NFL looking at CFL size field !

Maybe spliting the difference for the NFL, I meant to say 2 yards not two feet but widening the field by 7 yards 3 1/2 on each side

I can believe that also. The will need to come up with many option plans to show that they are addressing the problem.

Is it that big of a problem or are ALL ex-NFL players trying to cash in on this law suit?

I don't know but take someone like a Jack Tatum or Jack Lambert, known for their vicious hits. What did they make and what are their pensions? But more importantly how did the NFL market their play as a fierce hitter to sell more tickets, make the PR films of the NFL look like it's a war, bloody war etc. sort of thing, you have to watch it, to make the owners and administrators millions while they are paying a guy like Tatum or Lambert next to nothing for a pension? Doesn't seem too fair to me.

And what about the guys a tad lower on the vicious hits scale before these guys making nothing on their pension?

Don't get me wrong, I never think anyone should use sports in place of a career in a regular type of employment. The stats are there in black and white that too few guys ever make it to "the bigs". But the major leagues want to show all you have to do is play their sport at the highest level for a few years until you get a pension, and then you're on easy street, no problems, and we'll keep your get plays ie. vicious hits and fights (hockey) going forever, to make us more money of course, and help your pension. You're bigger than life if you make the majors, so it seems they are telling all the youngsters out there and everyone will adore you if you "make it" to the highest level, you're work is done for life. Yeah, right, BS.

That's why I love the CFL, none of this pretentious "we will take care of you sh....t" because they aren't going to make that money in the first place. The way it should be, no false messages. Hey, if I could keep my 9 to 5 job and make $40,000 on the side with a chance to win the GC, that is great I say and shows a league actually cares about their players, scheduling practices so players are able to deal with their career, while they are playing a game.

If you guys read the first entry on this thread by tc23, he included a story from the National Post that will tell you why.

I did read the article.

I don't have any problem with the original poster providing the link, it's an interesting piece and I'm glad he posted it.

But I don't think the article answers the question. The rationale for the change presented in the article is opinions, both for and against the change, from only a few people in the NFL.

Bill Polian said,

"I’m not so sure we shouldn’t think about widening the field,? former competition committee member Bill Polian said. “It’s a radical idea, but I think it’s worth thinking about. You would have more space and perhaps a safer game. I say that based on my CFL experience. There are less collisions of that type in the Canadian game.?

His suggestion is highly qualified-- I'm not sure we shouldn't think about it... perhaps a safer game... based on my CFL experience.

Warren Moon also supported the idea, based on his observations.

Two NFL general managers are said to be against it, the Texans' GM saying he figures it would mean more high impact hits.

So there are a couple of thoughts tossed out by a couple of people on either side of the issue. Based on this article, I don't think the rationale is close to being proven. If I were the NFL, I wouldn't be making such a change based on what a handful of people thought might or might not happen, perhaps. And of course they wouldn't do that.

For my part, I'd still like to know what the facts are about head injuries in either league, and some analysis of the reasons for any significant difference. There might actually be a difference that is substantiated by something more than the opinions of a couple of people, and it might actually be the result of field width, who knows. It would be worth finding out. Then the NFL, or any other league, could make decisions based on harder information. I doubt the information exists now. It would be a good idea to begin a study of the issue to collect it.

Interestingly, I recall there was a post in another thread several months ago that provided some historical information on the different evolution of the game in the two countries. As I recall, the US game adopted a smaller field fairly early on because some of the universities that began to play it didn't have room for a larger one and they decided to standardize. And the 4th down was added early in the last century because there was a coach who argued it would increase player safety. Interesting that this concern was considered even at that time. I wish I could recall or find that post and the links it referred to. If anyone has it, please refresh it, I'd love to see it again.

So there are a couple of thoughts tossed out by a couple of people on either side of the issue. Based on this article, I don't think the rationale is close to being proven. If I were the NFL, I wouldn't be making such a change based on what a handful of people thought might or might not happen, perhaps. And of course they wouldn't do that.

Agree steve. It's a complicated issue and no easy answer in a contact and collision sport.

This makes for an interesting study. It intrigues me to read that players and personnel who plied their trade on both sides of the border think that increasing the size of the playing field would "probably" cut down on head injuries. Those that don't know the Canadian game are up in the air on the subject. I hope they take the idea seriously and delve into it more until they reach some positive conclusions, one way or the other.

Head injuries are definitely getting out of hand. I wonder what Dunnigan, Flutie or many others who have had careers
on both sides of the border would have to say regarding the matter.

Much discussion today about rule changes to cut down head injuries.

The problem with the suggestion about the NFL adopting a CFL dimension field (width) is that the CFL has TWO MORE players on the field, I'm surprised that no one mentioned this in the comments above. Can you imagine how wide open the NFL game would be if they played on a CFL sized field with 2 less players?
There definately would be a lot more offense and the CFL would probably follow suit and cut down the number too.

Would be interesting to know if concussions on the larger ice surface in Europe are as high as the NHL albeit it can be argued Euopean pro hockey differs more in relation to the NHL than does the CFL in relation to the NFL.

Hockey is totally different, the head injuries come from heads hitting the ice and sticks to the head. Football we are talking about head injuries from collisions not so much about heads hitting the field. Injuries from heads hitting the field have been cut down since the "body slam" rule, the "horsecollar" tackle rule and the QB "in the grasp" and slide feet first rule.

