HN Gopher Feed (2017-08-31) - page 1 of 10 ___________________________________________________________________
ESPN Football Analyst Walks Away, Disturbed by Brain Trauma on
Field
326 points by daegloe
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/sports/espn-ed-cunningham-foo...ngham-football-concussions.html
___________________________________________________________________
addicted - 5 hours ago
It's become increasingly difficult for me to watch football as
well. I really enjoy the sport, but the research is pretty
unforgiving.I can still justify watching the NFL because the
players are getting paid very well, and at least at this point are
aware of the risks.But it is impossible for me to justify watching
college anymore. I was always leary of the billion dollar contracts
conferences were signing, while severely punishing the players for
accepting a jersey from a relative (and at the same time refusing
to ban coaches who systematically engaged in illegal activities).
But throw in the brain trauma stuff and it's impossible to excuse
an academic institution doing this anymore (especially since they
also get tax benefits as well).
eropple - 3 hours ago
The NFL doesn't exist without the legions of unpaid, bodies-
broken, brain-scrambled college (and high school) athletes who
get nothing for their troubles.
criley2 - 3 hours ago
I would argue that the NCAA stands in the way of a true
professional minor system similar to Baseball.NFL doesn't
prevent the minors from existing, NCAA does.
eropple - 2 hours ago
You can argue that, but it's not particularly true or
relevant. The NCAA is the recruiting pipeline because the NFL
wants it to be. No other reason. If it's not the recruiting
pipeline, it's relegated to obscurity and general irrelevance
--see NCAA hockey for an example. The NCAA is still a
monstrously shitty organization, but don't try to excuse the
NHL because of it--not least because minor leagues still
don't solve the problem that high schools and colleges, too,
profit from breaking the bodies and the brains of their
athletes as they hope to make it to the NFL. The NFL is the
goal, and everyone else profits from young athletes
destroying themselves to try to get there.Football is
intrinsically dangerous as a sport, intrinsically
exploitative as a business at each and every level, and
intrinsically immoral to watch or support in a way that no
other American sport, not even hockey, can manage.
le-mark - 3 hours ago
Plus, only elite NFL players get the million dollar contracts,
the rest are at league minimum, which many silicon valley devs
surpass.
eropple - 3 hours ago
I wouldn't say "many" Valley developers make more than
$465,000 (rookie minimum) and I definitely wouldn't say that
"many" Valley developers make more than $775,000 (a four-year
veteran minimum). However, the earning potential certainly is
stretched out.Practice squad, players, however, make about
$120,000 per season, which is certainly in the ballpark.
le-mark - 3 hours ago
Oops, I should've verified, last I remember the league
minimum was on the order of $250k. Apologies!
eropple - 3 hours ago
No worries--I mean, the point you're making remains
valid.
Bud - 3 hours ago
Also let's take into account that players only get these
salaries for a few years, on average. NFL average career
lengths are brutally short: 3.3 years according to the
NFL Players' Association.
jimjimjim - 1 hours ago
Other parts of the world change the rules of their 'person holding
ball and running' games to make them safer for players.Rubgy union,
rugby league, aussie rules. All have had rule changes over the
years to make them safer.And these are in countries with universal
health care and without a 'sue everybody' culture.
[deleted]
[deleted]
TheMagicHorsey - 5 hours ago
What about the sponsorship of daredevil sports like free climbing,
wing suits, etc., by consumer companies like GoPro and Redbull.I
feel that we are supporting these companies with our purchases, and
then they in turn create social media spectacles by giving these
people an incentive to do dangerous stunts. Recently a wingsuit
daredevil died while livestreaming on Facebook, watched by his
young daughter and wife. It was a horrific event. Of course, his
broken body was festooned with the banners of various energy drinks
and other bullshit.What a wonderful time we live in. Are we not
all entertained?
mcguire - 3 hours ago
IIRC, most "extreme sports" are less dangerous than, say,
horseback riding.
groby_b - 4 hours ago
One point you're missing: Daredevil sports are entirely self-
inflicted. Football is about inflicting hurt on others.Second
point: There's no incentive to hurt yourself. You're not going to
be better paid because you fell off a cliff. You're sure better
paid because you can take hits and still create a few extra
inches in football.Third point: Daredevil sports don't have long-
term risks. (Well, not entirely true - IIRC arthritis is a big
thing for climbers who survive)Fourth point: We groom football
players throughout school.I'm not sure the equivalency holds.
sb52191 - 5 hours ago
> daredevil sports like free climbingPedantic, but this
terminology is used incorrectly so often that I have to
comment.Free climbing just means rock climbing using your hands
and feet, and not pulling/stepping on gear, to move you higher.
Free climbers use ropes in the event they fall. You probably mean
free soloing, which is climbing without a rope.
criddell - 5 hours ago
I think one difference is that we don't have free climbing and
wing suit programs in middle schools. It's one thing if you are
an adult and are being paid to participate, it's another when you
are a kid and playing is your ticket to a college education.I'm
in Texas so my view on football is warped, but the intensity that
kids play football with is nuts.
specialist - 5 hours ago
Grew up a football fanatic.Older me now thinks mixing
scholastics and athletics is nuts. I remain unclear why tax
payers are subsidizing professional sports by funding their
farm system. And their stadiums. And their monopolies.I now
favor a european style club system over any intramural
sports.Government and sports should not mix.
[deleted]
cpsempek - 4 hours ago
I think this is a fair comment, and those that dismiss this
comparison due to extreme sports be currently incomparable to NFL
are missing the core issue. There are businesses profiting off of
the risks others are taking for the entertainment of others. Yes,
there are no wing suit programs in American high schools. But,
the sponsors of these activities are trying hard and paying
good money to have these videos and images displayed to as many
high school students as possible. Tackle football should probably
not be allowed in public schools, but there will be rec and
private leagues so long as the NFL is successful as a business.
There will probably not be free soloing or wing suit programs in
high school, but there will be people risking there lives in part
because some businesses were successful at marketing the sports
and made money while doing so.Certainly football is the most
urgent issue at hand because it has it is so imbued in our
culture, but I do not think people are watching videos of free
soloists dropping to valley floors because that wouldn't be good
for business.
ep103 - 5 hours ago
I don't think that's a fair comparison. I love motorcycling, and
the Isle of Man TT is probably the craziest spectacle I watch
every year. And every year, at least one person dies in the
race.A lot of the mechanics and race shops that build bikes for
that race talk about whether or not they're doing a good
thing.And as dangerous and awful as the above is, I wouldn't
change the TT for anything. But I also wouldn't watch it, if it
was a commercialized race with large corporate backing.I guess
what I'm trying to get at, is there's a difference between
letting people take dangerous risks in pursuit of something they
love and giving them the means to do so, and exploiting people
and pushing them to continue taking dangerous risks for spectacle
and profit.Its a fine line to tread, but while typing this, I
think I'm realizing that its easily discernible. In the first
category, if there is a safer way of doing something, without
neutering the fundamental nature of the activity, the community
will embrace it. Just look at the armor improvements of
motorcycling over the years. Or the quality of wingsuits and
rescue equipment.In the second category though, other
considerations start to take effect, like overall viewership
numbers and team profits.
maxxxxx - 5 hours ago
I can't watch the TT. The risks they are taking are just
stupid. Go on a real race track where you can explore the
limits without dying.
rconti - 4 hours ago
I just finished reading both of Guy Martin's books and really
loved them. It's not just the TT, it's all of road racing,
really. And the people who do it just aren't the kind of
people who enjoy circuit racing.
bdcravens - 5 hours ago
While Red Bull sponsors the extremes, and with that comes extreme
disaster, I think those participants very well know the risk.
Football, on the other hand, is sold to youth and the American
public as safe with light risk, even though it's likely that
we'll find a significant % (at least at the pro level) will
suffer from long-term brain damage. Plus, for every $1 Red Bull
sponsors, there's likely $1M sponsored in pro football.
habosa - 5 hours ago
The risk profile is entirely different. When you go jump off a
cliff you're saying "there's an x% chance I will die right now"
but there's no chance that you die slowly 20 years later after
surviving the jump. So it's much more fair to ask the jumper to
evaluate the risk.Playing football is a slow killer. After years
and years of hits you may get serious brain damage. But there
was no one particular moment, no single play, that you should
have avoided. It's the sport as a whole.
QuotedForTruth - 4 hours ago
Also even though Red Bull and other sponsors are making money
off other's risk, they aren't actively trying to suppress and
hide that info like it seems the NFL has been doing for years
regarding concussion risk.
cpsempek - 4 hours ago
I agree with you point, but assume the NFL does admit fault
and revise their position to be aligned with medical
findings. Does watching the sport make is any more or less
moral. I do not think so. You are right, the NFL is being
dishonest and irresponsible, but viewing the sport is an act
separated entirely from this fact.
QuotedForTruth - 1 hours ago
I'm not sure what you are arguing. People watching doesn't
make it any more or less moral, no.People or organizations
profiting off the risky behavior of others is potentially
immoral. IMO a large part of why its either moral or not is
in the participant's knowledge of the risk. If the group
profiting on the other's risk is actively seeking to hide
the risk then it is definitely immoral.
anonacct37 - 5 hours ago
Last I looked my middle school and high school didn't have wing
suit teams.Very few kids in those schools have a career/college
plan based on wing suits.You're not wrong about death for red
bull being bad, but I feel these things are different because of
how tightly football is tied to education and children.
digikata - 5 hours ago
It's something of a difference when the risk is personal with
personal preparation. Vs Football as a sport where there is this
encouragement of hits between teams. One could consider that the
individual Football players are informed of the risks just like
the redbull stuntpeople, but there is this built in competitive,
direct human-vs-human structure in Football that is going to
drive escalation of risk differently than stunts.Of course one
could say also that there is escalation between stunt spectacles
to make them bigger and push more boundaries - but again it's a
little different, the events are individual and more spaced out
then the game-to-game constant and maybe risk-desensitizing
schedule of Football.
jMyles - 1 hours ago
I think the biggest difference is the equipment. Football
players are told that they have a suit of armor to protect them,
but we now know that's a huge lie. The equipment is to enable
bigger hits, not to prevent damage from them.
LesZedCB - 5 hours ago
Here's [1] a recent post about climbers and sponsorships that
discusses a little bit about Red Bull vs Red Bull Media House.[1]
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/sweet-dreams-why-do-big-brands-crav...
dmalvarado - 4 hours ago
?I don?t feel that my being part of covering the National Football
League is perpetuating danger,? (Al Michaels) said in a phone
interview. ?If it?s not me, somebody else is going to do this."Wow.
The drug dealer's response.
dogruck - 5 hours ago
I think the headline is much stronger than the story. Cunningham's
professional life is still deeply intertwined with football:> At
first, Cunningham told ESPN executives that he was leaving to spend
more time with his sons, ages 3 and 5, and because of his workload
as a film and television producer. He was a producer for
?Undefeated,? a documentary about an urban high school football
team, and has a string of projects lined up.I'd guess the truth is
closer to "he decided to leave ESPN for several reasons, and his
concerns over the brain damage was one of those reasons -- but not
the biggest reason."
ethmarch - 5 hours ago
?Those are two of the issues,? Cunningham said. He waited weeks
before he revealed the third. ?The big one was my ethical
concerns.?
lern_too_spel - 5 hours ago
The confusing part for me is his continued involvement in a
documentary that glorifies the sport. As far as abetting the
brain injury entertainment industry, that participation seems
little different from his former announcer participation.
alistproducer2 - 3 hours ago
I'm in my second year of not watching/supporting the NFL for just
this reason. Add the that the treatment of Colin Kaepernick and I'm
not sure I'll look back. I'd be lying if I said I won't watch the
super bowl, but my days of watching endless hours and going to
games are likely over unless and until they make the players take
off that ridiculous armor.
DanCarvajal - 1 hours ago
Same here, fall now has so much more time for activities!
JumpCrisscross - 3 hours ago
I recently caught up with an old acquaintance. We interned together
many years ago. He was on the college football team then, and quite
proud of it. It hasn't been that long; he isn't that old. Yet at
the end of a lunch (at which we had nothing to drink) he forgot
four times in a row that we had already paid the cheque. He
complained of a recent lay-off. He believes he was targeted for
forgetting appointments and missing details. This shocked me--he
used to have a far better memory than I did.Maybe I'm overfitting.
But I can't help but imagine that if his school, one of the top in
our country, hadn't let him destroy himself under their watch, we'd
still have a sharp, productive young man with us.
jjuel - 2 hours ago
For every one of those there are others who are still functioning
at a very high level. I played in Junior High, High School, and a
couple years in college. I have yet to see any ill effects. The
problem with the science behind it is they never take other
factors into account. Who knows if someone had some genetic cause
that may have exacerbated the effects of hits in football.
InclinedPlane - 1 hours ago
The science is very clearcut and unambiguous. If you think
otherwise you're delusional. Both boxing and football are very
bad for your brain long term. Some people escape the worst
symptoms, but enough are injured on a regular basis to make it
a very serious public health concern.
freehunter - 1 hours ago
>The problem with the science behind it is they never take
other factors into account.Yeah you know science, never
controlling for other factors.
kendallpark - 3 hours ago
It's become increasingly popular to dismiss football as this
barbaric, gladiatorial sport. Maybe it is. But it's a damn fun
one.The problem with football is that people love football. Not
just watching football, but playing football. I played for seven
years, had three surgeries, and no doubt dropped some IQ points
rattling my skull on the line. If I could go back in time, I'd do
it all over again.We need to do something to save this sport. I
don't really care if the NFL dies or if the NCAA loses its cash
cow. I don't care about losing football as entertainment. I want my
kids to also have the opportunity to play the sport I love and I
want it to be safer for them.
