OT: Head Trauma and Football Rule Changes

Submitted by Vasav on

I'm someone who has loved football all my life - played as a kid through high school, went to a football university, now I ref youth games. That said, all of us who love football should be concerned about how our sport may affect its participants, especially since Chris Henry may have gotten severe brain damage because of football. My personal opinion is that this should lead us to do a serious investigation of our sport and see how common and severe concussions are - is this severity limited to the pros? Is it because all the players are hopped up on PEDs? Is it because the NFL has a particularly long and grueling season? Or do former high school football players have some of these issues as well? The news posted on the board of a UPenn player having severe head trauma raises even more concerns.
 
But even before an investigation occurs, I think we ought to prepare ourselves for the fact that our sport may need to change. It won't be the end of the world - changes were made at Teddy Roosevelt's direction to save the game 100 years ago, and they can be made again. Before I list changes I think would be beneficial, I'd like you to know that I grew up on smash mouth football as a a former player in a power-I football team (albeit at split end, and mainly playing defense as a cornerback). I also played rugby union, so that may color my judgement as well. But if the game needs to open up, here are changes that I think will help.
 
One last aside - the two things that make football the greatest of games is the high amount of contact AND the high amount of strategy. That's what I love the most about football, and why I hope it can adapt to the 21st century. One thing I hate - the high amount of specialists. In my opinion, it's why collegiate and professional football players are less healthy than other major athletes - they are heavily conditioned for 5-8 seconds of extreme violence, and then 30 seconds of rest.
 
So here's my proposals - #1 is kinda crazy, 2,3,4 and 5 are related and a good idea I think, 6 & 7 intrigue me, and I think 8 is totally bats. But I wanted to get the creative juices flowing
 
1) Remove facemasks, return to soft pads and helmets (gives higher incentive to players to not lead with their heads)
2) Initiating head-to-head contact is an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty
3) Tackles must occur below the shoulder, the tackler must wrap up. High tackles and no wrapping up result in an unsportsmanlike conduct.
4) Unsportsmanlike conduct results in a one down "power-play" (so the offending player is suspended for a play, and the offending team plays with 10 players) and the loss of a down/replay of the down, in addition to a fifteen yard penalty from the original line of scrimmage or the dead ball spot (whichever is worse)
5) 3 unsportsmanlike conduct penalties on a player result in an ejection for the remainder of the game, 3 on a team/quarter result in a power-play for the remainder of the quarter (aka 3 strikes you're out)
6) Reduce the play clock to 15 seconds (so players have to be in better aerobic shape)
7) Re-institute substitution restrictions that existed before WWII, or at least some form of substitution restrictions, or the "iron-man" arena league rules (more on this below)
8) Teams will have 6 downs to score a touchdown (every down is goal-to-go)
 
Possible Substitution Rules:
1) Have a "substitution" ref on either sideline - ensuring that each team subs correctly.
2) Designate three players on the field as "platooners" who can come off and go on at anytime (on offense your center, QB, and one other). Who your platooners are will be designated before the game. Give them a bright colored armband to distinguish them easily for refs.
3) Only two other players may be changed out between plays.
4) Injury subs - if a player must be taken out who is not one of those five, he must sit out for the remainder of the quarter.
 
#8 is a rugby-league inspired rule. I imagine it will result in lower scoring, more punting, a higher amount of importance on field position, more field goals, and more passing. I personally think it's a bit ridiculous, but I wanted to throw it out there anyway.
 
All this is of course pending further study on the concussion issue. How crazy do you think the rules are? Are they implementable? Will these rules reduce/eliminate head trauma in football?

Vasav

September 16th, 2010 at 9:34 AM ^

No line of scrimmage, no offsides, no down and distance, no throwing, catching the ball "on mark," and I think the only way to score is by kicking through the goalposts.

