New NFL Rules - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Sports, Hobbies and all things unrelated to Politics.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

User avatar
By 4cal
#14900813
One thing I think they got wrong (or at least didn't address) is that it seems to me that a lot of the concussions on receivers takes place inbetween the hash marks. This is where they run a post or crossing pattern to the middle of the field and often times meet a defender coming in an opposite direction. It causes a whiplash effect on the heads and necks of the receivers.

Image

Image

Image

I think what they may need to do is prevent these safeties from "playing centerfield" and just teeing off on the receivers. One way you can do that is by eliminating the zone defenses and forcing tight coverage for receivers who line up outside the tackles. Or have the Safeties start no more than 15 yards behind the LOS so there is less a likelihood of this big run up before they plow into the receiver.

Its an inherently dangerous game and you can't rule out all of the violence but this seems like an easy fix.
User avatar
By Ter
#14900856
Yes, and start explaining from the beginning.]
Why do they call it football when they play mainly with their hands ?
Eh ? Eh ?
#14900869
4cal wrote:I think what they may need to do is prevent these safeties from "playing centerfield" and just teeing off on the receivers. One way you can do that is by eliminating the zone defenses and forcing tight coverage for receivers who line up outside the tackles.

I have no idea how you could make that into a rule, and I suspect you don't either.

Or have the Safeties start no more than 15 yards behind the LOS so there is less a likelihood of this big run up before they plow into the receiver.

At least that's a rule about where people are on the field, rather than about tactics. But it means telling a defense to leave a huge hole in the ground they're defending. The game might turn into a race between receivers and safeties/cornerbacks to get into that 'free space' - with the defense at a big disadvantage since they're always retreating, looking over their shoulders, without knowing where the quarterback intends to throw.
User avatar
By 4cal
#14900884
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:I have no idea how you could make that into a rule, and I suspect you don't either.

They did it in the NBA (it was called an illegal defense). Simply arrange it to where there has to be someone withing 5-10 yards of the line of scrimmage if a player is lined up on the LOS.

If you have an empty backfield, you will have 5 receivers on the line. The Defense must have 5 players covering them; The safety has to be within the LOS but outside the hash marks.

They have illegal formation calls all the time on offense; this would just be an illegal formation call for defense.

Prosthetic Conscience wrote:At least that's a rule about where people are on the field, rather than about tactics. But it means telling a defense to leave a huge hole in the ground they're defending. The game might turn into a race between receivers and safeties/corner backs to get into that 'free space' - with the defense at a big disadvantage since they're always retreating, looking over their shoulders, without knowing where the quarterback intends to throw.


Perhaps I didn't explain it fully. Having a head hunter waiting to tax the guy across the middle 25 yards off the ball (or 2 of them in a 2 deep zone) is not healthy for either him or the receiver. Limiting him to 10-15 yards prevents the ramp up of speed.

So either have them between the hashmarks but closer to the line or outside the hash marks.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14900885
I have a few ideas that will make the game much better:
-No pads
-No forward passes
-Players should have to "touch down" the ball to score a touchdown
-No huddles between plays
-The same team stays on the pitch for the whole game barring substitutions
-Kicker is not its own position
-Change from four 15-minute quarters to two 40-minute halves
-No timeouts.

:excited:
User avatar
By 4cal
#14901038
Heisenberg wrote:I have a few ideas that will make the game much better:
-No pads
-No forward passes
-Players should have to "touch down" the ball to score a touchdown
-No huddles between plays
-The same team stays on the pitch for the whole game barring substitutions
-Kicker is not its own position
-Change from four 15-minute quarters to two 40-minute halves
-No timeouts.

:excited:

Sounds like rugby
#14901244
Heisenberg wrote:I have a few ideas that will make the game much better:
-No pads
-No forward passes
-Players should have to "touch down" the ball to score a touchdown
-No huddles between plays
-The same team stays on the pitch for the whole game barring substitutions
-Kicker is not its own position
-Change from four 15-minute quarters to two 40-minute halves
-No timeouts.


