Getting Low; Tackling Dummies; Learning from the guys

Imagine how you'd position yourself if you were asked to push a car or pickup truck.  Something like the ladies in the photos, right?  You wouldn't stand up tall.  You'd bend at the waist. 

 

 

 

 

Lily came up with a cool drill for her line.  It is the kind of thing you do when your budget won't buy a blocking sled.  Push a truck.  It builds strength and makes a point.  The point is you have more power with a low profile.  You want head and shoulders higher than hips, back fairly straight.  But this posture produces power. 

 

 

I've been screaming (softly) at television images of the pros and college players missing tackles.  Seems at that level of play they should rarely miss.  But even at that level they seem to go high, grab for the runner's shoulders and try to wrestle him to the ground. 

 

No no no no no no no!  Get low.  Shoulder into belt buckle.  And wrap the runner up, shoulder in middle and arms wrapping around the legs.

 

Go low.  Grab the legs.  Runners can run fast with dragging
a two-hundred pound tackler.

The photo here isn't a perfect illustration but the tackler is low and is wrapping arms around runner legs.  Low.

  

 Tackling dummies have been around forever to help football players practice tackling without having to hit teammates. Tackling dummies are about four feet high, while people are closer to six feet. What does that tell you? It tells you designers of tackling dummies expect tacklers to hit the lower part of the runner's body.

The Outlaws share their practice field with a men's team, the Austin Wolfpack.  At one of the Wolfpack practices, I did some photos of the guys practicing tackling on the tackling dummy.  The photos are kind of fun.  I'd like it better if they got even lower but you can see there is a tremendous amount of power in these hits. 

The ball you see in this picture had been placed on top
of the dummy.  I think coach set it there to make the point
you hit the runner below the ball.  In his middle.

Big guy.  You wanna bet whether he'd bring the runner down.  He is hitting low because
the tackling dummy is only four feet high.  A whole lot of power in that hit.

 

Tackler isn't so big but he's driving through the dummy.

 

 

See the tears (rips) in the tackling dummy?  It is taking a serious beating as the guys practice getting low and powering their bodies through it.  The coach to the left is bent over a bit.  You can still see
that the power is aimed at the midsection of a typical opponent.

Now I'm going to get in a little trouble.  After shooting the Wolfpack abusing the tackling dummy, I thought I'd like to get some photos of Outlaws doing likewise.  And I didn't do so well.  I did get them working the dummies but somehow this lacks some of the energy I saw in the guy's practice.

Low, engaging the dummy, but I don't think there is much power in these hits.

 

Remember I'm not a coach.  Also remember that some photos distort whatever is happening on the field.  I suspect there's a really good reason for this drill.  Certainly the Outlaws are getting low as they engage the four-foot dummy.  But beyond that, I'm not sure what is going on.  I liked it better the way the Wolfpack did it.

Football Rules - A Little Fun; Personal Note

Personal Note First -
It has been nearly two weeks since my last post to this blog. Where have I been?  Dealing with elder care.  My mother-in-law is 98 years old and doing pretty well except she needs 24/7 care.  In the past few weeks we've had problems with caregivers - had to release two.  So we've been interviewing replacements.  In the process we've found a personal care home which was suggested to us as an alternate to our keeping mom in her own home and also an alternate to a nursing home.  We've been doing lots of interviewing and evaluating and considering and money-counting.  And not much blogging.  The care home is really nice with very fine owner and caregivers; we'll be moving mom there around the first of December.  Maybe after that I'll get back to frequent posting.

Football Rules
I've disliked field goals ever since November 8, 1970, when I watched in horror as field goal kicker New Orleans Saints Tom Dempsey beat my Detroit Lions with two seconds left in the game by kicking a 63-yard field goal for a final score of 19-17. I believe 63-yards remains the record now over forty years later.

Which football rules would you change if you were in charge? 

