Strikes & Outs (err make that Down & Distance)

[waltjp]

Again I'll ask, have all the improvements in helmet technology really made the game safer, or does it give the player a feeling in invulnerability and a willingness to hit something with their head?

Maybe it's time to go back to leather helmets, sans the facemask. Sure, there might be a few more broken noses and missing teeth, but that just makes hockey players look meaner.

[ajmc]

I recall the year the illegal head contact fouls (Spearing, Butt blocking & Face Tackling) were established, ostensibly to reduce the amount of contacts using the head, there was a second approach given serious consideration as a possible alternative.

That being the removal of face masks. Before that, however, it might not be a bad idea to simply tone down the celebration of "big hits" on ESPN and other sports media.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I recall the year the illegal head contact fouls (Spearing, Butt blocking & Face Tackling) were established, ostensibly to reduce the amount of contacts using the head, there was a second approach given serious consideration as a possible alternative.

That being the removal of face masks. Before that, however, it might not be a bad idea to simply tone down the celebration of "big hits" on ESPN and other sports media.

I thought celebrating over "big hits" would be taunting. Nowadays they make a simple open field tackle, they get up, and run about forty yards in a big circle. Save your energy for the rest of the game.

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I thought celebrating over "big hits" would be taunting. Nowadays they make a simple open field tackle, they get up, and run about forty yards in a big circle. Save your energy for the rest of the game.

Strangely, it is likely that "saving your energy" is what allows the game to have such a greater long-term hazard than other contact sports. The heavy armor we apply to football players has also had a positive-feedback effect on the danger inherent to the game.

Consider Rugby, or Australian Rules. In those games, there are a few natural breaks in the action, and for the most part play is continuous. Players are constantly struggling. Despite being encouraged to make contact with their bodies, and little armor, they have little opportunity to rest. This means that their collisions are at a lower speed. In American football, players may have 30 seconds or more between every play in which to rest, allowing them to launch their bodies at each other at full-speed. This is even further compounded by platoon substitution, and truly "special" special teams, who are fully rested when their opportunity to crash occurs.

Since players in other football games aren't carrying much, if any, armor, each player has less inertia. The mass their neck is carrying is less without a helmet, meaning their brains aren't being "pulled" along with the extra helmet mass when a collision stops their torso. The lack of armor means that players will naturally assume a more protective posture when attempting higher-risk plays. This psychological phenomenon has been demonstrated to be valid in traffic-control situations. I find it hard to believe that it would be less valid at most levels of football competition, as well. Unfortunately, I doubt that NFL players would protect themselves as well as amatuer athletes.

The NFL tends to lead change throughout the football landscape where safety is concerned, so any steps they take, including removal of kickoffs, will eventually propagate to the lower levels. This would be true even if the hazardous condition in the NFL was not present in lower levels, if for no other reason than the irrational fears of parents who would litigate for the change.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jchamp

Strangely, it is likely that "saving your energy" is what allows the game to have such a greater long-term hazard than other contact sports. The heavy armor we apply to football players has also had a positive-feedback effect on the danger inherent to the game.

Consider Rugby, or Australian Rules. In those games, there are a few natural breaks in the action, and for the most part play is continuous. Players are constantly struggling. Despite being encouraged to make contact with their bodies, and little armor, they have little opportunity to rest. This means that their collisions are at a lower speed. In American football, players may have 30 seconds or more between every play in which to rest, allowing them to launch their bodies at each other at full-speed. This is even further compounded by platoon substitution, and truly "special" special teams, who are fully rested when their opportunity to crash occurs.

Since players in other football games aren't carrying much, if any, armor, each player has less inertia. The mass their neck is carrying is less without a helmet, meaning their brains aren't being "pulled" along with the extra helmet mass when a collision stops their torso.

All of the above is true and has been widely noted.

The lack of armor means that players will naturally assume a more protective posture when attempting higher-risk plays. This psychological phenomenon has been demonstrated to be valid in traffic-control situations. I find it hard to believe that it would be less valid at most levels of football competition, as well. Unfortunately, I doubt that NFL players would protect themselves as well as amatuer athletes.

