PDA

View Full Version : NFL May 'Widen' All Football Fields By An Additional 35 Ft (and 110 Yds Total Length)


SteelerEmpire
02-11-2013, 06:02 PM
Wow.
--------------

If you watched the Super Bowl, you probably caught one of the NFL ads touting the league's efforts to improve player safety.

A rash of suicides by former football players...

LINK: http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/02/11/NFL-field-change-considered-for-player-safety-reduced-concussions/6391360621662/

harrison'samonster
02-11-2013, 06:07 PM
can't say I dislike the idea, it will really change NFL football. Speed will become even more of an asset over power. I don't like the sound of higher scores though. Oh well.

WVABE
02-11-2013, 06:30 PM
Won't they have to redo a few stadiums. A lot of the stadiums would resemble arena football, having the players in the stands.
I'm not for it, I had a couple surgeries and I had to sign a paper saying I couldn't sue if there were any mishaps, players know what they're getting themselves in to so if their worried about long term effects then find a regular job.

Millers the sh!t
02-11-2013, 07:27 PM
Anything to give another edge to the offensive side of the game. Yaayyyyy..........

"ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!......... I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THESE MOTHERFUCKING CHANGES, IN THIS MOTHERFUCKING GAME!!!!!!!!............"

-Asante Samuel Bo Jackson 2010

MACH1
02-11-2013, 07:45 PM
Is there going to be a 55yd line.

SteelersCanada
02-11-2013, 07:50 PM
The CFL field is a joke. They're taking player safety too far now.

PhantomJB93
02-11-2013, 07:53 PM
There comes a point where you change the game so drastically in your crusade to "improve safety" that you just outright ruin the game. This is dangerously walking that line.

Steel_Bus_24
02-11-2013, 08:11 PM
They're doing this crazy sh** to shift public opinion on all the former players who are suing the NFL

Riddle_Of_Steel
02-11-2013, 08:35 PM
With all these new rules changes, they are doing to football, what Jar-Jar Abrams already did to Star Trek.

DanRooney
02-11-2013, 09:20 PM
With all these new rules changes, they are doing to football, what Jar-Jar Abrams already did to Star Trek.

Turned a dying franchise into a spectacular film and is going on to make one of the most anticipated sequels of the summer? :noidea:

ricardisimo
02-11-2013, 10:39 PM
Why don't they just go metric? "Three meters and a gram of dust."
:noidea:

Riddle_Of_Steel
02-11-2013, 10:49 PM
Turned a dying franchise into a spectacular film and is going on to make one of the most anticipated sequels of the summer? :noidea:

Not that it matters here, since this is a Steelers forum, but....

That was a STUPID MOVIE. Like most movies today-- it was two hours of disconnected violence, explosions, girls, and over-the-top CGI. The little bit of plot it had made no sense, and it lacked any of the things that have made Star Trek unique for 40 years. If your homeworld just got destroyed, and you are distraught over that, and you just got warped back in time 25 years-- wouldn't your priority be to avert the disaster before it happens this time, instead of going on a murderous rampage to destroy the galaxy? For him to mad at Spock, wouldn't that be like being angry at the firefighter who lost his life saving your family from a burning fire?

It was not as movie made for people who actually think about what they are watching-- otherwise, troubled cadets getting appointed to command of the fleet's most advanced starship, "Red matter", and people performing atmospheric re-entry in space suits and parachutes would cause you to raise your eyebrows and walk out of the movie like I did.

Really? They had no other senior or even junior officers onboard the Federation flagship? They had to appoint Kirk's entire graduating class of raw cadets to teh bridge crew on their first tour? There was not even a more eligible ensign or lieutenant junior grade onboard?

Star Trek used to address lofty ethical questions, like whether it is right for us to create a race of androids to use as slaves, or whether we should interfere with the natural development of primitive cultures. The only ethical question I saw this last one address was whether shoddy writers like Jar-Jar Abrams should be allowed to desecrate 40 year legacies like a toddler in a candy store,

Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek was visionary. He had the nerve to cast a black female in a lead role, and not only that-- but he broke all the stereotypes of the time and made her a technically proficient, respectable, professional. IN this new movie-- Abrams was looking backwards. He casted Uhura as a "communications major"-- I bet if singing were a Starfleet major, they would have made her an expert in that, and it would have afforded them the chance to introduc more pop culture in a movie that is supposed to take placde 3 centuries from now.

