There Is No Solving Physicality in Football
We should still try, but we're gonna have to do it with clear eyes
Patrick Mahomes had the longest run of his career on Sunday. He went for 33 yards, and he would’ve only gone for 6 had he not been heading for the sideline before cutting back in for the majority of the gain. I can’t embed the play here, but I can link it, so watch it here if you need the refresher.
And before I go any further, let me just say — I don’t think this is an egregious abuse of the rules on Mahomes’ part, and I do see Kareem Hunt blocking on the play, as well as how clearly the one linebacker near him, Dee Winter, is out of position to make a play.1 None of this is helped by the camera angle either.
And yet! I persist with my point, because it speaks to the bigger debate around the sport. Say what you will about the nuances of the play, but there should be no doubt. Part of the reason Mahomes found an opening is because of the classic quarterback-heading-out-of-bounds run that we see every week.
Mahomes is not the fleetest of foot, but he’s a smart runner, and when he hits the open field, he’s typically looking for the first-down marker and the sideline at the same time. I’ve seen him do it countless times. You lose contain, he’ll take what you give him. Lots of guys do that, and he happens to be good at it. Fair play.
It’s not even unfair that that presents something of a decoy. The rules are tilted in his favor, but they do remain at his disposal. It wouldn’t make much sense for me to say Mahomes shouldn’t be aware of the defender’s expectations and use those to his advantage. That’s kind of his job. I don’t think he’s the responsible party here, even though he was the one to make the play.
This is more structural. The play is only unfair to the extent that the rules are unfair. Which they are! By design! And by sensible design, no less. They are explicitly intended to protect the league’s most valuable assets, which are its quarterbacks. There’s plenty of sense in that.
Years ago, the physical identity of defensive football, the Ravens-Steelers bloodbaths that I grew up with, lost a battle against two things: elevating the fan appeal of high-powered scoring offense, and protecting the health of the guys at the controls. Quarterbacks in specific were seen, I think appropriately, as players deserving of special treatment.
A lot of guys gripe at that. ‘You can barely touch the guy anymore!’ is a pretty common refrain, and I get that to an extent. Another popular one is ‘What is the defender supposed to do?’ and I don’t have a good answer for that. There are more dumb roughing the passer calls than anybody I know wants to see.
If you’re the NFL, though, you’ll take that trade. Fans can be mad that AJ Epenesa got called for that sack on Aaron Rodgers a few weeks ago, but the NFL will live with that, if for no other reason than it makes players think twice about really hitting him. Or any quarterback, actually. At the very least, it raises the likelihood that a 40-year-old quarterback like Rodgers can stay on the field.
And while Rodgers and the Jets have disappointed this year, the primetime schedule is a pretty clear look at how they value him as a draw. Were he to have been injured in the first game like last year, well, that just wouldn’t be a good outcome for the league.
It would be worse if it happened to Mahomes, or Josh Allen, or Lamar Jackson, or Jared Goff, I guess, at this point? What a world.
The NFL will never be able to eliminate the risk of injury in their still-very-physical sport, but whatever they can do to minimize it, within reason, then… they probably should. Sorry. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Fans haven’t stopped watching since the game ‘went soft’ or whatever (which I don’t think it has, or really can, for the record). I’m still not clear on what constitutes targeting, and the inconsistency in how that rule is applied is sure to remain frustrating, but I do think it should be called on the sorts of dangerous, head-to-head collisions that can leave lasting impacts on both players involved.
On the other hand, I’m just as liable as the next guy to roll my eyes at a clean hit that draws a penalty. I just think, if you’re going to lean to one direction or the other, you should take the approach that makes more sense for the sport’s long-term health, which also happens to make the most sense for that of its players.
Hip-drop tackles are a lively topic these days. They’re banned in rugby league too, for what it’s worth. And guess what I think? The heavy hand of officiating is always going to be imperfect, but I’ll take it over the season-ending injuries they often inflict. Would people rather that just continue unimpeded, so long as they don’t have to hear from a ref? I don’t get it.
On the one hand, this is impossible. You’re tackling somebody. Sometimes bad things are going to happen, whether you intended them to or not. You’re just trying to get them on the ground.
On the other hand, though, this isn’t that hard. Try and get the most dangerous plays out of the game, to the limited extent you can, and live with those you can’t.
Football will never eliminate serious head injuries. Things are better than they used to be, but you still have the aforementioned Josh Allen coming back in after pretty clearly getting knocked out cold on the field. I’m not the biggest Pat McAfee guy, as I’ve acknowledged, but I think he’s absolutely right here:
Tiktok failed to load.Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser
The key here is when McAfee says, “It was a close game.” If you’re wondering why no amount of protocols and evaluations seem able to keep a good player off the field in a big moment, that’s why.
