Baseball: The fact that you would take this opportunity to bring up the death of a fan (whose own son watched him fall to his death) is disgusting. [/quote]
WTF are you talking about Cooper?[/quote]
I get the news later on the West coast…read the story, and it has happened before. Sad story, but people do dumb things. We should probably now require all fans to wear harnesses right?
Football has always been a harsh sport, and I like it that way. The guys assume the risk, just as a mountain climber assumes risk.
Do not legislate safety where people are paid well to hammer each other. Might as well watch flag football.
Baseball: The fact that you would take this opportunity to bring up the death of a fan (whose own son watched him fall to his death) is disgusting. [/quote]
WTF are you talking about Cooper?[/quote]
A fan fell out of the stands and died last night at the Texas Rangers game.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I had an interesting conversation about this very topic over the weekend. I should preface all of this by stating that I am a huge football fan, so in no way is this the ranting of someone with a strong biased against the game.
Basically, is football fatally flawed in its current format and given (some of) our expectations for the game? I’m talking about concussions. It seems like every year players are getting bigger, stronger, faster and more freakish, all things that widely increase the game’s appeal. Who doesn’t like watching a 6’3" 260lb linebacker who runs a 4.4 40 chasing down a bowling ball-shaped running back with the ability to stop, start, accelerate and change direction like an all-wheel drive Porsche?
But the human brain is incapable of better handling the huge, violent impacts that occur on a regular basis. As the league becomes more and more concerned with the severity of the brain damage suffered by its players, is there any way that football can last without changing the rules drastically to cut down on these injuries, and will these possible changes “water down” the game to the point where it loses its appeal to us?
Also, given that there are only 16 games and there are literally millions and millions of dollars riding on the outcome of each one, is this another fatal flaw? Is the increasing emphasis on getting every call right placing an undue importance on the performance of the referees in relation to the players’ performance?
Would football be better off if it revised the rules about tackling to the point where the big-time collisions we love to see are eliminated? Would it be better if perhaps the season’s schedule was changed so they played twice a week under these new rules and played 32, maybe even 40 games, a year so that there isn’t such import placed on each and every possible game-changing call?[/quote]
leather helmets. really. players will stop using it as a weapon right away.
Look, as with everything else, there are inherent dangers. If you knowingly go onto the football field, expect to be lit up from the moment you walk on to the field. This is why they get payed so much money, the entertainment value and the fact that their bodies deteriorates more rapidly than someone who does not play. For me personally I love big clean hits.
If people are so worried about concussions, do not play the sport, simply be a spectator, and not an armchair owner worrying about people that really have no effect on your life other than entertainment value. Taking away big hits from football would be akin to trying to eliminate crashes from NASCAR. We must also understand that no one is holding a gun to these guys heads and making them play football. This is all voluntary and they should know the risks and dangers of their chosen profession.
As for the refs. That is a whole other can of worms. I personally would rather see my team lose in a fair game than win a game because of missed call. I believe in the interpretation of the rule much like I believe in interpretation of laws unfortunately in both cases human are fallible.
In which case you have to understand that the ref only has a limited amount of time to get the call right and keep the game going and cannot sit on a decision and wait a month like a jury. All in all I believe the NFL refs have done an excellent job in trying to rule within the letter of NFL law and have no ill will toward how they have been doing things.
EDIT: Also if some big name player was to go down for your team it surely does suck and I understand that, but it is also the nature of the beast, unfortunately you have to plan for this and have the best team possible rather than one stellar individual with a shitty back-up. This is a team sport after all.
I actually read something saying that the better headgear has caused MORE concussions, basically because players tend to feel invincible in that helmet and lead with the head more often. When they had less protection, they tended to try and protect their own heads more.
Also, I don’t see how better helmets can really do that much to prevent concussions. Concussions are caused by the rapid deceleration of the head, and the brain basically “bounces” off the inside of the skull. I can’t imagine a helmet that can eliminate the type of deceleration that happens when a guy is running full speed and gets hammered in the opposite direction by another guy (or the ground) also going full speed.
[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
I actually read something saying that the better headgear has caused MORE concussions, basically because players tend to feel invincible in that helmet and lead with the head more often. When they had less protection, they tended to try and protect their own heads more.
Also, I don’t see how better helmets can really do that much to prevent concussions. Concussions are caused by the rapid deceleration of the head, and the brain basically “bounces” off the inside of the skull. I can’t imagine a helmet that can eliminate the type of deceleration that happens when a guy is running full speed and gets hammered in the opposite direction by another guy (or the ground) also going full speed.[/quote]
I think the old guys hit with their heads just as much but they were slower, and offensive schemes were more about consistent movement of the ball and not wide open and high octane formations.
I agree that helmets wont do much for concussions in the occurence of a head to head or a head to field rapid deceleration, but they have been re-designed where the facemask diverts the energy around the helmet instead of directly into it, which is refreshing to see.
Though it doesn’t do a thing for when a player gets hit in the back of the head.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
The New helmets have shown to decrease concussions, however the NFL does not Mandate its use. [/quote]
Some of 'em really look goofy, that’s for sure. [/quote]
From what I hear on Serius you got players that had a certain brand of helmet there whole career (meaning back to highschool) and they do not want to change to new one. So they have not put pressure on the NFL to make it a rule. A lot of the changes to rules are not just the NFL, a lot of them are push from the PA via the players themselves.
Example: Here’s the semi-modern Adams with a lineman mask, not the high anchor point. Energy supposedly terminates at the anchor thus forcing the helmet up and to the rear, putting strain against the chinstrap.
Now here’s the modern Riddel helmet, which anchors right level with the ear hole, where a front impact would divert the energy away from the top of the head.
And finally here’s the crazy ass new Schutt helmet where the mask anchors over top of the ear hole in order to provide an even bigger energy dispersion? Who knows.
The helmet I wore in High school and beyond was more like the red Adams above, it was a maxpro with an airbladder in it. DJHT is right though, were I even offered a different piece of gear I’d have a hard time picking something new.
Most of the players don’t even wear the helmets they have properly. Putting on a fancy new helmet that 2 sizes too big with the chin strap barely holding it on won’t help.
I’d rather be uncomfortable and have a working brain myself but apparently lots of players don’t agree with that.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
Now here’s the modern Riddel helmet, which anchors right level with the ear hole, where a front impact would divert the energy away from the top of the head.[/quote]
I bought one of these after my sophomore season in college. I got my 5th concussion that year and wasn’t exactly excited to get more. It is much more comfortable than the older helmets.
Better equipment will reduce concussions, but its use has to be mandated. These players aren’t exactly intelligent.
[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
I actually read something saying that the better headgear has caused MORE concussions, basically because players tend to feel invincible in that helmet and lead with the head more often. When they had less protection, they tended to try and protect their own heads more.
Also, I don’t see how better helmets can really do that much to prevent concussions. Concussions are caused by the rapid deceleration of the head, and the brain basically “bounces” off the inside of the skull. I can’t imagine a helmet that can eliminate the type of deceleration that happens when a guy is running full speed and gets hammered in the opposite direction by another guy (or the ground) also going full speed.[/quote]
Exactly. It’s called a “moral hazard” in economics. Take healthcare, for instance. If you pay out of the pocket for most healthcare costs your lifestyle is probably not going to be centered around a lot of dangerous hobbies. But if some 3rd party is paying 95% of your bills or whatever, you aren’t going to exercise the same caution. The football helmet thing is the exact same principle.