In his autobiographical book Terry Bradshaw suggested some rules changes.  One of Terry Bradshaw's ideas was to increase points for long field goals.  I don't remember the details - maybe award 4 or 5 points for an over-fifty yard field goal. 

Dumb!  And I'm a Terry Bradshaw fan.  But that struck me as a terrible idea. 

A field goal attempt is an admission of failure.  Failure to get ten yards for a first down.  Failure to move the ball into the end zone for six points.  A long field goals is evidence of a bigger failure.  Not only didn't you get the ball into the end zone, you didn't even get it close.  Why would we want to reward failure?  Long field goals should get fewer points than short ones.  Over fifty yards maybe one point.  Over forty, two points.  Over thirty, three.  Closer than thirty, four?  Nah, never more than three points.

If I were making the rules, I'd fiddle with field goals. 

I'd also get rid of the false-start penalty.  I don't know the statistics but it feels as though this penalty is called a dozen times in a typical game.  False "start" isn't quite accurate.  If a lineman moves after being set, it is a penalty.  "Move" means leaning a little tiny bit, shifting his down hand, raising his head.  The rule was instituted because the O-line used to try to draw the defense off sides by appearing to start a play before the snap of the ball.  Okay, if a lineman does a serious move in an obvious intent to fool the defense, maybe a penalty.  But if he just blinks an eye, no penalty.

How about the illegal block in the back on kick-offs and punt-returns?  It seems as though three out of four returns draw this kind of penalty.  A kick receiver runs eighty yards and the play is called back because a blocker touched a defender's back.  There has to be a better way.  Maybe take the penalty from the end of the run, not the point of the foul.  On kicks, you have twenty-two players racing toward each other at top speed, trying to get a bead on the guy with the ball.  A blocker may aim at the front of a defender and miss because the defender turns to expose his back.  That shouldn't be a penalty should it?

Another idea - at the end of the game when one team has the ball and the lead and the other is out of timeouts, why waste time taking a snap and a knee to kill the remaining 80 seconds?  Why not just call it a game and everybody go home?

Couple more silly ideas and then I have to get back to my elder-care duties:  On the opening kickoff, kickers are routinely kicking the ball all the way through the end zone.  A couple years ago the league moved the kickoff line closer to mid-field with the intent of reducing run-backs because those special teams situations invite injuries.  This has inspired  a couple ideas.

One is to have the kickers trying to split the uprights.  If he succeeds, award the kicking team a point.  Effectively kicking a field goal.  And applying my graduated field-goal point system noted above.

The second idea is why kick off at all?  Why not just give the receiving team the ball at the twenty yard line?  That would avoid the injuries and blocks in the back and all the other troubles with kickoff returns. 

Of course it would also eliminate those thrilling 99-yard kickoff returns.

Actually, football rules are pretty good overall.  I probably wouldn't really make changes.  Would you?

Disgusting

No photos with today's post.  You'll thank me.  I don't have photos that support my message.  Even if I did, I think you would prefer I not post them.

I'm older than you.  Grew up in the 40s and 50s.  I was there when television was invented.  Black and white only (well, as a photographer I know we're really talking shades of gray).  Small screens.  Three channels available. 

My folks weren't rich.  I went to a friend's home to see his television.  The show was "The Lone Ranger" and it was so cool. 

Televisions had antennas.  Either a V-Shaped contraptions called rabbit ears because they looked like rabbit ears.  You'd set then on top of the television and connect to the tv by a flat plastic cable carrying two wires.  If you wanted better picture quality you'd have  a more complex thing mounted outside on your roof with a wire running down and through the window to connect with the television.  Some were really fancy, lots of aluminum arms running in all directions.  From above, neighborhoods looked like little forests with all the antennas sticking up into the air from the rooftops.  If you Google TV Antenna's, you'll find lots of photos. 

TV images were small.  Often there was lots of "snow" in the picture, white dots on the black background.  If snow was a big problem you'd get a fancier antenna.  Or a "tena-roter" you could use to turn the roof antenna around to get a better signal.  Sometimes the the snow was caused by birds landing on the arms of the antenna.  You'd need a beebee gun to shoo them away.

