|
|
Post by casec11 on Nov 19, 2009 7:43:09 GMT -6
This Article was on fox sports this morning msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10381790/Is-it-time-to-retire-the-football-helmet?gt1=39002What are your thoughts? Hits have become harder and harder as the helmet has evolved to protect over the years, and players do play different with it, but the helmet has also become footballs "image" or icon ingrained in its history. Basically has become part of the game. I could never see the NFL taking it away. Because they would worry they would lose viewers. |
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 19, 2009 7:48:24 GMT -6
and the 3 point stance!!
Butt blocking is never called.
|
|
garvin
Sophomore Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by garvin on Nov 19, 2009 8:24:47 GMT -6
Why cant people just accept the fact that everything worth doing has a price that has to be paid. If you have the honor of playing in the NFL for 10-12 years, odds are that your going to aquire some injuries. Playing football is a choice and everyone that has ever played it understands the consequences and risks involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by kylem56 on Nov 19, 2009 10:33:09 GMT -6
I love the hypocrisy. People get killed in cars. People die of liver disease. People die of lung cancer. yet, we aren't going to get rid of cars, beer or cigarettes because they make too much money. I love it. Some people kill me. What happened to boxing? I distinctly remember as a kid watching Ali fight on TV, NBC or something. THEN...they changed the rules in the "interest of safety"...now they only fight 10 rounds, judges decisions decide fights instead of who's the last man standing. and what happened? it has given rise to the UFC, and the UFC gets more and more popular every year. Sky diving has a 100% concussion rate if the parachute does not open...so are we going to outlaw airplanes? exactly. you summed up my thoughts completely. |
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 19, 2009 12:01:30 GMT -6
attacks on individual liberty and responsibility come from all angles
|
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Nov 19, 2009 12:36:41 GMT -6
Why cant people just accept the fact that everything worth doing has a price that has to be paid. If you have the honor of playing in the NFL for 10-12 years, odds are that your going to aquire some injuries. Playing football is a choice and everyone that has ever played it understands the consequences and risks involved. Well, this was brought up in a thread before and it was taken down. But I'll share my thoughts again. I preface all of this by saying I loved playing, and love coaching football. But unless you are a professional coach or maybe a college coach, you are coaching young, impressionable minors. Now I believe in every adult's right to make dangerous decisions. As an adult, if I weigh the pros and cons of say riding a motorcycle without a helmet and then choose not to wear one, that is my right. I think it is a totally diiferent situaton when it comes to coaching minors. 13 yr old Johnny looks up to me and trusts me as his coach. He assumes I have his best interests in mind. I wouldn't tell him to do something that could hurt him for the rest of his life. So IF there is compelling evidence(I'm not convinced ther is YET) that the act of playing football--as it is played right now-- significantly raises the risk of brain damage later in life, I personally think we have to honestly look at and analyze that info. It bothers me to hear coaches just blow this stuff off. Like most of you, I don't want to hear any bad news about a sport that I love, but I'm also not going to be purposefully ignorrant. Knowledge is power. Also, on a related note, I don't think we can sensibly compare brain injuries to other injuries. People can live pretty normal lives with bum knees, ankles, shoulders etc. Brain injuries as I understand it can literally change who you are, affecting personality, depression, confusion etc. |
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Nov 19, 2009 12:46:54 GMT -6
I love the hypocrisy. People get killed in cars. People die of liver disease. People die of lung cancer. yet, we aren't going to get rid of cars, beer or cigarettes because they make too much money. I love it. Some people kill me. What happened to boxing? I distinctly remember as a kid watching Ali fight on TV, NBC or something. THEN...they changed the rules in the "interest of safety"...now they only fight 10 rounds, judges decisions decide fights instead of who's the last man standing. and what happened? it has given rise to the UFC, and the UFC gets more and more popular every year. Sky diving has a 100% concussion rate if the parachute does not open...so are we going to outlaw airplanes? DCOHIO, I read something interesting about boxing, but can't verify that it is true. Way back when boxing started, it was bare knuckle, and matches went on until soemone quit or got knocked out. The gloves came in to protect hands and allow for more frequent fights. Many believe that if they got rid of gloves again, brain injuries would fall because there would be much fewer headshots for fear of boxers breaking their hands. To me it's interesting, because here's a case where a move to make things safer(gloves) may have made it more dangerous. I think that is a interesting question to ask about football is well. |
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Nov 19, 2009 14:04:56 GMT -6
I definitely agree with the need for more controlled testing. Apparently a handful of current nfl players have already donated their brains(when they die obviously) to be studied. I also agree there are alot of challenges to studying it.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 19, 2009 14:55:09 GMT -6
Rule Changes in Contact Sports to Prevent Head and Neck Injuries
# The National Athletic Trainers’ Association and the American Football Coaches Association (NATA/AFCA) Task Force, headed by Ron Courson, director of sports medicine for the University of Georgia, focused on two primary problems this year with head contact. Head-down contact still occurs frequently in intercollegiate football
# Helmet-contact penalties are not adequately enforced.
Rule changes implemented by the NCAA related to head-down contact and spearing in collegiate football have been distributed to all coaches and officials throughout the country. The objective is to eliminate injuries resulting from a player using his helmet in an attempt to punish an opponent.