SirensOfTitan - 2 hours ago
I grew up in Pittsburgh watching Steelers football. My dad died a
couple years ago and it helps me feel close to him. He played
football in college at a D1 program, but luckily didn't incur any
brain trauma and was incredibly sharp until his last moments.With
that, I just can't stomach the damage this sport does to its
players, all while the NFL continues to try to sweep the issue
under the rug. I think I should stop watching and implicitly
supporting this sport until something is done.And sure, players are
probably aware of the damage they can do to themselves; however,
humans are bad at evaluating long term risks. I'd bet that many
players either consciously determine that 'it won't happen to
them,' or they ignore the risks in search of a big salary.
abraae - 5 hours ago
Speaking as someone from a rugby-playing nation, where mostly
players wear no protection except mouthguards and shin pads,
American Football is spectacular but insane.Wearing protective
helmets just ups the ante as players launch into each other with
full force. In rugby, you don't tackle someone like that as you'll
hurt yourself, and fail to stop the opponent.Rugby is a plenty
violent sport, and has its own health issues, but the lack of
protective helmets and body armour (and rules preventing tackling
without using your arms) means that attacking players think about
their own safety before launching ridiculously high impact hits on
each other.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-F6POhAbAhE
komali2 - 5 hours ago
This is how I feel about boxing vs MMA.Boxing gloves are huge and
massively padded, meaning you take hit after hit after hit,
bouncing your brain around like a ball. MMA gloves are only
padded enough to maybe prevent you from breaking your knuckles,
and maybe prevent your knuckles from breaking someone's jaw. If
you threw the kind of punches people throw in boxing with MMA
gloves on, you'd wreck your hands.That one is safer than the
other has been discussed
before:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mixed-martial-arts-
safer...https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/science/which-is-more-
dan...
protomyth - 4 hours ago
Joe Rogan feels that MMA would be safer if the participants did
not wear gloves https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-SY0F6Kkg0
athenot - 4 hours ago
Of course, that's for classic boxing. I train muay thai and
you're also liable to get a shin/knee/ankle/elbow from your
opponent, and there's zero padding there.However, as someone
else commented, there are some crucial differences with
football:- there's no injury unless it's an actual fight.
Sparring is intentionally toned down, because the sport is not
about the power but agility and speed. Those can be practiced
with minimal danger (of course there are always exceptions and
accidents);- there's the benefit of transparency. Hits may be
heavier but are fewer and much farther apart than the repeated
hits in football which may go unnoticed.
stevenwoo - 1 hours ago
I could be mistaken but I thought a few concussions was
enough to cause brain damage, once you get to three there's a
marked increase in permanent, measureable damage in most
people, if one is under 25, it doesn't take as much.
jaggederest - 1 hours ago
Any concussion is by definition a brain injury. Any brain
injury is, by definition, damage to the brain. And we know
that brain damage has an uncertain prognosis - it may or
may not ever heal in any meaningful way, and might even get
worse over time.People handwaving around how much worse it
gets under x or y circumstance just don't like the way the
math adds up: brain injury is cumulative and progressive
regardless of severity, age, repetition, or any other
factor.
jklinger410 - 5 hours ago
Every knockout is a concussion, and likely brain damage. It may
be relatively safer than Boxing but you can't keep striking and
knockouts and think it's too much better.
kasey_junk - 5 hours ago
The issue with those studies is that they don't really account
for more modern views about brain injuries. We know that boxers
suffer "serious" head trauma more frequently but lots of modern
research suggests small repeated head trauma is as
dangerous.Incidents of cte for instance in soccer maybe
accounted for by heading drills. Which is why talks about
concussions isn't enough.I'd still expect MMA to be safer in
this regard than boxing but there is enough head banging events
in things like gaurd practice that don't occur during normal
boxing practice that I wouldn't be shocked to learn MMA has as
serious a problem with CTE as boxing.
scott_s - 5 hours ago
> If you threw the kind of punches people throw in boxing with
MMA gloves on, you'd wreck your hands.MMA fighters often wreck
their hands during fights. They are in no way pulling their
punches; they throw as hard as they can, just as boxers do.I
find it plausible that MMA fights tend to end with less
concussions and serious head trauma than boxing. But I doubt
it's significantly safer. That ignores training, where fighters
spend much more time, and still receive many, many sub-
concussive hits.I have trained BJJ for over 13 years. During
that time, I have also trained MMA. I have helped training
partners for MMA matches. I have cornered training partners for
MMA matches. I follow professional MMA. But I am finding myself
more and more unable to justify even paying attention to it
because of the evidence that even repeated sub-concussive hits
cause brain damage.
baldfat - 4 hours ago
Boxers have much stronger punches and would break their hands.
Boxers end their careers by punching someone without their
gloves. It has happened many times in the past. MMA punch much
lighter because it is a different style and skill set.
agumonkey - 4 hours ago
Well the irony is that boxing gloves were introduced because
hands are so fragile compared to skull that fights would be too
short. It wasn't a noble reason.
baldfat - 4 hours ago
I boxed a little and worked out and hit a heavy bag for
years. I never would punch someone because I'm not that kind
of man and secondly I would more then likely break my hand.
agumonkey - 4 hours ago
If I was a trained boxer I'd be way more worried about
killing someone accidentally, with or without a broken
hand.
amiramir - 4 hours ago
Rugby has also included head injury assessments (HIA) into its
laws. They sports governing body introduced HIAs in 2012 and they
have been getting more stringent over the years.At he elite level
a player who is suspected of having taken a significant knock to
the head can be substituted off the field for 10 minutes to be
assessed by a doctor. The referee, assistant referees, sideline
medics or the television match official can make the get the
player off the field and to the medic. Players almost always want
to play on after a knock so the decision is left to officials who
may have seen or heard a head impact. If a player fails the
assessment then they do not return to the field and further tests
will be performed after the match. If the player passes then the
substitution is reversed. If an incident is missed during a game
then an assessment can be ordered after reviewing a recording of
the game.The laws of rugby also include clauses about contact
with the head, tipping a player onto their head, or knocking a
jumping player in such a way as to make them land on their
head.Rugby players are getting bigger and faster and the hits are
getting commensurately more energetic. Rugby is trying to keep
players safe. Whether these measures help remains to be seen but
I think the governing bodies take player safety pretty
seriously.One interesting stat that I heard is that one of the
things that seems to be inversely correlated with head injury is
neck strength so we may see more players training their already
powerful necks.
ancientworldnow - 3 hours ago
The NFL actually has very similar rules involving suspected
head injuries though in practice they seem arbitrarily enforced
- especially if it involves a key player.
[deleted]
briankelly - 3 hours ago
People always point to rugby when this topic comes up, but there
is no conclusive evidence that it is any safer. In fact, this
study found that the risk of concussion in rugby was far higher
(4.13 concussions per 1,000 athletic exposure hours vs 0.53 for
American football) by pooling data from 13 previous studies:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-concussion-youth-sp...Of
course there are always flaws, limitations, and contradictory
evidence in these studies, but at least it is more worthwile than
the eyeball test.
abraae - 3 hours ago
The key factor in that report though is that it concludes that
"Concussion rates highest for kids in rugby, hockey and
football".I'd guess its likely that American football as played
in the NFL is a very different game to the one played by kids,
and there might be virtually no correlation of actual
risks.Rugby is also very different between kids and
professionals of course - my 5 yr old plays ripper rugby which
involves no contact tackling but instead ripping a velcro tag
off the opposing player. Great fun to watch!
briankelly - 3 hours ago
Even if there is no correlation of risks between the youth
and professional levels of play (and I don't doubt that),
parents steering their kids towards away from rugby, hockey,
and football will eventually hemorrhage market share for
those professional leagues in favor of safer sports.We have
flag football in the US for younger kids, sounds roughly
analogous to ripper rugby.
jnordwick - 1 hours ago
There is also flag football for adults! They often have
different leagues from no and partial contact up to 8-on-8
full contact (this is still flag and no tackle).
geebee - 4 hours ago
Sounds like you know a bit about this - any chance you could
weigh in on my question above? Does tackling serve a different
strategic purpose in rugby vs American football (ie., not giving
up an inch can be a big deal in US football), and could this also
be partially responsible for the brain rattling quality of
tackling?
abraae - 3 hours ago
Sounds plausible.In rugby a goal is to always keep the ball in
possession. When you are tackled, you try and feed the ball
back to your own side, who are (ideally) close behind you in
support.So yeah - yardage gain is somewhat meaningless for its
own sake in rugby, as long as you maintain possession. If you
maintain possession, the other team can never score, and you
eventually will.So the player's thoughts as they are tackled
are less about preserving yardage and more about ensuring
you'll end up in a position where you can feed the ball back to
your teammates to maintain possession. Maybe that means less
impact in the tackle.
pbhjpbhj - 52 minutes ago
>Maybe that means less impact in the tackle.In rugby if you
run at someone they'll step sideways and you'll go past. In
American football that I've seen they run right at each
other, on purpose. You can't hammer straight at someone flat
out and still be able to adjust your trajectory to account
for a side-step. (Though Union is getting more like League
now in the silly, endless, rucking which is TBH more like
NFL).In NFL they have plays of average ~4s, adding up to ~11
minutes across a 3?hr game time with regular changes of
players using a massive team [see my other post for source].
In Rugby Union (UK) it's longer plays adding up to 45 minutes
of ball-in-play across 90 minutes game duration (80 + 10 mins
of half-time) with 15 players on pitch per team and up to 8
subs.Bulk and running speed/stamina tend to oppose each
other.
unethical_ban - 5 hours ago
Another reason rugby tackles are different: The goal is to stop
the player. The difference between one meter and another is
minimal. In football, inches matter for the downs. So the hits
are blowouts to stop people as soon as possible.
lancewiggs - 3 hours ago
There are many many more tackles in rugby and the repeated
inches do matter. Great defensive teams like the All Blacks
fight for every inch.
mfringel - 3 hours ago
In rugby, except for a couple of lines on the field, one inch
doesn't strictly matter more than another, within the bounds
of the rules.In american football, one inch anywhere on the
field can make the difference between four more downs or
having to kick the ball away.
thesehands - 2 hours ago
Rugby also has the method of tackling baked into the rules.
If you tried to tackle in rugby in the same way as a block
in NFL you'd immediately be penalised and could see
yourself off the field. A typical rugby tackle almost by
its definition in the rules will cede a metre or so to the
attacking player as they are brought down to set up the
ruck. IIRC Pete Carroll of the seahawks has taken advice
from rugby professionals to help the d with their method of
tackling
jnordwick - 1 hours ago
Reference? I always like to see these cross pollination
stories, but I need a source on this one. The rugby way
of tackling is the same as the way you are taught in Pop
Warner and the way you do angle tackle drills, I thought.
jMyles - 1 hours ago
The same is true of MMA and hand-wraps. Ostensibly introduced to
protect fighters' hands, they are actually just a threat to their
heads.
Isamu - 5 hours ago
> Wearing protective helmets just ups the ante as players launch
into each other with full force.Agreed, but funny thing is the
protection has gradually developed over time to limit injury.
American football used to be played with no protection, then with
very limited protection, leather helmets, pads. Then hard
helmets, armored pads. Etc.Kind of an arms race, as with
increased protection, the hits keep getting harder.Unintended
consequences of trying to reduce harm.
cavanasm - 4 hours ago
I'm not so sure about this. If you look historically, in game
deaths seem very common in early football. As the game has
gotten better pads, players have also been getting much MUCH
bigger, which is increasing risk, but we haven't seen regular
documented deaths during games like in the 1890s~1930s every
few years. Now we get lots of deaths due to outside issues
though (lots of car accidents and shootings on that list in
recent years; lots of recent suicides on the NFL list just
above too).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_footb
all_play...EDIT: I realize we're talking long term vs short
term, but I wasn't able to find pre-compiled data comparing
timelines of major advances in football pads and injury rates.
amiramir - 4 hours ago
This phenomenon is known as Risk Compensation[1].[1]https://en.
wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
mcguire - 4 hours ago
It's likely that protection has improved the
situation.http://time.com/3387798/football-deaths/http://query.
nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9406E5DC143EE...
QuotedForTruth - 3 hours ago
And people were dying before helmets. The differences in risk
between Rugby and football are not because of helmets. Its an
entirely different game. There is blocking in football whereas
hitting in Rugby is mostly limited to the ball carrier. The
flow of rugby is much more lateral than football where most
players run right at each other.
toss1 - 5 hours ago
Interesting watching that video of rugby hits, noticing the
legs.Perhaps it's just selection, but I'm wondering if it is
rules requiring tackling above the waist, but it seems like every
hit on that vid caused no leg injury; no knees got bend
backwards, or jammed sideways, and they seemed to invariably fall
with bent knees (which is protective as the leg can rotate with
the force rather than tear ligaments). The hands, however, seemed
to be often at risk.Is this the case? If so, was the rule ever
changed for improved safety, or just ~always that way?
duncanawoods - 3 hours ago
Those are not very typical tackles. Tackling by controlling
legs is common but not flashy high impact events and tend to
allow the player to pass the ball mid-tackle. Legs generally
seemed to sort themselves out in the normal case. Main risks I
experienced as a tackler would be getting a boot to the face or
shoulder impact. Main risk as a tacklee is what you land on -
head, shoulders but you usually have quite a bit of control in
the situation so its your responsibility to land safely and
ensure you keep possession for the play to keep moving. A
tackle is rarely surprising. Outcomes tend to be much worse for
collisions with > 2 players when players are more likely to get
inverted or things bent out of shape or landed on.
toss1 - 1 hours ago
very informative - thx!
alistairSH - 5 hours ago
The other difference is rugby limits the contact to the guy
carrying the ball to a greater degree than American football. In
the US version, the majority of players on the field will have
contact on the majority of plays.
wavefunction - 5 hours ago
Also, I don't see too many 350lb corn-fed rugby players when
I've watched compared to American football.
rodgerd - 2 hours ago
That's because the biggest American football players, while
having wonderful explosive power, would likely struggle with
the endurance requirements of rugby.
desireco42 - 4 hours ago
There are some but in sport agility is super important and
technique as well. Mass helps but not as much as good
tehnique.
ghaff - 5 hours ago
No. But they are getting bigger which is a cause for concern
with respect to injuries.
djKianoosh - 5 hours ago
You're looking at the evolution of the sport because of the
equipment. If the players didnt wear so much protective gear
they wouldnt have to be so big and fast and powerful, as
described a few comments above.That said they cant all of a
sudden change the gear but they can evolve the rules to
adapt.
