Can Football be Safer?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/10/03/can-pro-football-be-made-safe?hp
In its "Room for Debate" series, the NY Times asks if Pro Football can be made safer. Unfortunately, few strong ideas come out--the standard idea that players must be made aware of risks and report symptoms are the most prominent. Another advises to limit hits during practice and have "hit counts" similar to pitch counts for youth football.
Its an important topic, because safety may ultimately be the downfall of organized football. If an athlete were to die during an NFL game, its easy to see serious reprecussions for the league and football in general. As it is, youth football participation is already declining somewhat due to safety concerns--my wife is glad we're having a daughter because she doesn't want our children to play (despite being a huge Chargers fan).
Thoughts?
October 4th, 2010 at 8:22 PM ^
Other than the obvious stuff, like reporting concussions and limiting helmet to helmet hits, I'm not sure what can be done without changing the structure of the game. You already see players complaining that they can't play anymore as a result of too many penalties involving hits on kickers, receivers, qbs, etc.
The best thing you can do to make football safer is to develop a more effective way to diagnose concussions. We do not have a really effective way to do so right now, and developing one would ease most people's concerns. I'd like to see the NFL and NCAA start pouring money into this issue. For the most part, the other physical stuff is not considered to be as dangerous: its the head injuries that are scaring everyone.
October 4th, 2010 at 8:32 PM ^
The really radical idea is to go backwards with technology. If players only had leather helmets, they would be wrapping up the legs a la Tom Harmon.
I didn't say it was a good idea, but it is radical.
October 4th, 2010 at 8:36 PM ^
I've read some of those. They also want to force players to play both ways.
That's not going to prevent head injuries. Unfortunately, we can not eliminate the concussion from football. To do this would require everyone to wear flags.
All we can do is sit players once they've had one, and prevent them from getting back on the field until they've fully recovered. And to develop a test that can accurately diagnose concussions, we need money. It's time to start investing in research, NFL.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:14 PM ^
There's a similar idea with facemasks in college hockey. Guys play hard and skate with their sticks up because they're fearless with the mask. It translates into dangerous, technically sloppy hockey.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:18 PM ^
It would be interesting to compare the injuries in rugby, with its minimal protective equipment, to those in football. I haven't heard about concussions being a major problem in rugby, but it's definitely a bloody sport.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^
As someone who has played both, I will say right now that rugby is much less dangerous than football, namely for a few reasons:
1. In rugby there are specific laws governing the tackling of an opponent.
When you tackle an opponent, you cannot make contact above the shoulders. This is for safety reasons. The referee will instantly give a penalty if he sees a high tackle, and a few stronger words may follow if the challenge is deemed dangerous. Expect a yellow card and a spell in the sin-bin or a red card and instant dismissal for more serious offences.
2. Despite rugby being known for its vicious hits, in my experience, football hits are much worse. In rugby, you are forced to learn how to adapt to being hit, fall, roll, etc. In football, because of the padding, helmets, etc. one is more inclined to go full speed, all out, hit as hard as you can, because there's all this padding here. For this reason, you will rarely see a rugby player dive at someone's knees to take them out for fear of getting a swift knee to the face and breaking a nose, or worse, an eye socket. Similarly, as mentioned above, head injuries are rare as such strict penalties are enforced.
3. Lastly, as with many European based sports, general sportsmanship amongst the players is prevalent. That said, at the bottom of a pile, you will have people trying to bite, scratch, stomp on you with their spikes, and even grab your balls and squeeze. But I feel that is the same with football, to some extent.
EDIT: I have no statistics, but I'm hoping I was able to provide a little insight to the situation, from a personal standpoint, anyway.
October 4th, 2010 at 8:35 PM ^
Watching the USC-Washington game this past week, Jake Locker took a shot to the head on a QB sneak. When he got up, surrounded and being helped off the field by the UW medical staff, his knees buckled like a prize fighter during a standing 8 count (and I've seen fights get stopped for less). After answering a series of questions on the sideline (which the ESPN reporter seemed to think were difficult) he came right back into the game when UW got the ball back again.
