• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

Future of Football

C

Cornpoke

Well-known member
http://espn.go.com/espn/conversatio...erceptions-participation-high-school-football

Reading this article has got me thinking. Could we see football reduced to a sport with little to no participation? Or will technology and rule changes catch up in time to prevent it? Could it eventually affect recruiting, especially for a smaller school like UW?

In light of recent injuries I can see why parents are not letting their kids play. I played football from pee-wee until my late 20's but I can honestly say I don't know if i would want my kids playing it. I have had a few concussions in my playing days but they weren't a big deal because nobody knew the long term effects.
 
I love watching my son play football! He's 11, and has been playing since he was 8. I have concerns, but none are greater than my concern when he turns 16 and can drive. Equipment is getting better, there are more rules, and stronger emphasis on protecting players. I remember playing pee wee football, helmets didn't fit, ended up losing 1/2 the pads for the pants before seasons end. I turned out ok....I think.
 
This is something that is effecting my old high school big time right now. I am from Kemmerer, WY and we have had some great teams over the years. Right now the program has fallen off big time. I have absolute faith that it's not the coach. He is a great coach and I couldn't have asked for a better one. It's the lack of kids going out. They are lucky to get 20+ kids on the team when just a few years ago it was at least 40. School size has remained steady so my blame goes out to the parents. They are scared and raised their kids scared. This really pisses me off because I know there are big kids in the town not playing, forcing kids that barely weigh 150 to be playing on the line.

Football is a contact sport. Injury is to be expected at times. It just makes me mad that we live in such a fragile world. Most people have about 4 years of their life to play the best game ever invented. Clean the sand out of your vag's and strap up you're fancy new helmets and play ball.
 
Cornpoke said:
http://espn.go.com/espn/conversatio...erceptions-participation-high-school-football

Reading this article has got me thinking. Could we see football reduced to a sport with little to no participation? Or will technology and rule changes catch up in time to prevent it? Could it eventually affect recruiting, especially for a smaller school like UW?

In light of recent injuries I can see why parents are not letting their kids play. I played football from pee-wee until my late 20's but I can honestly say I don't know if i would want my kids playing it. I have had a few concussions in my playing days but they weren't a big deal because nobody knew the long term effects.
Click to expand...


Well, I can't read the full article BUT I've seen players wearing technologically advanced pads. I've heard about changes in helmets.
I don't think I see football numbers dropping. I can't even train on the tracks I want to on Saturdays because for some reason they have children playing football on Field Turf instead of the grass.

I've never had a concussion. Someone I really love a lot had a few college football concussions when he played. He was concerned about them. Maybe those are what made him occassionally stubborn (LOL).

Honestly, if I had little children I would not want them playing in football pads while they are in grades 3-6. They would just have to play flag football. I'd prefer they do some other sports or activities that improve better footwork.

And people mature at different times. I remember when I started 6th grade one of my classmates had a full and thick beard. It was so gross and white blond! He'd shave every morning and it would be growing out later in the day. And he was just 11 years old but not built like it.
One of my friends who was a world class runner said he didn't START puberty until he was 17 years old!

So the level of those two guys playing football would be different. The manly 11 years old boy would run all over the 11 years old boy who was a boy until 17 and 18 years old.

Smaller schools just have a harder time recruiting anyway. Where I live in Texas SMU and Rice are in recruiting hotbeds but aren't recruiting well. Lots of story behind all that.

But you know if someone takes their kids out camping for a week they might get eaten by a BEAR!
 
I played football a long, long time ago (started in the leather helmet days), and I am paying for it now - but I still love to watch the game. I remember after getting hurt several times my Mom telling me "don't come crying to me if you get hurt again". I've had so many broken bones & concussions, I can't even remember them all - leg (I'm real lucky to still have this leg), collar bone, nose (about 3 times), and ribs. My best friend went pro and now can barely walk. This is a contact sport and it's not for the frail or weak. Injuries are part of it.
 
Here's the deal. We can advance the technology of the helmet and shoulder pads all we want. We will never be able to protect the brain against the skull it rests inside. The injury doesn't happen when a helmet hits the head, it happens when the brain smashes against the skull --- from the inside. Think of it like an egg. An egg moving really fast, suddenly stops moving, the yolk keeps moving until the egg shell stops it. It doesn't matter what kind of padding you put around the outside egg.

Rugby is a full contact sport without pads, yet they see less head injuries than football does. Why? Because they don't wear weapons on their head that give them the false security that it fully protects them.