With the rule changes and more diligent enforcement of the rules, there is hope that a significant reduction in head and neck injuries will result.
www.neurosurgerytoday.org/what/patient_e/sports.aspEven though there have been rules changes to take helmet contact out of hs football. It just doesn't get called enough to be a deterant. Officials at all levels are afraid to call IHC(illegal helmet contact) fouls because they fear they will lose playoff games or get bad ratings from coaches. I think these officials should call IHC every time it happens and kids would be much less to take those risks.
|
|
hoosier
Sophomore Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by hoosier on Nov 19, 2009 15:54:15 GMT -6
i think what we have now is the safest the game has ever been. of course that dosnt mean it cant or shouldnt be safer. the Revolution helmet and modern mouth pieces are a great upgrade, maybe the best in the last 20 years or so. that should continue to be the approach i think.
to eliminate the helmet would change the game completly. id imagine sometthing more like rugby. you think the NFL QB protection rules are bad now?
i dont think its the fault of helmet design that has made the game more violent either. i think thats obviously the type of athletes that are playing now. they're bigger, stronger, faster than ever and the equipment should evolve to protect them. not the game/rules protecting the equipment
|
|
lrader
Sophomore Member
Posts: 143
|
Post by lrader on Nov 20, 2009 11:04:58 GMT -6
The thing I kept thinking when i read it was to look back at the history of football before helmets were put into place. I can't remember which President it was, but one of them actually wanted to ban football as an organized sport because so many deaths of college players were occuring. How could you ever avoid a 360 O-lineman falling with a knee on the unprotected head of someone laying on the ground?
I agree whole heartidly with hoosier, great steps have been made to improve helmets, and rules, to protect players. You have to find a way to walk that thin line of protecting players, and still allowing them to play the game the way it is mean to be played. That is what makes football great. It is the only game where you run full speed into your opponent. As stated in the article, not even Rugby can make that statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 20, 2009 11:33:38 GMT -6
www.jonheck.com/Articles/CollegeSurveyResults2.pdftake a look at this survey and it is pretty easy to see that IHC is not being called in NCAA games and I think that is why HS officials won't call it. 51 penalties called in 2027 games 1 IHC penalty every 40 games.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Nov 20, 2009 11:40:35 GMT -6
Helmets won't be eliminated. But we'll see more and more rules.
One rule I believe will be implemented is a penalty for any player that runs with his face parralel to the ground. (Dropping the head).
Like the famous Earl Campbell highlight. (at the 1:13 Mark)
Will be a 15 yarder soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 20, 2009 12:08:59 GMT -6
The thing I kept thinking when i read it was to look back at the history of football before helmets were put into place. I can't remember which President it was, but one of them actually wanted to ban football as an organized sport because so many deaths of college players were occuring. How could you ever avoid a 360 O-lineman falling with a knee on the unprotected head of someone laying on the ground? Teddy Roosevelt used a threatened ban to force the leaders of the sport to change the rules to make it more safe. He did that because he liked the game and was worried that colleges would eliminate it unless they could cut down on the deaths and serious injuries. The reforms had nothing to do with helmets. The most important involved banning the flying wedge and legalizing the forward pass. Helmets weren't made mandatory until decades later and provided little real protection. They were folding leather jobs that looked a lot like rugby scrum caps. If you were trying to eliminate concussions those leather helmets were definitely not the answer. |
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Nov 20, 2009 15:20:18 GMT -6
I say keep the helmets, ditch the face masks.
|
|
|
|
Post by bucksweepdotcom on Nov 20, 2009 16:42:48 GMT -6
Helmets won't be eliminated. But we'll see more and more rules. One rule I believe will be implemented is a penalty for any player that runs with his face parralel to the ground. (Dropping the head). Like the famous Earl Campbell highlight. (at the 1:13 Mark)Will be a 15 yarder soon. Think that guy could play today?  ?? |
|
|
|
Post by jhanawa on Nov 20, 2009 18:57:38 GMT -6
Think that guy could play today??? I'd take my chances with him....