Maybe it was nothing and he won't have any further complications. Or maybe he'll end up like Steve Young or other QB's who've had an endless string of concussions. Either way, it seems like there is either a serious issue with diagnosing what kinds of blows to the head are serious and which ones are just cobwebs that can be shaken off, or there is a big problem with coaches and players (who I'm sure all just want to get back in the game) ignoring significant warning signs in the interests of competition.
I cringed when Locker's legs gave out, but he was thrown right back into the game. If folks aren't going to err on the side of caution no matter what (like the refs apparently have to do with every weak ass hit that draws a personal foul penalty) then these injuries are going to keep happening, no matter how many rules you implement to protect the health of the players.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:42 PM ^
on respecting warning signs. Egregious bias aside, I was disgusted when Kelly put Crist back in the game. If your QB takes a shot to the head and can't see out of his right eye, there's a probably an overwhelming chance he's suffered neurological damage.
All for a loss, too.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:40 PM ^
I have heard this discussed on local radio in the past and the comment that is always brought up is that the NFL will not put money into researching concussions because it would be admitting that football is a dangerous sport and thus open itself up to criticism and drastic changes. The NFL tries very hard to portray itself as a league that has everything under control and a league that takes care of its players. Showing that concussions are serious and that head injuries are shortening life spans is not something that the NFL is going to opening research unfortunately .
October 4th, 2010 at 8:26 PM ^
I love the game, I love the big hits, but the repercussions can be far too costly for what in the end is still just a game. We see the catastrophes every now and then in very vivid terms- players who go down and don't get up, football careers over in a single jarring blow- but what always gets to me is the slower to develop symptoms. Joints destroyed, spines twisted, chronic pain guaranteed for life. In addition, with new found focus on concussions, we're seeing the effects of hit after hit, year after year on the human brain.
In the end, I have no solutions and I'm just kind of musing. I think both the NCAA and NFL are at least trying to curb the injuries as new information is gained, but short of space-age helmets, I doubt we'll see a true cure for the maladies that plague this violent and wonderful sport.
October 4th, 2010 at 8:54 PM ^
I find myself in the same situation. I am a diehard Michigan football fan, but I do feel guilty while watching games. Seeing a player (a kid no less) get knocked senseless really tarnishes the game. I think the NFL and NCAA have a serious problem on their hands and this subject will continue to receive increased attention.
Many suggest improving recognition and diagnosis of concussions as a way to make the game safer, but unfortunately, the damage is already done.
One radical suggestion by John Madden (don't quote me, but I believe it was mentioned in a Time article a few months back) is to have players on the line stand upright rather than in a bullrush position. The idea is that this will decrease their momentum. It is an interesting thought, though I don't think it will ever happen.
October 5th, 2010 at 3:00 AM ^
New technology is only going to make the problem worse, not better. The new helmets aren't a magic bullet for concussions, they just help limit them. This just means that players will play harder than ever and tend to lead with their heads even more.
The only person that's probably going to be protected is the QB, since there's so much in the rulebooks about QB contact. The WRs going over the middle are going to get destroyed, and the headhunting safeties will suffer their own share of injuries, even with the new "concussion reducing" helmet.
Sadly, I don't think things will change until you see an epidemic of paralyzed players. Sooner or later though, somebody's going to go full bore with their head down, and bad things will happen.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:52 PM ^
It's just a helmet. I'm sure the first plastic helmets looked ugly, too.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^
Look at Henne's helmet, the upper portion has extra padding, just without the lovely cap feature...
October 4th, 2010 at 8:29 PM ^
We have already seen a couple NFL players die during practice within the last decade. I don't think a player dying during a game would have all that significant of consequences for the game.
Football equipment has come a long ways. The next step needs to be some technology that will mitigate concussions. Education and the ability to diagnose and treat concussed players will help a bit in the meantime.
October 4th, 2010 at 8:34 PM ^
Haven't those been due to heat stroke? It's a lot harder to get excited about that. Imagine Brett Favre getting literally killed by Ray Lewis. It would never go away.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:09 PM ^
Imagine Brett Favre getting literally killed by Ray Lewis.
