Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board Ohio Football Topic:  Powder Puff, anyone? Topic:  Powder Puff, anyone? Author Message Mike Johnson General User Member Since: 11/11/2004 Location: North Canton, OH Post Count: 1,736 Status: Offline     Powder Puff, anyone?    Posted: 2/11/2011 8:57:05 PM  Saw today that the NCAA rules committee is proposing still more restrictions on blocking. When considering the steady stream of restrictions on blocking and tackling, can Powder Puff be all that many years off?  Last season it was no more than two blockers within a yard of each other on kickoff and punt returns and the ban on so-called horse collar tackling - which in implementation was a running joke, with flags thrown and replays often showing tacklers with handfuls of jersey. http://www.facebook.com/mikejohnson.author Back to Top Bobcatbob General User Member Since: 12/21/2004 Location: Coolville, OH Post Count: 1,347 Status: Offline     RE: Powder Puff, anyone?    Posted: 2/14/2011 9:06:09 AM  I didn't see a lot of "abuse" of the horsecollar penalty on the field. I thought it was a horses%$# rule at first.  Now I'm OK with it.  Anything that brings proper tackling back into vogue is a good thing.  The equipment shouldn't be a part of the playing, including helmets as weapons, pads as handles and face shields as, well, shields.  It may sound crazy in context but I'm slowly creeping into the leather helmet camp.  The initiator of a collision should be forced to give some thought to the outcome before it happens. Trivia Extra:  In my viewing lifetime, the last NFL player allowed on the field without a face mask was a Cleveland Brown.  Anyone? Back to Top Mike Johnson General User Member Since: 11/11/2004 Location: North Canton, OH Post Count: 1,736 Status: Offline     RE: Powder Puff, anyone?    Posted: 2/14/2011 3:59:21 PM  As I recall the facemask penalty was introduced in the early 1960s.  It certainly was in effect when I played back then.  And I applauded it - and felt damned guilty the one and only time I grabbed an opponent's facemask as I realized in that moment that I could seriously injure the opponent. I was okay with permitting offensive linemen to use their hands when pass protecting.  But I still cringe at permitting all players to use their hands on running plays.  That change has virtually eliminated the sharp blocks that used to be delivered with forearms and shoulder pads.  Other changes that have taken some of the toughness from the game: * Eliminating the crackback block. * Severely restriciting below-the-waist blocking - with more such restrictions being proposed. * Introducing the penalty for horsecollar tackles. All these and other changes have been introduced with player safety in mind.  To me such rules have gone too far in that direction.  Players understand when they begin playing football that injuries can result.  If the evolution toward increased player safety continues, we might not see Powder Puff, but we will see something more resembling rugby.  I mean, does any football fan dismiss the possibility that we'll someday see banning tackles below the waist? http://www.facebook.com/mikejohnson.author Back to Top Bcat2 General User Member Since: 7/6/2010 Post Count: 4,295 Status: Offline     RE: Powder Puff, anyone?    Posted: 2/14/2011 8:34:33 PM  Mike Johnson wrote: As I recall the facemask penalty was introduced in the early 1960s. It certainly was in effect when I played back then. And I applauded it - and felt damned guilty the one and only time I grabbed an opponent's facemask as I realized in that moment that I could seriously injure the opponent. I was okay with permitting offensive linemen to use their hands when pass protecting. But I still cringe at permitting all players to use their hands on running plays. That change has virtually eliminated the sharp blocks that used to be delivered with forearms and shoulder pads. Other changes that have taken some of the toughness from the game: * Eliminating the crackback block. * Severely restriciting below-the-waist blocking - with more such restrictions being proposed. * Introducing the penalty for horsecollar tackles. All these and other changes have been introduced with player safety in mind. To me such rules have gone too far in that direction. Players understand when they begin playing football that injuries can result. If the evolution toward increased player safety continues, we might not see Powder Puff, but we will see something more resembling rugby. I mean, does any football fan dismiss the possibility that we'll someday see banning tackles below the waist? Mike, don't see the banning of tackles below the waist, though, I will never forget the feeling in my gut when I watched a player taken off, broken leg, after I had taken him down. Nothing different from how I had done it so many times before, his leg just broke. After that I became one of those guys that helped him up, never did it before, guess I just wanted to be sure he was going to get up. Long time ago. "Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." JFK Back to Top Mike Johnson General User Member Since: 11/11/2004 Location: North Canton, OH Post Count: 1,736 Status: Offline     RE: Powder Puff, anyone?    