|
|
Post by coachweav88 on Nov 19, 2009 5:21:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by olinecoach61 on Nov 19, 2009 10:01:12 GMT -6
Take the helmet off and what happens to a kid with a mouthful of braces who gets elbowed in the mouth?
|
|
garvin
Sophomore Member
Posts: 221
|
Post by garvin on Nov 19, 2009 10:02:44 GMT -6
The wussification of America marches on!
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 19, 2009 10:07:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by kylem56 on Nov 19, 2009 10:30:18 GMT -6
Without the helmet, they wouldn't hit their head in stupid plays," says P. David Halstead, technical director for the Nocsae
by far the dumbest thing I have read in quite some time.
|
|
|
|
Post by davishfc on Nov 19, 2009 10:33:30 GMT -6
No offense...but the article is from FOX! In the words of the ESPN Sunday NFL Countdown crew..."come on man"...lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by NC1974 on Nov 19, 2009 12:39:50 GMT -6
My experience tells me no helmet lead to a different type of tackle...look at rugby...more shoulder tackles with head behind instead of in front.
|
|
|
|
Post by senatorblutarsky on Nov 19, 2009 15:02:09 GMT -6
If cars didn't have brakes, people would drive slower and not crash... If stair cases didn't have handrails people would walk up/down slower and not fall down...If we didn't have a military we would love everybody and be nice and the world would allbe filled with rainbows, daisy's and kitties...
My goodness... how much stupidity can we digest in a day???!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 19, 2009 15:31:01 GMT -6
and if, ifs and buts were candies toys and nuts, every day would be Christmas!
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Nov 20, 2009 10:40:09 GMT -6
The comparison referred to in the article with Australian rules football is not apt, because although both are contact sports, the type of contact is different between them. The presence or absence of helmets is not what produces the different incidence of head injury between the sports. A closer comparison would be with rugby, especially Rugby League. Still different because you don't have blocking, but not as different as Aussie rules. The trouble with equipment is that there's a tradeoff between protection of the head and protection of the neck. The only way I know of to simultaneously reduce both dangers is with technique, not equipment. And even there, people argue as to how best to protect the neck while keeping the game a reasonable one for people of different body types to play on the same field. |
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 20, 2009 11:38:57 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 coachorr on Nov 21, 2009 1:22:37 GMT -6
If everyone had health care then we would spend less money on health care costs. This isn't the "wussification" of America it is the Obamanation of this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 21, 2009 5:02:48 GMT -6
It is just like gun control, if the laws on the books were enforced there would be no problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachvenom on Nov 22, 2009 0:23:26 GMT -6
is this a joke?
|
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Nov 22, 2009 10:17:19 GMT -6
We wont even play 7 on 7 without helmets.. you get bodies flying around that fast and something bad can happen to some pretty fragile areas..
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 165
|
Post by tedseay on Nov 23, 2009 15:04:34 GMT -6
This is the beginning of the end, gentlemen -- this is not a joke, it is the leading edge of an agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by groundchuck on Nov 23, 2009 15:25:51 GMT -6
Dumb.
Scarry.