I often do in a horrifying and selfish way.
It would never go away.
But brett finally would.
October 4th, 2010 at 8:31 PM ^
In one of the columns I read, the writer stated that the NFL could go a long way towards reducing concussions by changing to a newer mouthguard. Pardon me, because I forget the brand and the why. I think there is another helmet style that improves concussions.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^
I think the mouthguard has something to do with reducing the impact of the jawbone to the skull (by positioning it differently?).
I also think better impact reducing helmets are needed.
October 4th, 2010 at 8:41 PM ^
Players today are bigger, faster, and stronger and layered in body armor. The fans want to see contact and the armored players are fearless delivering big hits and mega collisions. Although the players are more muscular, the skelatal system has it's limitations and injuries are increasing.
Bring back the leather helmets. Does anyone have comparision information on injuries between professional ballers and rugby players?
October 4th, 2010 at 10:44 PM ^
This idea may not be as radical as the throwback leathers, but I think we have enough information to solve this with current technology related to the auto industry.
Crumple-zones and airbags.
Don't laugh, the idea of the crumple zone evolved as lighter cheaper cars were being made that didn't have the same Titanic-like safety as a 6000 lb Buick Roadmaster. The rigid plastic structure of the helmet padding could be made in a geometric pattern that collapses upon itself easier, supported with tiny re-inflatable air bags (think pump). This in conjunction with advanced foams could be an interesting direction for sports equipment designers to take with the proper incentives\rewards\threats from the NFL, NCAA, Schools etc.
$ yes. Worth it .?. . depends on whether you have a child playing, or see the sport declining due to injuries.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:04 PM ^
There is always room to make the game safer.
The NCAA was founded, essentially, because too many players died in 1905 playing college football. What we know today as college football sprang forth from the rules changes that were enacted in that era. Bare heads gave way to leather helmets, which in turn gave way to plastic helmets, which in turn gave way to composite helmets and the like.
The question becomes, what changes can be made, and will football be able to survive it.
The biggest single factor will be convincing people that concussions are serious business and not just something to be played through, because it's very difficult to change the "warrior mentality" especially among coaches, and the need to quell the fear among players that if they go out with a concussion, a just as real injury that has less visible symptoms, they will lose their position/job, we'll get somewhere.
To run a side step for a moment. Justin Morneau has missed every game since the All-Star Break and is out for the playoffs for the Minnesota Twins. They Twins would love to have a former MVP in the line up, no doubt. I also don't think that Morneau has to worry that he will not have a place in the Twins starting lineup next season when he is healthy. But what if he was the utility infielder. Would he be claiming he was fine to get back in to the lineup because he is afraid of not having a spot next season.
Translate it to football. Kevin Kolb went down in the first half of the first gane of the season with a concussion. The general feeling was that the Eagles handled the situation reasonably well. He then sees Michael Vick come in and not just play well, he sees his coach hand Vick the starting job in Week 2 and going forward. Do we think if Kolb is concussed again, which is more dangerous from what research tells us, that if he can control things, he won't just say he's "fine" and will try to keep himself in the lineup?
What we really need is the "X-Ray" for concussions. The visual document which any layperson can look at and say "Yep, that's a concussion" and no one would be arguing about how "tough" a player is when they've taken a blow to the head.
So yes, it can be made safer, it's just a matter of will to power.
Oh and football telecasts need to stop celebrating when guys who have been concussed go looking for their helmet when it has been taken away from them by the medical staff. It downplays the seriousness of the injury.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:34 PM ^
1905 changes are a great point. I made a previous thread regarding possible rule changes since football, like most games, is constantly evolving. Drastic changes were made in 1905, but until the 1970s offensive lineman couldn't use their hands at all to block and much more contact was allowed downfield - pretty significant changes that happened relatively recently. Rule changes can certainly keep the game violent and filled with strategy while limiting/penalizing certain types of dangerous contact to the head.