That said there would be some similarities - opening football up in general is going to make it more like rugby. Both aussie rules football and american football are the only kind where blocking is alowed. But I think American football would keep much of its strategy and remain pretty unique

Laveranues

September 16th, 2010 at 9:34 AM ^

Players know the risks and accept them; always have, always will.  Just like auto racing, hockey, rugby, whatever.  We can't wrap everyone in cotton wool and store them in padded boxes.

kdhoffma

September 16th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^

Players know the risks?  Not really.  They know they run the risk of concussions, but for the most part they don't understand the risks of concussions.  Hell, it was just recently that concussions were connected to ALS... how many pro atheletes do you think know about that risk?

I'm with you regarding not being able to wrap everyone in bubble wrap... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to reduce concussions.  While I think a majority of what was presented above is extreme, I wouldn't be opposed to more stringent penalties when it comes to helmet/helmet contact.

st barth

September 16th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^

It becoming apparent that many of the players are unaware of the risks because the medical profession is only beginning to understand them itself.  The news about the recent U Penn player who committed suicide is pretty eye-opening as it is the first strong evidence of brain damage emerging in football players below the NFL level.  

When NFL sized salaries are removed from the risk/reward equation then playing football is increasingly looking like a bad idea.  Considering that most high school football players will never make a dime from playing, if it becomes clear that they are already exposing themselves to excessive brain damage then the sport as we know it in America could be in for a serious crisis.  No wonder the NFL has been sluggish to deal with the issue of concussions/brain damage in former players.  This could end up being a smoking/big tobacco style problem.

BlockM

September 16th, 2010 at 9:34 AM ^

I can appreciate the thought you put into this, but that doesn't sound like a game I want to watch.

Also, removing facemasks and using soft pads and helmets is a terrible idea. That's like saying, "We should remove airbags so people will drive safer."

JeepinBen

September 16th, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^

typically laws have gone towards "make cars safer" and not "make people better drivers" which I disagree with. Not to get too political, but we're getting to the point where car accidents aren't a big deal. Your insurance buys you a new car, you're fine thanks to the safety technology, what's the big deal? 

I've got 2 vehicles, a 98 Jeep Wrangler with no ABS or any safety whatever, and a 2010 VW CC with all the traction control, ABS, etc. I'm a much less aggressive driver in the jeep - I can't stop as well, I have no ABS, I can't accelerate as fast, and there are 2 airbags and a soft top, so if I get hit, it's a BIG problem. In the new car, It's less of an issue, I'm not saying I drive less safe, but because the Jeep is more dangerous, I have to drive it differently. 

If cars didn't have airbags, rear-ending the car in front of you would be terrible. Think people would pay more attention to stopping distance if there weren't air bags? think that could lower accident rates? That's the theory

Deep Under Cover

September 16th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^

I see what you are saying.  However, I think of the safety features as something not to protect me in case I have an accident, but something to protect ME from YOU.  It is my responsibility to drive as safe as I can (or choose to), I can control that, but I cannot control what you do.  That is why safety features, in my eyes, are important.  Was there a large influx in car accidents since airbags became pretty standard and BECAUSE they became standard?  Probably hard to say because we have FAR more distractions in vehicles these days with cell phones/GPS/Rap Music/Flash dancing...

JeepinBen

September 16th, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^

It's like why my parents tell me they worry. They trust me to drive safe, it's all the other idiots to worry about. 

And i agree about distracted driving... that's probably the real issue. I was just making a point, and I agree, safety features in cars are very important. If I could pick one though, I'd pick safer drivers over safer cars... life's not that simple though, oh well

Mongoose

September 16th, 2010 at 10:40 AM ^

uh, I know we're all having fun bashing Washington (NTW), but to clarify, I meant that the removal/alteration of helmets has been proposed. It's been said that, with new helmet technology, players think that they're perfectly protected, and so they're hitting each other harder, but they're hitting each other with harder materials and hurting themselves a great deal.

