OT: Leatherheads safer than modern helmets?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-11/cc-vlf110411.php
According to the article, a study from Cleveland (insert Ohio joke here) claims that while plastic helmets are better at preventing serious head injuries like skull fractures, leather helmets are better at preventing concussions. And this does not assume the much touted claim that players are more likely to "spear" with plastic helmets. These guys aren't advocating a return to leather helmets, but are instead advocating that helmet safety standards also encompass the cumulative effects of lower impact collisions.
November 6th, 2011 at 7:24 AM ^
I was actually thinking about something similar the other day. What if facemasks were removed? Replace them with a face shield similar to luge masks? There's a chance of shattering of course, but if we could get that transparent aluminium that Scotty down loaded on that Apple IIe back in '87...
November 6th, 2011 at 7:34 AM ^
"...you would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice."
Classic scene.
November 6th, 2011 at 7:34 AM ^
Computer! Ah a keyboard, how quaint.
I just think that current designs allow the players to lead with thier head, so they do.
November 6th, 2011 at 7:42 AM ^
It makes sense... concussions are essentially caused when impact force is transfered to a players skull, similar to a car accident.
Modern helmets are like getting into a car accident in a 1960 Studebaker... the car is so damn sturdy and stiff that all the energy is transfered to the passengers. Modern cars have crumple zones and are made of materials that are designed to absorb energy.
Modern helmets don't absorb energy because they don't crumple. Perhaps we need helmets that are designed to crumple.
November 6th, 2011 at 8:06 AM ^
Only difference is, a car only needs to crumple once. A helmet has to last a whole season, or at the very least be broguht down in cost and last a whole week (practice and game). Even then it'd at least need to be 1/10th of the current helmet prices for it to be realistic.
November 6th, 2011 at 8:08 AM ^
Yeah I wasnt being entirely serious
November 6th, 2011 at 8:46 AM ^
sorry, i'm not the best at detecting sarcasm haha
November 6th, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^
(way late, my bad)
November 6th, 2011 at 9:12 AM ^
I've always thought a switch to rugby-style "helmets" -- the ones you see little kids wearing when they play flag football -- would actually make the game safer.
November 6th, 2011 at 10:10 AM ^
are you talking abuot scrum caps? those are more to reduce friction than to absorb the energy of an impact
November 6th, 2011 at 9:17 AM ^
They need to go to rugby-style pads and helmets. Players have become too strong and too fast for the modern paradigm. To make it safer, we are looking at either retro or something that looks like it was borrowed from a science fiction movie.
Notice that a lot of the old leather helmet guys lived to be 70 or 80, while most ex-NFL guys are dying in their 50's and presenting CTE symptoms. I wonder what the average Australian Rules Football lifespan is? I am guessing they live longer than American football players do.
November 6th, 2011 at 9:50 AM ^
...in your second paragraph. If were not using the app right now, I would moderate accordingly.
November 6th, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
The rules of how, when, and where you can hit someone are way different in Aussie football. The game would be almost unrecognizable. So, I'm not sure comparing injuries/lifespan would be relevant.
November 6th, 2011 at 10:19 AM ^
I don't know a lot about Aussie Football - but I've played rugby union a bit (not extensively) and played a ton of American football. One thing I think is that in both games, the most contact does not come on the tackle itself. In football, it comes from blocking, especially the MANBALL variety at the line of scrimmage. In rugby, it comes from rucks and mauls - the "breakdowns" after a tackle. There are so many more rules regarding how you can hit in a breakdown, and the only guy who really gets to charge in head first and level somebody is the first guy in - everybody else is pretty much stuck pushing a pile. In football, the rules regarding how you block are far less, and almost everybody can hit almost anybody. I think that's the biggest reason why leather helmets and soft pads were introduced in football when reforms were passed in the early 20th century - the line of scrimmage was dangerous and killing people, whereas the rucks, mauls, and scrums of rugby union were not anywhere near as deadly.
The other thing I'd caution against is the anecdotal evidence of players of old who lived into their 80s. Plenty of players probably also died in their 50s back when, but it was a lot more normal for the average human being to die at that age so nobody noticed the difference.
That's all not to disregard your points about soft pads. But rugby and football are two different games, and the contact is different as well.
November 6th, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
Since this issue is of professional interest, here is some background.
Helmets are a legacy piece of equipment. Leather was the one durable, cleanable, and practical material of its day to create some form of protection. This was back in the day when kids were literally splitting their scalps and skulls open during games and dying from their "cracked skulls". The Forward Pass, 7 men on the line of scrimmage, and no player heading towards the line of scrimmage before the snap are all other examples designed to make the game safer and save lives.
There are two organizations which set standards for helmets: ASTM (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials ) and NOCSSAE (National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment). Their testing standards are pretty basic and resemble the drop test or weight pendulum tests for overall rigidity and resilience. The modern understanding about the risks of concussion, neck flexion protection and such are all pretty much unregulated. Likewise most of the other equipment commonly used like shoulder pads, hip pads and other forms of pads are basically not regulated. There are no published standards. The so-called flak jackets or rib protectors for example are not subject to any standardized testing. Unless they are actually designed to stop bullets or flying metal (e.g. military or security use specifications) they are all unproven. This issue comes up when a kid comes in and has only one working kidney. Is it safe for that kid to play? Does wearing one of these so-called "kidney pads" help? Or does it hinder by giving a false sense of security? Protective cups are also unregulated - so this question comes up also with kids with only one testicle. Statisitically research through trauma databases and other large pooled records show that actually losing a kidney or testicle from actual play (not other goofing around) is very low but not zero. Every decade or so a kid will be hit just right and fracture the kidney. Studies from other sports like Australian Rules football or rugby do show some differences but it isn't all happiness and rainbows. See Lawson JS et al. Medical Journal of Australia, "Catastrophic injuries to the eyes and testicles in footballers." vol. 163: 242-244, 1995. It notes over a 16 year period of time that 15 players lost 90-100% of vision in one eye, and 14 had major testicle injuries with 11 losing a testicle. Direct deliberate actions (flagrant fouls) like eye gouging, kicks and such were a significant cause.
Finally in other sports, soccer does have standards for shin guards, so while there is plenty of controversial over hacking, faking and diving, for the most part the protective benefits are not in dispute.
November 6th, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^
Honestly this is the most informed post on player safety I've ever read.Basically - we haven't done enough research to know a thing?
November 6th, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^
Football is such a part of our culture that stopping it won't work. But until recently the medical understanding of concussion and the cumulative effects were not well understood or appreciated.
We now know that the minor hit that the kid "shakes off" may actually be the worst hit - it sets him up for a devestating second hit, but leaves him seemingly ok so he can carry on playing. This is why sometimes, it may seem odd why a player is being held out when he got up and walked off the field and is seen on the sidelines wandering around. His mucsles and joints maybe ready but his brain is inflammed and at its most vulnerable state. So give credit the coaches and staff when they hold a kid out and yet from the stands the kid seems OK; they are actually trying to help save the kid from a horrible second hit injury.
As it was noted on the same page, helmets for non-professionals have to be durable enough to last years of service, so something that completely crumples away probably won't work. Single game use gear probably isn't economically practical.
Even if we have better gear, other issues are player behavior (see the previous cited article on flagrant fouls resutling in eye and testicle loss) and player acceptance. How many players would wear gear that increases their protection if it might limit their flexibility and mobility? Would a TE or WR accept a less mobile neck and uppper body if that gear protected their head and neck better but results in a harder time getting around to catch a ball? One would think safety comes first, but look carefully at the NFL players this Sunday. Look at their gear - look at how stripped down the pads are on many of the so-called skilled position players. They are already making this tradeoff - no thigh pads, no hip pads, minimal size shoulder pads.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
Stepping onto a football field is a crazy thing to do - and yet, even knowing all the risks, even being as old as I am, I've stepped back to play for an amateur team 8 years after my last game in high school. My team is filled with a bunch of guys like me - some considerably older. And once we make that crazy decision to, we play to win.
Mind you, we're all career-driven guys, some of us with families. We wear protective equipment and know that there is a ton in our lives more important than football. But we all remember not knowing any better in high school. And even we may not wear the full padding to get an edge.
No way you can expect a HS player, a college player, or a player who earns their living with football to not take every edge they can get. The only way to get folks to wear equipment is to mandate it and enforce it. The NFL gets people to listen to their inane uniform policies by fining them. The only way to get people to wear the proper padding is the same - fine them or penalize the team if they don't.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:14 PM ^
As a youth football coach, I would love soft helmets. I think at least half of the injuries we get come from the stupid helmets and grid iron face masks. And we can do a hell of a lot better than leather. Why not foam? It would be a hell of a lot safer.
November 6th, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^
With advances in matsci, you'd think it shouldn't be too long until someone comes up with a better soft helmet, and soft pads for that matter. Is there a need for face masks when everybody is wearing soft pads? Probably not - and that probably prevents leading with the head too, and brings back form tackling. I can dream...
November 6th, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^
Oh yeah, there's a need for a face mask, other wise you'd have broken noses all over the place. Rugby players can look so ugly, and I don't much like the eye gouging thing that was being talked about... but they could be plastic face masks and do a perfectly good job.
November 6th, 2011 at 1:01 PM ^
to be fair, a facemask without a visor didn't stop eye gouging in my experience
November 6th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^
I maintain that the way to go is to use those helmets with external padding. You can have a plastic shell, but it shouldn't form the exterior. External padding would disperse the impact of a collision.
November 6th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^
Why don't we put leather ON the plastic helmets? This should solve the problem.
November 6th, 2011 at 3:09 PM ^
It's even been used in the NFL by a select few players.
http://theprocap.com/endorsements.html
But it looks dorky, and I think the NFL may have banned them for violating uniform standards or something else idiotic.
This one seems to have more potential to make it, if only for design considerations.
http://www.wired.com/playbook/2010/08/better-football-helmet/
November 6th, 2011 at 5:21 PM ^
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. If players are too hard-headed (no pun intended) to wear safer helmets, maybe they should be mandated.
November 6th, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^
November 6th, 2011 at 4:20 PM ^
The game will evolve past helmets at some point, I think it's obvious now that they're a huge part of the problem
November 6th, 2011 at 4:58 PM ^
Instead of having our players actually play, we'll build robots that fit their exact specifications. Players will control themselves video game style. There will be no injures! However, our players would feel as if they were robotic, operating in another dimension somewhere far away. Sounds kind of like our offense