Sports on TV were great.  Pictures weren't crystal clear but clear enough.  You could definitely see the action.  You could read the numbers on the jerseys.  I especially loved watching hockey. The white ice provided a great contrasting background so the players were clearly visible.  The puck was a problem, too small to see clearly. 

Football was great on tv.  Much better than just listening to a radio announcer try to describe what was happening.

I wonder if TV created the need for teams to have different uniforms for home and away games.  Before tv, people attending games could see the games in color.  It was easy to distinguish between the guys in blue uniforms and the ones in red.  On tv, all colors  presented in shades of gray and you might have trouble figuring out who was who.  So they had one team wear white, the other team use team colors.

Baseball... this is where disgusting comes in.

Not disgusting back in the day with the little shades-of-gray images on the little screen.  Actually it was fun watching baseball in those days.  Not a lot of detail, though. Even if you had a huge antenna on your roof.  The cameras were good but you didn't get super close-ups.  You couldn't see the seams of the ball and pitcher's hand griping it. There were no close-up of player's faces except in after game interviews. 

That was then.  This is now. 

I've been watching a lot of baseball lately. I'm a big Tigers fan and just delighted they'll play in the world series.  I've been watching playoff games on a 42" high definition television.  The close-ups are spectacular. 

And disgusting. 

Baseball players spit.  All the time, all the players.  Spit spit spit spit.  Why?  Where do they get enough hydration to spit so much?  In one of the games (Giants vs Cardinals) I noticed the field seemed wet.  I wondered if it was wet from rain or spit. 

Do players in other sports spit?  Do the Outlaws spit?  I haven't seen any spitting at Outlaws games.  I don't recall spitting at football games in general.  Maybe because the face masks are in the way?  I don't spit.  In the old days it was a guy thing to chew tobacco and that generated a lot of spitting.  Bars had spittoons to so tobacco users didn't have to mess up the floor, provided their aim was good. I think some modern baseball players chew tobacco.  That would explain some spitting. 

Some chew gum. I chew gum.  That never makes me want to spit.

Most baseball players just spit.  That's what baseball players do.

Isn't spitting unsanitary? Watching a baseball game, I wonder if there is a square inch of the field not wet from spit.  Spit contaminating the turf with whatever germs players may be carrying around.

When I see players sliding into a base I'm distracted from the action by wondering if they're getting spit all over their uniforms. 

I'm going to watch the world series.  Hopefully the Tigers will win in four so I'll only have to endure about twelve hours  of spitting. 

Spitting.

Disgusting.

Is Breaking the Rules ever the Right Thing to do?

Do you think the NFL is monitoring this blog? 




My favorite zebra photo.  That's Calvin throwing the flag as an Outlaw
is administering punishment upon a Houston blocker who has
been stretching the rules.



 

A few weeks ago I did a three-part series on officials.  I called them zebras.  Lots of photos, a little narrative.  I expressed some admiration for the job they do.  I said evidence of the quality of their work is that I never notice them during the games.  Only on my computer when an official shows up blocking my camera view of the play.


Within a couple weeks of my posts on officials NFL officiating becomes big - BIG - news.  Monday night's amazing officiating errors gave the game to Seattle when Green Bay obviously won.  I wonder if all this focus on officiating was in any way inspired by our blog?  Nah.

Tonight's game welcomes back the official officials. 

Don't be surprised if players hug the zebras. 

A while back I did a couple posts about stretching the rules.  I suggested that stretching the rules is part of the game. Sometimes it is sound strategy. If you're playing safety and the receiver has a step on you with a clear path to the end zone, interference, though illegal, may be the best thing to do. If you get caught interfering, the official will give the offense the ball at the point of the foul - and not in the end zone for six points. If you don't get caught... Well if the officials don't see, is it still cheating? 

