Blog 5: Sources Reviewed

I have discovered a lot in my latest research. I am making good progress in answering my essential questions as well as my sub questions with viable and credible sources. I have reviewed how many people watched the Super Bowl the year as a statistic of interest for my introduction paragraph. I believe it grabs attention. I have had great success in researching my topic. My only struggle on the project has been getting a time set for y interviewee because as a doctor, Glenn Reinhart is a very busy man.
Ryan Faughner is an experienced writer for the L.A. Times, an extremely credible newspaper. He states that 111.5 million viewers watched the Super Bowl.
I also cited a source from an online authority in the sporting world called mmqb.si.com. The author, Don Banks writes that the new rule changes should be viewed as saving the NFL not ruining it.
Another source I cited was the most notable authority in all of sports, ESPN. Although the author, Edward Ashoff, is an expert on college football, he still maintains that same credibility when writing about the targeting penalty because it pertains highly to the NFL.
SBNATION is a source that i have cited that outlines the each and every rule change to the NFL in 2013. The author's name is Peter Berkes. He is a Senior writer for the online news site. He is a very credible source and has written on a broad spectrum of topics, but the NFL is his first love.
NFL.com is possibly my most  credible source as far as the advocation for the new rules goes simply because they are the people behind the rule changes. The article I cited is New NFL Rules Designed to Limit Head Injuries. It is written by the associated press of the National Football League.

The general argument made by the associated press of NFL.com in their work, New NFL rules designed to limit head injuries is that the NFL’s new rule changes are being put in place in order to prevent concussions. They write, “The league has expanded its rules to prevent "defenseless" players from taking shots above their shoulders.” In this passage, the author is suggesting that the NFL is greatly trying to impact the emphasis put on hits to the head in order to prevent head injury. In conclusion, the NFL believes that they are preventing more injuries. In my view, the NFL is wrong, because it makes the game softer.

More specifically, I believe that although the rule above makes it safer, the NFL needs to be more specific on what the rules define. For example, the rule about the defenseless receiver being hit above the shoulders is a great idea, but in the high pace situation of an NFL game, referees often mistake incidental contact etween the player and the other players head. Although the NFL might object that their referees can do the job,    I maintain that it is just too hard to call. I conclude that the rule should be allowed if only it can be clearly defined and called correctly.

Blog 4: NFL Evolution

This video takes us through the "NFL Evolution" that has taken place over time and is continuing to take place.  Throughout this video, please pay attention to the little details in penalties that have come about and have been made rules. Also note how different the NFL has become in the past 108 years that football has been around. The National Football League has created this video in order to promote the current and coming rule changes. Therefore, the source is very credible considering it is the highest authority on all things football. This video is relevant because it shows how te league has changed the rules over time which is directly related to my topic.

The general argument made by the NFL in their work NFL Evolution commercial video is that the NFL is evolving into a better, newer, safer, and more entertaining National Football League. 

 In The video, the NFL shows how the game has changed for the better over the years. In conclusion, the NFL's belief is that they are changing the game for the better to protect their players. In my view, they're right and wrong, because although they are changing the NFL rules, the video only shows how the NFL has corrected penalties that NEEDED to be corrected. They aren't showing the things they've corrected that didn't need correction. More specifically, I believe that the numerous new penalties need to be reviewed for their actual reasoning behind why they were put in the game. For example, the targeting penalty must be reviewed. Although the NFL disagrees, I believe that they at least need to stop ejections and when reviewing the play take off the penalty as well. Therefore, I conclude that this video is inspirational and can definitely show how the NFL is improving its design and rules, but there are things that still need to be corrected and possibly changed back. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Blog 3- Book

I am reading League of Denial. The general argument made by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams in their work at ESPN as investigative reporters is that in the $10 Billion industry that is the NFL, the players are not protected by the League. They write,“Based on exclusive interviews, previously undisclosed documents, and private emails, this is the story of what he NFL knew and when they knew it-- questions at the heart of  crisis that threatens football...” In this passage, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams is suggesting that the NFL has been negligent in keeping the players safe. In conclusion, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams's belief is that rule changes and further investigation must continue in the NFL to help effectively make the game safer. In my view, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams are right. More specifically, I believe that the NFL must change rules to protect players from head injury through rules that need to be specifically defined as well as given strict guidelines to the referees to insure a fair game as well as one that does not penalize a player for a legal hit. For example, when a quarterback is hit by a player leading with his head a helmet to helmet must ensue, however, if that quarterback is not hit in the head and is simply taken down using a shoulder pad when no helmet to helmet contact is made, no call should be made. Although the authors might object that that is a no call situation, I maintain that if that is made a call then there will be less of an ability to enjoy the game of football. After all, the players are paid a significant amount of money to hit and be hit. It's their job. Therefore, I conclude that although I agree that changes must be made they need to be limited in their expansion because changing the game too much may make a negative effect to the franchises and the popularity of the sport. The authors are extremely credible in the fact that they work for the global leader in sports investigation with ESPN. I skimmed the books summary and prologue to check for relevance to my topic and it proved very effective considering it is an exact match of what I am looking for.