What did she say to Spock? "Tell me what you need-- I will do whatever you want." THAT is NOT worthy of Star Trek. Roddenberry advanced black people by decades in his show. Abrams made them back into minstrels in 2 hours of his crap. I bet they added that line just so the 13 year old fanboys will have something to replay in their minds that night when they go home to choke the chicken in their parent's basement.

I guess if all you want is over-the-top effects, explosions, and a lot of cliche dialog that pays too much homaghe to the original, the new Star Trek is for you.

I see the new one is already based on a flawed plot premise and I have not yet even seen it yet. An invisible, dark force is trying to destroy earth.....which should not matter so much anymore if humanity has settled thousands of worlds across the galaxy. But it works for the hoardes of non-thinking movie goers that just want one-liners and things that go BOOM. Maybe if we are lucky, they will just go all the way and give Sulu a lightsaber, and have Uhura take all her clothes off next time. Now THAT would be classy....

BlaZeQuietly
02-11-2013, 11:52 PM
Harrison announced his retirement after next season

Riddle_Of_Steel
02-12-2013, 12:21 AM
Harrison announced his retirement after next season

I am almost afraid to ask but, does that mean he feels he is definitely going to be back this year?

kent
02-12-2013, 12:31 AM
Harrison announced his retirement after next season

Where did you see that at? And hopefully that means he will restructure if he is staying and its his last year.

teegre
02-12-2013, 12:36 AM
Where did you see that at? And hopefully that means he will restructure if he is staying and its his last year.

I've been saying for a while that at the end of the 2013 season, Harrison will hoist the Lombardi and announce, "I retire."

I will now add, that after those words, he will say, "Eff Goodell!!!"

lloydwoodson
02-12-2013, 02:41 AM
I think the longer fields are a good idea. Why not make the fields longer? Wallace's 80 yard touchdowns will now be 90 yard touchdowns and he will get into the record books as the all-time receiving leader that much sooner.

I also think the 18 game schedule Goodell proposed is a good idea. It makes sense to cut meaningless preseason games and extend the real thing... kind of like the CFL.

And another change I like is the 35 yard kickoff Goodell implemented... kind of... like the CFL.

Wait a minute... Herr Goodell isn't German at all. He's... he's... CANADIAN!!!

Do the birthers know about this?!?! I demand to see Goodell's birth certificate!!!

This is not the International Football League!!! Curse you, Canada!!! Curse you for making football into a kinder, gentler game to suit your own pacifist, socialist agenda!!!

VaDave
02-12-2013, 07:17 AM
Anything to give another edge to the offensive side of the game. Yaayyyyy..........

"ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!......... I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THESE MOTHERFUCKING CHANGES, IN THIS MOTHERFUCKING GAME!!!!!!!!............"

-Asante Samuel Bo Jackson 2010

In that regard, it might be simpler to just take defense out of the game entirely. Only have the offense on the field. Once an offensive team scores, the other team's offense comes on, and hooray, another score. The downside is that the game's outcome will be decided by the coin flip before the game, but the average NFL fan isn't bright enough to figure this out and may not notice. Isn't that right Roger???

Fantasy enthusiests would be in heaven. Most of them don't care much about defense anyway...give them another timely TD, and the corks will pop....

AND there is a huge bonus for those poor poor owners of these billion dollar enterprises, but are so impoverished they can't to build their own stadiums.

Just think of the payroll saving not having to pay defensive players? Not to mention having pay for the healthcare expenses they create hitting players who are only trying to score.

In fact, you'd have hardly any injuries at all to speak of. Your Franchise value will soar larger than the size of most 3rd world countries. You might have enough to buy New Zeland if you sell out.. Just think about that, you love running a football club, but you got to admit running a whole country could be a whole lot of fun....... Roger will get you there.....

VaDave
02-12-2013, 07:20 AM
I think the longer fields are a good idea. Why not make the fields longer? Wallace's 80 yard touchdowns will now be 90 yard touchdowns and he will get into the record books as the all-time receiving leader that much sooner.

I also think the 18 game schedule Goodell proposed is a good idea. It makes sense to cut meaningless preseason games and extend the real thing... kind of like the CFL.

And another change I like is the 35 yard kickoff Goodell implemented... kind of... like the CFL.

Wait a minute... Herr Goodell isn't German at all. He's... he's... CANADIAN!!!

Do the birthers know about this?!?! I demand to see Goodell's birth certificate!!!

This is not the International Football League!!! Curse you, Canada!!! Curse you for making football into a kinder, gentler game to suit your own pacifist, socialist agenda!!!

