New Post: Ripping Goodell for fining Ed Reed

**HoustonRaven** · 12-28-2012, 08:17 PM

See that folks.

That's fallacy ad hominem, wrapped in class warfare.

Because you disagree with loba, you're "kissing the asses" of billionaires.

Never mind the fact you've presented facts in support of your position.

It's a tired tactic but effective if left unchallenged.

**rlh445** · 12-28-2012, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

As usual, the billionaires' apologists are out in force.

Anecdotal evidence like Stingley is immaterial to the argument. For many years the NFL sold the violent side of the game, encouraging players to hit one another as hard as possible (without breaking their necks of course) so they could put the best shots on highlight reels for the enjoyment of the barely-sublimated sadists they treasured as fans--all the while knowing that nothing more than the head trauma that had become standard in the game (with their encouragement) was overwhelmingly likely to lead to shorter life spans & diminished mental capacity.

But go ahead, keep kissing the billionaires' asses for all I care.

Where in my post did I defend 'the billionaires'? Oh that's right, I didn't. All I did was point out that NFL players trying to claim they had no knowledge prior to playing for the NFL that it was a dangerous sport are being disingenuous at best. What the heck does that have to do with how the NFL sold their game? If you're arguing the NFL is at fault for attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator that's one thing, but really has nothing to do with players fraudulently claiming they had no idea that they could sustain life altering injury. Lol, kissing the billionaires' asses indeed. You're horrible at this arguing thing, you'd make a perfect lawyer for the players union.

**ed from Bel Air** · 12-28-2012, 09:23 PM

My great hope is that the NFL realizes that the pendulum has swung too far towards player safety concerns, and the competition committee will look at revising some of these over the top rules such as "hitting a defenseless receiver" , incidental contact with a players facemask of helmet, or some of the rules protecting quarterbacks.

I used to know all the rules of football, but there are so many changes and nuances now, I honestly do not know what is and isn't a legal tackle. I do not know much, but I do know that whenever someone tries to make a tackle leading with their shoulder, generally the head and helmet are somewhere nearby. It is really hard to tackle someone without your head getting close to someone else's head, particularly when the person you are trying to tackle ducks his head.

Most people's initial reaction to someone tackling them is to get lower to the ground by leading with the helmet and shoulder pads. When I played football I would always duck my head to prevent someone from getting a clean shot at my ribs or torso. It's an instinctive move, learned by football players over many years. It cannot be unlearned simply by changing a rule.

A defensive player, particularly a defensive back, has little choice when bringing down a larger ball carrier, but to lead with his shoulder pads, then wrap up with his arms.

I do believe Mr Goodell has gone too far in his effort to protect the league's coffers from potential lawsuits, but I am not sure any of would do anything differently if we were in his position.

I just hope common sense prevails, and the league looks at ways to scale back some of these rules. But I am not sure common sense will prevail when so much money is at stake.

**batman55** · 12-28-2012, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by Goob24x7

Hey guys, I grabbed a few drinks with Steve (message board admin) and a few of the other guys last night.

We thought it would be a good idea to bring some of the content from the forefront of the site to the board to help stir some conversations.

As I'm sure most of you were, I was livid when I saw Reed had been fined $55k and saw plenty of inconstancies with Goodell's decision making. In this post, I took him to task.

Wondering what your thoughts are...

Link: http://russellstreetreport.com/ed-re...consistencies/

Hey goob,

It does seem like they have it out to get reed.....when your a DB and as fast as Ed is, it's near impossible to lower your head that much....and reed wasn't even leading with his helmet!

Anyways, good stuff goob, I love seeing your posts and follow you on twitter too.

**micadrz400** · 12-28-2012, 11:52 PM

The call on Reed was BS. But I don't blame a business for trying to reduce their liability. It's the whiny bitch former player's lawsuit that is the root. How about putting the blame on them.

**steelerhater** · 12-29-2012, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

As usual, the billionaires' apologists are out in force.

Anecdotal evidence like Stingley is immaterial to the argument. For many years the NFL sold the violent side of the game, encouraging players to hit one another as hard as possible (without breaking their necks of course) so they could put the best shots on highlight reels for the enjoyment of the barely-sublimated sadists they treasured as fans--all the while knowing that nothing more than the head trauma that had become standard in the game (with their encouragement) was overwhelmingly likely to lead to shorter life spans & diminished mental capacity.

But go ahead, keep kissing the billionaires' asses for all I care.

Just wondering, did you just start watching football in the last few years? It doesn't sound like you'd be much of a fan of the way the game used to be played.