Bud - 4 hours ago
This is incorrect. Football players actually wear
substantially LESS padding now than in the 70s, 80s, and
90s. Just go look at the pads from those eras.Players are
bigger, faster, and more powerful because that makes them
better players. Not because equipment has evolved. It's the
training of the athletes that has evolved.
alistairSH - 3 hours ago
Do they wear less protective gear, or is the gear just
less bulky due to improvements in design?
mcculley - 5 hours ago
Why wouldn't they be able to change the gear?
bluesroo - 4 hours ago
I'm not well-versed on the topic, but I'd guess that an
abrupt change in protection could lead to more injuries
in the short-term.
mcculley - 4 hours ago
Ah. That's a good point. I know nothing about football. I
just assumed that they could make changes if motivated
given the enormous amount of money it generates.
emodendroket - 4 hours ago
Changes are made regularly, often to encourage player
safety. But I think you can only make a game so safe
when it's predicated on tackling people.
NoPiece - 4 hours ago
You are right that it is the evolution of the sport, but I
think it is driven by the increasing value (Billions of
dollars at stake), more than the equipment.
ovulator - 5 hours ago
Rugby has the same problem with big hits and concussions
occurring during them as American Football, but you are right
in that it is illegal to block players without the ball in
rugby and that is a pivotal part of American Football.In fact
the disease most discussed and studied has been Chronic
Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE. The position most likely
(nearly 50%) to be affected are the linemen[1], not the guys
leveling or receiving the bone crushing hits, but the guys
doing the hum drum blocking on every play.The positions
reporting the most concussions though are the guys who are
doing the hitting and being hit, the guys with the ball and
tackling him[2]. But these guys get the big hits rarely as
players are subbed in and out and the ball is given to
different players all the time. If they get a concussion it is
obvious and are usually pulled from the game.Linemen on the
other hand, are consistently in every play, and are blocking on
every single play. They may be getting minor concussions every
play, but not something noticeable enough to be pulled from the
game.[1]https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/07/25/boston-university-
study-ct...[2]http://apps.frontline.org/concussion-
watch/#positions_2015
Pxtl - 3 hours ago
> In fact the disease most discussed and studied has been
Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE. The position most
likely (nearly 50%) to be affected are the linemen[1], not
the guys leveling or receiving the bone crushing hits, but
the guys doing the hum drum blocking on every play.This
actually means there might be hope. The game could be
modified to reduce the impact on the linemen. Reduce the
distance the defense has to back off from the line of
scrimmage, maybe even right down to zero or even a straight-
up scrum. No lead-up to that first hit, they start out in
contact. No lunge forward to close the gap between offence
and defense.Same gameplay happens - two lines of men trying
to break through/protect the QB, but without that initial
impact because they're already in a wrestling position.
jnordwick - 1 hours ago
Getting rid of the neural zone would be interesting. Other
rules would have to be changed, and line strategy would
also have do change. I wonder if it would favor quickness
over size since you are closer together or if size would be
even more important. I think it is at least worth
experimenting with.
alistairSH - 3 hours ago
Thanks for that additional detail - I hadn't realized the CTE
was so heavily concentrated among the linemen, though it does
make sense.
bad_hairpiece - 1 hours ago
Rugby is a contact sport; football is a collision sport.
emodendroket - 5 hours ago
They started using that stuff because people were sustaining
spectacular injuries (like cracking their heads open). I'm not
sure it is so simple.
mcguire - 3 hours ago
"The committee counted 49 deaths related to football in 1931--
31 direct and 18 indirect. The only year on record between 1931
and 2013 with more direct fatalities was 1968 (36), but that
year's indirect fatalities were lower (12) than 1931. Indirect
fatalities were only equal or higher in 1933, 1935, 1936, 1961,
1965 and 2009. Only 1965 manages to tie 1931 for total deaths,
leaving them sharing the title of deadliest
year."http://time.com/3387798/football-deaths/
elicash - 3 hours ago
This is why I don't put a cover on my iPhone. Never dropped it.
agumonkey - 4 hours ago
Reminds me of roads without trees on the side. People drive
faster with guardrails and accident are as bad if not worse than
before.
frankydp - 2 hours ago
I am patiently waiting for the first bellwether Ivy league school
to drop football with brain injury being the reason. I think the
demise of college and then professional football would cascade
after that, still a decade or two but it would be inevitable and
possibly faster than people expect.
heartbreak - 1 hours ago
Yale cutting football has 0 chance whatsoever of convincing a
single SEC school to cut football. The SEC would be around
sponsoring football even if every other conference was
shuttered.Edit: Okay maybe Vanderbilt would leave.
samdung - 5 hours ago
This article is about american football. Not the actual 'foot'ball.
damnfine - 5 hours ago
You got downvoted, likely becayse americians all know a pedantic
asshole who repeats this ad nasuem. However, it should serve to
point out how US centric a lot of our assumptions are conversing
on HN.
umanwizard - 5 hours ago
No shit. It's an article in an American publication; it stands to
reason that it'd be written in American English.
MBCook - 2 hours ago
I honestly don't understand how football is still legal. I know
it's popular but how can you see the evidence we've found and think
people should still be allowed to play?
koolba - 4 hours ago
I love watching football and each year I look forward to the start
of football season. It's amazing game to watch and when played by
great players, exceedingly entertaining and exciting.I'm not blind
to the research about what it does to the players brains but my
reaction is the reverse of what I'm reading from most in this
thread: I'm watching more football than ever.I think it's only a
matter of time till the game is either neutered to nothingness or
banned entirely and I selfishly want to enjoy every last minute
that I can. There's a sibling comment referring to as "America's
gladiator sport". I think that's particularly apt. Deep down we
feel dirty watching it but we also don't want to turn it off.
[deleted]
JustSomeNobody - 5 hours ago
I don't watch football for three reasons:1) The focus on "hitting"
instead of proper tackling.2) The encouragement of obesity for
linemen.3) It's morphed into some sort of live action video game
with graphics and sound effects.It used to be fun to watch, but now
I just worry about the future of all the players and can't watch
it.
CalChris - 4 hours ago
My cousin played O line for Missouri. He loves football and I love
my cuz. He's a college ref and was NFL chain crew for the Rams. I
can't talk to him about this. Total denial. He's even mad that
parents are voting with their feet by not sending their children
into Pop Warner leagues.
scruple - 3 hours ago
I come from a CFB family, of sorts. My brother was special teams
for a D1 school. One of my cousins was a DE for Clemson. Another
two cousins played ball for a D3 school. This is all spanning
from the mid 90s to the late 00s.Of them, my brother and the two
that played at the D3 school are still hardcore CFB and NFL fans
but they do openly discuss the CTE issues and are not thrilled at
the idea of their own children playing. My cousin who went to
Clemson, though, is still a hardcore fan and is in total denial.
Out of the four of them, he got the closest to going pro and I
imagine that has something to do with it.
6stringmerc - 5 hours ago
Personally, I applaud his candor and backing it up by leaving
association with the sport as we know it. I have shared the change
of mentality from "Oh wow!" big-hit, Bill Romanowski/Ronnie Lott
type viciousness to, well, cringing. Not to shy away from MMA or
Boxing or Hockey - trauma is trauma - but the change feels like
something I've witnessed in my lifetime.With a personal twist, I've
never been able to play due to handicap, and now, decades later,
some who did play are suffering effects similar to my injuries.
It's uncanny how brutal that sport actually can be to the body -
especially young, growing bodies and minds. I don't like watching
rock heroes of mine dying, nor sports heroes like Junior Seau - but
they can help change culture. When people won't let their kids play
a sport, its days are numbered, save for some communities that will
probably see it as a ticket out for a long time.Oh, I almost forgot
my idea/essay I put forward a while ago about re-engineering the
equipment for the modern physics of the athleticism (speed +
force):https://thelacesout.com/how-us-football-can-improve-
player-s...
Jesus_Jones - 5 hours ago
I'm about in the same position. As a middle aged guy, the past 10
years I have watched more and more nfl football, and I'm becoming
increasingly leary. I hate seeing a big hit. Take that part out
and I can continue to watch. But it's hard to see how they can
take the hitting out, it's such a part of the game.
dpeck - 5 hours ago
Big hits in general aren't what is causing the long term
injury. CTE seems to disproportionately effect linemen that
seldom experience a "big hit" but hundreds of small impacts
every day during practice and play.The brain injury is most
concerning, rules can adjust and technology gets better to
mitigate the larger impacts, and outside of outlier
catastrophic events I think many who have played will trade
worn out joints and broken fingers for the experience of
playing the greatest of team sports at the sub division 1*
level but the mental harm is something entirely different and
seems unlikely to be able to be fixed with it being anything
like the gridiron football that's been played to this
point.*Caveat on level because D1 and above you're making all
sorts of sacrifices and trade offs that aren't something those
outside of it can appreciate or even understand.
fish_fan - 5 hours ago
Right, even a ball to the head can cause CTE. It almost seems
like playing with heavy padding, helmets, etc has caused more
injuries by encouraging players to deal and take this small
injuries.
kejaed - 5 hours ago
An investigative piece was released yesterday from the Hamilton
Spectator in Ontario where McMaster University researchers studied
the brains of 20 living former Canadian Football League players. It
didn't turn out particularly well."Study shows ?disastrous? damage
in brains of retired CFL players" http://3downnation.com/2017/08/30
/study-shows-disastrous-dam...
jjuel - 2 hours ago
I didn't see anywhere if these were just randomly selected
players or players who volunteered because they thought something
was wrong.I know there was another study where they found a
shockingly high percentage of the people studied had issues.
However, in that study it was all volunteers who suspected
something was wrong. Well that doesn't mean that high of a
percentage of players actually have issues just the ones who
suspect issues actually have issues. The studies need a little
more work before I believe that every person playing football has
a brain worse than a non-football player.
code_duck - 2 hours ago
I'm sure you could find that if you found the study rather
than an article about it (though I'm not sure if there is a
scientific journal paper attached to this or where or how it
will be published). The article says they compared to "healthy
control subjects of similar ages". Presumably, what they are
controlling the for is the occupation of being a football
player, since that is the entire point of the study. Also this
part"Noseworthy was asked if there?s any chance the players?
results aren?t connected to football.?No, this is football,? he
said. ?That?s the common denominator.?"
Pxtl - 5 hours ago
Oof. There are CFL players with day-jobs. These aren't NFL
quadzillionaires.
nck4222 - 4 hours ago
The average career of an NFL player is something like 2 years.
The vast majority of people who play in the NFL go and get day
jobs when their career is done. Most don't save any of their
playing money.
technologyvault - 5 hours ago
As much as I loved playing football and now love watching, the
risk/reward balance seems to be moving so much towards too much
risk.The backup plan for my five boys, for now, is to have them
become really solid kickers so they can be part of the sport
without having the risk of head, neck, knee, and other injuries
I've had to deal with over the years.
kpwags - 5 hours ago
Good for him.I stopped following football after watching League of
Denial on PBS. If I'm at the bar or something and it happens to be
on, I might passively watch it, but I haven't sought it out since.
I just can't support the NFL.I do feel torn though because I love
hockey. I know they're dealing with similar controversies. My
justification, however flimsy it might be is that I don't like the
fighting (I might be in a minority, but I'd have no issue if the
NHL eliminates fighting altogether), and the big hits aren't why I
watch...I enjoy the stick work, the dangling and skills getting to
the net. I can also appreciate that the NHL does seem to be doing a
better job at cracking down on the dirty hits.I also play hockey
(in a non-check beer league) and am very aware about the risks. I'm
also an adult who is old and mature enough to accept these risks. I
don't know how much that can be said for the elementary/middle/high
school kids playing sports like hockey and football.
rsync - 1 hours ago
"I stopped following football after watching League of Denial on
PBS."The reason I cannot stop watching football is that the
combination of enormous economic incentives and ruthless
selection process has produced individuals that are performing at
near-superhuman levels. It is arguable that when you watch a
quarterback or a cornerback play well in 2017 you are watching
someone do something better than anyone has ever done anything.I
find that fascinating and extremely compelling.Further, this is
the reason that I no loner have any interest in college football
- the professional game winnows that population down so much and
so dramatically that the level of skill is no longer
comparable.Consider: after all of these years and all of this
fame and outreach and development, there are still only 8-10
people in the entire world that can competently play the position
of starting quarterback. If you can perform this task with even
middling competency there is an immediate 8 figure paycheck
waiting for you. This (totally arbitrary and otherwise useless)
combination of speed, agility, strength, resiliency and
lightning-fast-OODA-looping is amazing to watch. And that's just
the quarterback ...I can't get enough of it.
brm - 2 hours ago
The thing for me is, I never watched it for the contact. Its
always been a rooting interest type of sport and if I wanted
contact I'd go watch boxing or MMA.The thing they don't seem to
get(The NFL) is that most people don't care about the hits and
they could eliminate them. I'd watch highly skilled athletes from
my university or city play FLAG FOOTBALL at the highest levels of
skill and athleticism as often or more often than I watch them
now.We need to think a bit about why people watch team sport as a
society and realize that if flag football was the highest level
we'd ever known we probably wouldn't lose a viewer.
goatlover - 2 hours ago
Plenty of people like the hitting in football, both people who
play and and those who watch. Lots of people have complan about
how quarterbacks are protected nowadays. In fact, I've never
heard a football fan say they would like to get rid of the
hitting. Not once.
freehunter - 1 hours ago
It's similar in hockey, take away the contact and people
complain. They still watch, though. People complain about a
lot of stuff they don't actually care about.