That is pretty funny.

steelfury02
02-12-2013, 10:30 AM
1. My mother is a life-long Trekky- not sure how to spell as am a Star Wars geek - she really enjoyed seeing a younger Enterprise crew and thought the acting was better than most of the Star Trek films - I won't say its the best Star Trek flick ever - cause I give that title to "Khaaaaaan" - but, going to see it with family and experiencing it in the theaters for the first time in a while and seeing my mom enjoy it made it worth it. It wasn't terrible - fun popcorn click IMO. It's like the by the time you got to see Revenge of the Sith, you knew the last 2 were bad, and that it couldn't get any worse, knew there was going to be boat loads of CGI - so might as well enjoy the rediculously choreographed fight scene over the lava explosions - what the hell right - even though Anakin SHOULD have been given a red light saber as a gift from Palpy for the final fight.

2. WIN ONE FOR HARRISON BABY! (if he's still here):chuckle:

3. EDIT: And oh yea - more changes mean my future kids wont be watching what I got to experience = boo.

BengalDestroyer
02-12-2013, 03:16 PM
I hate the idea, such a bummer to know that every offseason brings some new ridiculous, retarded rule/regulation (how's that for alliteration!) anyway it sucks and i hate goodell

FrancoLambert
02-12-2013, 04:16 PM
If it happens it will be the end of football as we knew it and know it.

Forget about defense, it won't mean shit unless they rescind the "Mel Blount Rule."

WVABE
02-12-2013, 05:14 PM
If it happens it will be the end of football as we knew it and know it.

Forget about defense, it won't mean shit unless they rescind the "Mel Blount Rule." I noticed the number of posts you have now, 666 and a mentioning of "the end of football as we knew it", what a coincidence :tt02:

teegre
02-12-2013, 06:01 PM
If it happens it will be the end of football as we knew it and know it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpV852GDbGQ

I posted this elsewhere... but, same topic; same awesome link.

Riddle_Of_Steel
02-12-2013, 06:16 PM
1. My mother is a life-long Trekky- not sure how to spell as am a Star Wars geek - she really enjoyed seeing a younger Enterprise crew and thought the acting was better than most of the Star Trek films - I won't say its the best Star Trek flick ever - cause I give that title to "Khaaaaaan" - but, going to see it with family and experiencing it in the theaters for the first time in a while and seeing my mom enjoy it made it worth it. It wasn't terrible - fun popcorn click IMO. It's like the by the time you got to see Revenge of the Sith, you knew the last 2 were bad, and that it couldn't get any worse, knew there was going to be boat loads of CGI - so might as well enjoy the rediculously choreographed fight scene over the lava explosions - what the hell right - even though Anakin SHOULD have been given a red light saber as a gift from Palpy for the final fight.

My problem is that I am a purist and I over-analyze things. I don't like movies, music, art, literature, etc. that has been dumbed-down to make it mass-marketable.

Especially sci-fi and music. I grew up reading classic sci-fi like H. G. Wells, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, and Frank Herbert. As such, I have no sympathy or remorse for movies that claim to be science-fiction, then have stupid shit like people performing atmospheric re-entry skydiving in a spacesuit, followed up with a sword-fight no less. I can't just shut off my brain so that I can enjoy the gaudy CGI.

Even if I had never watched a single Star Trek movie or episode in my entire life-- I still don't think it would have been a very good movie. Too many plot holes, inconsistencies, and outright poor storytelling. That movie had more problems than a blind race-car driver.

The new Star Trek was basically a bunch of teenagers on an adventure in space, in their daddy's corvette. If they are going to make it that stupid, just go all the way already and put Jar Jar Binks in the movie and be done with it.

That helicopter-like sound you heard during the end credits of that movie? That was Gene Roddenberry spinning around in his grave....

harrison'samonster
02-12-2013, 06:20 PM
My problem is that I am a purist and I over-analyze things. I don't like movies, music, art, literature, etc. that has been dumbed-down to make it mass-marketable.

Especially sci-fi and music. I grew up reading classic sci-fi like H. G. Wells, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, and Frank Herbert. As such, I have no sympathy or remorse for movies that claim to be science-fiction, then have stupid shit like people performing atmospheric re-entry skydiving in a spacesuit, followed up with a sword-fight no less. I can't just shut off my brain so that I can enjoy the gaudy CGI.

Even if I had never watched a single Star Trek movie or episode in my entire life-- I still don't think it would have been a very good movie. Too many plot holes, inconsistencies, and outright poor storytelling. That movie had more problems than a blind race-car driver.

The new Star Trek was basically a bunch of teenagers on an adventure in space, in their daddy's corvette. If they are going to make it that stupid, just go all the way already and put Jar Jar Binks in the movie and be done with it.

