VEGANGELICA

Thank you for acknowledging that there is some validity to what I've said.

I do feel you are being somewhat dismissive of the injuries players sustain and of the value of rules imposed to reduce their likelihood, but mostly I feel you are dismissing...or at least missing...my main complaint about football that I've made in this thread: the NFL leadership and football in general have for years largely ignored the harm caused by concussions, and have put players under unnecessary risk.

For example, everything I've read says that players, until recently, have *not* been informed properly of the risks they face at their job, which means they were not choosing to play “knowing the risks,” as you say.

I found a good article that summarizes quite well many of my views on the NFL’s mishandling of injuries. The article quotes Hall of Famer Jim Brown:

Now, on to the issue of violence and whether certain hits should be designated as illegal in contact sports:

Yes, I agree with you that a fully grown adult should be able to make a choice about wanting to do something that could possibly be dangerous. However, I do want the choice to be an *informed* choice. And I don’t support or encourage people to make dangerous choices because I feel doing so trivializes the importance of their health and their lives.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of danger...as long as you don't get hurt! I wouldn't want you living to the age of 130 with your brain turned INTO a cotton ball due to injuries you might sustain while playing a game. I would want your brain...and all your other body parts...to remain intact.

I assume when you played rugby you followed some rules, such as don't hit people's heads and don't hit people who aren't carrying the ball. (See? I've been reading up! Rugby Safety Rules | LIVESTRONG.COM). So why would you oppose American football safety rules, such as the rule against helmet-to-helmet hits?

And if someone feels he needs to bash another man's head in order to have a fulfilling, exciting life, shouldn't he rethink his priorities? I think so.

Dirty, when I wrote that I mock the NFL League leadership for having refused “for so long” to make the game safer for players, this wording - “refused FOR SO LONG” - implies that the NFL is *now* trying to make the game still safer for players.

However, my post was focusing on the ways the NFL *has let players down for years* by not protecting them sufficiently from avoidable injuries. I was not focusing on the ways the NFL is now trying to deal with the concussion problem more aggressively after having been humiliated into doing so by the U.S. Congress.

What I said makes perfect sense, Dirty: the NFL leadership has not wanted to limit and penalize dangerous hits as much as they could (which would help prevent injuries) because doing so would reduce the wild, violent action that draws fans and makes American football so lucrative for those in the business.

The NFL is only *now* during *this very week* imposing much larger fines on players who make questionable hits, which shows that the NFL was *not* imposing large fines for helmet-to-helmet hits previously.

For proof that the NFL makes decisions to ignore safety issues for the sake of money, note what Dolphins linebacker Channing Crowder said this week about the new NFL crackdown on dangerous hits: "Offensive players can take shots at defensive players, some of them illegal, but the league doesn't protect those on his side of the ball. The NFL would rather, Crowder said, come down on defensive players and make life easier for those they perceive as the ticket sellers. 'They'll probably give us flags in a couple of years.' " Some Miami Dolphins players disagree with tougher penalties - Miami Dolphins - MiamiHerald.com

Channing's quote shows that the NFL is motivated by ticket sales and so is less likely to prevent dangerous hits, even illegal ones, made by offensive players.

You asked, “Do you think fans are going to stop coming to the game because of less big hits?” YES, that’s EXACTLY what I feel could happen if the game has fewer and fewer high impact collisions--or, at least, that's what the NFL leadership appears to fear. You see in this thread how people mock the idea of reducing the frequency of big hits in football, even helmet-to-helmet hits. I think most fans *like* the big hits and the violence in American football.

I’d love to think most fans are like you, Dirty, and are repelled by seeing injuries...but the impression I get is that many people really don’t care much if a player gets hurt, and in fact they ENJOY it. Consider these quotes:

And:

On the issue of whether fans are at all ethically responsible when athletes whose salaraies they support get seriously injured:

Yes, if you are eating crabs and fish, then the injuries and deaths of the people who are catching them *are* partly your responsibility, since you provide money that allows them to go do this. And since you apparently know that the job of fisherperson is the one of the most dangerous jobs anyone can do, then you have an even greater responsibility not to ignore the problem. You can vote with your money. This is why people boycott products.

Fans of football vote with their money, too, and their vote shows that they aren’t too bothered by watching people slowly, and sometimes quickly, damage their brains permanently by engaging in jarring hit after hit after hit.

Your satire of my views is almost correct about a few things, but not others, Freebase. For example, as someone who supports people being able to keep their body hair without being treated in an awful way, I am a non-conformist fighting the pressures of conformity. So, if you don’t like enforced conformity, then you and I are on the same side.

As for the freedom issue, I want people to be able to chart their own course...as long as doing so does not physically hurt others. I would, however, consider implementing a law that forces you, and ONLY you, to have to pee sitting down.

__________________