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 20, 2009 18:59:43 GMT -6
wussification of Amerika comrade!
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Nov 21, 2009 12:09:00 GMT -6
The thing I kept thinking when i read it was to look back at the history of football before helmets were put into place. I can't remember which President it was, but one of them actually wanted to ban football as an organized sport because so many deaths of college players were occuring. How could you ever avoid a 360 O-lineman falling with a knee on the unprotected head of someone laying on the ground? Teddy Roosevelt used a threatened ban to force the leaders of the sport to change the rules to make it more safe. He did that because he liked the game and was worried that colleges would eliminate it unless they could cut down on the deaths and serious injuries. The reforms had nothing to do with helmets. The most important involved banning the flying wedge No, the flying wedge had already been illegal for a decade by then. Which actually had little effect on the injuries. In fact, none of the changes of that era seemed to have much effect for a few years. One factor that's not often brought up in history discussions was something that may also have been a significant factor both in the formation of the NCAA and in what it did after a few years: reducing the number of games a season! In the 19th Century, the American football season fairly well mirrored the season for rugby & other forms of football in the British Isles -- starting in the fall & finishing in the spring -- except that in most of North America they took the whole winter off. That still made for some 20 game seasons among those schools (admittedly a minority then) where football was a really big deal. Few of those schools were still doing that much after the turn of the century, but many of those who eliminated or reduced spring football did so by compressing the same season into the fall, which meant more frequent games, about like soccer. Within about a decade, the NCAA cut the maximum football season down to (IIRC) 9 games; maybe it was 8. They've slowly raised the lid since then, but never back to where it had been. It is likely that 100 years ago there were many questionable players playing again within a few days (maybe even just a day later) who today would be forced to sit out a week or more, and that may have contributed to fatalities and crippling injuries. Also remember that at the turn of that century the X-ray was new, and it took a while to develop diagnostic radiology. That type of headgear was (and is) to prevent cuts and ear tears. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 21, 2009 18:00:29 GMT -6
Teddy Roosevelt used a threatened ban to force the leaders of the sport to change the rules to make it more safe. He did that because he liked the game and was worried that colleges would eliminate it unless they could cut down on the deaths and serious injuries. The reforms had nothing to do with helmets. The most important involved banning the flying wedge No, the flying wedge had already been illegal for a decade by then. quote] What's your source on that, Bob? I'd like to correct myself if I'm wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Nov 21, 2009 19:03:47 GMT -6
Teddy Roosevelt used a threatened ban to force the leaders of the sport to change the rules to make it more safe. He did that because he liked the game and was worried that colleges would eliminate it unless they could cut down on the deaths and serious injuries. The reforms had nothing to do with helmets. The most important involved banning the flying wedge No, the flying wedge had already been illegal for a decade by then. Spalding's Foot Ball Guide. The New York Public Library has a collection going back to at least 1896, maybe 1894, but 1896 is early enough to establish a decade before 1906. (I remember the NYPL collection extended back a couple more years than the NCAA's when I visited their archives in Shawnee Mission in 1980.) The flying wedge became impracticable from a kickoff when a minimum distance to kick the ball forward was legislated; before that, you could just tap the ball and pick it up. I believe 1896 was the year that on scrimmage plays, players in the offensive backfield were limited to no more than 2 steps of forward motion without stopping before the ball was snapped. The earliest American football rules I could find at the NYPL were from 1888, in an early attempt at a read-easy version, whose author used all the officially adopted rules and kept their numbering but put them in what he considered a more logical order. |
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 22, 2009 11:29:07 GMT -6
No, the flying wedge had already been illegal for a decade by then. Spalding's Foot Ball Guide. The New York Public Library has a collection going back to at least 1896, maybe 1894, but 1896 is early enough to establish a decade before 1906. (I remember the NYPL collection extended back a couple more years than the NCAA's when I visited their archives in Shawnee Mission in 1980.) The flying wedge became impracticable from a kickoff when a minimum distance to kick the ball forward was legislated; before that, you could just tap the ball and pick it up. I believe 1896 was the year that on scrimmage plays, players in the offensive backfield were limited to no more than 2 steps of forward motion without stopping before the ball was snapped. The earliest American football rules I could find at the NYPL were from 1888, in an early attempt at a read-easy version, whose author used all the officially adopted rules and kept their numbering but put them in what he considered a more logical order. I'll concede because it's not relevant to the discussion. The discussion concerns the effectiveness of helmets in reducing concussions and I think we both agree that the 1906 reforms had nothing to do with helmets. I will also agree that old leather helmets were, like rugby scrum caps, designed to prevent cauliflower ear and cuts rather than concussions. I've felt for some time that, hypothetically, we'd be better off without the helmets. I do suspect that the feeling of invincibility that modern helmets give have increased the occurance of concussions. I'm not in favor of eliminating them, though, and that's why it's hypo....umm, I can't spell it , you know what I mean. In the real world the first time somebody gets killed without a helmet- and it will happen- we're back to 1905. |
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 22, 2009 17:55:49 GMT -6
Have you noticed, more and more IHCs being called in NCAA games? I have!