Solution? Change the nature of the sport so that it relies on actual tackling like it used to and not just throwing your upper body into someone as hard as you can. I really do think that advancing technology in pads is actually making the sport more dangerous (at least in terms of head injuries, rugby sees a lot of other injuries football doesn't). WYCowboy, in your day, I guarantee you that you used to wrap up and form tackle, that doesn't happen anymore. It's either a spear and a forearm shiver or ankle biting.

Crazy idea #1: Take the facemask off of my helmet and I will be FAR less likely to lead with my head...
 
Kids are plugged in 24-7 and they don't play sports as kids like they used to. I was a boy scout leader for a time in Laramie a couple years ago and was blown away that none of the kids in the scout troop wanted to go fishing, camping, basically anything that I used to love as a kid. The only thing they wanted to do was have a WII party.

I think this relates to sports in general and especially sports like football. I remember playing at Rocky Mountain High School in Byron Wyoming and at times I would come away from games barely able to move. It's a hard, physically challenging sport. I just don't think kids are interested in psysically demanding sports because they can play them on the x-box.

I know I sound like an old man right now but i'm only 28 it just seems like kids these days aren't like they were when I was growing up. You don't see pick up football games in the parks like you did when I was a kid.
 
I played both football and participated in wrestling growing up...I can honestly say I received more injuries wrestling than I did playing football. I got many sprains, and dislocations wrestling, and walked away from most football games unscathed. The only injury I received in football, I was in 8th grade, it was the last game of the year, the big Twin Spruce vs Sage Valley rivalry at the highschool. I was coming around the corner on a sweep, and got smashed by a Freightliner...not really, it was Clint Oldenbergs older brother, but built like a NFL linebacker in Jr High. Broken left arm, too high up to cast, had to wear a sling for two months lol.

Wouldn't trade any of it for the world tho, playing sports growing up gave me a sense of pride and accomplishment, something I hope my kids gain playing a game they love.
 
If coaches teach the kids how to do it the right way, we shouldn't have an issue. They can't launch themselves at oncoming players and expect to not getting hurt! My nephew is starting to play in Casper Dean Morgan and I tell him to listen to the coaches and do it the right way, stay within the rules and your abilities and all should be fine.
 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrN7wZUYqsE[/youtube]

Should a hit like this warrant a suspension? It is clear from the video he led with his shoulder, not his helmet.

In the video, freshman safety Trae Elston lays out UTEP receiver Jordan Leslie as he's trying to catch a potential pass. The hit isn't early and it appears as though Elston uses his shoulder and hits Leslie in the chest knocking him to the ground.
The hit is violent and Leslie stayed on the ground for several minutes before ultimately leaving the field under his own power. But the play was not flagged.
However, the SEC suspended Elston on Tuesday after a review of the film deemed the hit to be "flagrant." Elston will not be allowed to play against No. 14 Texas this weekend.
Here's what the SEC said in a statement to the media:

The action is in violation of Rule 9-1-4 of the NCAA Football Rule Book, which reads, "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder," and Rule 9-1-3 which states, "No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet."
This action is taken in accordance with Southeastern Conference Constitution, Article 4.4.2 (d) which states that a student-athlete may be suspended if it is determined that the student-athlete has committed a flagrant or unsportsmanlike act.​
Click to expand...
​
 
Cornpoke said:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrN7wZUYqsE[/youtube]

Should a hit like this warrant a suspension? It is clear from the video he led with his shoulder, not his helmet.

In the video, freshman safety Trae Elston lays out UTEP receiver Jordan Leslie as he's trying to catch a potential pass. The hit isn't early and it appears as though Elston uses his shoulder and hits Leslie in the chest knocking him to the ground.
The hit is violent and Leslie stayed on the ground for several minutes before ultimately leaving the field under his own power. But the play was not flagged.
However, the SEC suspended Elston on Tuesday after a review of the film deemed the hit to be "flagrant." Elston will not be allowed to play against No. 14 Texas this weekend.
Here's what the SEC said in a statement to the media:

The action is in violation of Rule 9-1-4 of the NCAA Football Rule Book, which reads, "No player shall target and initiate contact to the head or neck area of a defenseless opponent with the helmet, forearm, elbow or shoulder," and Rule 9-1-3 which states, "No player shall target and initiate contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet."
This action is taken in accordance with Southeastern Conference Constitution, Article 4.4.2 (d) which states that a student-athlete may be suspended if it is determined that the student-athlete has committed a flagrant or unsportsmanlike act.​
Click to expand...
​
Click to expand...

