Jump to content

TNF: Bears @ Packers


Herbie_Hancock

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, riceman80 said:

If two plays end up with seperate results then they aren't similar so I don't understand this argument.

INCONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT. That's the argument. It's the same issue we have with other incredibly subjective rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

That's a cop out and you know it.  I'm done posting if you're going to continue to literally dance around the subject.

i wouldnt go that far, as you could look at the results in college. Doubt anyone has that kinda time though.

if were just talking about player safety as the main concern, whats your thoughts on the way run blocking is done? Its more or less fact that those constant blows to the head are more detrimental than the big knockout shot. Thats one of that main reasons i dont take the nfl seriously, they are far more concerned about the optics of bog hots than actually keeping guys healthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jrry32 said:

No, it's not. I'm not using player safety as a justification for keeping the status quo. You have college football implementing a similar rule. Wouldn't the obvious result be that deterrence would cause ejections to drop over time? Has that happened? Answer:

http://www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/news/college-football-targeting-rule-change-ncaa-fewer-ejections-confirmed-vs-stands/1bgyk9w5g5v2n14mx2c8fbhcxd

 

Not necessarily. You cant hit college players where it hurts most - their wallet. Fines and missing out on game checks is a far more substantial repercussion than simply being suspended for the following game. I see the comparison you're trying to make here, but it's not really a viable one when it comes to similarities of the possible disciplinary actions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...