A vote for anything that increases players' safety
The NFL's new kickoff rule that reduces returns might or might not increase safety, but at least that's the intent.
Many wacky players probably oppose the new rule, but somebody has to protect them from themselves and especially from coaches.
At best, this change is a small step toward that end, even if a hidden agenda might be at work during these difficult times of labor strife.
Never trust that the NFL is being altruistic.
Anyway, Bears general manager Jerry Angelo said the right things after the rule passed. However, the club had campaigned against it.
Bears president Ted Phillips and head coach Lovie Smith expressed opposition. Angelo was a bit softer in his stance, and to my knowledge the McCaskeys didn't go public with ownership's view.
Shame on the Bears for not supporting the movement.
Why? Because, as Saints head coach Sean Payton was quoted as saying, “The bottom line is it's … the highest risk-of-injury play.”
Colts president Bill Polian reportedly said, “We have to respond to the safety issue.”
Meanwhile, Smith was saying that altering kickoffs is “tearing up the fabric of the game.”
It seems that I'm in the minority here, but anything is good if it might, even just might, keep one knee from being shattered or brain from being scrambled.
Fans could be expected to be against the change because they pay big bucks to be entertained and spectacular kickoff returns are entertaining.
However, NFL owners reap big bucks from the violent nature of football and the subsequent injuries.
At some point an owner has to feel guilty about making his living — a very comfortable living — from the physical damage suffered by others.
The Bears had a shortsighted reason to oppose the new kickoff rule: Their kick returners and kick coverages are among the NFL's best.
But does that mean that if the Bears weren't so proficient on special teams that they would have voted against the change? Maybe because indications are that many clubs voted according to “what's best for us.”
The Bears never would cite their personal gain to justify players' pain for their objection to the new rule. Instead they insist that an exciting aspect of the game is being lost and that not many injuries will be prevented anyway.
Easy for them to say.
Phillips, Smith, Angelo and the McCaskeys aren't running upfield with a kick or downfield trying to bust a wedge.
People in suits and skirts, sitting in suites and standing on sidelines, pay men in fancy uniforms to carry out that dangerous duty for them.
Club officials aren't exposing their heads, bones, muscles, tendons and ligaments to potential disrepair.
So when a rule is proposed to change football ever so slightly and maybe even reduce carnage ever so slightly, you'd think conscience would compel a favorable vote.
Here's a suggestion for management and ownership:
Before speaking out against any new safety rule, much less voting against it, activate yourselves for an exhibition game and experience one play and one violent collision to understand what it's like in football's modern era to cover, return or block on a kickoff.
If after that you still are inclined to vote against a rule intended to safeguard players, well, maybe a hit concussed you into an altered state.
Seriously, any change that protects the safety of players is progress.
mimrem@dailyherald.com