Posted: 2/15/2011 12:16:22 AM  Bcat2 wrote: Mike Johnson wrote: As I recall the facemask penalty was introduced in the early 1960s. It certainly was in effect when I played back then. And I applauded it - and felt damned guilty the one and only time I grabbed an opponent's facemask as I realized in that moment that I could seriously injure the opponent. I was okay with permitting offensive linemen to use their hands when pass protecting. But I still cringe at permitting all players to use their hands on running plays. That change has virtually eliminated the sharp blocks that used to be delivered with forearms and shoulder pads. Other changes that have taken some of the toughness from the game: * Eliminating the crackback block. * Severely restriciting below-the-waist blocking - with more such restrictions being proposed. * Introducing the penalty for horsecollar tackles. All these and other changes have been introduced with player safety in mind. To me such rules have gone too far in that direction. Players understand when they begin playing football that injuries can result. If the evolution toward increased player safety continues, we might not see Powder Puff, but we will see something more resembling rugby. I mean, does any football fan dismiss the possibility that we'll someday see banning tackles below the waist? Mike, don't see the banning of tackles below the waist, though, I will never forget the feeling in my gut when I watched a player taken off, broken leg, after I had taken him down. Nothing different from how I had done it so many times before, his leg just broke. After that I became one of those guys that helped him up, never did it before, guess I just wanted to be sure he was going to get up. Long time ago. I can identify with that feeling in your gut.  Before the Army my worst moment came on a football field - in a late-season game between two undefeated teams.  On a 36R (sweep right), I threw a downfield block (below the waist) that helped spring our tailback Joe Rudd for a long gain.   When he was tackled, through the crowd's din, I heard an ugly sound.  He and I wound up lying just a few feet from each other.  I heard Joe say quite calmly, "I think I broke my leg." It was a compound fracture of his thigh.  We both were in the hospital the next morning as I was injured later in that game.   I visited Joe and he expressed neither regret nor bitterness.  Just accepted it as the unfortunate result of a sport we both loved.  http://www.facebook.com/mikejohnson.author Back to Top Pete Chouteau General User Member Since: 11/17/2004 Location: You Can't See Me Post Count: 1,660 Status: Offline     RE: Powder Puff, anyone?    Posted: 2/15/2011 10:31:24 AM  Mike, I don't think we can compare then and now. My late 80s teams spent time in the weight room, but no where near the amount of today's teams. We didn't have nutritional supplements. And a 6-4 260 pound lineman was good enough for a scholarship to play at Duke. We were slower, smaller, and softer. Back to Top Mike Johnson General User Member Since: 11/11/2004 Location: North Canton, OH Post Count: 1,736 Status: Offline     RE: Powder Puff, anyone?    Posted: 2/15/2011 11:34:44 AM  Pete Chouteau wrote: Mike, I don't think we can compare then and now. My late 80s teams spent time in the weight room, but no where near the amount of today's teams. We didn't have nutritional supplements. And a 6-4 260 pound lineman was good enough for a scholarship to play at Duke. We were slower, smaller, and softer. Pete, please don't attach any sarcasm to what I am about to ask.  Okay?  How does your comment relate to my previous post? As to your observation about players from that era being "slower, smaller and softer," that was generally true as to "smaller." But slower and softer? Perhaps.  Except...our school is regarded as being among the first, if not the first, in the state to introduce systematic weight training.  In my case, between my 10th and 11th grade seasons, the program helped me add 45 pounds to a 180 that, uh, wasn't particularly soft.  (I gradually dropped back to my "normal" weight following post-season surgery after my senior season when I decided I wouldn't be playing college ball.) Our weight-trained offensive linemen weren't the behemoths so common today.  We ranged from 180 to 220.    Our defensive linemen and inside linebackers were in the same weight range. Soft?  Slow?  Hmmm, don't think so. BTW, today in that school's modern weight training room, suspended from steel ceiling beams are some of the orginal weights we used.  Purpose for displaying: to help remind today's players of their gridiron ancestors and what they accomplished.  Just to cycle back a moment to my post that initiated this discussion, yes, I do regret rules changes that have removed some of the starch and, yes, danger from football.  I  believe that with the cointinuously increasing concern over player safety and parallel concerns over litigation, that football as we have known it will indeed come to resemble rugby.  And just as many rugby fans have difficulty getting excited about American football, I have the same difficulty as to rugby.  Last Edited: 2/15/2011 11:37:06 AM by Mike Johnson http://www.facebook.com/mikejohnson.author Back to Top Pete Chouteau General User Member Since: 11/17/2004 Location: You Can't See Me Post Count: 1,660 Status: Offline     RE: Powder Puff, anyone?    Posted: 2/15/2011 3:05:51 PM  That hard 225 you played at is now a hard 285. By softer, I do no necessarily mean you or I were a pillow, but that the impact we carried and absorbed was less. I honestly believe the rules being applied over time are not an attempt to avoid litigation, but an attempt to avoid permanent incapacity. We are in an era when football players will tell you they don't want their children to play football. That is an indication that the game has evolved in an undesirable fashion. Back to Top David E Brightbill General User Member Since: 9/5/2005 Post Count: 113 Status: Offline     RE: Powder Puff, anyone?    Posted: 2/15/2011 9:21:35 PM  Bobcatbob wrote: I didn't see a lot of "abuse" of the horsecollar penalty on the field. I thought it was a horses%$# rule at first.  Now I'm OK with it.  Anything that brings proper tackling back into vogue is a good thing.  The equipment shouldn't be a part of the playing, including helmets as weapons, pads as handles and face shields as, well, shields.  