Zachary GirsbergerBig Hits
October 19th 2010 21:53
Category: No Category
Apparently, it is all the rage amongst the media to jump on the head-injury bandwagon this week, just because of the relatively large number of helmet-to-helmet collisions. There are three schools of thought when it comes to the subject: those that wish to preserve the integrity of the game, those that blame the media for purporting the excitement of big hits, and those that see the value of reducing illegal hits under the current rules.
Each argument has its own validity, the first group, let’s call them the old-timers, believes that the game has undergone a radical change over the past few years and thus the context of records and the game itself is thus losing credibility. Old-timers include former players and coaches, especially those that played or taught in the trenches, as well as fans of all ages that enjoy defense over scoring. The old-timers do make a good point, the game has lost some of its context due to the immense amount of passing that now is allowed to prevail, due to the softer nature of hits that the NFL allows.
The second group, the media-bashers, also have validity. Often the broadcasters highlight the plays of hits that crush bones and tear muscles. The problem here is that most people do not attend the games, they watch them at home, so when a broadcaster highlights the violent nature repeatedly, they instill a value amongst younger fans to enjoy the hits, while rarely providing context of how a player should hit. The rules also are rarely explained on the validity of certain hits, because officials are so unwilling to throw a flag. Media-bashers are now demanding greater explanation and definition of legal helmet-to-helmet contact, thus reducing the aggression within the game while also potentially limiting injuries—at least to the head.
The last group, let’s call them sideliners as they wish to stand pat and keep rules the same. This group, of which I subscribe to philosophically, believes that the rules are fine and defined well as they currently are written, but think the officials need to focus in on the legality of hits as defined by the NFL right now. Some, both of old-timers and media-bashers, believe that the rules as written are vague, but officials have a history of interpretation throughout all sports. This year the NFL mandated a stronger call to prevent excessive celebration, and as seen by the Cowboys (amongst other teams), officials are not hesitant to throw a flag there.
One area of concession that I think needs addressing, but is rarely noticed, is the Madden franchise. Starting several years ago, Madden introduced an option called the Hit Stick, which allows players to go for the big hit. I think that this teaches players of the game to go for the big hit directly, as doing so often rewards the player with a turnover. The problem with this is that in a game, an injury is a hindrance to a program, not a life-altering event like the actuality of injuries.
In the end, football is a violent sport and our new national pastime; to change the sport is to change our new tradition, and fans have a mind of their own and may not always wish to bow to the will of the NFL if they no longer like the product.
| 61 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