2 year NHL study, causes of concussions

44% from legal hits
26% from accidental collisions
17% from illegal hits
8% fighting
5% undetermined

[url=http://my.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?user_id=139518&post_id=12688]http://my.hockeybuzz.com/blog.php?user_ ... t_id=12688[/url]

That’s just some fans opinion on a blog, and he’s a Leaf fan.
I don’t think we can do any comparison with a sport where they have to carry a big stick and you are sliding on ice and can’t stop a hit or sliding into someone.
A CFL sized field with 2 fewer players on the field would probably cut down the hits. The RBs would be trying to run around the corners more often instead of up the middle. Probably more swing passes too to take advantage of the wider field.

Any kind of information coming from "hockeybuzz" is completely obsolete! This is a site that is outrageously inconsistent about every aspect of the sport that they report on. It is a bunch of nerds crowding around a table and dreaming up topics and scenarios about the league, then reporting on it like it is a headline from a local paper. These guys have zero credibility and when they are right it is from getting the hottest news from trending twitter topics and not by their own reporting. Maybe get a new source?

Some new rule changes coming this year for the NFL, I wonder if the CFL will follow:

[url=http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/03/17/safety-behind-proposed-nfl-rules-changes]http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/03/17/saf ... es-changes[/url]

The controversial one is a penalty if the ball carrier puts his head down. Emmit Smith was on TV the other day saying this is a stupid rule, "what's a ball carrier supposed to do raise his head just before he gets hit"?

This last one is the most controversial, by far. It would be a foul for a ball carrier to smash into a defender with the crown of his helmet in open space. Penalty for doing so: 15 yards. This would be the first rule in U.S. football history limiting a runner's contact with a defender, outside of egregious acts such as punching a tackler, or grabbing his facemask while stiff-arming. The proposed rule reads: "It is a foul if a runner or tackler initiates forcible contact by delivering a blow with the top crown of his helmet against an opponent when both players are clearly outside of the tackle box. Incidental contact by the helmet of a runner or tackler against an opponent shall not be a foul." Rich McKay, president and CEO of the Atlanta Falcons and chairman of the competition committee, holds a news conference late Monday afternoon, and is sure to be grilled about this one.

Some former players, such as Emmitt Smith, already have come out strongly against this proposal.

"This is a pure and simple player-safety rule proposal, first and foremost," McKay said last week. "We are trying to protect the runner or the tackler from himself."

I think it is a mistake to bring in rules that are subjective. Any rule that requires the official to use personal interpretation are bound to be inconsistent. This however shows how frightened the NFL is of liability and the pressure of insurance companies probably.

That is simply not true. Most concussion related incidents in hockey come from direct contact to the players head at high speeds. It's quite a rare incident where a player will actually swing his stick at an opponents head in an attempt to injure him, although it has happened on a few nasty occasions. Heads smacking off the ice are definitely an issue, but to attribute all concussions to this is a major assumption from a person who I assume does not watch very much hockey? (correct me if I am wrong about this)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8cQxJvgeJA

One of the most devastating concussion incidents in the new era of concussion awareness and Crosby's head never touched the ice nor was he smacked in the head with a stick.

While played on different surfaces, hockey and football concussion related injuries can definitely be compared. The main thing with most of these head injuries is that most of the hits are unnecessary. We see it time and time again in hockey where a player gets caught watching his pass and his opponent takes that player's momentary lapse in judgement and sends him into next week. Same goes for football. When you see that big block behind the play, or when a DB absolutely lays out a receiver on a suicide pass, a normal form, wrap tackle would be suffice however players will go for the big boom and knock a guy out. This is what the NFL and NHL want out of the game.

IMO it is all about respect for one another on the playing field.

"can't stop a hit or sliding into someone"
I just find this comment very interesting. Is this peewee hockey you have been watching? :lol:

The NFL has forced its hand on this one IMO. They have been fining defensive players left, right, and centre for leading with their helmet (I'm a Ravens fan...I know ALLLLL about it :roll: ) so it was only a natural reaction for defensive players to cry foul when the same happens to them but it goes unpunished. If the NFL is trying so hard to protect ball carriers, they also have to work just as hard to protect defensive players. I don't exactly like all the new rules, but it became pretty evident that this was the direction the league was heading a few years ago.

I really don't think this rule change is going to change the game as much as people think. I have no idea who taught NFL players to go into a tackle head first, but its generally a great way to mess your neck or head up. Incidental contact is going to happen of course, but I think it's rather obvious when a player is leading with his helmet instead of his shoulder (easy for us at home, not so easy for refs during a live, fast paced game). I agree with you HfxTC that sujective rules will always cause controversy, next season should be filled with it if this rule passes. There will be a huge uproar from offensive minded people when the first running back gets fined/suspended for leading with his helmet.

Huh?

My post says the stats are from an NHL study.

Here are the same stats from the same NHL study at a different link http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=556046

Again, "Huh?" As my post says, that stats are the NHL's.

Sorry Captain but the link you provided was to some Leaf fans blog!
Besides I couldn't care less about Hockey head injury stats, no connection at all with football. You are comparing apples and oranges.