_dark_matter_ - 2 hours ago
We have plenty of alternative sports that don't offer the hits,
they just haven't gotten as popular. I would argue that goes
against your point.
olau - 47 minutes ago
According to this list, you're wrong about popularity, once
you look outside the
US:http://www.topendsports.com/world/lists/popular-
sport/fans.h...Soccer is really huge in many parts of the
world.
Rapzid - 3 hours ago
I never really followed it but could enjoy a game every now and
then. Now I have a distaste for it.My biggest issue by far is how
embedded football is into our public school system. They are
essentially feeder leagues for the NFL that the public pays to
operate. We glorify the sport to little kids and then shove them
into the head trauma pipeline.We should absolutely not be a party
to that at the public level. I'm aware of the issues with drawing
a line on dangerous sports, but I'm sure something a ton of
people can agree on is that wherever the line ends up, football
is on the wrong side of it. It's position is relative to the
line.
dhimes - 2 hours ago
The parents are the problem. It's ridiculous to see them.
Football is the most important part of their life and damn if
their kid isn't going to play.Could you imagine if our schools
and home cultures emphasized putting that kind of work into
math rather than football?
moriarty-s3a - 1 hours ago
I have seen a few environments like that and they can be just
as corrosive. I have seen middle school kids that were great
artists or writers or musicians told that they were failures
at life because they weren't one of the 15 best math students
in their school.
BurningFrog - 3 hours ago
I'm a Swede who grew up loving European hockey. NHL Hockey bores
me.You can think of the difference either as physical or
mental.Physical: The European rink is 100 feet wide while the NHL
rink is 85 feet. This gives a lot more space to skate around
people rather than through them, more space and time for a
passing and placement game, more time for smart play over brute
force play.Mental: Each continent plays hockey as it plays
"football". That is soccer vs NFL mentality.My whining aside, in
reality the two hockey cultures have grown closer. NHL teams no
longer have full time enforcers, and play is much cleaner, while
European hockey has become more "physical", as the goal of
everyone is to become an NHL millionaire.Still, whenever I try to
swallow my pride and watch some hockey I get bored. Unless Pavel
Datsyuk is playing!
soperj - 3 hours ago
Europe has no standard size rink. Finnish league is different
from the Swedish league etc.
chmars - 2 hours ago
Finland is actually the exception, the rest of the non-NHL
world uses the IIHF rink size.
soperj - 2 hours ago
Untrue. Even KHL arena's like Prague O2, Bratislava, KHL
Medve??ak Zagreb in Croatia, Admiral Vladivostok, have
smaller rinks, some are NHL sized.
forapurpose - 6 minutes ago
What is it about Pavel Datsyuk?BTW, if you have an iPhone, ask
Siri 'Who is the magic man?'. (I don't know if that still
works.)
BurningFrog - 1 minutes ago
He's the Messi of hockey. Or is he the Zlatan?
aaron-lebo - 5 hours ago
1. Willingly plays 5 years in the league, makes $10,000,000, has
50% chance of reduced health in the future.2. Willingly works 5
years in the factory, makes $10,000, has 50% chance of reduced
health in the future.Why does the first situation bother us so
much more than the second? Most products we use are built via the
second, but you're probably still using those products. The NFL
seems like better employment than Foxconn, and I'll still use an
Apple computer.People make sacrifices all the time, if someone
wants to willingly do it as a professional, why not?
mikeash - 4 hours ago
The big problem with the NFL is that they keep trying to
suppress the information and act like the risks are far lower
than they really are.You can't fairly describe it as "willingly
do it" if they don't have all the facts, and the other party to
the transaction is intentionally hiding facts that make it look
worse.And as for the factory worker, it does bother us a great
deal. Dangerous working conditions get a ton of attention, and
attempts to cover up workplace dangers are criticized severely.
skewart - 4 hours ago
Very few NFL players make $10M over 5 years - most careers
don't last that long, and/or compensation isn't that high. Then
consider that few elite college players make it to the NFL, and
very few high school players make it to elite college programs.
Bud - 5 hours ago
You're leaving out the fact that most of these players never
get to the NFL, and they have a very high risk of brain injury,
but they get paid $0.00, even though their work is generating
billions for the NCAA, for ESPN, for basically every large
university in the country, etc.College football players need to
be paid fair market value.
mysterydip - 3 hours ago
Don't they essentially get paid with free tuition and such?
Not that it's fair market value, but it's not $0 either.
dcole2929 - 2 hours ago
The problem is with the demands of being a D1 athlete it's
pretty ridiculous for any player to hope to get a great
education and be successful in their sport. And given the
obvious payoffs of being a successful football player
(Millions of $ at age 22 in the nfl) that's where they
focus. It's a rare, rare individual who is a top performer
while also pursuing a degree in a demanding field.Below is
an interesting article I read that describes the day of a
d1 football player at a top school. Note, it is a 15 hour
day and only includes 1.5 hours of studying which wouldn't
be enough to even cover hw for most engineering
degrees.https://www.alligatorarmy.com/2015/6/9/8752711
/florida-gator...
eropple - 4 hours ago
Hell--high school players need to be paid fair market value.
Which, in many parts of the country, is not a trivial amount.
Bud - 3 hours ago
A high school in Texas just built a $72 million football
stadium.That's right. A fucking high school stadium.http://
www.wacotrib.com/sports/high_schools/central_texas_fo...
MandieD - 1 hours ago
And it's in Katy, a relatively well-off suburb of
Houston. I really hope they haven't built all the rest of
the stuff in that enormous school bond issue yet.That
school bond issues, which are voted on directly by
residents of a school district, are the main funding
mechanism for school construction in Texas goes a long
way towards explaining the ridiculous stadiums.
skewart - 4 hours ago
Yup. There seems to be a lot of focus on the NFL mistreating
players, but college football seems far more exploitive.
maxerickson - 4 hours ago
We directly spend billions of dollars on occupational
safety.And people raise issues with buying goods from countries
with lower standards all the time.I would say it is at least as
big an issue in the public consciousness as the danger to the
players of professional sports.
apoverton - 4 hours ago
Agreed. See this quote from the OSHA website.Under the OSH
Act, employers are responsible for providing a safe and
healthful workplace. OSHA's mission is to assure safe and
healthful workplaces by setting and enforcing standards, and
by providing training, outreach, education and assistance.
Employers must comply with all applicable OSHA standards.
Employers must also comply with the General Duty Clause of
the OSH Act, which requires employers to keep their workplace
free of serious recognized hazards.[1]https://www.osha.gov
/law-regs.html
cdolan - 5 hours ago
Fellow hockey fan here. Can you share some information about
Hockey's concussion risks? I was not aware it is "dealing with
similar controversies". There are certainly head injuries in
Hockey, but I was not aware that people had the same life-
altering issues brought on by years of head trauma from football.
takk309 - 4 hours ago
Sidney Crosby is a good example of a high profile player that
has had multiple concussions. [1] The risk in hockey does not
come from the fighting, those are less common than most people
think, rather it comes from taking big hits that knock the
person off balance and send them head first into the wall. I
have been playing hockey the majority of my life and one of the
first things that I can remember being taught was to keep your
head up and never go head first into the boards.Hockey helmets
are different than a football helmet. For starters, the shell
of a hockey helmet is much softer than that of a football
helmet. This can help to attenuate some of the energy from a
hit. The other huge difference is the mass of the helmet.
Hockey helmets are light compared to a football helmet.Another
large difference between the sports is the rules covering head
contact. While it is illegal in both sports to hit with your
head, football tends to see a much higher rate of "incidental"
contact. Hockey players are not taking hits to the head every
play[1] http://www.espn.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/131681/sid
ney-c...Edit: Minor Typos
kpwags - 4 hours ago
There's currently a lawsuit alleging the NHL hid the risks to
the players, much like the NFL
lawsuit.https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/apr/05/nhl-
concussion...And the rates of CTE in former NHL players aren't
exactly low. 9 of 16 (albeit a small sample) showed signs of
CTE.http://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/20498726/nhl-players-
relu...
Pxtl - 5 hours ago
Hockey has the advantage that the sport could we reworked into
something less violent. Hockey could survive a change to the
rules that would reduce blows to the head.Football is such an
intrinsically contact sport that I don't think a safer game would
even be recognizable.Actually, that might be worse... If hockey
turns out to have as bad a concussion problem, the leadership of
the sport is likely even more culpable because they had more
options to fix the problem than football does.
Waterluvian - 3 hours ago
Hockey can be a beautiful game of finesse, speed, and
precision. It could absolutely be re-worked.Football is
fundamentally flawed. Many positions exist entirely because
it's rough and violent. Players who never touch the football in
a well played game.
planteen - 3 hours ago
Football can also be played with flags or where players are
not tackled by saying the play is over when momentum is
stopped. Countless intramural and pickup games are played
like this every day. And you still have an offensive line in
setup, depending on the number of players.
EpicEng - 3 hours ago
Aaaaand viewership drops 90%.
icelancer - 1 hours ago
>>Hockey can be a beautiful game of finesse, speed, and
precision. It could absolutely be re-worked.Indeed. Olympic
hockey is a perfect example of a step in that direction, and
one of the greatest versions of the game in existence.
logfromblammo - 43 minutes ago
Watching the Canadian national hockey team is one of the
highlights of the Winter Olympics. The US team would be
better if it had access to all those kids wasting their
athletic potential on the worst sport in the world--
football--and the second-worst sport in the world--
soccer.If it ditched the requirement that the game always
be played on ice, the skill level of hockey in the US could
be comparable to its basketball. All those high school
football stadiums could get some asphalt surface, chainlink
fencing to stand in for the glass, and a few sets of sticks
and inline skates, and we could all watch hockey on Friday
nights instead of kids knocking their skulls together.
hota_mazi - 2 hours ago
> Football is such an intrinsically contact sport that I don't
think a safer game would even be recognizable.And yet, rubgy
and Australian football have just as much contact and do not
suffer from an endemic injury problem.Maybe something related
to the padding?
dizzystar - 1 hours ago
Here's a bit where they measured the force of rugby -vs-
football tackles. Football is 3 times
harder.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7tGY-VDx3oDon't have
much commentary on the subject and just wanted to share the
vid. I'd only think that a difference like that can't really
be resolved to padding.
pbhjpbhj - 1 hours ago
It's a pretty unfair comparison, though I'd expect it's
largely representative.A rugby union player has to run
around the pitch for 2 bouts of 40 minutes [about 40
minutes of 'ball in play' time]. According to this article
- https://qz.com/150577/an-average-nfl-game-more-
than-100-comm... - the average NFL match is 11 minutes of
action, in [average] 4s bursts, over a 3+ hour period. Many
NFL positions can optimise for muscle mass without worrying
about stamina and sustained speed.FWIW the measured tackle
and at least one footage tackle [8mins 26s] in your linked
video - https://youtu.be/TSc_Gxq1two - look illegal to me,
lifting a player and pushing them down with head/shoulders
first towards the ground (spearing,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spear_tackle) is a red-card
offence.
forapurpose - 16 minutes ago
> Many NFL positions can optimise for muscle mass without
worrying about stamina and sustained speed.Not just mass.
What I often hear NFL athletes and trainers talk about
maximizing "explosion" in their movements.
Already__Taken - 1 hours ago
Rubgy has much less contact than american football. You can't
just tackle people without the ball.
[deleted]
criddell - 1 hours ago
A quick Googling of that suggests
otherwise:https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news
/one-seaso...
vacri - 1 hours ago
Aussie Rules has nowhere near as much contact as gridiron,
and the kind of contact it has is rarely as full-on as in
gridiron. There's no real contact in aussie rules if you're
not on the ball, whereas every play in gridiron, more than
half the players are slamming into each other, regardless of
what's happening.Most of the contact in aussie rules is
tackling from behind, whereas in gridiron on every play you
have around nine guys smashing into each other just as the
quarterback receives the ball... and then all the additional
contact depending on the play, including tackling like in
aussie rules.
mattmanser - 1 hours ago
In the UK we have rugby, a similar sport without all the
armour.While there is a problem with concussions[1], it's
nowhere near the scale of American
Handball.[1]https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25182-rugby-
players-w...
Y_Y - 27 minutes ago
I think you know that rugby is played and known worldwide
(even in the US), and that football refers to the fact that
the players are on foot and in fact rugby, soccer and
American football all share a common ancestor.
forapurpose - 13 minutes ago
> football refers to the fact that the players are on
footReally? As opposed to what? Polo? Quidditch? Beer pong?