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 22, 2009 21:19:57 GMT -6
Have you noticed, more and more IHCs being called in NCAA games? I have! it is simply pathetic how is one supposed to play defense these days at all? |
|
|
|
Post by los on Nov 22, 2009 22:14:10 GMT -6
Obviously, these folks that think doing away with helmets and other equipment, will make the game safer and limit head/brain and other injuries, never played full contact sandlot football with us, lol......imho, guys that play football in the first place, are playing because they enjoy running into others in a violent manner.....with reckless abandon....at least,"we did" as younguns.....the equipment they made us wear, playing organized football = didn't effect our attitudes towards reckless play, but did the job required = "protected us from ourselves"......point being, we played the game the same way and with the same intensity, equipment or no equipment.....and usually had "more of the usual" and "different types" of injuries, "without" equipment......so getting rid of part or all protective equipment will probably open up a whole new can of worms, in the injury department, the likes of which we haven't seen since the early days of football?
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Nov 22, 2009 23:21:52 GMT -6
What about the soft padded headgear used in sparring and in some 7 on 7s?
|
|
|
|
Post by lochness on Nov 23, 2009 7:18:30 GMT -6
Anyone could get hurt doing just about anything. Kids ride bicycles, climb trees, throw rocks at each other, shoot bb guns...well, at least, they used to until everyone started getting on this wussification band wagon.
The human race has survived millions of years. I doubt that football is going to cause any mass-extinctions. Everyone knows it's a tough game. We have plenty of rules in place and plenty of coaching emphasis on safety.
Ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by blb on Nov 23, 2009 7:26:29 GMT -6
The whole idea is silly. Helmets are PROTECTIVE equipment.
Eliminating helmets will not eliminate contact to the head - only the protection.
Continue to coach good, safe technique and against helmet-to-helmet contact. Eliminate TV announcers saying things like "putting a hat on a hat" and "he lowered his head as he ran" and have "Monday Night Football" drop the two teams' helmets smashing into one another and exploding just prior to the broadcast.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Nov 23, 2009 11:42:10 GMT -6
What about the soft padded headgear used in sparring and in some 7 on 7s? The fear is that will trade head for neck injuries. Where a hard, smooth head covering would slide off contact, a soft one might stick. |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Nov 23, 2009 12:07:37 GMT -6
I am not saying do away with helmets but people shouldn't be so hard and fast about "this is how football is played." Many things that are supposed to help sometimes have unintended consequences. There is something to the argument that in the pursuit of encasing the head with all kinds of hard plastic and padding it has turned it into a pretty powerful device on the field. Think about the rule banning hard casts from being used in football. That protects the player, but it also creates a weapon. I think the argument is the same.
That's not to say that doing away with helmets is the best thing. I think the difficult part about this is that helmets do what they are supposed to do, i.e. protect against teeth being knocked out, swipes on the head, ears and eyes, and the like. And many softer blows are shielded with the helmet. But the helmet does wrap the head in a way where a lot of players make helmet-to-helmet contact and the brain does "rattle" around in there.
My other concern is we are just learning about the effects not just of the "big hits," but of repeated "subconcussive" (less than a concussion level) impacts. Think about the OL vs. the DL: It's a lot of heads, etc, but there's also a lot of "knocking heads" that goes on play after play, where if the helmets were different I don't think they would make the same kind of contact.
Again, I'm not saying get rid of helmets. But I do think there's an element here where we wanted to protect the head from all possible impacts that we turned it into a bit of an armored tank that can itself become a weapon. I think it'd still be football if they used something else. I don't know what that'd be though, and yes, this doctor is going overboard by saying everything would be fixed if you just got rid of helmets. As someone said above, are you ready for all the broken noses, jaws, etc?
With more and more research about brain injuries I don't think it helps to be dismissive. I'm just afraid that we might exchange short term injuries (cuts, bruises, hits to the head, broken noses, etc) for long term, debiliting ones (scrambled brains, basically). If someone came out with a better helmet, I don't see what would be wrong with that or why it wouldn't be football anymore.
|
|
?? 
