(12-04-2012 09:08 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 08:01 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 07:35 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 05:49 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 05:12 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  Again, helmets don't really protect against concussive brain injury. They are very good at protecting against cranial fractures and, given the way the way the game is played, if players weren't wearing them, they could very well suffer pretty horrible head injuries.

However a bigger helmet is just going to increase the amount of velocity that the head can absorb without damaging the skull. Doing that would probably do more to increase the frequency and severity of concussions and sub-concussive brain trauma, since the brain could possibly be moving faster when it runs into the skull. One thing to realize, is that it's not even necessary to receive a blow to the head to get a concussion, any sudden change in velocity to the head could result in brain injury.

Exactly guys aren't going to run into other players 100 miles per hour if they have less padding...They know they will get hurt...The collisions would be much less violent with less padding...

Much less exiting game also though.

So you for serious think this is a good idea?

No...But that is the only thing that will lower the risk of concussions. That would force behavioral change due to the immediate consequences.

We have seen time and again that players will put their future at risk just to be the best right now. Whether that is through lowering your head in football, shooting roids or shooting HGH. Guys are going to do whatever it takes to get an advantage.

What happens when a wide receiver and a safety meet at the ball when both have been running at full speed for 40 yards from opposite directions? How do you control that in any way?

If they don't see each other nothing can be done...But if they see each other I bet money that that collision will not happen at full speed. I bet ruby players have far fewer concussions (more bruises and pain but less concussions)

Interesting story from February about the future of football by Grantland...
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7559...d-football

(12-04-2012 09:28 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 09:08 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 08:01 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 07:35 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 05:49 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Exactly guys aren't going to run into other players 100 miles per hour if they have less padding...They know they will get hurt...The collisions would be much less violent with less padding...

Much less exiting game also though.

So you for serious think this is a good idea?

No...But that is the only thing that will lower the risk of concussions. That would force behavioral change due to the immediate consequences.

We have seen time and again that players will put their future at risk just to be the best right now. Whether that is through lowering your head in football, shooting roids or shooting HGH. Guys are going to do whatever it takes to get an advantage.

What happens when a wide receiver and a safety meet at the ball when both have been running at full speed for 40 yards from opposite directions? How do you control that in any way?

If they don't see each other nothing can be done...But if they see each other I bet money that that collision will not happen at full speed. I bet ruby players have far fewer concussions (more bruises and pain but less concussions)

There are a lot of situations where the players don't see each other. and it is impossible to avoid violent contact when the receivers and backs meet at the ball. Rugby players always all know where the ball is and are bunched much closer together. Rugby is also a game of angles with very few head on collisions.

(12-04-2012 09:35 AM)true_blue_thru_and_thru Wrote:  Interesting story from February about the future of football by Grantland...
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7559...d-football

Very good find. That article articulates exactly what I think has a good chance to happen.

(12-04-2012 09:13 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  I think they should spend more time fining players for not wearing their helmets properly.
Half the time they have 1 snap on their chin strap buttoned. They dont air up the pads inside the helmets properly.
Every time a player loses their helmets they should be removed for the rest of the game. The 2nd time you lose a helmet in a year, you not only get ejected from the game, but you also get suspended for the next game.

College football tried a variation of this where you had to sit a down if you lost your helmet. Players tried to rip the helmets off the quarterback.

(12-04-2012 09:28 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 09:08 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 08:01 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 07:35 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-03-2012 05:49 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Exactly guys aren't going to run into other players 100 miles per hour if they have less padding...They know they will get hurt...The collisions would be much less violent with less padding...

Much less exiting game also though.

So you for serious think this is a good idea?

No...But that is the only thing that will lower the risk of concussions. That would force behavioral change due to the immediate consequences.

We have seen time and again that players will put their future at risk just to be the best right now. Whether that is through lowering your head in football, shooting roids or shooting HGH. Guys are going to do whatever it takes to get an advantage.

What happens when a wide receiver and a safety meet at the ball when both have been running at full speed for 40 yards from opposite directions? How do you control that in any way?