Here's a link to a youtube.com video of the final play Monday.   If you play it full screen and watch closely at about 14 seconds into the video, you can see flagrant offensive interference.  Seattle number 81, Tate, pushes Green Bay number 37, Shields, firmly in the back, both hands, knocking him to the ground,  out of the play.  That should have ended the game with a Seattle penalty and a Green Bay win, regardless of your opinion on who caught or didn't catch the pass. 

But the officials didn't see it.

If the official didn't see it was it still cheating? 

I'm an NFL fan.  I enjoy college games,  I enjoy the Outlaws games, I even enjoy little league games.  But the NFL plays at a whole different level.  These are the best athletes in the world.  The level of the play is amazing. 

They're even the best at stretching the rules.  Watching games these past three weeks, we've seen case after case of an NFL professional player stretching the rules and not being caught by the unofficial officials.  NFL games have seven officials (the Outlaws games have five).  Seven zebras to watch twenty-two players.  Twenty-two players who are battling for their careers.  Careers that depend on winning. 

The most striking thing for me in these three weeks is how good the official officials are.  It is incredibly difficult is to control twenty-two highly motivated, super talented athletes.  Athletes who stretch the rules because winning is vitally important.  Sometimes they don't get caught holding or interfering.  Even if they do get caught the prescribed penalty may be more desirable than letting your opponent make the play. 

Which raises an interesting philosophical question.

I checked my Outlaws photos looking for pictures of Outlaws stretching the rules.  I have a few from previous year's teams but none from the 2012 season.

Holding, hand to face.  Two rules being broken in one play.

Holding.  Illegal unless the Outlaw (in black) has the ball.

 

Holding.  Maybe delaying the tackler just enough,
giving the runner a slight edge.

 

Should the 2012 team should have stretched the rules just a little more?  This wasn't the Outlaws best season.  Would it have been better with a few more holds? 

In sports the goal is to win.  Rules define how you play.  The rules come with two parts.  First, defining the rule, what is legal and what isn't.  Second, defining the consequences of breaking the rule. 

Here's the philosophical question for you: 

If the consequences of breaking the rule are less than the consequences of obeying, shouldn't you go ahead and break the rule?   Tate broke the rule and the Seahawks won. 

As I raise the question I struggle against my own morality.  I value integrity.  I believe in doing what's right, in living by the rules.  Yet here I am suggesting, advocating even, deliberate breaking of the rules of the game. 

I think the answer is in the last word of the last paragraph:  "game." 

Football is a game. 

Life isn't.

Chartreuse Shoes

The Cowboys lost to the Seahawks yesterday, 27-7.  Not a great game.  My attention wandered.  I noticed the Seahawks uniforms.  Noticed their shoes.  Many Seahawks players wore Chartreuse shoes!  I was shocked.

Seattle Seahawks Chartreuse Shoes.

I switched to the Steelers-Jets game.  Many of the Steelers wore yellow shoes.  Yellow! 

Pittsburgh Steeler with yellow-trimmed shoes.

My favorite team is the Lions. I grew up in Detroit.  They played the Forty-Niners in the late game Sunday.  The Lions uniforms are Honolulu blue and silver.  Many of the Lions wore shoes trimmed in Honolulu blue. 

Detroit Lions Shoes trimmed in Honolulu blue - almost baby blue. 

What in the world is happening?  Football players wearing pastel colored shoes.  How long has this been going on?  What are we doing to what once was the magnificent sport of football?

Before I go on I need to insert a disclaimer.  You know I’m an Outlaws fan.  I love the Outlaws.  I admire the Outlaws.  There are some serious athletes on the team.  They play good hard-hitting football.  They love the game the way I love the game.  They are tough minded individuals, willing to ignore social stereotypes to play a game society says women shouldn’t.  Nothing I say in this blog should suggest anything but the highest regard for the women of football.