This should absolutely NOT warrant a suspension. Not every big hit is illegal. This is the very definition of a clean hit (even if he didn't wrap up :tickedoff: ).​
 
That is the definition of a Defenseless Player not to mention the safety does not make a play on the ball he just hits the receiver.
 
Wyo2dal said:
That is the definition of a Defenseless Player not to mention the safety does not make a play on the ball he just hits the receiver.
Click to expand...

Nail, meet head. One guy focusing on a ball, other guy doing nothing but targeting the upper body of his opponent.

Receiver didn't even touch the ball, how was it not flagged?

A "clean hit" isn't hitting someone who doesn't even see you coming. Even bar fights have that unwritten rule.
 
This should absolutely NOT warrant a suspension. Not every big hit is illegal. This is the very definition of a clean hit (even if he didn't wrap up :tickedoff: ).[/quote]
It's not a clean hit, as the receiver never comes close to touching the ball. A defender can not just randomly smash into receivers while the ball is in the air. At minimum, it's pass interference.
 
The receiver would have had a chance at the ball had he not pulled up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a defensive back's job is to make sure that a receiver doesn't catch the ball. Call me old school, but big hits are part of the game. If you separate the intended receiver from the ball, be it by swatting, stripping, or a big hit, then you have done exactly what you were supposed to do.

Football is a violent game, guys. Hurting other players isn't the goal, but it does happen. This player put his shoulder into the chest of the intended receiver after the ball was in the vicinity. It's not pass interference because the DB didn't get to the receiver before the ball did, and it's not an illegal hit because he didn't target the head or lead with his helmet. Is it a vicious hit? Yes, but there's nothing illegal about it.
 
I think in the NFL you would see a 35-50K fine for this and on repeat offenders even game suspension. This should absolutely warrant a suspension.

It's like the Quandre Diggs hit on B.R. Holbrook that took him out of the game, Was he defenseless? No but he was sliding it should have been a penalty but certainly not a suspension. UTEP hit definitely suspension worthy it should be something that is put out there more often players take these hits all the time and I personally am glad to see an example being made.
 
WYO1016 said:
The receiver would have had a chance at the ball had he not pulled up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a defensive back's job is to make sure that a receiver doesn't catch the ball. Call me old school, but big hits are part of the game. If you separate the intended receiver from the ball, be it by swatting, stripping, or a big hit, then you have done exactly what you were supposed to do.

Football is a violent game, guys. Hurting other players isn't the goal, but it does happen. This player put his shoulder into the chest of the intended receiver after the ball was in the vicinity. It's not pass interference because the DB didn't get to the receiver before the ball did, and it's not an illegal hit because he didn't target the head or lead with his helmet. Is it a vicious hit? Yes, but there's nothing illegal about it.
Click to expand...

Yes and No, You have to make a play on the ball or it's pass interference nearly 90% of the time unless the Ref is just blind or ignoring it. But hitting an unexpected receiver and not making a play on the ball is hitting a defenseless player and it should be recognized as flagrant.

I too love big hits but you can have big hits that are safe and big hits that are flagrant.
 
WYO1016 said:
Football is a violent game, guys. Hurting other players isn't the goal, but it does happen. This player put his shoulder into the chest of the intended receiver after the ball was in the vicinity. It's not pass interference because the DB didn't get to the receiver before the ball did, and it's not an illegal hit because he didn't target the head or lead with his helmet. Is it a vicious hit? Yes, but there's nothing illegal about it.
Click to expand...

Well, he did lead with his helmet, it was just happenstance that his shoulder hit first. Rule book says you can't lead with your shoulder to a defenseless player anyway. He probably could've gotten a pick if he played the ball. If you have a clear chance to knock the ball away or an INT and you choose to annihilate another human being instead, it might be ill advised.

I agree football is a violent game but it's changing. For the same reason they invented pads in the first place, to protect the athletes who play it. The game is MUCH faster now than it used to be. The game has never been this fast, with it rises the risk of more severe injuries than ever before (as we witnessed with CPR having to be used on the field on that Tulane kid). You have to adapt to that because equipment isn't keeping up.
 
I read several times where posters stated that football is a contact sport. Maybe initially it was a contact sport, but not anymore. Now days football is a collision sport, basketball is a contact sport. I played football for three years in high school in Glenrock and a year of college football before my body couldn't handle it anymore. It takes an athlete in great shape to play the game today.
Players are faster and stronger than ever before and to try and keep up the technology has improved, although as one poster stated, perhaps it gives them a false sense of saftey and allows them to do things they normally wouldn't do. Maybe whoever had the idea to take the facemasks off the helmets would keep the players safer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top