ThrustVectoring - 4 hours ago
I think the rules could get reworked to make it less dangerous
for brain injury. Take a cue from Australian Rules Football:
remove all padding and make high tackles that endanger the head
illegal.
mrspeaker - 4 hours ago
Great idea! Less head injuries, but still a hard-hittin'
sport https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1aU0hz5Tf8
bglazer - 4 hours ago
Virtually every example of a "big hit" in that video ends
with the person who got hit showing the fencing response
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing_response). That body
pose indicates a pretty severe concussion.In fact, the most
popular video on YouTube about the fencing response has a
shocking amount of overlap with the "big hits" video you
shared. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlXjwAlOflAFrankly,
your video was kind of hard to watch. It's basically 3
minutes of people getting their brains rattled in their
skulls.
mrspeaker - 3 hours ago
That's true! I didn't think about it because it was a
collection of "rare" events - hitting above the shoulders
is not a valid tackle. Usually won't get these hits in a
game.But still, obviously it certainly exists, and I'm
sure there is a lot of head trauma every year.
kenjackson - 1 hours ago
I have never seen this video. I always had heard that
without the gear that rugby was less brutal than football
-- but seriously I don't know. Those hits looked
devastating... I could not watch that sport.
majani - 9 minutes ago
That's not rugby, it's Aussie Rules, but those are
illegal tackles in both sports. I don't know why the
poster chose a video of vicious fouls to make his point
about safety.
lostlogin - 4 hours ago
Rugby and league have no padding and those rules. It doesn't
appear to anywhere close to enough.
slg - 40 minutes ago
>no paddingThis is offered as a solution a lot, but I am
not sure if it would actually be effective. Football
helmets were introduce early in the 20th century because
dozens of people were dying every year playing football.
Football helmets put an end to those deaths caused by acute
trauma, but the physics of the game and those collisions
haven't changed. Football is just a more violent game than
Rugby due to various reasons like position specialization,
more frequent stoppages of play, and the inherent
directions of play for the offense and defense. It is rare
to have two players in rugby running full speed at each
other head on. That happens in football on nearly every
play and often multiple times per play.
ThrustVectoring - 4 hours ago
It's still a risky and violent sport, but the issue of
hard-to-identify-and-track accumulated damage is lessened.
vacri - 1 hours ago
Rugby is a much better analogue to gridiron - it's
essentially the same game. Two lines of players run at each
other, with a certain number of attempts to run the ball
downfield, and almost every 'play' has contact of players
running in opposite directions. Aussie Rules is much more
freeform and has fewer 'opposing hits'.However, much as we
aussies like to mock gridiron for the pads it requires,
without the pads, players used to die relatively routinely.
Take the pads away from gridiron and it would need to
change and loosen up enough that it basically becomes
rugby.
ams6110 - 2 hours ago
Head contact, boarding, and checking from behind are already
illegal.I agree hockey could survive the elimination of
checking, and think it probably will happen eventually. It's
not even introduced until 14U age and younger kids learn to
play with body contact only.It would be a different game but
all the skilled puck handling, skating, passing, shooting and
speed would remain.
lojack - 2 hours ago
The rules could get reworked, but I seriously doubt if they
ever will. Maybe its possible to slowly change the game over
time, but completely changing the rules overnight would be
too dramatic and risky for any league to really get behind.
The best chance is probably for the NFL to come up with a
long term plan to fix things, but that'd require them to
admit the problem, which I don't think will ever happen.
jethro_tell - 1 hours ago
Go back to leather helmets and cotton pads and it's a
different game. No reason we need to turn their heads into
sledgehammers. We do that because then they feel more
comfortable with the big unsafe hits and the flying around
but we could get back to the real game with the ruck style
running game and wideouts with hand fighting all the way
down the sideline and half the commercials and I bet
ratings would start going up.
[deleted]
rm_-rf_slash - 4 hours ago
American football is also obsessively measured. The difference
of a few yards at any point in time can be the difference of a
game. Players are also obsessively measured for their
performance, so every second counts towards a professional
player's career - and their compensation.Players are highly
incentivized to "give it their all", and that's how people end
up getting injured or receive massive head trauma.Hockey can be
just as violent, but it's a much more fluid sport, so the
pressure isn't on as much for the extra exceptional effort.
geebee - 4 hours ago
I don't understand Rugby, Australian rules, or Gaelic
football especially well (or US football for that matter,
though I've watched it casually over the years), but my
understanding is that tacking in these sports has a different
purpose and that tackling technique reflects this. You may
be on to something with you comment about yards - in American
football, it can even be a game of inches. As a result,
tackling isn't a way to halt play or stop someone, or to
transition during flow of play - you need to essentially
completely halt that person's forward movement without even
giving an inch.I've thought this may be why American football
has more of the full body collision, where two (very large
and powerfully built) men collide at high velocity almost
horizontal to the earth. They're trying to gain as little as
a few inches in the collision.I've heard complaints from
Australian rules players who come to the US about tackling -
that the way US players have learned to tackle doesn't have
much strategic value and greatly increases the possibility of
injury, buy they continue to tackle this way when they join
Australian rules leagues.That's what I've heard and thought
about, I do want to be clear that I don't know too much about
all this - what I've written is more of a question in case
someone in the know could weigh in.
specialp - 3 hours ago
There is another factor at play here: Rugby, Australian
rules, and Gaelic league wear next to no equipment. The
problem with American Football is the players are geared up
with heavily padded helmets. This has the effect of turning
heads into battering rams. You wouldn't see 2 rugby players
run into each other full steam because they don't have gear
and would break bones and get cut. The gear lessens brain
impact but does not eliminate it. So you then get higher
impact forces that appear less brutal due to non visible
trauma to the brain that is being rattled the whole time.
Joky - 4 hours ago
Another difference on tackling in Rugby: you can only
tackle the ball carrier.
nervousvarun - 4 hours ago
Not sure what you're saying here...are you equating
blocking and tackling?In American football you also may
only tackle the ball carrier. You can initiate contact
other guys (usually in the form of blocking), and that
can be very violent at times...but I don't think there's
a scenario where you can tackle someone without the ball
(and it not be called for a penalty).
Jeremy1026 - 3 hours ago
In rugby there is no blocking. The only time non-ball
carriers come into contact with the opposing team is
during a scrum or accidental collision (which are quite
rare).
jamesblonde - 2 hours ago
Or a ruck - clearing out the ruck, it's allowed there. Or
a catch and drive in the lineout. But yes, the contact in
these situations is more pushing than collisions.
AOsborn - 1 hours ago
Yes. Far less physical however. You can 'join' a ruck,
but not tackle full steam, let alone a shoulder charge or
direct hit.
phillc73 - 2 hours ago
Or in Rugby Union, during a ruck or maul.The main
difference in tackling technique between American
Football and both codes of Rugby is use of the arms. In
Rugby the arms must be used to tackle the opposing
player. A shoulder charge, with no arms used, is illegal
and may result in expulsion from the game. In a recent
New Zealand vs British and Irish Lions game, NZ player
Sonny Bill Williams was given a red card and sent from
the pitch for this exact offence.The other main points to
note are that the opposing player can only be tackled
below shoulder level and, as you've pointed out, in open
play only the ball carrying may be tackled (or blocked).
_puk - 2 hours ago
And even the scrums have reduced contact nowadays;
arguably this has resulted in them becoming rather
difficult to execute well, and they're becoming a bane to
the modern game. Tweaking these things does have knock on
effects.
hansthehorse - 2 hours ago
Tackling in American football is almost gone from the
game. The object now seems to be to smash into the ball
carrier as hard as humanly possible and hope he falls
down. You rarely see a receiver or quarterback tackled,
you see the defender simply run into him as fast and hard
as he can. Watch some film from the 50's and 60's and you
will immediately see the difference.
fl0wenol - 2 hours ago
This is because defensive scoring opportunities
(turnovers) are so valuable in American football that
defenders are pushed to do whatever they can to get the
carrier to fumble, and this usually means launching
themselves "at the ball" every time.
gotthemwmds - 4 hours ago
s/difference of a few yards/difference of 1 yard/signed, this
totally not still upset Seahawks fan.(re: 2015 Superbowl)
bennettfeely - 1 hours ago
What?There are just five men on the ice for a team in hockey,
there's arguably more pressure for each individual player to
"give it their all" at any one moment than in football where
there's 11 men on the field.As someone lucky to be from
Pittsburgh where we have both the Penguins and Steelers
consistently being the top teams in the NHL and NFL
respectively, there is no shortage of serious brain trauma in
the NHL. Just ask Sidney Crosby.
notahacker - 2 hours ago
The other big difference is what's obsessively measured.A few
yards makes a huge difference in rugby, and players are
certainly highly incentivised to give it their all, but even
for the battering ram-type players, their ability to help the
team actually get the ball across the gain line is a function
of the stamina and mobility to get around the pitch for
multiple phases of play, complex situational awareness and
some degree of ball handling skills, not just the ability to
block off the man directly in front of them for a few
plays.Not to mention rugby's increasingly strictly applied
and penalised rules on what is and isn't a legal tackle which
mean that a player who doesn't tackle in a relatively safe
manner will be a liability to their teammates as well as
themselves
EpicEng - 3 hours ago
>Hockey has the advantage that the sport could we reworked into
something less violent. Hockey could survive a change to the
rules that would reduce blows to the head.Could it? I wonder
how many people would continue to watch hockey if fights
weren't essentially sanctioned as a part of the game. I imagine
only the diehards as it's not the most entertaining sport in
the world...
LeifCarrotson - 1 hours ago
I think hockey would not be affected much, but NASCAR would
drop precipitously if they reworked safety, car design, and
rules such that there were no more major crashes.
neaden - 2 hours ago
I mean, only about a third of hockey games have a fight, and
usually it's not that dramatic. Part of the issue though is
that fights are partly for players to enforce unwritten rules
about sportsmanship, so if you got rid of fights there is
some bad conduct that might increase that could also be
dangerous.
pkulak - 2 hours ago
Who really likes the fights, though? I don't know anyone who
does. They are more boring than commercials.I don't think
it's the fights though. They're mostly just hugging. I think
the checks are what do the damage.
bernardom - 2 hours ago
College hockey has no fights and is awesome to watch. (Go
Red!)
gertef - 2 hours ago
https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/hockey-fights-are-
going-a...
EpicEng - 1 hours ago
okhttp://awfulannouncing.com/nhl/2016-17-nhl-ratings-
dropped-u...
dionidium - 1 hours ago
I'm a traditionalist; I like the fights. But it's a very,
very tiny part of the game. There's basically nobody who
actually follows hockey who is doing so primarily for the
fights, as you seem to be suggesting. That's an opinion that
only someone who doesn't follow hockey could think makes
enough sense to say aloud.
perfectstorm - 4 hours ago
field hockey is not as violent as ice hockey and they could
implement the same rules over. I believe Rugby too is not as
violent as American Football but I guess less exciting ? (I
don't watch either so don't know).
phillc73 - 2 hours ago
I think Rugby Union is more interesting than American
Football (in my biased opinion), because the ball is in play
for a lot longer and the game has better momentum. Then
again, many Rugby Union vs Rugby League debates involve the
criticism of Union that it is too stop-start.There is
certainly a growing awareness of head injuries in Union and
League at all levels. Players which show any sign of head
trauma are (should be) immediately removed from the field for
a 10 minute evaluation. However, having played Union for
nearly 20 years (from the age of 14), I can attest to the
fact that there are many occasions where a head clash occurs
which doesn't result in concussion, but still can't be very
healthy.Besides head injuries, I've required an ACL operation
due to Rugby injury. My shoulders and back are also in pretty
bad shape. I now have a young son and am really trying to
steer him towards cricket rather than Rugby.
mattmanser - 1 hours ago
Rugby has gone through periods of being a boring game and
has had constant rule changes to try and make it more
interesting, some of which significantly changed the nature
of the game.The period of constant scrums was an especially
dull period, as was the rolling mauls period. I vaguely
remember a period of constant punts from each side down the
field. I haven't kept up to date with Rugby, but google
seems to suggest boring rolling mauls are back.As an
Englishman, I still have to say cricket is one of the most
boring sports to play, with only 3 players in a team of 22
doing anything even vaguely interesting at any one time
(batter, bowler, wicket keeper, 9 other players are
literally sitting doing nothing and 9 others are standing
around).It's less a sport and more an excuse to lounge
around.For all it's faults with prima-donnas, football is
one of the most engaging team sports with much less risk of
injury than rugby or ball-in-the-face field hockey.
pbhjpbhj - 1 hours ago
>"football is one of the most engaging team sports"Do you
mean Association Football there, ie "soccer"?
jonny_eh - 4 hours ago
Or even better, change it to flag football
BearGoesChirp - 4 hours ago
>I just can't support the NFL.I'm not sure what the NFL does
that's wrong. Their players get significant fame, are consenting
adults, and get pay checks that many would trade even more of
their health for. It is the college level, and especially the
high school level, that I see the major problems at. When you
have kids, or even people who aren't paid, risking their health
it crosses a significant line. If college players were paid, and
if playing below 18 (or even 16) was banned, it wouldn't be a big
problem for me.Edit: As someone else pointed out, the suppressing
information is wrong. I wasn't considering that side of things.
yequalsx - 4 hours ago
Would you be OK allowing two consenting adults to fight to the
death for pay? Most people would not be for allowing this. A
lot of people are willing to work in very risky environments
because they feel they have no alternative. Should companies be
allowed to have dangerous work environments because there are
people desperate enough to be willing to work in them?
