Pater Familias » Football

BOUNTY HUNTING IN FOOTBALL.

Philip — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 23:32:25 +0000

BOUNTY HUNTING IN FOOTBALL. I posted recently about the claim that in a conference championship game the New York Giants “strategically concussed” a player for the 49ers—targeted him because he had previously had four concussions. Now the NFL has announced that the New Orleans Saints maintained a bounty pool to reward game-ending injuries inflicted on opposing players. The pool amounts were greatest in 2009, when the Saints won the Super Bowl. Comments from several players indicate their belief that this kind of reward system happens a lot. Some players whose careers were ended by injury have said that they thought they were targeted. Other players—usually defensive players—have taken the position that football is a dangerous game and the players understand that. I posted here a year ago about how a lot of fans and players like the danger. The commissioner of the NFL says that there are two issues: player safety and competitive integrity. Certainly if the teams in a playoff game are playing by different rules, the team with the bounty system has a competitive advantage.

FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS?

Philip — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 00:32:10 +0000

FOOTBALL PLAYERS DELIBERATELY CAUSING CONCUSSIONS? I have posted several times about the dangers of concussions in football (see this post asking whether the NFL is serious about reducing concussions). Benjamin Wallace-Wells has a post on the New York magazine web site asking whether the New York Giants “strategically concussed” Kyle Williams in the conference championship game for the right to play in the Super Bowl. He has quotes from Giant players which support his suggestion, including this one:: “…we knew he had four concussions, so that was our biggest thing, was to take him outta the game.” In the event, Williams made two critical fumbles which cost his team the game. Notice that the hits on Williams may well have been lawful under the rules. Note also that the comments of the players (and in the comments on the post) show that the culture of the game is that these hits are good plays. Wallace-Wells concludes that: “a history of concussions doesn’t only make you a red flag on your team doctor’s list. It also makes you, in opposing film rooms, a target.”

A KIPLING LIMERICK.

Philip — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 21:14:47 +0000

A KIPLING LIMERICK. I have posted on limericks and how I think that light verse is an important branch of poetry. Today is the middle of January, and there is playoff game scheduled on the Frozen Tundra in Green Bay. On this winter day in Connecticut (temperature 9 degrees this morning), here is a limerick by Rudyard Kipling from a blog devoted to limericks:

There was a small boy of Quebec
Who was buried in snow to his neck
When they said, “Are you friz?”
He replied, ” Yes, I is —
But we don’t call this cold in Quebec”

TWINS COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER.

Philip — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 01:44:14 +0000

TWINS COMPETING WITH EACH OTHER. I posted here on twins in sports and speculated that twins seem to have done better in basketball because it is a sport that you can practice one on one. Dick Weisfelder sent me this article about Andrew Reed and Will Reed, identical twins who are outstanding athletes at Amherst. Their success is attributed to the fact that they have always been fiercely competitive with each other. For example, Andrew went out for track so that his brother wouldn’t have bragging rights as a two-sport athlete. The article says: “[Their] ‘Anything you can do, I can do better’ mentality is the foundation of their relationship.” My brother Elmer and I were not fiercely competitive in sports. I think the reason is that we were not good athletes. For one of the Reeds to surpass his brother is an accomplishment. For one of us to be better than the other was no accomplishment at all.

WERE LEATHER HELMETS BETTER?

Philip — Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:53:24 +0000

WERE LEATHER HELMETS BETTER? I have posted a number of times on the use of head by football players in making tackles. I began with this post which said that: “With better football helmets, the use of the head to make a hit, a kind of spearing with the helmet, has increased.” Although I was repeating a common assertion, it may be that the belief that modern helmets are better may be mistaken. Christopher Shea in the Wall Street Journal (November 19-20) called attention to a study (which is reported on here in Science Daily) comparing leather football helmets from 100 years ago and modern helmets. The study “compared head injury risks of two early 20th Century leatherhead helmets with 11 top-of-the-line 21st Century polycarbonate helmets.” The helmets were crashed together at various angles to simulate hits that are common in games and practices. The conclusion: “For many of the impacts and angles studied in the lab, the researchers found that leather helmets offered similar, or even better, protection than modern helmets.” Although modern helmets may be better at preventing skull fractures and severe brain injuries, they are apparently no better than the leather helmets at preventing concussion.

WHY YOU CAN’T SEE THE WHOLE FOOTBALL GAME.

Philip — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:12:53 +0000

WHY YOU CAN’T SEE THE WHOLE FOOTBALL GAME. Reed Albergotti explains why the National Football League will not let fans see the All 22 version of the game, even after the game is over: they do not want to open players, teams and coaches up to more criticism. He also quotes a spokesman for the league to the effect that it will be a long time before the league changes its policy. There is already, of course, lots of criticism. Perhaps the league doesn’t mind that criticism as much because it is uninformed.