I’ve been photographing Outlaws games and practices for years.  I did a featured player thing on their website and now this blog to promote interest in the team and attendance at their games.   

Tiffany's socks - just a few examples.

One of my favorite Outlaws is Tiffany James. In an early interview, Tiffany told me about wanting to wear colorful socks with her uniform. Her story got me noticing socks in women’s professional football and inspired a couple fun blog posts on the subject. 

Deidra Holland in pretty pink shoes with
matching socks.

In the 2012 season I noticed Deidra Holland wearing socks decorated with kitty cats?  And pink shoes.  Pink!  With pink shoelaces. 

Two words you will never see in the same sentence are football and feminine.  When I noticed Tiffany’s socks and Deidra’s shoes, I enjoyed the idea that women can do masculine things while retaining femininity. 

This male/female issue in society intrigues me because I feel strongly both ways.  Women are different from men.  If girls have the strength and athletic ability, should they be allowed to play on the guys football team?  I can think of lots of reasons.  Reasons for, reasons against.  It is the kind of issue that makes life interesting.  It is one reason women’s football interesting.  The novelty of women playing a violent sport, the reality that they play pretty well, thank you. 

The conflict for Tiffany wanting to do something masculine – hitting people and rolling around in the dirt – while doing something feminine – wearing “pretty” socks, struck me as an interesting gender conflict.  Coach Frank said no, you can’t wear those socks.  A natural masculine response. 

Having earlier noticed socks in women’s football, this season I started noticing shoes. 

Chartreuse

 

Pretty red and white.

Pretty red and black.

Pretty blue.

One shoe trimmed in blue, one an odd design...?  I don't
think this photo fits in this discussion but I couldn't resist.

 

I characterized the pretty shoes and pretty socks as feminine.  It in no way diminished my appreciation of the amazing women who play on the Austin Outlaws full-contact NFL rules football team.  If anything, it strengthened my respect.  People doing what they want in defiance of stereotypes without giving up their real selves. 

Still, I have to admit, I like the down and dirty stuff.  I like seeing the ladies (and the men) with uniforms dirty, shoes dusty.  That’s the essence of the sport.  If you’re going to play football, you’re going to hit the ground, roll in the dirt. You’re going to get your uniform dirty.

Football isn't about fashion or femininity.  It is about getting down in the dirt.
If you play football you're going to get your uniform dirty.  You don't
see any pretty shoes in this photo, do you.  (Somehow Tiffany's pretty
socks got in the photo...)

 

Dirty is masculine.  Pretty is feminine.  Pretty socks and pretty shoes bring feminine to football.  Kinda cute.  Just fine in a women's professional football league. 

But not in men's football.  Not in the NFL. 


Then I see the Seahawks wearing pretty chartreuse shoes.  And the Steelers wearing pretty yellow shoes. And the Lions wearing Honolulu blues shoes (almost baby-blue.)  What!  What is happening to football?

What is happening to the NFL? 

In one of the games I watched this weekend the runner was out of bounds and the defender gave him a little push.  Two hands, light touch. The runner didn’t even fall down.  But the official threw his pretty yellow flag and assessed a fifteen yard penalty for unnecessary roughness.  Roughness?  Man, that wasn’t rough.   

These are really football shoes.

I played in the years of black shoes, high-top for the linemen, low-cut for runners.  The first face masked were single bars that offered feeble protection against someone stepping on your nose.  But did provide a handy handle for someone who wants to grab you and whip you around a little before dropping you to the ground. 

Pretty?  No way. 

What is this world coming to?

Zebras

You’ve heard of  Brahms’ Lullaby but did you know it took Brahms twenty years to write it?  He kept falling to sleep at the keyboard.

Zebras keep getting between my camera
and the action.  Growl!

A couple years ago I noticed officials in my photos.  Often spoiling the picture.  I even did a post, “Kill him, kill the umpire,” complaining about the way the zebras  get between my camera and the action. 