Brendinooo - 3 hours ago
I don't think this is a black-and-white kind of area. Plenty
of miners felt a lot of pride in their work and wouldn't have
given it up if they didn't have to, but mining is inherently
more dangerous than sitting at a desk.So, while companies
should have workers' comp and provide helmets on the job, it
doesn't mean that the risk needs to be zero. Dangerous jobs
tend to be well-compensated, so it either comes down to risk
tolerance or cultural factors (something like "my father was
a miner and I live in coal country") more than desperation.
dsacco - 2 hours ago
> Would you be OK allowing two consenting adults to fight to
the death for pay?Given that scenario as stated? Sure, I'm
all for it. Take away the gloves in boxing and we're pretty
close to that.I'd be concerned about the negative incentives
that could potentially exploit lower income people, but on
its own I don't have a problem with it.I personally wouldn't
do it, and I don't think I'd enjoy watching it, but I'm of
the opinion that:1. If it occurs a lot, there is a market for
it,2. Given a market for it, we should explore allowing and
heavily regulating it, including negative externalities,
rather than banning it and pushing it to a black market.
yequalsx - 1 hours ago
You'd be OK allowing two people to fight to the death for
pay? I'm stunned. You are the only person I know of that
would be OK living in a society that allowed two people to
fight until one of them dies for pay. I'm glad your view
is not a popular one.
darrenf - 2 hours ago
AIUI bare knuckle boxing is less dangerous than the big
time stuff. Gloves protect the boxer doing the punching
from breaking their fingers/hands, enabling them to do more
damage to their opponents. You ain't punching a skull with
your bare knuckles and hurting the other party much.
dsacco - 40 minutes ago
Ah, my mistake I suppose. I understood bare knuckle
boxing is dangerous for the hands, but I also believed it
was dangerous for the other party.
vacri - 1 hours ago
Why do you have a major problem with consenting adults at
college level, but not at professional level? How is
consenting-for-money any different to consenting-in-hopes-of-
money?As for fame, which players get significant fame? Every
team has over fifty guys on their roster - how many of those
could ever be named by a random member of the public who isn't
a diehard fan of that same team? The linemen are the ones that
cop the brunt of the big hits - how many linemen ever get known
by name?
ramy_d - 4 hours ago
> I'm not sure what the NFL does that's wrong.Because they
suppressed evidence?
mabub24 - 4 hours ago
> I'm not sure what the NFL does that's wrong.I don't think
that's a particularly strong stance to take. The NFL has been
fairly active in trying to dismiss or ignore this evidence.
They are not merely standing by the sidelines.One recent thing
the NFL has done is bullied NIH researchers in concussion
research in order to divert funding to their own NFL
researchers.[0] Serious questions have been raised about the
independence of those researchers. It's like Big Tobacco all
over again.There have been a number of other instances where
the NFL has tried to discredit or hide concussion research that
details how dangerous Football is. [1]Besides paying their
players, the NFL actively targets kids and amateurs through
marketing. They buy the merchandise and become long term fans.
By hiding and dismissing the concussion research they are
choosing profits over safety.All of this would be okay if the
true dangers of football were fully transparent. Adults can
consent to risks when they know the risks they are facing. In
this case, the NFL has hidden that risk.[0]: http://www.espn.c
om/espn/otl/story/_/id/15667689/congression...[1]:
http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/14711203/nfl-donatio...
yardie - 2 hours ago
> and get pay checks that many would trade even more of their
health for.In addition to the other comments about suppressing
information. They have led you to believe this is the case. You
should really find out how compensation in the NFL works
because it is mindblowing. Do they get paid more than most
bluecollar jobs? Absolutely.A lot of NFL contracts are back
loaded and the NFL tries everything in their power to make sure
their players don't see the full payout. Most of the non-famous
players are paid weekly and can be cut at any time.MLB and NBA
players have much stronger protections when it comes to salary.
santoshalper - 4 hours ago
Also, the NFL uses College and High School Football as free
development leagues. If HS and CFB didn't exist, where would
the NFL get their players?
Brendinooo - 3 hours ago
This...doesn't quite compute to me. Professional football was
born out of amateur athletic clubs and college clubs. The
lack of a development league for the NFL is lamentable for a
few reasons, but I don't think it's insidious that people
play for free then get the attention of the NFL, if only
because most people play football because they enjoy the
sport.If HS and CFB didn't exist, there would be no NFL,
because it would mean that everyone stopped caring about
football.(Disclosure: I live near Pittsburgh; even though I
never played, the sport runs deep in the roots of the area!)
dhimes - 2 hours ago
They need to get the college sports off of national TV and
set up a farm team system. But that's a debate for another
time probably.
PacketPaul - 1 hours ago
College football is more popular than the NFL. Every game
is critically important in college which adds to the
excitement. Pro's you can lose a few and still make the
SuperBowl.The RedSkins can't fill their stadium in a
major market. Try to get Alabama tickets ... or NotreDame
... or Penn State all in minuscule markets.
imglorp - 4 hours ago
This point is critically important because TBI in developing
brains is especially disastrous with lifetime implications.
This isn't a risk/reward discussion because TBI's are
basically everyone if they're playing hard. So there's
guaranteed downsides.Children should not be doing this,
ever.http://www.biausa.org/brain-injury-children.htm#recovery
Bartweiss - 2 hours ago
Beyond the suppressing information part, I think it's still
reasonable to decline to watch.Everyone is a consenting adult,
I'm not saying "letting people tackle each other" is criminal
or unethical. (Though as you say, mandatory football in gym
class would be a different story.) The only thing here that
ought to be legally actionable is knowingly hiding risks.But
we're talking about a spectator sport. I think a lot of people
would feel sort of queasy if they saw a "good hit" and thought
"wow, that guy just got a bit of brain damage". It's pretty
reasonable to say "I want to see people perform challenging
athletics, I don't want to see them destroy their minds". So
the NFL might 'deserve' to fail because of this no matter how
open and transparent they are.
x0x0 - 2 hours ago
They are the only one of the big four in the US with non-
guaranteed contracts. And the one with players by far the
likeliest to get badly hurt.Not to mention (1) many players
don't actually get paid that well; (2) careers are often quite
short; (3) unless you're a liar, you understand what happens
when a player gets hurt but if they don't play, they don't get
paid... Surprising no-one who doesn't work for the NFL,
players play hurt. Or hide concussions.
[deleted]
kpwags - 4 hours ago
My main issues with the NFL and why I can't support them are1)
NFL knew about the risks and hid them and in some cases
deliberately deceived the players about said risks. I seem to
recall that only a couple years ago the NFL told the players
that with adequate rest, there will be no long-lasting effects
from a concussion -- something that has been shown to not be
the case.2) The NFL will go after anyone who releases medical
research raising questions about football and CTE. And I don't
mean just refuting the evidence, they've gone after the doctors
and scientists personallyI don't fault any player in the NFL
for wanting the fame and fortune, or playing. But they should
also receive all the information that's available as to the
risks and dangers associated with playing so they can make
their own decision.
dsacco - 3 hours ago
Can you provide a few examples of the NFL going after doctors
and scientists, and clarify what that means?
mricordeau - 1 hours ago
See Dr Omalu research about CTE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennet_OmaluThere is a movie
(biopic not totally accurate) : Concussion
dsacco - 41 minutes ago
Thanks, this looks like a good start.
yeswecatan - 3 hours ago
I just watched "Ice Guardians," a documentary about enforcers in
hockey. They claimed that only a small percentage (can't remember
off the top of my head, maybe 5%) of concussions in hockey were
due to fights. The majority come from the high speed nature of
the game, especially after 2005. The game became a lot faster
then. Big, slow players were replaced with smaller, speedier
guys. The trapezoid was introduced which results in tons of
defenders getting plastered behind the net while trying to
retrieve the puck.
WillPostForFood - 1 hours ago
The issue for hockey is players got faster AND bigger. You are
right that average weight has dropped from the peak of 206 in
2005 to 201 today But in the 70's it was as low as 183. The
slowest 200+ pound skater today would probably be in the top
20% of skaters back then. Larger players also lead to more
shoulder to head hits, just because of size disparity (see:
Crosby, Kariya).The other thing that is hard to capture
statistically, is that teams used to have big guys that rarely
would see much ice time. Now you have many legit skilled
players at 220+ pounds who are regulars.
wyattk - 3 hours ago
The problem of defencemen getting plastered was not just the
trapezoid. A lot of it had to do with the way icing worked. It
used to be the d-man had to "touch" the puck for it to be
icing, this always resulted in d-men and forwards going nearly
full speed after the puck to either get the icing call or to
beat it out.The NHL has done away with this and has "no touch
icing" where the d-man only has to skate to the hash marks
(middle of the circles), that's removed a considerable amount
of the high-speed collisions
eighthnate - 57 minutes ago
> My justification, however flimsy it might be is that I don't
like the fighting (I might be in a minorityThe fighting isn't
what causes damage in hockey no more than fighting in the NFL is
what causes damage. It is just the physical nature of the sport.>
I enjoy the stick work, the dangling and skills getting to the
net.My friend says the same thing, but the truth is that he is a
racist who hate the NFL because it is "too black" and he suddenly
loves hockey because he can "relate" to it.Both hockey and
football are dangerous. Even soccer is dangerous. Nevermind MMA
and boxing.Without a doubt, football/hockey/boxing/mma/etc are
all highly violent. The question is should we care and if we do,
what do we do about it.
flashdance - 4 hours ago
Most kids in elementary/middle/high school (at least where I grew
up) play non-contact hockey. You're not allowed to fight or
bodycheck, but incidental contact is fine. Only the super high
(competitive) levels had hitting.Non-contact hockey players are
three times less likely to be severely injured and three times
less likely to be concussed while playing.[1] That's the
direction hockey should be going, IMO. Contact is fun and all but
I know too many people who are seriously messed up from
concussions--I'm glad my parents put me in a non-contact
league.[1]
http://www.med.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/hanley/c609/practicum2...
Jeremy1026 - 3 hours ago
My adult league is non-contact from the "never played in my
life" level up through the "D-I/Semi-Pro" level.
rconti - 4 hours ago
I'm not there yet, but may be some day. I turned to football
because I just can't be bothered to follow the countless games in
baseball anymore. Football is a great way to get a weekly
sporting fix, a day or two a week, for a fraction of the year.
But yeah, who can't shake their head at the "NFL's greatest hits
volume 39" VHS sitting in the back of the cabinet.Hopefully the
game can change and adapt, I feel like the longer they drag their
heels, the more likely it is to just completely collapse.
guiomie - 5 hours ago
I'm on the same side as you about the fights. I'm just not a fan
of the hypocrisy of letting people fight their anger away on
national TV when someone doing the same in a public space would
get arrested. I've played hockey, I get the whole aspect of being
emotionally invested in the game, but I still don't think it's
the right thing to do.Otherwise, I always thought the concussion
aspect was much less worst in the NHL than NFL, but maybe im
wrong about that...
arrosenberg - 4 hours ago
Hockey fights in 2017 aren't really comparable to what fighting
in hockey used to be though. The enforcer role is all but gone,
the rules around hits are more stringent and the league is far
more rigorous with enforcement. I think the bigger risk in the
game today is from the speed of collisions, having too much
padding and high hits.
ptaipale - 3 hours ago
And anyway, fighting is not where the injuries happen. Ugly
tackles to the head are the bad thing.
santoshalper - 4 hours ago
Hits are much less frequent in hockey (they happen several
times per play in Football) and the players are much smaller,
but they are moving really fast and playing on ice. I think the
worst hits in Hockey would rival anything in Football, but I
don't think the prevalence of CTE will be as high.
ThrustVectoring - 4 hours ago
I've heard arguments that fights in hockey reduce the overall
level of violence through changing incentives. Basically, it
means that rough play will get you punched, so people are less
willing to futz around on the ice.
Pxtl - 4 hours ago
I've heard that before - like the reason that Crosby spends
so much time laid out is that the Pens refused to use an
enforcer to punish the guys who were roughing him up.That, to
me, sounds like anarchy on the ice. Like the game is either
impossible to properly referee or the referees are
incompetent or the refs simply have been told to ignore a
certain level of violence.
mi100hael - 3 hours ago
Nah, you're over thinking it. Heavy hits are perfectly
legal and (for the most part) the refs aren't making
mistakes or ignoring illegal behavior. Enforcers just
discourage the opposing team from making those legal hits.
Jeremy1026 - 3 hours ago
Hockey is a contact sport, and because of that the referees
can't issue a penalty everytime someone gets hit. There are
hits that are illegal, and they are called (most of the
time). Hits where the principle contact point is the head
is illegal, hits directly from behind are illegal, and hits
where the hitter takes more than two strides into the hit
are illegal. Anything else is fair game and because of
that, the puck carrier needs to keep their head up and be
proactive to the play.
Coincoin - 2 hours ago
It's more than that, in the NHL at least.Why are scuffles
around the net tolerated? They are disgraceful. Almost
every game you will see someone get punched or cross
checked in the face with no consequence, as long as it's
after the whistle or the victim is an asshole. Which
leads to my next point.Why is general assholery tolerated
and even celebrated? There is a thing called
sportsmanship and there is none of it in the NHL until
they put someone on a stretcher. They bang their stick on
the boards for 5 seconds then it's open season for the
other guy.Why are fights only 5 minutes penalty? Any
other sport they would get suspended for even half
attempting to punch someone. The NHL and PA say it's some
sort of anarchy-on-ice bullshit but we all know it's
because it sells tickets and have otherwise poor players
make the cut.
watwut - 3 hours ago
I find it implausible. Ice hockey players are not the kind of
dude who get scared by a bit of pain after being hit. If they
would, they would not played hockey (which hurts even outside
fights and gets you injuries often).
Analemma_ - 3 hours ago
> Otherwise, I always thought the concussion aspect was much
less worst in the NHL than NFL, but maybe im wrong about
that...Maybe, but what we're discovering is that concussions
aren't the only problem: you can get CTE even from the repeated
sub-concussive hits that linemen get constantly. By focusing on
concussions the NFL is dodging the issue.
autokad - 3 hours ago
hockey has more concussions today than the clutch and grab days
of the past. this is a 2 fold reason: #1 players are moving
faster now - expected #2 clutch and grab actually penalized
larger players, as it took more energy to get moving again
(hockey is an endurance sport). now player size is inflating.I
think the football solution is to force players smaller again.