JeepinBen

September 16th, 2010 at 9:50 AM ^

There is a (pretty accepted) idea called i believe "Safety Homeostasis" or something similar. The Idea behind it is "people behave more carefully in dangerous situations". Best example is driving. When you think of some crazy mountain road, if you're driving down it, you're paying 100% attention. Driving out of your driveway doesn't typically require the same amount of concentration, so you don't focus as much. Have you ever NOT used a cell phone while driving because it's raining? That's an example of what I'm talking about. Another highlighted example is that of round-abouts vs. stop signs. even though round-abouts are "more dangerous" and take more focus, there are fewer accidents at them than stop signs - it forces people to pay attention. 

Red Berenson advocates a similar rule in the CCHA - he figures (and last I saw the numbers were inconclusive) that if players don't wear full cages, there will be less high sticking because everyone will be more careful.

While these are just examples of the OP's theory - i don't agree with most of what he wrote. I agree that football is dangerous, and that head trauma is a serious issue. There is no such thing as "getting your bell rung" It's a concussion, and its BRAIN DAMAGE. I wrote extensively on this topic after Chris Henry's autopsy results were made public. There's a problem for sure, and I dunno how to fix it.

Deep Under Cover

September 16th, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^

I see what you are saying and agree that there might be some element of "being more careful" in sports when risk of injury is higher (you can see if anytime someone steps out of bounds, slides, or slows up and braces for a hit).  However, professional athletes are well paid to be fast and bring the wood.  They risk hurting themselves and the person across from them to be valued higher in their profession.  I agree with what you say, but I also seem to believe that these athletes can forgo a lot of that risk-avoiding behavior because the risk of injury does not trump what they get for going all out (scholarship/contract/whatever).

BlockM

September 16th, 2010 at 10:02 AM ^

Yeah, I guess that's fair, good points.

I'd be interested in seeing stats on how many concussions there were before plastic helmets with facemasks were brought into the game, though I'd assume they don't exist. 

To argue against your point, however, I'm not sure that not wearing a plastic helmet with a facemask is comparable to your driving down a mountain example. When you're in the middle of a play, your attention isn't focused on your headgear, but on crushing the opponent.

Driving down a mountain, on the other hand, is at the forefront of your mind demanding your attention.

I think the truth on this one is probably somewhere in between the two. They may be a little more careful subconsciously (although after hitting a bunch of guys without hurting themselves, the force would gradually work its way back up, IME), but I don't believe the frequency of concussions would go down significantly by removing protection.

Deep Under Cover

September 16th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^

1) Remove facemasks, return to soft pads and helmets (gives higher incentive to players to not lead with their heads) ---- Ha ha ha do you realize that would NOT stop most players from leading with their head? Hell, check Mike Hart's run for the Colts where his helmet popped off and he was still putting his head down to truck people who HAD helmets on

2) Initiating head-to-head contact is an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty ----- What happens when the running back puts his head down to take a hit?  He has to run with his ribs totally exposed to a blow?  No thanks.



3) Tackles must occur below the shoulder, the tackler must wrap up. High tackles and no wrapping up result in an unsportsmanlike conduct. ----- Similar problem as above.  I think the QB helmet contact rule was good, as well as hitting a defenseless receiver (I think that's a rule...)



4) Unsportsmanlike conduct results in a one down "power-play" (so the offending player is suspended for a play, and the offending team plays with 10 players) and the loss of a down/replay of the down, in addition to a fifteen yard penalty from the original line of scrimmage or the dead ball spot (whichever is worse) ------ Just awful idea. Sorry.



5) 3 unsportsmanlike conduct penalties on a player result in an ejection for the remainder of the game, 3 on a team/quarter result in a power-play for the remainder of the quarter (aka 3 strikes you're out) ------ Again, just awful, especially given how easy it would likely be to get these penalties and the subjectivity of making the calls.



6) Reduce the play clock to 15 seconds (so players have to be in better aerobic shape) ----- This will likely fix head injuries.  And also, this would be more anaerobic I would think considering it would still be like doing windsprints with less rest inbetween



7) Re-institute substitution restrictions that existed before WWII, or at least some form of substitution restrictions, or the "iron-man" arena league rules (more on this below) ---- The only subbing rules should be for injured players, IME.



8) Teams will have 6 downs to score a touchdown (every down is goal-to-go) ----- How does this prevent head trauma and how is this even the same game?  This isn't NFL Blitz with 30 yard first downs and bodies flying 20 feet in the air.  A good drive is usually 10+ plays.

Sorry, but you cannot force players to play with less intensity.  It is COMPETITION, intensity is the point.  Do you not think all the new helmets out were designed with these issues in mind?  The amount of science that has gone into pads and helmets is probably unbelievable.  Going back to soft pads?  When players wore those they weren't lifting weights and bulking up like they do now.  Maybe they should stop lifting too?

Sorry, but this is just an awful, awful idea.  If they did this I would stop watching the sport and probably pick up lacrosse or something... EDIT: Or hockey! Are you a hockey fan?  Maybe you're trying to get a larger following for that sport, because that might actually work.  Touche!

wisecrakker

September 16th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^

survival and rule changes will be born from potential litigation and whether school systems(given the preponderance of research regarding CTE and contact sports) can afford to field teams with the potential signfigant liability.

mschol17

September 16th, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^

I think that removing/reducing pads, like in rugby, would help
a lot.  If you're not wearing body armor, you're forced to tackle properly and not just launch yourself at the opponent. 

 

 

Blue Ninja

September 16th, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^

Apparently you've never played full contact backyard football or even intramural flag football because trust me players throw themselves around at other players. The equipment was introduced to reduce injuries even after the flying wedge was a distant memory, it was after all outlawed in 1894. Helmets were not made mandatory until 1939 so that kind of rules out your logic.

jmstranger

September 16th, 2010 at 11:39 AM ^

I don't know if you're being serious or not, I'll just assume you are. Any thoughts then on trying to control that aspect? (flopping) I mean, I'm open to ideas to help make the players safer but the game should remain fun to play and to watch. I don't think soccer like we saw at the WC was either of those when the players were acting well enough to get Emmys

Vasav

September 16th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^

Your point was something that didn't cross my mind and I'd HATE it if it found its way into football. My only thought is that if an injured players is "flopping" to draw a penalty, they'd have to sit out for the whole quarter with these rules. But they could still do it towards the end of a quarter and get away with it.

Perhaps the rule is flawed enough to no consider it? In rugby and hockey you don't see flopping, but its rarer for someone to get ejected for the whole game. Maybe just do the power play idea for unsportsmanlike conducts - that way if someone flops, the other team is only down for a play while they're out for a quarter?

jmstranger

September 16th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^

I don't know about rugby because I don't watch a lot of it, but hockey seriously discourages flopping just because you're going to get the crap beat out of you if you do. Plus flopping is starting to make it's way into hockey as well. Prime example: Mr. Sydney Crosby.

Vasav

September 16th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^

There's a fine line between protecting the players and keeping the sport a "tough guys" sport. Hockey walks that line like an acrobat. Hopefully football is too so that these rules are all a bunch of speculation. But if it is too dangerous, it's important that we don't over-protect the athletes and make the game flop-tastic like basketball or soccer.

Hopefully we don't have to worry about it.

Blazefire

September 16th, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^

You can get hurt or killed doing anything on the planet.

Fact:

Football is actually in the lower quarter of injury risk for physical jobs (Pro). You're more likely to end up hurting yourself seriously working almost anywhere in industry, and industry has all kinds of safety rules. Edit: Note that a broken bone or a sprained knee, torn ligament, etc, are not serious. They may require surgery, but you're not likely to die or suffer any chronic permanent effects from these. A little pain, at most. Serious is paralysis of some sort, brain damage, severe disfigurement or death.