The sport is not set up for safety to override winning, and it’s not set up to eliminate danger. It can do its best to minimize it, as we touched on above, but I don’t believe it’s possible for football to satisfyingly address it short of removing contact altogether. And we haven’t even talked about Tua Tagovailoa or Damar Hamlin or any of those guys yet.
I used to think the safety risks were more of an existential threat to the sport long-term, and it still could be with the passage of decades rather than years. There’s always the possibility that more and more parents will prevent their kids from playing the sport, dragging both talent and interest away from football over time.
What I’m starting to think a little more, though, is that football will be fine. It won’t be safe, because it can’t be, but the turn away from the NFL has yet to materialize, and I find myself wondering if it will.
Two things can be true. The sport can be unsafe, and it should do what it can to be safer. These are not ideas in conflict! We can do both. And that may be about all we can do, so hey. We might as well, no?
Also, This
🗽 Congrats to the New York Liberty on their first WNBA title, but man — the how felt a little suspect, didn’t it? I’m the last person to buy your usual “this game was rigged” theory, but it sure felt that way in Game 5. I can forgive the no-call on Breanna Stewart’s travel — that happens more than we’d all like it to, as I recall plays like Payton Pritchard’s half-courter in the Finals — but that just wasn’t a foul when she went to the basket. And the officials reviewed it! There was every chance to fix it! That happening, on top of the 25-to-8 free throw disparity, and then the commissioner wearing a dress with the NYC skyline, is tough to overlook.
Brutal.
🏀 Speaking of New York basketball, my favorite Week 1 overreaction is that Mikal Bridges’ new jumper might be as bad as it looks…? It can’t be, right? Right?
🏈 Fascinated by a take I saw from Todd McShay, who’s new to The Ringer as of this week. He predicts Shedeur Sanders could pull a John Elway if it looks like he’d go to Cleveland or Carolina. It’s been a while since we had one, if memory serves. Since Eli Manning, and some CBA changes since would make it a trickier operation today. But I’m newly interested in whether we could see some (characteristic) drama from the Sanders clan if this isn’t looking good for them come draft day. And by the look of the Browns and Panthers, uh… yeah. Agent up.
⚾ Alright, alright. Fine. I’ll make a World Series pick. Yankees in seven. I’m not sure the Dodgers staff can keep this up, but the lineup should keep them in it. Mainly, I’m rooting for baseball. Go baseball!
The Kenny Pickett fake slide, this is not. But damn, remember that?
I think I will dress as an NFL or WNBA official for Halloween and not leave the house for fear of being egged. Appreciation for your insight on the physicality and rugby pitch tidbit.
Go, baseball! Yep! Should be a lively series. I am jumping on the Dodgers bandwagon due to my deep (Boston) love for Dave Roberts and Mookie Betts. Those were the days . . .
And I agree on your WNBA perspective - I actually stopped watching the final game after quarter three because I was disappointed. And I am not a huge basketball fan. Bring on hockey and skiing and curling and all the icy goodness! Cheers MH - I love your writing, as always : )
I think it's important we note that the NFL does not care about safety. At least, they don't care about safety as much as they care about the bottom line. If they cared about the safety, then they would allow the much safer equipment that's been designed to actually be used (which they are currently not doing, because they will not replace the on-field equipment unless they can own the design). Once we accept that bottom line is first, and everything else comes afterwards, we can have a rational discussion about safety in the game.
It's a question of whether or not safety matters to the bottom line. Clearly, the NFL has made the determination that QBs and kickers are good for the bottom line, because rules are enforced differently for them. Otherwise, it depends on how big of a star you are. In some ways, this is a bad thing. The NFL is pretty much openly admitting that the league is rigged in favour of Mahomes, Allen, Jackson, and all the other star QBs. Is this inherently a bad thing?
That's the question. Isn't it?
I personally don't like it, because the NFL's bottom line is not my bottom line. I don't have to care what's good for their pocketbooks. I have to care what's good for my entertainment, and I'm not sure I'm more entertained by the current slanted rule enforcement. You're correct Michael that this is designed to be an unfair game. As long as I can acknowledge that the league is in favour of some players more than others, I can continue being a fan of this unfair game, but I know some people who won't like it.
Your perspective on this issue depends what you think the draw of NFL football is. I don't think it's violence. I think it's menace. Two groups of humans that don't like each other, and are willing to hurt each other to accomplish their goal. Menace can be achieved without violence (as is often done in auto racing, for example), so I don't think the level of physicality in the game is particularly important at all, as long as the menace remains. The threat of violence is more meaningful than the violence.
As long as there remains the possibility of a QB to get injured (and cases like Anthony Richardson and Tua Tagovailoa seem to show it still does) then the league satisfies my menace requirement. If they (in literal terms) make it illegal to touch a QB, then I would no longer watch, but the way things are now I think it's mostly okay.
I still think they ought to ban the fake slide for QBs though. That feels unfair. Josh Allen is really bad for it.