Quotulatiousness

March 23, 2013

How will the new crown of the helmet rule impact Adrian Peterson?

Filed under: Football — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 10:14

The NFL passed a new rule to penalize hits delivered by ball carriers with the crown of the helmet. Scott Kacsmar at ColdHardFootballFacts.com crunches the numbers from last season to see how much the new rule would have changed Adrian Peterson’s hard-charging ways if it had been in force for that year:

The NFL’s rushing king, Adrian Peterson, is known for his physical running style. If the reigning MVP is going to lose some of his greatness, then that could be a major problem for the league.

Peterson’s recovery story was a big one for the NFL as he is one of the most popular players. You do not hamper your superstars.

That is why we went to the video to study Peterson’s 2011 and 2012 seasons – a total of 556 carries including the playoffs – for just his rushing attempts. Any play is a potential flag, though we wanted to focus on the running game.

At its absolute worst, the Crown Rule would have impacted 1.98 percent of Peterson’s runs the last two years.

Have you breathed a sigh of relief yet? You will after we show you the 11 plays.

[. . .]

Recall how the argument for defenders getting flagged in the same situation was that the offensive player would lower their head, leaving them almost no time to react. No matter which side you play on, it is common for players to get low as they brace for impact.

This could become the trickiest part of enforcing the rule. In several of the Peterson runs, you can see the defender leading with his crown as well. This rule can even the playing field, though how many of these plays will become runs for nothing as offsetting penalties are called?

Again, the Crown Rule should not be a game-changer as long as it is called on only the most blatant of plays. It may take away some fun, physical plays, but it will save the NFL’s ass down the road from lawsuits.

Adrian Peterson is still going to run like a Greek God, though he just may have to spare a mere mortal’s life (like William Gay) the next time he’s in the open field.

“Having it all” versus “being happy”

Filed under: Business, Media — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:32

In the Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente talks about the tension many women feel in trying to lead full lives, both professionally and personally:

Sheryl Sandberg, the billionaire COO of Facebook, is everywhere these days. Her new book, Lean In, is a smart, strategic guide for women who want to succeed. Be more assertive, conquer your fear, manage your guilt, don’t sabotage yourself.

All good advice, in my view. But these days, a lot of smart, highly educated thirtysomething women are having an entirely different conversation. They’re not talking about leaning in. They’re talking about leaning back.

[. . .]

Given the realities of the modern workplace, the mystery isn’t why there aren’t more women at the top but why so many want to get there. “To reject a high-flying career … is not to reject aspiration,” Judith Shulevitz writes in The New Republic. “It is to refuse to succumb to a kind of madness.”

Most women, if they have the choice, are happy to trade long hours and money for flexibility and control. This explains why nearly a quarter of women who have MBAs and children have dropped out of the work force 15 years after graduation, according to a U.S. study. When these findings were released, they produced much hand-wringing about the failed promise of feminism and lingering discrimination in the workplace. But what they really reflect is women’s stronger preference for a balanced life.

High-achieving younger women don’t think this is going to happen to them. It takes them by surprise. They get an MBA or law degree, a demanding job and an equal-opportunity husband. And then they have a baby and – wham. As one young mother in her early 30s puts it, “I had no idea I’d be so crazy about my child.”

I suspect a lot of the frustration young women encounter is that they’ve been lead to expect that they can cope with both a full-time, active, fulfilling career and raising a child simultaneously. The reality is that for most women, it’s a binary choice: you get either the job or the family, but not both. When this realization hits home, it can feel like a betrayal.

Cherie Piper hangs up the skates

Filed under: Cancon, Sports — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 08:56

It might seem a little odd for me to post an item about a hockey player retiring — given the overall lack of hockey coverage you might find on the blog — but we actually have a connection here: Cherie is Elizabeth’s god-daughter.

One of Scarborough’s most decorated Olympians is set to call it a career.

Cherie Piper, an Albert Campbell Collegiate grad who helped Canada win three Olympic gold medals in women’s hockey, announced her retirement from competitive hockey prior to the Canadian Women’s Hockey League (CWHL) regular season finale which her longtime club team, the Brampton Thunder, won 7-0 over the Toronto Furies.

[. . .]

Her tally for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics was 10 points (five goals, five assists) in five games — fifth on the team.

At the 2006 Turin Olympics, her seven goals and eights assists was good enough for second place amongst all point-getters and tied for tops for goals.

She is in the top-10 all-time scorers for the Canadian women’s team.


Photo by Julie Jacobson

Human Achievement Hour 2013

Filed under: Economics, Environment, Liberty, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 00:01

Oh, right. It’s once again time for the Gaia-worshippers to do an hour’s penance for the crime of being alive in an industrialized society. The Competitive Enterprise Institute proposes a different way of using that hour:

On Saturday, March 23 at 8:30pm (local time), some people, businesses and governments around the world will choose to sit in the dark for one hour as a symbolic gesture to take action against climate change. The organizers of Earth Hour say that they [no] longer expect energy use to actually drop during the hour, but instead see it as a way for people to show their commitment to reducing energy use and taking action beyond the hour.

It’s absolutely every person’s right to decide if they want to conserve energy for whatever reason; they are free to sit in the dark as long as they want. However, it should not be their right to impose their beliefs or opinions on others. And that is what is at the heart of the environmentalist movement. While many participants in Earth Hour sincerely want a cleaner environment — a desire most of us share — the environmentalist movement whether implicitly or explicitly seeks to clamp down on human progress by reducing energy consumption whether through regulation and taxation. They want to make fossil fuels, which they see as dirty, more expensive to encourage the use of renewable “greener” energies.

Despite any good intentions, the ultimate result of environmentalist policies is not a healthier, cleaner environment. Instead we will see a population that is sicker and poorer. The only way we achieve technology that is “greener” is by building on older “dirtier” technology. As we make it harder and more expensive for those in the business of creating new technologies, all we do is slow progress and make it that much longer to reach more environmentally friendly solutions.

Powered by WordPress