One way to accomplish this is to weight pun salary caps by body
weight. The sport can keep its old aspects.
soperj - 2 hours ago
Hockey players are getting smaller, not bigger. You would
have never seen guys like Martin St.Louis, Conacher,
Gaudreau, Tyler Johnson, make it in the late 90s. That a guy
like Kailer Yamamoto gets drafted in the first round shows
that things have changed for smaller players.
dsacco - 2 hours ago
Can you flesh out your weightclass idea of salary brackets
there? I'm curious to understand how you think it would work.
X86BSD - 4 hours ago
I don't follow rugby as close as I should to ask this question
but I don't recall having heard or read anything regarding that
sport and head trauma. And it is just as contact driven as
football. Is it just not as popular and hence doesn't get the
same level of scrutiny?
lostlogin - 4 hours ago
It's pretty bad and has had an increase in scrutiny of late
here in New Zealand, in part because of some of the countries
great teams and players appear to be suffering severe
consequences.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&obje...
bkohlmann - 1 hours ago
?And you?re going to have to make a decision about which direction
you want to go.? He raised his hand and pointed. ?If you go that
way you can be somebody. You will have to make compromises and you
will have to turn your back on your friends. But you will be a
member of the club and you will get promoted and you will get good
assignments.? Then Boyd raised his other hand and pointed another
direction. ?Or you can go that way and you can do something ?
something for your country and for your Air Force and for yourself.
If you decide you want to do something, you may not get promoted
and you may not get the good assignments and you certainly will not
be a favorite of your superiors. But you won?t have to compromise
yourself. You will be true to your friends and to yourself. And
your work might make a difference. To be somebody or to do
something. In life there is often a roll call. That?s when you will
have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go??
-Robert Coram, The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War
pwthornton - 3 hours ago
Football's core problem is still denial that this is an issue.
Until that happens, real, concrete steps won't be taken to address
it. Here are a few suggestions:1) No tackle football before a
certain age (to be determined by scientists based on brain
development and how damaging a concussion would be). You can learn
a ton about football, running routes, learning plays, getting in
shape, etc. without hitting people.2) Ban hitting. Everything
should be a wrap around tackle. No more players running full speed
and launching themselves into other players. Look at how few
players actually try to tackle people.3). Put padding on the
outside of helmets and maybe shoulder pads. Current helmets are not
doing nearly a good enough job of slowing down energy. They are
designed to protect against fractures, but future football
equipment should be designed to slow down impacts.4) Make neutral
zone a few yards long. Much of the worst blows happen to linemen
who fire off into each other, particularly on running plays. While
big hits get the most notice, it is actually those who are
suffering routine head blows that are at the most risk.5) Ban the
quarterback sneak and any other similar play where linemen dive
into each other in short yardage situations.6) Ban players for
unsafe hits. 15-yard penalties are not nearly enough for something
that could cause someone to die very young.7) Ban players for PEDs.
Steroids and HGH permanently alter your physiology. PEDs are making
players unnaturally big, strong and fast. Suspensions are not
enough, because even if a player stops doing them, he may have made
himself unnaturally big, strong and fast.8) Allow defensive backs
to hand check and other ways of playing defense that don't revolve
around big hits. The passing game has exploded in the NFL, partly
because it's so hard to defend against receivers. Receivers get
more separation these days. Allowing hand checking closes
separation and would limit the amount of passing.
cratermoon - 3 hours ago
> Ban players for PEDs .... Suspensions are not enough, because
even if a player stops doing them, he may have made himself
unnaturally big, strong and fast.This is really insightful. I
don't know much about HGH but I know steroid use is something
that a guy can do for a while, gain muscle and size, and stop,
and yes, some of that size will go away, but there's a base that
will never go away. That's a fact a lot of folks don't know, that
steroids have permanent effects. The sport may catch a guy
cycling and suspend him for a few games or a season, but it
doesn't matter. He's already gotten growth that he can then build
on without PEDs, and gotten an advantage over guys who never use
steroids.
hkmurakami - 2 hours ago
The problem is that you'll still be paid before getting banned.
This is the problem cycling and other PED rampant sports
face.You can take away the medals but you can't take away their
money and you can't take away the fact that they've enjoyed
their fame while it lasted
Bartweiss - 2 hours ago
Sure, but you can probably make the sport a bit safer. In
cycling or tennis, the lasting effect of PED use (after
stopping) is being more competitive. In football, the lasting
effect is being more dangerous to other players on the field.
That's a huge distinction.
hkmurakami - 56 minutes ago
But even if you make the penalty a ban, players are still
incentivizing to try to cheat the system because they'll
get paid. You have to take away both the financial and
glory rewards of PEDs
koolba - 2 hours ago
> 1) No tackle football before a certain age (to be determined by
scientists based on brain development and how damaging a
concussion would be). You can learn a ton about football, running
routes, learning plays, getting in shape, etc. without hitting
people.Good luck enforcing this with kids. We played flag
football in school but full tackle with zero supervision after
school in the park.> 2) Ban hitting. Everything should be a wrap
around tackle. No more players running full speed and launching
themselves into other players. Look at how few players actually
try to tackle people.I get what you're going after but it's
tricky when you're dealing with the boundaries. How do you push a
guy out of bounds without "hitting" him?> 3). Put padding on the
outside of helmets and maybe shoulder pads. Current helmets are
not doing nearly a good enough job of slowing down energy. They
are designed to protect against fractures, but future football
equipment should be designed to slow down impacts.I see no issue
with this. If it's proven to be safer than I'm sure people would
switch to it. Maybe pitch it to Riddell.> 4) Make neutral zone a
few yards long. Much of the worst blows happen to linemen who
fire off into each other, particularly on running plays. While
big hits get the most notice, it is actually those who are
suffering routine head blows that are at the most risk.This would
substantially change the mechanics of the game. I'm not sure if
it would be more or less fun but it's be a wildly different game.
Imagine the difference a speed player would have if there's an
added 3-5 yard gap between the starting lines.> 5) Ban the
quarterback sneak and any other similar play where linemen dive
into each other in short yardage situations.The end zone plays
would be different indeed. Also, no more superman shots of Cam.>
6) Ban players for unsafe hits. 15-yard penalties are not nearly
enough for something that could cause someone to die very
young.+1It should be immediate and permanent if it's intentional.
Accidental unsafe hits should result in an ejection . Bonus
points if the crowd boos the player who committed the hit.> 7)
Ban players for PEDs. Steroids and HGH permanently alter your
physiology. PEDs are making players unnaturally big, strong and
fast. Suspensions are not enough, because even if a player stops
doing them, he may have made himself unnaturally big, strong and
fast.+1I find it hilarious that doping doesn't result in
permanent bans.> 8) Allow defensive backs to hand check and other
ways of playing defense that don't revolve around big hits. The
passing game has exploded in the NFL, partly because it's so hard
to defend against receivers. Receivers get more separation these
days. Allowing hand checking closes separation and would limit
the amount of passing.I have to think this one through further.
It's hard to imagine a situation where you can take down a power
running back that doesn't involve something like a hit. The truly
power RBs are like tanks and the site of one dragging multiple
defense players into the end zone is an amazing site.
baddox - 1 hours ago
> Good luck enforcing this with kids. We played flag football
in school but full tackle with zero supervision after school in
the park.Sure, kids will sometimes hurt each other just horsing
around too. I think the idea here is for sanctioned children's
leagues and school teams to not allow tackling.
ksenzee - 2 hours ago
> 15-year penalties are not nearly enoughA 15-year penalty seems
like it would be plenty... oh, you meant 15-yard. Yes. Agreed.
pwthornton - 2 hours ago
15-year might be more fitting!Fixed.
nvusuvu - 1 hours ago
I, too, experienced this. But following football in the South is a
quasi-religion and you can get ostracized for being a non-believer.
rm_-rf_slash - 5 hours ago
Football is America's gladiator sport. For all the fun, the money,
the excitement, the money, the drama, the bombast, the
cheerleaders, and even the money, we should remind ourselves that
American football is a very violent sport rife with injury and long
term disability, and our participation as passive spectators and
consumers makes us just as responsible for the incentive structure
that harms so many young men for the rest of their lives.And yet we
can't stop. Football is practically an addiction in this country,
and I don't think there is one serious proposal that could reduce
the size and scope of injuries and brain trauma in particular, and
allows the game to continue in its current familiar form. So we
tuck the problem under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist until
moments of faux anguish pierce our veil of doped-up depravity.Sorry
if this post comes across as depressing and masochistic. After all,
I am a Bills fan.
scott_s - 5 hours ago
The way I think it may change is the way most cultural changes
happen: the aggregate of small decisions made by individuals.As
more understanding of the eventualities (not "risk") of brain
damage become ingrained in how people view football, perceptions
may change. I think people may start to view football more as
say, smoking. More parents may not sign up their kids for
football, or discourage them from playing in high school. Kids
may make the decision themselves, as they will grow up with the
eventualities as background information. With less players in the
pipeline, football programs may shrink.I know the standard
objection is still "some players, particularly poorer players,
will still play." And that may be true, but the NFL and college
teams power is that football is culturally significant. And it's
culturally significant because so many people see it as the main
American sport. It's quite possible more people will not see it
as the main American sport, which will decrease its cultural
significance, which can decrease the power and influence of the
NFL, college and even high school teams.I'm not saying this will
happen, but that it may happen. I do think it's likely.
jacamat - 2 hours ago
The comparison to a Gladiator sport is a good one.I see no reason
why ESPN/NFL/et al., can't provide comprehensive health insurance
to every current & former player for life - as reducing the
violence of the sport doesn't really seem to be on the table,
broadly speaking.
Jesus_Jones - 5 hours ago
Is violent sport an inherent part of a country's psychic makeup?
Mexico has wrestling? What about Bermuda?
cmurf - 5 hours ago
I think violence is an inherent part of being a primate. It
needs some kind of outlet, be it preemptive wars of choice or
civil wars, as the animal gets a bit smarter then there are
gladiator games, still pretty vicious but structured, and the
smarter ape man gets the more structure and skill and
preserving the life of the sportsman the rules get. It's the
spectators that drive the structuring every bit as much as the
owners. The more debased the spectators are, the more violence
persists in the sport.So yeah blame the owners for knowing
about football's lifelong consequences before and after the
discovery of CTE, but that it persists is squarely on the
spectators who keep paying for it.
mcguire - 3 hours ago
On my more cynical days, I think it's a net positive. It occupies
a group of people who would otherwise likely be very effective
street criminals. It entertains millions who would probably find
something worse to enjoy.
simplicio - 5 hours ago
I disagree. I think Americans are generally pretty intolerant of
sports and other activities where death or disability are likely
outcomes. The rules of football, boxing, MMA, etc. have been
continuously changed to make them safer, even at the cost of
abandoning major aspects of the sport (19th century football was
much different than the modern sport, and much more frequently
fatal).Football has managed to dodge the CTE issue so far because
the injury is both hard to diagnose (basically requiring a brain
autopsy), it's symptoms appear decades after the initial injury
and involves a lot of mental issues that people often develop
without CTE.But as evidence mounts, its clearly becoming harder
and harder for the public to ignore. So I think we'll see
football drastically change to solve the issue, or die off as
public discomfort with the cost to players manifests itself in
shrinking audiences.
jMyles - 1 hours ago
> The rules of football, boxing, MMA, etc. have been
continuously changed to make them saferI disagree, at least in
part.Pretty much all of the rules of boxing make it unsafe, and
it seems to have evolved to be increasingly so. Boxers have to
ignore every instinct that their body has to protect them, from
continuous clinching to grabbing to taking the fight to the
ground.If a boxer falls to the ground, dizzy with head trauma,
the referee will literally count to 10, and if that boxer can
stand up, they can stand in front of their opponent and be hit
in the head some more. Like they're a piece of meat.MMA is
much, much better in this regard, but still has some bad parts,
and many of the changes have made things worse and not
better.The original UFC rules banned hand wraps, which allow
fighters to throw wide, fastball-style overhand punches that
would otherwise be impossible without breaking hands.The
original rules also did not provide for referee stand-ups,
which have nothing to do with the sport and are instead a
purely subjective move to make the fight more exciting.
Leaving the fight on the ground is always safer (and, IMO,
almost always more exciting, but that's a different topic).The
system of weight-determination in MMA (typically a single
weigh-in, 24-40 hours before the fight) absolutely incentivizes
deep weight cuts, and that's disgusting. Changes to these
rules have often made things worse instead of better (options
for an early weigh-in, a ban on IV rehydration, etc). Although
OneFC is doing brilliant work in this field I will say; they
are an exception.MMA is a great sport and almost certainly much
safer than Football or Boxing, but it's up to fans to stand up
and demand re-examination of some of the rules that have gone
in the wrong direction.
NegativeLatency - 5 hours ago
Is rugby safer? I'd actually be interested in watching rugby on
tv. Never been a fan of football due to all the stopping and
setting up plays, makes the game move too slowly to be
interesting.
RankingMember - 5 hours ago
I think it might be simply because the risk to the person doing
the hitting is much greater given they're not covered in
pads/helmets. People still get wrecked in rugby, but I think
there are less battering-ram style hits.
cmurf - 5 hours ago
The scrum is definitely not good, and is the main source of
degenerative spinal injuries. The bulk of other injuries are
muscular (sprains, pulls) and bruises. The rules of the game
enforce a direction of play that makes head on attacks far less
(maybe even none) likely than American football. But it's still
a brutal sport with lasting repetitive use injuries - they just
don't tend to be head injuries as much.
ghaff - 5 hours ago
>Is rugby safer?The short answer is almost certainly yes but
the patterns of injury are different. Rugby also has issues
with concussions, although less so than American football. The
bigger problem is generally considered to be spinal injuries in
scrums.Unfortunately it's hard to catch much rugby on TV in the
US. (I assume there are special packages you can subscribe to
but I don't care that much.)
alistairSH - 5 hours ago
Rugby is occasionally on TV in the US. NBC Sports carries some
events. Or, if you want a quick fix, look for a sevens
tournament on YouTube (US has a collegiate championship,
there's the Olympics, and a few major international). The
games are short and fast paced, so easily consumed.
cmurf - 5 hours ago
I don't think the post is depressing and masochistic. I think
football fans are depressed masochists, and they get their
temporary fix with vicarious participation in a gladiator sport.