That helicopter-like sound you heard during the end credits of that movie? That was Gene Roddenberry spinning around in his grave....

fantastic post! very well said.

Galax Steeler
02-12-2013, 06:44 PM
Why would they even consider this bullshit, first of all they complain about player safety and this is not going to help.Second you know that the kicks are not going to go into the endzone for touchbacks which means they will be more contact to the game. What the hell are they thinking. I would love to see it from a fans prospective but it will never happen.

Riddle_Of_Steel
02-12-2013, 07:04 PM
Why would they even consider this bullshit, first of all they complain about player safety and this is not going to help.Second you know that the kicks are not going to go into the endzone for touchbacks which means they will be more contact to the game. What the hell are they thinking. I would love to see it from a fans prospective but it will never happen.

For once, I think the NFL is trying to make a change that is productive, in terms of protecting players, without hurting the integrity or mechanics of the game.

Making rules changes that directly affect the way the game is played, would include direct actions like banning helmet to helmet hits and getting rid of kickoffs altogther (this was actually proposed).

This does it more indirectly. This does not ban or punish any current practice or method currently in use in the NFL. The larger field only adds emphasis to teams that have more agile players who can cover more ground, rather than 325+ lb lumbering hulks that routinely cause injuries. This does not penalize anyone-- it simply makes it more desirable for teams to feature smaller, more agile players over the steroid-grown monsters we are accustomed to.

I guess the league figures that bigger, stronger players = more injuries, while smaller, agile players = less injuries and more splash plays.

More splash plays and less injuries equals more viewers and more $$$$.

Galax Steeler
02-12-2013, 07:09 PM
For once, I think the NFL is trying to make a change that is productive, in terms of protecting players, without hurting the integrity or mechanics of the game.

Making rules changes that directly affect the way the game is played, would include direct actions like banning helmet to helmet hits and getting rid of kickoffs altogther (this was actually proposed).

This does it more indirectly. This does not ban or punish any current practice or method currently in use in the NFL. The larger field only adds emphasis to teams that have more agile players who can cover more ground, rather than 325+ lb lumbering hulks that routinely cause injuries. This does not penalize anyone-- it simply makes it more desirable for teams to feature smaller, more agile players over the steroid-grown monsters we are accustomed to.

I guess the league figures that bigger, stronger players = more injuries, while smaller, agile players = less injuries and more splash plays.

More splash plays and less injuries equals more viewers and more $$$$.

I can see what you are saying and it makes since. I just wish they would make there mind up in which direction they want to take the game of football.

SteelersCanada
02-12-2013, 07:27 PM
For once, I think the NFL is trying to make a change that is productive, in terms of protecting players, without hurting the integrity or mechanics of the game.

Making rules changes that directly affect the way the game is played, would include direct actions like banning helmet to helmet hits and getting rid of kickoffs altogther (this was actually proposed).

This does it more indirectly. This does not ban or punish any current practice or method currently in use in the NFL. The larger field only adds emphasis to teams that have more agile players who can cover more ground, rather than 325+ lb lumbering hulks that routinely cause injuries. This does not penalize anyone-- it simply makes it more desirable for teams to feature smaller, more agile players over the steroid-grown monsters we are accustomed to.

I guess the league figures that bigger, stronger players = more injuries, while smaller, agile players = less injuries and more splash plays.

More splash plays and less injuries equals more viewers and more $$$$.

Trust me when I say this to you, the CFL is an absolute joke to watch. It's painful and the biggest reason is (well, two-and-outs aside for a second) is because when the field is that large, defense and the running game become obsolete. The running game is already on the decline in the NFL and this would be the final nail in that coffin.

This won't happen, though. Fan backlash would be unreal.

Riddle_Of_Steel
02-12-2013, 09:54 PM
Trust me when I say this to you, the CFL is an absolute joke to watch. It's painful and the biggest reason is (well, two-and-outs aside for a second) is because when the field is that large, defense and the running game become obsolete. The running game is already on the decline in the NFL and this would be the final nail in that coffin.

This won't happen, though. Fan backlash would be unreal.

I admit I don't watch the CFL at all, but I would think this would favor the ground game-- as RBs would have more room to maneuver and defenders would have to cover more area.

I can definitely see how defenses would be adversely affected-- with the additional yards, the defense would now be responsible for covering a larger area. With the way defenders cannot even touch receivers, defensive play would be pushed to the back burner even more.

lloydwoodson
02-12-2013, 11:53 PM
Bigger field spells end for zone defense.