It may sound crazy in context but I'm slowly creeping into the leather helmet camp.  The initiator of a collision should be forced to give some thought to the outcome before it happens. Trivia Extra:  In my viewing lifetime, the last NFL player allowed on the field without a face mask was a Cleveland Brown.  Anyone? Otto Graham Back to Top Mike Johnson General User Member Since: 11/11/2004 Location: North Canton, OH Post Count: 1,736 Status: Offline     RE: Powder Puff, anyone?    Posted: 2/16/2011 1:09:10 PM  Pete Chouteau wrote: That hard 225 you played at is now a hard 285. By softer, I do no necessarily mean you or I were a pillow, but that the impact we carried and absorbed was less. I honestly believe the rules being applied over time are not an attempt to avoid litigation, but an attempt to avoid permanent incapacity. We are in an era when football players will tell you they don't want their children to play football. That is an indication that the game has evolved in an undesirable fashion. Pete, a few observations... I'm not sure much has changed re concerns about kids playing football.  I heard that back when i was playing all those many moons ago.  In addition, some kids tried playing football, quickly decided they didn't like the contact and quit. Herewith a related, fond memory: In the spring of my 8th grade year, Mom, Dad and I were sitting around the kitchen table.  Subject: where Mike would go to HS.  "I wish you would go to St. Peter's," said Mom.  "St. Pete's doesn't have a football team," I replied. "I think we should let Mike make up his own mind," said Dad.  End of discussion.  I don't know if there are comprehensive stats comparing frequency of football injuries at both the HS and collegiate levels going back over the decades.  We do know that football was decidedly dangerous in the early years of the 20th century with numerous deaths, and concerns led to banning the "flying wedge."  My impression is that from the 1960s onward the frequency hasn't changed all that much, if at all.  In my senior season alone, our team lost 4 starters to season-ending injuries - two knees, broken arm and the aforementioned compound thigh fracture.  Another starter suffered two concussions but didn't miss any games (perhaps should have).  I've read reports of studies with conflicting conclusions re artiicial turf and injury frequency, but I do believe that artificial turf has increased frequency of injuries to feet, ankles, knees and heads.  I remember the first time I ran a lot on artiticial turf.  It was an indoor soccer game.  Afterward my knees felt like they had the consistency of jello.  Helmets.  Someone posted here that a return to leather helmets might be worth considering.  Never wore one but I'll bet that you, like me, have seen footage from the era when they were worn.  The tackling seemed less fearsome and more like tackling in rugby. I've held and inspected today's helmets.  I don't see any appreciable difference between them and the ones we wore in the '60s.  Facemasks certainly have evolved.  Most of us wore just two connected bars.  All in all, as you now know, I'd prefer no additional restrictions on blocking and tackling. Hoping that our paths cross again this coming season.  http://www.facebook.com/mikejohnson.author Back to Top Bobcatbob General User Member Since: 12/21/2004 Location: Coolville, OH Post Count: 1,347 Status: Offline     RE: Powder Puff, anyone?    Posted: 2/16/2011 1:13:19 PM  David E Brightbill wrote: Bobcatbob wrote: I didn't see a lot of "abuse" of the horsecollar penalty on the field. I thought it was a horses%$# rule at first.  Now I'm OK with it.  Anything that brings proper tackling back into vogue is a good thing.  The equipment shouldn't be a part of the playing, including helmets as weapons, pads as handles and face shields as, well, shields.  It may sound crazy in context but I'm slowly creeping into the leather helmet camp.  The initiator of a collision should be forced to give some thought to the outcome before it happens. Trivia Extra:  In my viewing lifetime, the last NFL player allowed on the field without a face mask was a Cleveland Brown.  Anyone? Otto Graham Well, Otto had no mask but I was thinking of  WR ommy Mac(?)Donald who finished with the Browns when I was just a wee lad. Back to Top Bcat2 General User Member Since: 7/6/2010 Post Count: 4,295 Status: Offline     RE: Powder Puff, anyone?    Posted: 2/16/2011 6:48:51 PM  Pete Chouteau wrote: Mike, I don't think we can compare then and now. My late 80s teams spent time in the weight room, but no where near the amount of today's teams. We didn't have nutritional supplements. And a 6-4 260 pound lineman was good enough for a scholarship to play at Duke. We were slower, smaller, and softer. Pete, the athletes I grew up with were fast, smaller and tougher. There were chores, coal handled by shovel, gardens tilled by shovel, summer jobs in the hay fields or on a railroad crew. Hay bales and railroad ties make up for and lack of weight room. I would also like to take todays boys back to the days before AC. Nutritionally I would love to eliminate 80 percent of the "food" in todays markets. Get a picture of any school class from the twenties or thirties and count the obese or soft kids. Most meals used to be from the meat case, garden and we drank gallons of water. Fifty years ago we were fast, smaller and tougher. "Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men." JFK Back to Top Showing Replies:   1 - 12  of 12 Posts Jump to Page:   1 View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 207 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 204 Guests 3 Registered Users:   Ted Thompson, MMGrad2022, Victory There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2025 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties