Because quarterbacks, not children, are our most delicate resource, the NFL owners have invented the Bradymobile to keep them safe from human contact. It's just like the Popemobile, except it's also safe from missile attacks and bad breath. (Pictured: Bradymobile prototype. Not pictured: Lost sense of athletic pride.)
Their efforts are aimed at making this violent, hard-hitting game safer. They have decided that it's not the intensity and hard hits that keep fans coming back, but instead the intellectualism. It's hard to appreciate the human chess on the field when the players keep hitting each other. In a similar story, the UFC decided to outlaw punching, kicking, and wrestling so cage-fighting isn't so rough on its fighters. Inspired by the movement, the US military is considering adding pillows to the inside of their bombs to make war safer.
And why this sudden focus on safety? Because the owners want to add two games to the season, believing that no place is safer for NFL players than being in the line of fire. Commissioner Roger Goodell said, "This game is entirely too dangerous and violent, so let's make them play it more." It's like giving out bulletproof vests so people can get shot in the chest more often.
I get some of the changes that have been made in the past, banning horse-collar tackles, shots to the head, not letting people drive trucks onto the field, the logical stuff. But if they ban the "wedge" of kickoff returns they might as well ban offensive linemen and fullbacks. And to say that defensive players can't lunge at quarterbacks when they're on the ground is just plain crazy. They might as well start saying that players can't use their legs to run, because that rule change goes against the defense's basic nature.
See, there's only three things that defensive players know how to do: "get the quarterback," "dive on the ball," and "turn your hips." Basically, this rule change is taking back 33% of everything defensive players know how to do. What are they supposed to fill that brain space with, "making it rain?" You're confusing them and it's not going to make anyone happy when defensive players start standing in front of the quarterback in a daze, because they can't decide whether to hit the guy or throw money at him.
There have already been instances where sacks were missed because the defensive player wasn't sure if he'd be penalized for making the play, and that was before the rule change. After the rule change, when a defensive player is blocked to the ground within a two feet of the quarterback, instead of making a play from his knees, he might as well take a leisurely nap on the field until the whistle is blown. The quarterback's knees are protected and the defensive player is refreshed for the next play.
The way they're headed, they might as well start having quarterbacks throw from behind a concrete wall. Soon, the owners are going to outlaw tackling and blocking and instead rely on a ornate system of verbal cues to trick opposing players into falling down. Maybe hypnotizing players into handing the ball over when the safe word is uttered. It's just a matter of time before a lineman snaps and starts running in circles because he doesn't know what to do.
Yeah, it's a moneymaking venture, and I understand that they want to keep the players safe, so as to better exploit them by adding games, but they also need to remember that it's football. It's a game that's dependent on hard-hitting, intensity, and physicality. The pattern of rule changes is taking all of that away. Take tackling, shoving, pushing, and hard glares away from football and what are you left with?
Catch.
And I don't think anyone will be willing to pay $40 to watch muscled-up men peacefully throw a ball to each other.
It's supposed to be violent. It's supposed to hurt. That's why people play it. If the owners don't want their players to get hurt, then they got into the wrong business. Maybe they should put their money into that professional curling league or try to get a TV deal for badminton. It would be worth it to see if the censors would allow them to say "shuttlecock" on television.
No comments:
Post a Comment