NOT SEEING WHAT HAPPENS IN A FOOTBALL GAME.

Philip — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:11:04 +0000

NOT SEEING WHAT HAPPENS IN A FOOTBALL GAME. I have wondered for over 30 years why television broadcasts of professional football games show only the part of the field near the line of scrimmage. The camera follows the ball, but on passing plays, which are more than half the plays, the camera shows mainly the pass blocking and not what the wide receivers and the defensive secondary are doing—about one third of the players on the field. For example, it is impossible to see any kind of zone defense. Reed Albergotti had an article in the Wall Street Journal (November 4) which explained that there is indeed a distant camera angle in the National Football League that shows all 22 players and is called the “All 22″. Bill Parcells is quoted as saying that what fans see on television is only a “fragment” of what happens in a game. However, the “All 22″ is kept strictly away from the fans.

DEFENSE MAKES FOR “UGLY GAMES.”

Philip — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 20:21:50 +0000

DEFENSE MAKES FOR “UGLY GAMES.” Another prediction that could have been made, based on the fact that the Butler-UConn game would feature lower shooting percentages and very good defense, was that a lot of critics would hate the game. Think of the low-scoring football games you’ve watched where the announcers have said that both teams were playing badly. Try to think of a time when a basketball announcer pointed out that a defender was guarding his opponent well. Sure enough, this article marvels that the announcers at halftime ripped the game, something extraordinary for any TV network, which will ordinarily encourage people to watch its programs. Greg Anthony: “the worst half of basketball I’ve ever seen in a national championship game.” Charles Barkley: “That was an awful half of college basketball.” Seth Davis: “This is a very bad showcase for a national championship game for college basketball.” Contrast these comments with the admiration for the plays made in the NBA All-Star game, where nobody is spoiling the aesthetics of the game by playing defense.

THE PERSISTENCE OF THE HOME TEAM ADVANTAGE.

Philip — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 19:16:39 +0000

THE PERSISTENCE OF THE HOME TEAM ADVANTAGE. I have long thought that television and instant replays would have improved refereeing because fans and sportswriters and league officials are able to review the calls. In fact, I have wondered how extreme the home field advantage must have been when the home team’s fans constituted most of the spectators. Apparently things were not much different from today. I posted here on reviews of SCORECASTING, which I have since bought. One finding of SCORECASTING is that the percentage of games won by the home teams in each of the major sporst has stayed fairly constant over time. (The figures are on page 112). Thus, major league baseball teams playing at home won 54.1% of their games from 1903-2009 and 53.9% over the last ten years of that period. Even with the advantage of batting last, the home field advantage is smallest in baseball. For NBA basketball, home teams won 62.7% of the time from 1946-2009 and 60.5% of the time over the last ten years. There are similar results for other sports. Only one development seems to have made a difference. A QuesTec camera system was installed in up to 11 major league ball parks for a period and was used by baseball officials to monitor umpire calling of balls and strikes. During this period, at QuesTec parks, the advantage that the home team had on ball and strike counts was changed and the advantage on balls and strikes swung to the visiting team.

GO PACKERS!

Philip — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:40:01 +0000

GO PACKERS!

CAILLEBOTTE AND RENOIR.

Philip — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 02:43:27 +0000

CAILLEBOTTE AND RENOIR. I was struck by the pairing of Renoir and Caillebotte in the Superbowl wager because it seems to me that their respective reputations have changed enormously in the last 50 years. Back then, it seemed to me that Renoir was considered to be the most important of the Impressionists with Monet a lesser figure and Caillebotte off the radar screen. I think Renoir has been disfavored in part because his works were reproduced a lot and not very well and his colors came to seem too sweet. Here is a Renoir painting which shows what he could do. The large Caillebotte painting at the head of the staircase which dominates the entrance of the Art Institute in Chicago has made Caillebotte a major figure for me.

WAGERING WITH MASTERPIECES.

Philip — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:38:41 +0000

WAGERING WITH MASTERPIECES. As described here, the Milwaukee Art Museum and the Carnegie Museum of Art in Pittsburgh have made a bet on the Superbowl. (Thanks to my nephew Andrew Schaefer for calling the wager to my attention). The museum whose team loses the game will loan a masterpiece to the other museum. The paintings selected are this painting by Renoir and this painting by Caillebotte. I had posted here about how—surprisingly— actions to increase attendance at museums are controversial on the theory that these actions commercialize art museums. Of course, like my brother Elmer, I am very much in favor of actions that promote museum attendance.