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.
Right you are. Safety for safety's sake is not the NFL's priority. It's safety for the sake of the product. That is indeed what they really care about, and that's only natural I think. It's a business, and the success of the business comes first. They know they can't get away with a total disregard for their employees, but they'll only go as far as they think they need to -- or, given the collective bargaining framework, what the players successfully negotiate.
I tend to think of the evolution of safety rules like the evolution of equipment. For players and fans at the time, they’re often seen as something that renders the game softer, but in retrospect, they’re perfectly normal and justified. My guess is that some guys back in the 40s or 50s, when they were shown hard shell helmets, were probably like “What’s wrong with leather? We’re not a bunch of sissies over here!” Meanwhile, in hindsight, it wasn’t just a perfectly necessary move, but the essence of the game was never truly affected either.
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 : )
Cheers Bev! Dodgers bandwagon is working out so far. When does the Dean Low Down hit the ol 'Stack?
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.
Right you are. Safety for safety's sake is not the NFL's priority. It's safety for the sake of the product. That is indeed what they really care about, and that's only natural I think. It's a business, and the success of the business comes first. They know they can't get away with a total disregard for their employees, but they'll only go as far as they think they need to -- or, given the collective bargaining framework, what the players successfully negotiate.
I tend to think of the evolution of safety rules like the evolution of equipment. For players and fans at the time, they’re often seen as something that renders the game softer, but in retrospect, they’re perfectly normal and justified. My guess is that some guys back in the 40s or 50s, when they were shown hard shell helmets, were probably like “What’s wrong with leather? We’re not a bunch of sissies over here!” Meanwhile, in hindsight, it wasn’t just a perfectly necessary move, but the essence of the game was never truly affected either.
Love this point, and totally agreed. Change is hard! We're not good at it. But it's not going anywhere.