Asinine.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 24, 2009 10:47:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Nov 24, 2009 12:00:11 GMT -6
Is Omalu claiming all those cases were ones of brain damage causing them to act crazy, leading to their deaths? Or is it a more believable claim that in cases where players died young from whatever cause, autopsies showed a greater than avg. amount of chronic brain injury? |
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 24, 2009 12:24:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 24, 2009 12:36:42 GMT -6
But Bob asks a good question- did CTE cause their behavior or vive versa? Would these same guys have been drug/alcohol abusuers and crazy if they'd never played a snap of football? |
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 24, 2009 12:41:18 GMT -6
There is no proof that all the brain damage was caused by football. Lots of football players were wrestlers and fighters as well as football players.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachvenom on Nov 27, 2009 0:07:00 GMT -6
Every time I come to this thread I am compelled to read it I don't know why. But after I do, I know I become a little bit dumber.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 27, 2009 14:05:15 GMT -6
Every time I come to this thread I am compelled to read it I don't know why. But after I do, I know I become a little bit dumber. Since the purpose of the board is discussion you don't get away with "This is dumb". In what way is it dumb? |
|
|
|
Post by coachvenom on Nov 29, 2009 16:52:01 GMT -6
Every time I come to this thread I am compelled to read it I don't know why. But after I do, I know I become a little bit dumber. Since the purpose of the board is discussion you don't get away with "This is dumb". In what way is it dumb? To me it's just completely unrealistic. The game would change without helmets, would it be for the better, I don't think so. It's only going to be more danerous, so the tecnique may change as the article says by thats not gonna stop someone from accidentally taking a blow to the head accidentally. This game is to violent. Is it really even worth it to not wear a helmet. You cannot completely change the type of game this is because you take off a helmet, or any rule for that matter theres always going to be injuries. I still think Groundchuck said it best.... Dumb. Scarry. Asinine. |
|
|
|
Post by tog on Nov 29, 2009 17:18:43 GMT -6
who is john galt?
|
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Nov 29, 2009 19:08:17 GMT -6
Since the purpose of the board is discussion you don't get away with "This is dumb". In what way is it dumb? To me it's just completely unrealistic. The game would change without helmets, would it be for the better, I don't think so. It's only going to be more danerous, so the tecnique may change as the article says by thats not gonna stop someone from accidentally taking a blow to the head accidentally. This game is to violent. Is it really even worth it to not wear a helmet. You cannot completely change the type of game this is because you take off a helmet, or any rule for that matter theres always going to be injuries. I still think Groundchuck said it best.... Dumb. Scarry. Asinine. I don't think it's a realistic idea either. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, thoough. I do think that there's something to the idea that the game is played more violently and more dangerously because players feel invulnerable with their hats on. I'm not saying that helmets should be banned and I'm sure that they won't. Why not explore ways to make the game safer, though? |
|
|
|
Post by lilbuck1103 on Nov 29, 2009 19:15:44 GMT -6
This is the direction our game is headed though. I cannot tell you excatly what it will look like, but I have a feeling in 10-15 years, football will be much different then it is now. I believe there will be far less contact and that it will change the way we play, coach, etc.
While it is of upmost importance to protect an individual's health and future, we must also realize that injuries are part of the game, part of life, part of everything we do.
For as much as my 1 year old bumps his head, it would not suprise me if he was ever a bit woosy
|
|
|
|
Post by poweriguy on Nov 29, 2009 23:10:42 GMT -6
So let's try a little thought experiment. Suppose someone started a new pro team sport -- a form of football that wasn't exactly anything that was already being played, but might be said to be about halfway between American or Canadian football & rugby. Because it's never been played before, they don't know what type of equipment would be safest. Think they would allow headgear? Require it? What kind? I think what is more plausible is a push toward rugby. In 2016 it's going to be played at the Olympics in Rio. And since it's now an "Olympic sport" the push is going to be adopting rugby at lower youth levels to develop talent for future international competitions. The push is now on with the upcoming release of the movie "Invictus" about the South African National Rugby Team. And also could you see school districts wanting to adopt rugby as a way to cut costs? Only paying for three officials , considerable savings on equipment, mandatory reconditioning of said equipment and other cost savings. It gives them a full contact sport that is also an Olympic event. It gives it some credibility. Do I think it will happen? No Is it possible? Anything is possible. If you add some sort of forward pass to rugby league, I think you could be about 80% there. Again I think this is highly doubtful. But just adding to the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by John Knight on Nov 30, 2009 6:19:44 GMT -6
Guys, it is just like gun control. There are rules on the books to correct this. No one calls them and no coaches want them called. We love big hits, even if it puts kids in danger. Until officials start DQing kids for Illegal helmet contact it is going to continue to the point they (lawyers/doctors/lawmakers) will take away our guns(helmets)!!!!!!!!
|
|