BUT I still feel that all this talk needs to follow a significant collection of data. Is it dangerous only at the pro level due to their longer season and the size of the players? How many former high school players have long term effects? How does the mental health of American football players compare to that of rugby union, rugby league, and Aussie Rules football players?
Before we seriously talk about making the game safer, we need to collect a significant amount of data that answers whether we need to. And hopefully, this data will allow us to better understand how to make the game safer. Kudos to the OP for bringing this up
PS: Here's the link to the thread I referred to
http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/ot-head-trauma-and-football-rule-changes
October 4th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^
While you will never find me arguing against having the data and making sure the data gets used properly, doesn't a reasonable intermediate step seem to be making sure that concussions are taken seriously and treated with a level of medical attention and seriousness that had not previously been seen in football.
I don't think we're in disagreement, mind you. I just think that we cannot wait to get the data to start moving towards protecting players. I also don't think that we can make massive overhauls to the system without knowing what the data says.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^
Taking concussions seriously should be done. When referring to drastic change I more meant changes between the sidelines.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:46 PM ^
How about madatory SPECT tests? They aren't perfect, but they are the best weapon we have to diagnose the effects of blows to the head on brain function right now.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:26 PM ^
Interesting article. I think that the limiting of full contact practice across all ages and divisions of football would be one of the easiest ways to make it a bit safer.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:47 PM ^
alot of pro athletes are sticking to older models of helmets instead of switching to new designs like the Riddell revolution or Schutt DNA/ion. They probably want to keep their helmets for a combination of tradition and sentimental value, but until everyone upgrades to the newest, safest models, all this talk about avoiding concussions is superfluous
October 4th, 2010 at 9:49 PM ^
We may be going at this all wrong. There is a case to be made that the real damage comes from youth football. The brain case isn't fully formed until a child is twelve so children are even more vulnerable to concussions and brain damage than adults are. In fact, it's possible that a lot of brain damage associated with adult football is a consequence of games played in youth leagues. This will take more research, but I suspect that head injuries would go down dramatically if we banned or sharply limited tackle football for kids under twelve.
October 4th, 2010 at 9:58 PM ^
And that makes a lot of sense, but I am skeptical of it for two reasons. (1) Kids don't hit hard - they can't, especially with weight limits in Pop Warner, and (2) a lot of players don't even start playng until they're in high school. If what you're saying is right, it'll validate all those concerned mothers who keep their sons from playing football at an early age.
Love you ma. Swear I'm not bitter.
October 4th, 2010 at 10:57 PM ^
From what I understand it isn't just the big hits that cause damage, it's the multitude of hits that happen during practices and games, and it isn't just the force of the tackle, its the direction the hit comes from, the position of the head at the time of impact, all kinds of things. Now throw in the fact that the brain isn't fully protected in a boy's not-quite-fully-formed skull and it starts to make more sense.
Plus the brain is just a really wierd organ that we are barely beginning to understand.
Bottom line is football is a really risky game and we really do need to do what we can to protect players, but that means taking our time and keeping an open mind about all the possibilities. Let's not turn the game upside down until we know exactly why we need to. Life is full of risks in any event. I've had exactly one really bad concussion in my life. I got it playing with those little plastic army men. Go figure.
October 4th, 2010 at 11:21 PM ^
Pad the helmets on the outside. Padding on the outside does nothing to prevent your brain from smashing forward into your skull due to deceleration.
October 5th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
One rule change that would help, though it wouldn't eliminate, the problem would be to increase the number of eligible receivers on offense. We now know that the most effective positions for concussive and subconcussive trauma are the QBs and linemen. By increasing the number of eligible receivers on the field, as in the A-11, you're both increasing the number of defenders that have to go into coverage, as opposed to rushing in to hit the QB as hard and quickly as possible, and decreasing the utility of opposing linemen smashing their helmets into one another on every play. This isn't a new suggestion, of course, it's basically a reiteration of what was learned in 1905 — the more tackling has to happen in space, the more the game is oriented toward pass defense, the further away the game moves from Kill The Man With The Ball, the safer the players will be.