I’ve been a football fan for over sixty years, been attending Outlaws games for eight years, and I’ve never paid attention to the officials.  In my next post I’ll tell you about Calvin Towns, a regular official at Outlaws games, and how he got me noticing officials in my pictures. It was a remarkable photo of him that inspired this post.
  

I never intentionally photographed an official but still have a lot of good shots.  Viewing them raised some questions.  Why do some have black hats, some white.  Why do some have letters on their backs?  How do they decide where to line up on the field?  (I should know this.  A sports photographer told us wannabes to be aware of where officials set and  position ourselves accordingly to keep the official out of our pictures.)



Outlaws games have five officials plus  a time keeper. 
Only one wears a white hat.  Wonder why?

Then I thought this might make a good blog post.  If I wonder about the zebras, maybe you do too.

A little research uncovered a lot of information.  TMI – too much information.  The Brahms effect set in.  I kept falling asleep at my computer.  Bored.  I didn’t want to know that much about the zebras.  If  this bored me it might bore you, too.  Blog posts shouldn’t be boring. 

Still, some of what I learned is interesting.  Some of the photos cool.  So how can I share the interesting stuff without boring you? 

Simple.  I should have thought of this right away.  I’m going to leave out the boring stuff.  These two posts aren’t going to tell you everything about football officials.  (If you want to know more, just Google “NFL Football Officials.”)  I’m just posting the fun stuff.  Enough information so you’ll be adequately informed.  Some of my favorite photos so you’ll be entertained. 

At Outlaws games there are five officials, plus a timekeeper.  They are:

 

Referee: Calvin said the referee’s main job is to make certain the “quarterback doesn’t get killed.”  He’s the one with the white hat. He lines up behind the quarterback.  He gets the glory announcing penalties and stuff on television.  Sometimes he has a big “R” on his back. 

The referee lines up behind the quarterback.  Part of his job is to protect the quarterback.
In this shot, Cookie looks like she needs some protection.  She has just thrown a pass
which is caught by her receiver.  Now she has to deal with some Dallas Diamonds.

Umpire:  Lines up five yards off the defensive side of the ball.  Sometimes wears the letter “U” on his shirt.  He’s the one who wipes the ball dry on a rainy day in the NFL.

I've posted this photo before.  It is a good shot of the umpire who lines up in the defensive
backfield.  It also shows (and this is why I like it) that it is impossible for the official
to see everything.  The umpire doesn't see the extra-curricular stuff going on at the right
where an Outlaw is explaining to a blocker that holding is illegal and holding this
Outlaw has severe consequences.

I like this photo because is shows both the referee and
umpire.  It also shows how much goes on when twenty-two
players are doing battle.  It takes several zebras to keep order.

I think he's the back judge because he lines up deep
in the defensive backfield and is in the best position to
cover a long scoring play.

Back Judge:  Lines up twenty yards deep in the defensive backfield. I'm not certain if I have a photo of the back judge but I suspect this is one.  If he lines up deep on the defensive side of the field, he is probably the one who is in the best position to determine when the offensive back crosses the goal line. 

Head Linesman and Line Judge:  These two line up on opposite sides of the field, along the sideline.  The head linesman keeps tabs on the chain crew.  I wonder if the head linesman gets paid more? 

I don't know if this official is the head linesman or just a plain old linesman.  I can tell
you that Outlaw Fuller does make the tackle. 

Line judge, or is he the head linesman, running along with
the play.  He needs to watch the runner's feet to see if
she steps out of bounds before crossing the goal line.

I don't think I'd want to be a line judge.  They seem to be the ones who have to run up and down the field with the play.  It is impressive to see them keep up with speedy runners.  I don't like running. 

I like this photo because of the official's concentration.  These men take their job seriously.

I just like this shot.  He is either a line judge or head
linesman.  He takes his job seriously.

The next post will be part two about the zebras.  In particular, we'll focus on Calvin Towns.  After that, I should be ready with a couple more player profiles, Maile and Malia Capers-Cristobal. 