The more fans pay for tickets, the more contracts go up in price,
the more justification for violence they feel entitled to
receive. OH, these guys are getting paid a million bucks at
least, I would do that!
Bud - 5 hours ago
Except they aren't getting paid a million bucks.College
football (and even high school football) account for a very
large slice of all football revenue. NCAA football is a multi-
billion-dollar business.Those athletes are spending 50% or even
more than 50% of their entire productive football careers
playing college ball, they are incurring a very high risk for
permanent brain injury, and they are NOT getting paid. (Do
these figures sound off? Go look up the average career length
of NFL running backs.)Yes, yes, they get a "free education",
but many or most of these guys aren't actually well-suited to
college-level academic work anyway, and a college degree isn't
of as much use if you die at 40 (or commit suicide in your late
20s) from horrific brain injuries.They should be getting paid.
Bigtime. Paid a lot. Everyone else involved with college
football is getting paid; just not the players, the ones who
are taking all the risk and doing all the real work.
cmurf - 5 hours ago
Sure, and the excuse here will be "but they will get an
instant pay out on day 1 when they're finished with school
and get a contract!"There is no possible rational
conversation you can have with a fan of college football
about the disproportionate blood sucking they're responsible
for. These spectators are parasites. Conversing with them
rationally is just as likely as conversing with a tick.
They're ignorant. They don't care, they don't want to
care.Addition: And paying them big time doesn't make it
right. That's just more gladiator mentality. The idea of
affixing them with more glory makes their sacrifice, and
lifelong injuries OK, because they're being fairly
compensated for it. Don't fix the sport, don't become less
violent, no one change anything except pay the gladiators
better.
Bud - 5 hours ago
Which is of course hilarious bullshit, since a tiny
percentage of college players ever see dollar one of NFL
money.I agree that paying them would not make this right,
but it'd be better than cynically killing them all at age
40, disabling their brains in their mid 20s if not earlier,
and never paying them anything at all. Paying them their
real market value would at least help.
JumpCrisscross - 3 hours ago
> Football is America's gladiator sportThe analogy goes deeper.
We exempt the NFL from antitrust law [1]. We let it keep its
feedstock players, i.e. college athletes, people who come from
disproportionately low-income backgrounds, so poorly they go
hungry [2]. For many, a sports scholarship seems like the only
chance they have at a better life.A minority reach semi-stardom,
with a vanishing fraction of those achieving fame and wealth. But
for all, the cost society charges is literally their minds.[1]
https://sportslaw.uslegal.com/antitrust-and-labor-law-
issues...[2]
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/04/21/304196202/hun...
[deleted]
[deleted]
brandonmenc - 3 hours ago
Switch to rugby-style tackling (like the Seahawks), get rid of
facemasks (per Ditka), maybe introduce per-position weight limits,
get rid of kickoffs, tweak the other rules a bit, and we can
probably keep the game mostly intact and reduce concussions.They'll
never be fully eliminated, though. In any sport.
Goronmon - 3 hours ago
And if the worst damage comes from positions like lineman and
linebackers repeatedly hitting their heads on every down during
the course of normal play, how do any of those changes fix that
problem?
brandonmenc - 47 minutes ago
> tweak the other rules a bitForced rotations, etc.
chasd00 - 5 hours ago
Big hits and injuries aren't new to American Football. Some of
hardest hits ever, as judged by other players, can only be seen in
old black and white footage. After a lifetime of being front and
center to the game he's only now walking away?If any analyst, or
anyone, should be walking away from a sport it should be boxing. In
boxing giving your opponent a concussion and rendering them
unconscious is a decisive victory and the most important statistic
for ranking.
tunesmith - 4 hours ago
I feel like I've seen another slow switch, in that injury news is
being emphasized more. I'm not sure that the rate of injury is
climbing, but it seems like the tone of press coverage is
increasing. I also wonder how much of a season's outcome can be
attributed to injury luck. Like am I basically watching a
tournament that is more about when what injury will happen to who,
than it is about actual skill, strategy, and tactics?
lasermike026 - 4 hours ago
REDESIGN THE SPORT! Geewiz, everyone is standing around with their
mouths open. Change the rules and goals of the game to get the
desired results.The problem with football is too many concussions.
Stop concussions and save the game.
lasermike026 - 4 hours ago
Here's a start.http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/12/we-should-
radically-chan...
Balgair - 40 minutes ago
There seems to be a lot of comments about the dangers and how many
people will not play nor let their friends and family play football
again. I thought I should chime in.I have had 3 major concussions
in my lifetime where I blacked-out for some period of time, maybe,
not counting the other ones where I did not lose consciousness or
notice the hits as badly. I still love those contact sports but
have quit them too.I'll detail some of the issues that I had with
concussions and what it felt like to have them (names and places
have been changed to protect the guilty/innocent). I only played
rugby in college and wrestled in HS, so my experiences with
concussions are not football related. However, I think you should
read this article first before going on into the wall of text below
as that writer is much better than I am:http://www.gq.com/story
/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-f...So, I guess that?s what
happened to me too. Zac?s issues with body image, his sleeping
problems, the drug addictions and the dependency. These are the
reasons that I don?t ever mess with stuff. Because I know that I
will end up like Zac, and that?ll just make it all so much worse.
It all fits for me. Yeah, the good little scientist in me says that
there can be a million and one reasons why that is all crap,
genetics, development, those little flies to be batted about in
your mind, annoying you. That self-doubt of a mosquito. But yeah,
it all fits. Occams razor and all that jazz.
Balgair - 40 minutes ago
One was in high school when a wrestling-mate punched me in the
back of the head with his elbow while I was down. We were doing
drills in the Mulituse room, the one next to the band rooms, on
the mats. I was wearing an ungodly amount of clothes to cut
weight. It was near the end of practice. I was sprawled out on
the mat and my partner's job was to not let me up and make a 1
point escape. I just sat there until I could see a move out, as
he was a much better wrestler than I was. He tried everything
including putting his finger up my butt, a favorite move of his
that I had expected I would have to endure, to get me to move at
all so he could get a move to make. Near the end of the drill
session, and I didn?t anticipate this, he just got on top of me
and slammed his elbow into the back of my head, as he was so
frustrated, and just said ?Fuck you /u/Balgair!?. Thing is about
these concussions, you remember weird things, and not all of it.
I usually remembered the first few seconds to minutes afterwards,
but then blanks fill it all out, like a floater in your eye, but
in your mind. Not static, just, Nothing, and not even emotions
too, just calmness at the nothingness. I hope that is what death
is like, that it is calm too. So I remembered the first few
seconds after the hit. I now know that it was a concussion, it
didn?t hurt at all. In fact the only sensation I remember is a
chill shiver all the way from my crown of my head down into my
lower back, taking about 3 seconds to complete. I don?t remember
if I could hear or see or talk in those seconds. Just that shiver
of warmth and chill all at once. Then I remember that we were
doing spawrl drills, all of us boys in all those sweat pants and
sweaters. I remember in that sodium orange arc-lamp lighting of
the room, "John" yelling at us to do thing, as he was the
student-leader that day. I remember trying to do the drills, and
then not being able to. I remember that John was yelling at us
all and then yelling at me to do it. And I remember the shame
that I felt when John made us do more because I wasn?t doing them
up to John's standards. I think we had to do another 1/3rd more.
Then it all just goes blank.I think I have written about this
before, but memory is hard. I?ll tell it again though, as another
witnessing is probably good too as I don?t think that all the
stories will match up 100%. The other time was actually with John
too. I think we both got concussions real bad that day. John is a
goofy foot. So, when we were doing pipe drills, he was falling
the other way from most of the people next to him, like me. A
pipe drill is when the other guy has your leg between his legs
and has his arms wrapped around your thigh. Then that guys tries
to take you down to the mat and pin you. So, typically, you use
leverage and then try to swing the guy you are holding onto down.
You go to the same side usually, as the foot you are holding, so
if you hold the right leg, you then will swing the guy towards
that side, so he falls on his back to the right side. Now, John
being a lefty, had the opposite led being held, and that meant
that he fell to the left and not the right like everyone else.
That meant he fell into me. Specifically on this particular
drill, his head fell into my head. I only remember the sound that
it made, like a pulse of lightening. Just a really low, loud,
crack. Maybe like a sheet of metal being thrown into a flat-bed.
Then it?s just vignettes, or gifs, loops in my memory that I, to
this day, just space out inside of. The chronology is shaky now,
again, just different, files?, in my mind that are near that time
period. You can put them in whatever order you want. I remember
having my head in my hand, face down, I don?t know if I was
sitting or standing, I was the one that was screaming, but I
wasn?t telling myself to scream. I was listening to my voice
scream, I wasn?t in control of myself, maybe my amygdala was, who
knows. I don?t remember any sights or feelings outside of my
hands and face and my hearing. Just numb otherwise. I remember
sitting in the littler back room, I was back on the wall and legs
bent upwards. I remember my fingers tingling really bad, like if
you let them fall asleep on you for a hour. I remember spots in
my vision, all purple and yellow, blue and brown, like a tye-dye
shirt. Again, I felt like I was not me, like I was just watching
a movie in theater of my eyes and my hands were these gloves of
tingle sensations over whomever was remembering these things. I
remember telling Coach about all this, like I wasn?t me, and he
said ?Get over it.? It was so mean, so hateful, but I was numb
and not talking, someone else was being talked to and doing the
talking. I remember, really vaguely, the other coaches
whispering, but I had no sight then. I knew they were talking
about me and John, but I?ll never know what they said. I remember
telling Coach I wanted to go to the nurse, who was literally the
next door down from us, again, no vision in this memory. I
remember Coach relenting and sounding exasperated, and I remember
tasting vomit but not knowing if it was me or what had happened
or why I tasted vomit, I remember finding it interesting that I
tasted vomit and nothing more than interest. I remember the
trainer, she was a smaller Asian woman, in a blue windbreaker and
a white shirt, her black hair pulled back into a pony-tail. She
was very tired of talking to me, like we had been talking for a
while. She was looking up at Coach, so that means I must have
been seated, though I don?t remember feeling like I was. There
were noises of people playing and thumping basketballs in the
other rooms. I remember she said to Coach ?he has to go to a
hospital? and that Coach was angry about that, not concerned or
worried, but just angry that I had to leave and that I got to
skip out on practice, like that I should be punished for this
whole affair, not that I should be going to a hospital and be
treated like a baby. I remember pulling up to the hospital, in
the darkness, the lights were shining up onto the hospital from
lights in the ground, giving it a strange glow. I do not remember
who drove me there or anything about the hospital at all in any
way. I remember going out, some days later, to a Mexican place
near Orinda. All I remember was walking into that place with Mom
and Dad, but not my siblings. I remember telling myself that I
was not going to eat anything so that I could cut weight. I
remember a really big sombrero on the wall outside the place. I
remember telling Mom years later that I don?t even remember that
week or much of that month. I lost 25lbs in water weight later
that week in order to make weight for a tournament. I failed at
that, but that is yet another story.
Balgair - 39 minutes ago
The last one that I remember is the one in rugby at college. We
were doing takedown drills and I was to tackle one of the guys
and he was trying to break through and score a try. I came at
him and wrapped him up, and I think that he then used his elbow
to try and drive me away. This time, again, he hit me on the
crown of my head. There was that familiar shiver of warmth and
chill that went down my spine for ~3 seconds. It was raining
that day, lightly, and the field was totally mud. I got up
after a bit from the blow. I was ready and in line with the
guys to go at it again. Bob, the volunteer coach for the club,
was trying to give directions on another iteration of the
drill. He asked if there were any questions. I was still out of
breath from the drills, and I asked him a question. But I
didn?t have anything to say, all I knew was that I had to ask a
question. I think a word salad came out of my mouth, that it
was filled with stones or something. Bob looked at me like I
was pulling his leg, like indignation at such a stunt. I again
tried to say something, repeat myself through the huffs. Then I
remember just falling down into the sloshy grey-brown mud , my
arms at my sides, and just vomiting over and over and over just
dry heaving in the middle of everyone and ruining the drill. I
remember later, maybe 5 minutes?, one of the older and faster
guys sitting me down in the try-zone and asking me who the
president was (Bush). I still couldn?t talk right. I was
shivering, but I wasn?t cold. They tried to cheer me up, saying
it wasn?t that bad of a hit, that it only counts as a
concussion if you get knocked out. It made someone feel better,
but that person was again not me, I was just watching
impassively, as someone else in my head marionetted me about. I
remember that I talked to my room-mate's neurosurgeon father on
the phone. He said not to fall asleep for a day, or I would
die. I was really tired though and slept anyways.I still miss
those sports, incredibly so. I miss the hitting, the drills,
the camaraderie. I miss the parties and the fraternity of other
men. No where else in life have I had those kinds of close
friendships, that brotherhood really. The price is these kinds
of concussions and injuries. But, if you are looking at it from
the outside, I want to tell you that I walked away because I
found the price too high. Other 'brothers' of mine, guys whose
back I had, they did not walk away and they are doing alright,
in our own ways. Still, I want to say that though the price of
those sports and that friendship was these types of injuries,
it was still a very hard decision for me. If I could have a
magic pill that would take even one concussion away from me,
give me one more chance, I'd be back on those fields and on
those mats in a heartbeat. It's not that easy to explain, but
at least one person on HN really would trade a concussion for
one more blow of the whistle.