**wickedsolo** · 12-29-2012, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by steelerhater

This is ridiculus. In 1978, Darryl Stingley was paralyzed by a hit in a preseason game. In 1985, Joe Theisman had his leg broken in one of the most gruesome fashions seen. In 1991, Mike Utley was paralyzed by making a tackle. I remember watching pregame shows in the '70's and early '80's discussing how many retired players had trouble getting out of bed in the morning and that the life-expectancy on an NFL player was about 10-15 years less than normal. Anyone who claims that they didn't know this sport was dangerous has no business in a court room. They don't have the basic intelligence to make any kind of argument.

:word

I don't get the claim that guys didn't know that football could be detrimental to long term and short term health.

**lobachevsky** · 12-29-2012, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by steelerhater

Just wondering, did you just start watching football in the last few years? It doesn't sound like you'd be much of a fan of the way the game used to be played.

In all likelihood I started watching football before you were born. Teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

FTR I appreciate a good solid hit as well as the next person. I just don't kid myself about what a career's worth of those hits add up to. And I care far more for the health of the guys who make the plays I love to watch than I do for the financial health of whatever sons of bitches own the teams. Too bad some folks would rather suck up to them.

**wickedsolo** · 12-29-2012, 10:29 AM

Loba -

Just curious, but regardless of the owner's bank accounts...don't you think that players are extremely well compensated?

**Mista T** · 12-29-2012, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

I care far more for the health of the guys who make the plays I love to watch than I do for the financial health of whatever sons of bitches own the teams. Too bad some folks would rather suck up to them.

"Sons-of-bitches"??????????????????????????

If it weren't for the investment and bold decision-making by many of these "Sons-of-bitches", we wouldn't have an NFL. George Halas, the team owners during WWII who carried on the game despite losses and depleted manpower, Art Modell, Al Davis, the Rooneys etc made the NFL what it is today.

**lobachevsky** · 12-29-2012, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

I don't get the claim that guys didn't know that football could be detrimental to long term and short term health.

Let me try an analogy, OK?

Consider airline pilots & cabin crew. Not as glamorous a profession as it was in my youth, but still with some cachet--you get to see lots of different places, etc. And like entertainers (in which class sports professionals belong) they enrich the lives of the people who pay them to do their jobs.

These people are at risk for death or injury in a plane crash that can happen on any flight. It's a fairly small but real risk. They know (or can find out) the odds, and they accept this as part of their profession.

Are you aware that whenever you fly you're subjecting yourself to an increased dose of ionizing radiation from cosmic rays? It's not something that anyone goes out of their way to advertise, but you can dig up the details on the net. This is another risk that pilots & crew take, & it is one they can't really avoid--they get dosed on every flight.

As it turns out, the annual increase in radiation dosage is well below the safety threshold for even these most frequent flyers, so flight crew (& even more so passengers) incur minuscule additional risk.

But what if it wasn't such a small risk?

What if, say, 10 years of flying several times a week increased their risk of cancer by, say, 10%? Or decreased their life-spans by an average of, oh, say, 10 years?

What if for years there had been anecdotal evidence that such a risk existed, but no one knew how great it was?

Once they found out the magnitude of the risk, wouldn't they be withing their rights to demand that the airline* do whatever it reasonably could to reduce their exposure of the people who are absolutely essential for the airline* to continue to operate & make a profit?

What if, instead, the airline* had known the approximate level of risk for years, & not said anything to anyone, including most specifically its employees--meanwhile expanding its operations, booking crew members for even more hours per year in the air, & arranging flights so that they traveled even higher up (increasing the dosage).

Wouldn't flight crew (& if necessary their heirs & descendants) have a case that the airline* had endangered their health & shortened their lives in the pursuit of profit? Particularly by pretending that the risk didn't exist & therefore taking no actions (that would cut into profit) to mitigate them?

Think about that, OK?

* NB for this analogy to be accurate, there is only one major airline, call it the National Flying League or some such--all other operators are at best regional puddle-jumpers that pay badly & don't service the really desirable destinations.

**lobachevsky** · 12-29-2012, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Mista T

"Sons-of-bitches"??????????????????????????

If it weren't for the investment and bold decision-making by many of these "Sons-of-bitches", we wouldn't have an NFL. George Halas, the team owners during WWII who carried on the game despite losses and depleted manpower, Art Modell, Al Davis, the Rooneys etc made the NFL what it is today.

Not all of them are/were sons of bitches. Some were/are traitors to their class. ;)

IMHO all NFL teams should be publicly traded companies a la the Packers. Otherwise they're nothing but billionaires' toys, & anyone who professes allegiance to their owners is simply foolish. Jeebus cripes, didn't the Bob Irsay years teach you folks anything???