Strikes & Outs (err make that Down & Distance)

[Tim C]

Just over six years ago I was invited to join the publication committee of the National Federation of State High Schools signature magazine "High School Today."

To the chagrin of some I represent all Contest Officials (in all sports) on the staff.

When I entered the first meeting in Indianapolis one thing became very apparent: I was the only person of the committee that was not aligned in some way with the high school education system.

There were principals, athletic directors, coaches, superintendents but only one "outsider."

I recognized even more succinctly how much of an outsider I was when I made my first "important" comment to the group: "Inside of 15 years you won't even recognize high school football . . . through injury and litigation it will be a different sport!"

There were several "pshaws" and "you gotta be kidding me's" expelled from the group.

Guess what? as we publish articles each year since and have continued to document "concussion type" injuries are starting to question just how we can keep these student athletes safe.

The National Football League is in the news almost every weekend with their battles with the issue. The NFL maybe the final battle field for change.

"Due to high speed collisions that cause injury, the NFL is considering doing away with kickoffs in favor of something like a 4th & 10 or 15 for the scoring team at the 30 after a score.

This would be similar to recovering an onside kick and having a chance to drive the ball if a 1st down can be made but yet would allow a punt instead of a kickoff (free kick) if the team would rather give the ball up."

This simple plan (suggested by Greg Schiano Tampa Bay Head coach) brought reactions from anger to simple disbelief.

What concerns me the most is the vitriol leveled at NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell from people who actually think the commissioner is making this stuff up all by himself.

"It has become completely clear that for as long as we have the current commissioner, the game will morph and twist until all action is gone and we're left with skill contests or two-hand touch. One tiny piece at a time in a relentless pursuit of the sterilization of the game. It will eventually occur to RG that the best way to prevent injuries is to stop playing the game entirely. This guy is the football anti-christ.

"I just hope that on the day he is retired, the game is still recognizable."

Come on guys . . . the commissioner is a spokesperson . . . it is similar to you complaining to a policeman that stops you for speeding and you argue the law is wrong.

Over 2,000 ex-NFL players are currently suing concerning overall health issues resulting from their play in the league. This class action suit is enough to get the NFL legal team active in changing rules for contact in the game.

Roger Goodell does not make this stuff up.

Some people come up with really, really strange reasons that kick-offs cannot be eliminated:

"TV will never go for eliminating kickoffs, as that would remove too many "natural" commercial breaks."

The networks can stop play at any time for their commercial breaks. As soon as the PAT is complete they would go to break (just like they do now) while they set the ball on the 30. Pretty simple guys.

As soon as I hit my lowest level one of you show that many really, really GET IT:

"I think football at all levels has realized that there are inherently dangerous parts of the game that provide little reward and a lot of risk. I would applaud the elimination of the kickoff -- besides being difficult to officiate, teams have to sacrifice players and/or roster spots for something that only happens a few times a game."

So Tee what's your point?

Football, at all levels, has to change. I don't have the answer it is just too obvious that we cannot have young men taking repeated hits to the head over many, many years of participation in a collision sport.

Research now documents that even small hits (i.e. often called "ring your bell") over time cause huge problems that may not show up for years after a career is over.

I don't have the answer and neither does Roger Goodell.

Have a great holiday season.


T

[Welpe]

Well written, Tim.

Quite honestly, I see football going the same way that boxing did in the 20th century.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Well written, Tim.

Quite honestly, I see football going the same way that boxing did in the 20th century.

I don't think it will go that far but I think it will continue to change.

Not only are the "bell ringers" an issue but the cumulative effect of lineman crashing helmets over and over again is also an issue. It's more subtle but just as damaging.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.