
posted by Etrigan at 11:30 PM on December 01, 2013
ESPN's show runners just wet their pants with excitement. Their shows for the next three days are written for them.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 11:34 PM on December 01, 2013
Why anyone would want to play defense in today's NFL is beyond me. I've seen some of the most ridiculous "personal foul" calls on quarterbacks and receivers, at 15 (often) crucial yards a pop. It's getting difficult to watch for me, so I can just imagine how coaches must feel
Amen.
It should be noted that defensive players, lineman, wide receivers, special teams players, and running backs get hurt too; surprisingly there are no exclusive rules to protect players in these positions.
Do we want to see Tom Brady / Drew Brees / Aaron Rodgers get hurt? Hell no. Do we want to see them win a game because of enforcement of a bogus rule? Even less so.
Think of hockey disallowing contact on centers. Or basketball on guards.
What a crock of shit.
posted by cixelsyd at 12:30 AM on December 02, 2013
It should be noted that defensive players, lineman, wide receivers, special teams players, and running backs get hurt too; surprisingly there are no exclusive rules to protect players in these positions.
90% of the time, the defensive players are not the ones initiating violent contact.
Ball carriers (either QB, RB, or WR) are the primary targets of every defender on the field who have been trained to hit them so hard that it will stop their forward progression (minimal result) or dislodge the ball from their grasp (optimal result). Given the large number of players on the field at any time, many of those hits are from an angle the ball carrier can not see.
Given the grievous injuries that can occur with these violent collisions, I have no problem with the NFL deciding to reduce the potential damage done by enforcing "legal" hits.
As well, it should be noted that some of those rules ARE to protect the defensive players. Not allowing a hit with the crown of your helmet protects the defensive players from injuring themselves.
Think of hockey disallowing contact on centers.
Actually, hockey (pretty much) disallows contact on goaltenders because of their vulnerable situation (limited visibility, immobility due to extra equipment). This wasn't always the case (I have an old video of hockey hits that shows Bob Probert absolutely running over a goalie behind his net, and no penalty was called), but the NHL changed their rules to provide more protection.
posted by grum@work at 08:44 AM on December 02, 2013
Also, linemen do have special rules to protect them. You can't engage a lineman above the waist and then have another player hit him below the waist. I don't think that's the case with any other position.
posted by grum@work at 08:51 AM on December 02, 2013
I'm glad the NFL is protecting quarterbacks and receivers. The NFL is an inferior product when your team's starting quarterback is hurt, aside from the occasional time a backup proves to have legitimate talent. And I don't want to see any more Darryl Stingleys.
posted by rcade at 09:24 AM on December 02, 2013
90% of the time, the defensive players are not the ones initiating violent contact.
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. You make it sound like 90% of plays are running backs lowering their heads and barreling into defenders.
posted by yerfatma at 10:16 AM on December 02, 2013
90% of the time, the defensive players are not the ones initiating violent contact.
I'm not sure I follow the logic here. You make it sound like 90% of plays are running backs lowering their heads and barreling into defenders.
Yup, I screwed up there. I put an extra "not" in there, the result of starting with "offensive players" and switching to "defensive players".
It should say:
"90% of the time, the defensive players are the ones initiating violent contact."
posted by grum@work at 12:28 PM on December 02, 2013
Mike Tomlin may get a 6-figure fine for stepping out on the field in last week's game, and the Steelers may lose a draft pick. In other news, Roethlisberger is still quarterback.