Re: Research Project

"Kirk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...> "crayon" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message

> I'm not for getting rid of zone D. But your logic is quite flawed.
> (I'm almost trying not to mock you.) Sports are not evolutionary
> in the way you seem to believe. Just because something is "effective",
> doesn't mean it should remain legal. NFL d-backs used to be able to
> manhandle receivers anywhere on the field, now they can only chuck
> them within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. 

Manhandle anywhere on the field?  I think pass interference has been
around longer than a few years.  Can you explain the rule change a
little better? (Not trying to mock...noooo, not me).  Besides, what
crayon was saying, probably, was that zone is good because it's
effective...though not unfair to the opponent!  Big difference,
because unfairness (or perhaps dangerous) is why they eliminated this
chucking you're referring to.  Chucking may have worked with the rules
of the time, but we can see from the perspective of now that it the
rule shouldn't have been.  Zone does work, because it keeps integrity.
 It's effective, it's not unfair, and not dangerous, unspirited, etc.

The NBA made zoning
> illegal for precisely the reason Robin gave. 

But that is precisely not the reason you gave for making chucking
illegal in football.

They wanted more scoring
> and a faster pace. Of course, now that the NBA became solely an
> isolation game, they've brought the zone back. But all these moves are
> ultimately to make the sport more entertaining, while not changing it
> so abruptly so as to put off current fans.

While the NBA is on the merry-go-round of determining what is fun to
watch, I say let's keep the zone, for it is challenging, athletic, and
when employed well, creates turnovers, which are fun.

> Argue for keeping the zone because 1) getting rid of it wouldn't make
> the game more entertaining or 2) any entertainment gained would not
> be worth the damage to the integrity of the sport. Not just because
> "it works."

I think he did argue for #2, though it doesn't fit quite rigidly into
your category.  Because it does work, and within the spirit of the
game, it does not damage the integrity of the sport.