:lol:
User avatar
By blackjack21
#14901265
I think they should combine football with boxing. Eliminate helmets and give them boxing gloves. Then they can punch each other in the head and try to knock each other unconscious, because there is no concussion controversy in boxing.
#14901269
blackjack21 wrote:I think they should combine football with boxing. Eliminate helmets and give them boxing gloves. Then they can punch each other in the head and try to knock each other unconscious, because there is no concussion controversy in boxing.


Image
#14901270
As a proud Steelers fan, let me just remind the audience that the reason the NFL had to make the pass interference rule (which is also fucking stupid) is because of our own badass Mel Blount:



User avatar
By blackjack21
#14901393
Victorious Spolia wrote:As a proud Steelers fan, let me just remind the audience that the reason the NFL had to make the pass interference rule (which is also fucking stupid) is because of our own badass Mel Blount:

Yep. That was back when the baddest teams in the NFL were the Pittsburg Steelers and the Oakland Raiders. It was a great rivalry too.

The Hayes rule saw the end of stickem in the NFL, because Lester "the Molester" Hayes used to coat his whole uniform in pine tar. The hit on a defenseless receiver was instituted due to Jack "the Assassin" Tatum's hit on Daryl Stingley--leaving him a quadriplegic. Then, there was the Stabler rule where Stabler was getting sacked and fumbled forward, and Pete Banazack tried to recover the ball, but fumbled it and Dave Casper kicked it into the end zone and fell on it for a touchdown.

They've been taking the fun out of football ever since.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14901487
Just dropped in to say I was surprised I had zero interest in this thread. I was a diehard Colts fan for 60 years and a fantasy football enthusiast. The recent politicalization of football has resulted in it becoming totally meaningless for me. I have no problem with those who still enjoy it, I just don’t understand how you can.
User avatar
By 4cal
#14902022
One Degree wrote:Just dropped in to say I was surprised I had zero interest in this thread. I was a diehard Colts fan for 60 years and a fantasy football enthusiast. The recent politicalization of football has resulted in it becoming totally meaningless for me. I have no problem with those who still enjoy it, I just don’t understand how you can.



If you try you can find the political aspect of everything (whether it is there or not). I don’t understand why you let politics dictate what you do or enjoy. Like I’m a liberal and therefore, I’m not supposed to eat at Chik-fil-a since their owners are pro-choice. I enjoy Chik fil A probably twice a month on average. I could care less about their politics.

I find it a lot easier to root for players when I know their political outlook. When I disagree with their politics, it’s not a deal breaker.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14902118
4cal wrote:If you try you can find the political aspect of everything (whether it is there or not). I don’t understand why you let politics dictate what you do or enjoy. Like I’m a liberal and therefore, I’m not supposed to eat at Chik-fil-a since their owners are pro-choice. I enjoy Chik fil A probably twice a month on average. I could care less about their politics.

I find it a lot easier to root for players when I know their political outlook. When I disagree with their politics, it’s not a deal breaker.

I don’t let politics dictate what I enjoy. Putting politics into football destroyed my enjoyment. I did not choose for it to happen. I tried to continue to watch, but the enjoyment was gone. They may as well have included political beliefs as part of the players statistics.
It is similar to me not wanting to know what Pofoers look like. It is a distraction from sticking to the main issue. The players political beliefs interfere with my judgement of him as a player. My knowledge of you as a person interferes with my truly hearing what you believe and replying to you with the honesty Political debate requires. My ‘entertainment ‘ and ‘pure ideology’ require a certain amount of removal from reality.
This is why pictures are so devastating, and therefore commonly used in political debate. Instead of discussing immigration, you are discussing ‘Anna’. Instead of evaluating Kaepernick as a player, you are evaluating him as a person. You do these things whether you choose to or not. They disguise the purity (truth). Any politics added to football must reduce the entertainment value I receive. Same reason I can’t enjoy MSM sitcoms. They are tainted with politics. Only those agreeing with the politics can enjoy the full entertainment value. Only those agreeing with the players get to enjoy the full entertainment. Just like you may no longer get the full enjoyment from Chick fil A you use to?
User avatar
By 4cal
#14902282
One Degree wrote:I don’t let politics dictate what I enjoy. Putting politics into football destroyed my enjoyment.