Opinion that is basically fact:

The concept that any set of rules or circumstances can possibly keep people safe is ridiculous. No matter what you do, your chances of being killed in a car accident or a plane crash are about the same. No matter what you do, you can't control what others do.

The keys to avoiding serious brain trauma with football are quite obvious, and they're not all of this crap you've come up with.

A: Continue to refine technology and check numbers to see what works best.

B: Coach proper technique over and over and over till it's all kids know.

C: Do not ENCOURAGE the obviously dangerous hits.

D: Be willing to restrict/ban players at severe risk, such as those that have suffered multiple previous concussions.

Honestly, people are going crazy these days. Almost everyone will suffer at least one concussion in their lives. That doesn't automatically turn you into a crazy guy that dies at 45.

Vasav

September 16th, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^

While I disagree with you on whether rule changes can make a difference, I do wonder if people are "safety-fying" every aspect of life just because we have data that shows it is dangerous

Blazefire

September 16th, 2010 at 10:23 AM ^

Making things safer just encourages people to act more stupidly. Fender benders are WAY up because people assume with air bags, multipoint seatbelts, Anti lock brakes, Crumple zones and every other safety feature on the planet, they don't need to pay that close of attention because they'll certainly be fine if they get in an accident.

Make something idiot proof, and the idiots one up you. If the technology is safer, then by all means, use it, because more people DO walk away from accidents now. But changing the game to make it safer isn't going to have a substantial effect. The real way to make it safer is through better coaching and evaluation.

Vasav

September 16th, 2010 at 10:34 AM ^

While I agree with your premise in life - in any game, including football, competitors will compete. Better coaching isn't going to keep an athlete from giving up their body to win - which is fine when pros do it. But when it's amateurs who aren't getting paid, and who still want to win, it's not fine. And if you make a competitive incentive to play safer, I think it will work. The main reason I believe this is the introduction of the forward pass, along with many other rule changes, gave teams incentive to try different strategies. And they did succeed in opening up the game of football.

BornInAA

September 16th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^

technique your helmet should never hit the other player's helmet.

Your helmet should be on the ball. I bench kids for lazy one arm tackles and helmet tackles.

I don't like nanny rules.

We can't make crazy rules to protect the small fraction of individuals that refuse to follow good advise.

It's like the 100s of people that will be pulled out of the water this weekend because of riptides due to Igor. The news and the signs warn over and over not to go in the water - swim at your own risk. But they still will go in and people will die. Should we arrest people for trying to get in the water during rip tide warnings?

Should we have government workers applying sun lotion to all beachgoers before they can get on the beach? Charge parents for child abuse if they get sunburned? Everyone knows repeated sunburns causes cancer - everyone knows repeated blows to the head causes brain damage.

 

StephenRKass

September 16th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^

I appreciate the post. Don't know the answers. I do hate a "nanny state," and for the most part, don't think rules will help. But I do think severe and ratcheting up penalties for players, and coaches, and teams, could have the desired effect. Suspending players for the game, and for the season due to multiple offenses, could bring about change. Must say, with my 4th grader player tackle football, the whole topic becomes very personal to me.

TheOracle6

September 16th, 2010 at 2:50 PM ^

Football is fine the way it is.  There is a chance of concussion on every level and I'm not sure there is a whole lot we can do to change it.  As technology improves, the padding and helmet's should become more player friendly and should hopefully help this issue out some.

PIJER

September 16th, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^

The proposed changes aren't the cure to the problems. The vast majority of injuries in this great game are caused because the equipment isn't being worn properly. Helmets, shoulder pads, etc, are supposed to be like an exoskeleton. If you pay attention to how may helmets come off during games, then you may realize that the helmets are not secured tight enough. I'm not saying that cuncussions wouldn't occur at all, but I am saying that they would greatly be reduced. To many players are concerned with how they look as opposed to their safety because they don't truly understand. My 2cents!