One little problem therein: the tendency of people to duck their heads vs. the approach of a body. They may save their teeth or nose at the expense of their neck or brain.

The NFL tends to lead change throughout the football landscape where safety is concerned, so any steps they take, including removal of kickoffs, will eventually propagate to the lower levels. This would be true even if the hazardous condition in the NFL was not present in lower levels, if for no other reason than the irrational fears of parents who would litigate for the change.

Hard to judge tendencies, but I can think of many important ways where the NFL lagged or countered safety changes. One was their restoration of the goals to the goal lines for almost 40 yrs. after NCAA had removed them a decade earlier to the end lines for safety. Another was their failure to adopt the NCAA rule allowing runners to be down without contact with an opponent; it was even a long time before NFL adopted a knock-down provision for downing the runner. They lagged NCAA by a few yrs. in prohibiting BBW after changes in possession. NFL is only just about to make mouth guards mandatory, and they were behind NCAA in mandating helmets IIRC. They haven't adopted NCAA's formation restriction on the free kick team, and they never adopted NCAA's previous formation restriction on the free kick receive team. ISTR NFL lagged NCAA by many years in prohibiting butt blocking. And NFL never adopted numerous provisions that Fed had, and some they still have, that make the ball dead or prevent it from becoming live.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I recall the year the illegal head contact fouls (Spearing, Butt blocking & Face Tackling) were established, ostensibly to reduce the amount of contacts using the head, there was a second approach given serious consideration as a possible alternative.

That being the removal of face masks. Before that, however, it might not be a bad idea to simply tone down the celebration of "big hits" on ESPN and other sports media.

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I thought celebrating over "big hits" would be taunting. Nowadays they make a simple open field tackle, they get up, and run about forty yards in a big circle. Save your energy for the rest of the game.

Steven, I believe ajmc was referring to the repeated replays of big hits during the game, on SportsCenter, in the week's Top Ten Plays, etc. as the celebration.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Steven, I believe ajmc was referring to the repeated replays of big hits during the game, on SportsCenter, in the week's Top Ten Plays, etc. as the celebration.

I understand what he meant. I was referring to the fact they celebrate almost every tackle, especially on kick returns, like it was a HOF moment.

Just like basketball season. Nine of the top ten plays of the day are dunks. I hardly watch ESPN anymore. I generally only watch Outside the Lines. That and football on Saturday.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by waltjp

Again I'll ask, have all the improvements in helmet technology really made the game safer, or does it give the player a feeling in invulnerability and a willingness to hit something with their head?

Maybe it's time to go back to leather helmets, sans the facemask. Sure, there might be a few more broken noses and missing teeth, but that just makes hockey players look meaner.

Improvements? I recently read a scientific study conducted by the Cleveland Clinic which found that modern helmets are only marginally better at protecting players than leather helmets. Then NFL should be throwing bizzillions at this problem.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by parepat

Improvements? I recently read a scientific study conducted by the Cleveland Clinic which found that modern helmets are only marginally better at protecting players than leather helmets. Then NFL should be throwing bizzillions at this problem.

We can argue about whether advanced technologies actually protect any better than the older helmets, but that's not my point.

The question is whether players feel less inhibited about hitting with their heads because they feel that the new helmets protect them better. In other words - Do new helmets give players a false sense of security?

To your point about leather helmets; players knew they'd hurt themselves if they hit something with their heads and they tried to avoid it.

[bossman72]

I think the class action lawsuit has a hidden agenda - broke NFL players looking for a handout. I would love to see who is named in the lawsuit and how much money these guys have now.

The 30 for 30 "Broke" will make you wonder why I'm saying this.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by waltjp

We can argue about whether advanced technologies actually protect any better than the older helmets, but that's not my point.

The question is whether players feel less inhibited about hitting with their heads because they feel that the new helmets protect them better. In other words - Do new helmets give players a false sense of security?

To your point about leather helmets; players knew they'd hurt themselves if they hit something with their heads and they tried to avoid it.

Well, when I started playing football in junior high. Our helmets were like the ones you would get at Xmas with the jersey and pants. The only difference was the plastic was thicker. The inside, and face mask were the same for the most part.

Some of us even got the old wrap around hip pads.