Thanks for clearing that up. :roll:

One Degree wrote:Just like you may no longer get the full enjoyment from Chick fil A you use to?


Sandwiches taste the same. They have more locations now. I don’t enjoy the brownies as much since they started charging like a buck and a half for oversized crumbs.

I’m very pro gun control. I haven’t started shopping at Dicks since they stopped selling murder instruments. I still shop at Wal Mart, Academy, and if they had something I wanted, I’d shop at Gander Mountain or that other big outdoor place whose name escapes me at this point.

Not being able to separate the corporate policies of the stores or employees from those of yourself probably does lead to consternation on your part. Not saying this is you but if you’re a white supremacist and there are nothing but blacks behind the cash registers, what do you do, stand there stewing until a white person opens up a check lane? Its a crazy way to live.

If you look hard enough, you can find the politics in everything. My advice, know why you’re looking in the first place. If it’s not for the politics, why are you seeing only that?
User avatar
By One Degree
#14902291
4cal wrote:Thanks for clearing that up. :roll:



Sandwiches taste the same. They have more locations now. I don’t enjoy the brownies as much since they started charging like a buck and a half for oversized crumbs.

I’m very pro gun control. I haven’t started shopping at Dicks since they stopped selling murder instruments. I still shop at Wal Mart, Academy, and if they had something I wanted, I’d shop at Gander Mountain or that other big outdoor place whose name escapes me at this point.

Not being able to separate the corporate policies of the stores or employees from those of yourself probably does lead to consternation on your part. Not saying this is you but if you’re a white supremacist and there are nothing but blacks behind the cash registers, what do you do, stand there stewing until a white person opens up a check lane? Its a crazy way to live.

If you look hard enough, you can find the politics in everything. My advice, know why you’re looking in the first place. If it’s not for the politics, why are you seeing only that?

You make some very good points that I have had trouble deciding on my own. I normally pride myself on not associating one thing with another and credit this with my terrible memory. I simply can’t be bothered to remember all those conflicts.
I could have ignored it, I think, if Trump and then the media did not ‘smack me in the face’ with it. Perhaps I am just another victim of mind control by the media. Or maybe it is just I get angry when they insist something really stupid is vitally important.
User avatar
By 4cal
#14902465
One Degree wrote:You make some very good points that I have had trouble deciding on my own. I normally pride myself on not associating one thing with another and credit this with my terrible memory. I simply can’t be bothered to remember all those conflicts.
I could have ignored it, I think, if Trump and then the media did not ‘smack me in the face’ with it. Perhaps I am just another victim of mind control by the media. Or maybe it is just I get angry when they insist something really stupid is vitally important.


I guess it comes down on choosing to become a victim or not. I do not respect Trump. But I agree with him about the NFL players. I respect Colin Kaeprenick (sp?) for turning down untold millions of dollars by assigning this baggage to his name that nobody forced on him. But I disagree with him. It comes down to a “time and place” for everything. In 1968, 2 Olympians chose to make a political statement on the medal podium at the Mexico City Olympic Games. In their case, that was their one shot at the megaphone. At no other point would a track and field phenom have so much attention. An NFL quarterback has a megaphone 24/7/365 especially in this day and age of Twitter and other social media.

@Bulaba Jones Apologies, I didn’t mean to ‘like’[…]

Supporting Zionist Israel means you support endle[…]

The Evolution Fraud

The proof is all around us and being tested every[…]

Aromatherapy

I vape nicotine with different aroma the best is c[…]