Liberty

Neighborhood boys knock on the door.  They're setting up a little football game and ask if Emily come out and play.  Emily has brothers but she's the best athlete in the house.  Yet when Emily wanted to try out for the high school team, she was turned away because girls shouldn't play a violent game like football.

Why to Crash (#41) and Cookie (#2) want to play football?

I don't know but I'm glad they do.  And glad they can.

I've often heard that story when interviewing Outlaws and asking about the experience of playing women's professional football.  "I wanted to play, I was good, but girls weren't allowed..."

This is the fourth of July.  We celebrate the declaration of independence in which our founders declared unalienable rights to include Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  Freedom.

Today American women have the liberty to pursue happiness even if the pursuit involves playing full contact NFL rules football. 

Mary Nguyen

A recurring theme in this blog is appreciation of the differences in people.  A few years ago I started interviewing Austin Outlaws to see if I could figure out why any woman would want to play football.  I found my interviewees to be fascinating people.  But impossible to stereotype.  Big, small, short, tall, high school grads, college grads, grad school grads.  Quiet, not so quiet, religious, not religious.  Different nationalities - Japanese (Minori Jovel), Viet Namese (Mary Nguyen), African American, Hispanic, Caucasian, even Hawaiian.  All with different life stories, all with different reasons for wanting play.  All delightfully different from each other, from me.

Minori Jovel

In this country, you are (still) free to be different. 

I love difference in people, in scenery, in food, in food, in food...  oops.  Difference is interesting.  I've resumed interviewing players and I'll profile them in this blog in the weeks ahead.  Fascinating people. 

Problem.  We live in a society that wants to eliminate differences.  Social stigma attach to people who don't conform.  This is at it's worse when we stigmatize people for traits they couldn't change if they wanted to.  Like physical characteristics.  Size.  Features. 

Why do people want to tell other people how to live, how to look, how to eat, how to play? 

Societal pressure to conform can be resisted by informing public opinion.  This blog aims at reducing societal biases by introducing you to wonderful people who have chosen to do something different, football.  I'm a big person and size bias is a personal thing with me.  You'll see blog posts on being big, being small.  Sneaky attempts by me to influence your opinion about differences in people.


A more pernicious attack on individual liberty is legislative.  A lot of people are so determined to erase differences that they want to pass laws controlling the rest of us.  In New York City, they're passing a law against thirty-two ounce soft drinks.  Just about everywhere are laws against smoking.  I'm not going to create a list because I'm confident you're aware of government agencies setting rules to limit your liberty. 

Our liberty.  We're a land of the free but our freedom is limited by millions of laws passed at city, county, state, and national levels. 

I have become a libertarian.  I believe  you should be free to be what you want to be, do what you want to do when you want how you want.  As long as it doesn't affect me, it is none of my business. 


July 4 is an important date. November 6, 2012 is more important. It is election day. When you vote, consider which candidates will recognize and respect your individual liberty.

So you can even play football if you want to.

Why does Tara Andrickson (#33) want to play football?  I don't know.  But I'm glad she does.  And
glad she can.
There's a guy in a striped shirt watching.  He's part of the game.  But if we ever get big brother
government watching...

Neat or Messy?

The preacher was Max Anders.  He was making a point at Grace Covenant Church in Austin.  Max was drawing a contrast between himself and his wife.  I don't remember the words he used to describe himself but the point was he isn't very neat.  In contrast to his being messy, he said his  wife is... "Tidy". 

That's a word I've never used in normal conversation:  Tidy.  Tidy as in neat, orderly,

Finally, all these years later, I have a reason to use the word.  In a blog about football.  Are you ready?

If I were coaching a football team (bad idea) and I had a lot of new players, I'd ask each if she is tidy or not tidy.  How much does "tidy" describe you?  And that's how I'd decide whether to play that player on offense or defense.    Tidy?  Offense.  Not so much?  Defense. 