If they don't see each other nothing can be done...But if they see each other I bet money that that collision will not happen at full speed. I bet ruby players have far fewer concussions (more bruises and pain but less concussions)

Number of concussions in Rugby are about equal, if not more prevalent. However, I cannot stress more strongly that this is not just, or even necessarily primarily, an issue with concussions. Though I've never seen any study on CTE and Rugby, if there were less prevalence of CTE in Rugby players, then it probably has to do with there being less sub concussive trauma every play. Lineman especially, and to a lesser extent linebackers, safeties and running backs exert forces on their body every play that, over time, can damage the brain. You just don't have the equivalent of a 300 pound lineman running headlong into another 300 pound lineman 25 or 30 times a game (not to mention practice) in Rugby.

That said, this isn't something that is necessarily limited to American Football. There's long term brain issues with soccer with players who head the ball a lot. (This is a study of amateur players) (That also goes to show how sub-concussive trauma over the long term is at least just as big an issue as concussions). However, I don't think you are seeing the severity of issues associated with American Football.

(12-05-2012 12:54 PM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 09:28 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 09:08 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 08:01 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 07:35 AM)Stammers Wrote:  So you for serious think this is a good idea?

No...But that is the only thing that will lower the risk of concussions. That would force behavioral change due to the immediate consequences.

We have seen time and again that players will put their future at risk just to be the best right now. Whether that is through lowering your head in football, shooting roids or shooting HGH. Guys are going to do whatever it takes to get an advantage.

What happens when a wide receiver and a safety meet at the ball when both have been running at full speed for 40 yards from opposite directions? How do you control that in any way?

If they don't see each other nothing can be done...But if they see each other I bet money that that collision will not happen at full speed. I bet ruby players have far fewer concussions (more bruises and pain but less concussions)

Number of concussions in Rugby are about equal, if not more prevalent. However, I cannot stress more strongly that this is not just, or even necessarily primarily, an issue with concussions. Though I've never seen any study on CTE and Rugby, if there were less prevalence of CTE in Rugby players, then it probably has to do with there being less sub concussive trauma every play. Lineman especially, and to a lesser extent linebackers, safeties and running backs exert forces on their body every play that, over time, can damage the brain. You just don't have the equivalent of a 300 pound lineman running headlong into another 300 pound lineman 25 or 30 times a game (not to mention practice) in Rugby.

That said, this isn't something that is necessarily limited to American Football. There's long term brain issues with soccer with players who head the ball a lot. (This is a study of amateur players) (That also goes to show how sub-concussive trauma over the long term is at least just as big an issue as concussions). However, I don't think you are seeing the severity of issues associated with American Football.

From what the article says, I think the difference is that your brain doesn't move a lot when you play rugby. The players aren't wearing helmets so contact at much lower speeds cause the concussions. In football, the players aren't necessarily getting concussed more often, but the speed involved during contact rams their brains forward every single time.

(12-04-2012 09:51 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 09:28 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 09:08 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 08:01 AM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(12-04-2012 07:35 AM)Stammers Wrote:  So you for serious think this is a good idea?

No...But that is the only thing that will lower the risk of concussions. That would force behavioral change due to the immediate consequences.

We have seen time and again that players will put their future at risk just to be the best right now. Whether that is through lowering your head in football, shooting roids or shooting HGH. Guys are going to do whatever it takes to get an advantage.

What happens when a wide receiver and a safety meet at the ball when both have been running at full speed for 40 yards from opposite directions? How do you control that in any way?

If they don't see each other nothing can be done...But if they see each other I bet money that that collision will not happen at full speed. I bet ruby players have far fewer concussions (more bruises and pain but less concussions)

There are a lot of situations where the players don't see each other. and it is impossible to avoid violent contact when the receivers and backs meet at the ball. Rugby players always all know where the ball is and are bunched much closer together. Rugby is also a game of angles with very few head on collisions.

In football it is rare where neither guy is aware of the upcoming collision...Most times 1 guy will see the collision and bail...But it is a moot point it aint gonna happen