Many years ago I read an article by a sportswriter who observed the lockers of professional football players. He noticed some lockers were tidy, some messy. He sought a pattern and discovered that players on offense tend to be tidy; players on defense not so much.  So that would be my guiding light.  Tidy, offense; messy, defense.

It makes sense, doesn't it?  The role of the defense is to mess things up. 

The offense has a plan, a play in mind.  They're working from a playbook.  As in the diagram printed here, borrowed from a free website. Offense players are represented by "O"s; Defense by "X"s.  See the plan, each offensive player has an assignment to handle a particular defensive player.  Neat.  Orderly.  Tidy.  Everyone accounted for. 

The defense has a plan, too.  Spoil the offense plan.  Mess everything up.  Offense loves tidy; defense loves messy.  In the locker room or on the field.

In the game everyone lines up and everything looks all neat and orderly.  The center snaps the ball to the quarterback.  The quarterback hands it to the running back.  The "O"s start blocking the "X"s...

Cookie  handing off to #47 Lisa Holewyne. 

What a mess.

...then the defense messes it all up.  People who were supposed to get out of the way refuse.  Instead they all crowd in. Creating a big disorderly mess.  In the second photo all the order is gone.  You can't even see running back Lisa Holewyne unless you study very carefully.  She is holding the ball in her left arm, which is over the back of Rubi Reyna, who is being tackled by one of the Dallas Diamonds while another Diamond is grabbing Lisa's arm.  If you're a player on offense, this photo makes you uncomfortable.  It is messy.  If you're a player on defense, you're smiling.

As I contemplated this profound concept, I browsed my photos for examples.  As I am wont to do, I started noticing photos that maybe don't exactly match my message but did make me smile just a little. 

Defense messing things up and not very tidy in doing it.

Like this photo.  The Dallas Diamonds are on defense.  Sometimes the camera catches players in an awkward position.  Number 47.  If she were on offense she'd hate this photo.  But she plays D and she is enjoying wreaking havoc on a hapless running back.  Messy.  Not tidy.

I like the photo below for a couple reasons.  In this the Outlaws are on defense.  I like that they're doing good.  And I like that the photo does illustrate my point.  About not tidy.  Note how the offense players are all lined up in a neat row defining a line the Outlaws are not allowed to cross.  Just like in the diagram in their playbook.  But, wait!  The Outlaws #33, Tara Andrickson, isn't respecting the line.  She is behind it.  As is another Outlaw at the left.  And yet another low at the right.  Messing up the Dallas tidy little plan.  Yes!!!

At least three Outlaws messing up the Dallas plan.

Hmmm.  Where to go?

I'm including this photo (right) even though it doesn't advance my point at all.  Well, maybe.  I'm sure the Outlaws playbook doesn't show #34 Adriene Futrell taking on three tacklers all by herself.  So we know the defense is messing things up yet again.  I sometime like photos like this because of the feeling of suspense.  Something bad is about to happen.  Or will she elude the tacklers? 

If you see Ereka, please ask her to tell us about this play.  I don't think that's how it was
designed in the playbook.

Unlike the anticipation in the last photo, there is something happening in this one.  I just don't know what.  The runner - er, flier - is Ereka Howard.  She was one of my favorite subjects when I was shooting the Outlaws in practice, before they put on helmets.  I consistently caught her wonderful facial expressions. 

I asked Ereka about this play.  Was she jumping?  Or was the tackler picking her up?  Was she catching a pass?  Or what?  She didn't reply to my email so we're left to wonder.  Not a tidy way to end a post on tidiness.

Okay, then I won't end it with that photo. 

Instead how about a survey.  At the bottom of each blog post is an opportunity for you to comment.  I'd be interested in comments, especially from players or from people who know some players, about whether there really is a correlation between tidy and offense, messy and defense.   So if  you're a player, do you play on offense or defense?  And are you tidy or not so much? 

You don't have to include your name.