Football Safety Solution Exchange

[neo_prankster]

1 hour ago, Waffles said:

To me, this is much more central to the question of whether it's possible to legislate and/or innovate football without changing it too much than violent tackles of receivers or quarterbacks.

 

I sure hope we can find ways to do so. I wonder if lighter materials for equipment might make a dent...

[dsaline97]

20 minutes ago, neo_prankster said:

 

I sure hope we can find ways to do so. I wonder if lighter materials for equipment might make a dent...

 

That's one of my questions on these new VICIS helmets. Over time, you'd think there's a chance it'd look like this....

Especially since, from what I've read about it (which I admit isn't that much), the company designed these helmets after a car that absorbs the driver in a crash.

[neo_prankster]

32 minutes ago, dsaline97 said:

 

That's one of my questions on these new VICIS helmets. Over time, you'd think there's a chance it'd look like this....

Especially since, from what I've read about it (which I admit isn't that much), the company designed these helmets after a car that absorbs the driver in a crash.

 

Ouch.

 

I did hear that U of Washington would be using the Vicis helmets this coming season. We'll see how those hold up vs teams still outfitted by Riddell, Schutt, etc.

[Gothamite]

6 hours ago, Waffles said:

It amazes me how much this aspect gets overlooked in conversations around the brain injury issue.

 

So much of the (badly needed) discussion centers on concussions from hard hits that happen a few times a game at most, but there doesn't seem to be as much awareness of subconcussive hits that occur on every snap of the ball when the defensive and offensive lines come together. These are so much more insidious, both because they're undetectable when they happen and the damage they cause is cumulative, and because collisions at the line of scrimmage are so much more fundamental to the way football is played than dangerous tackles, which seem to have the potential to be controllable through player training and referee regulation.

 

People talk about concussions because that's what the NFL and equipment manufacturers want us to be talking about. There is a possibility that they might be able to come up with a concussion-resisting helmet, but substantive rule changes are the only way to deal with sub-concussive impacts.

 

Fundamentally change the sport?  Or work on new tech?  No surprise which the NFL would rather face. 

 

So when you hear anyone in the sport (or the league, or the media, or the various suppliers) mention "concussions" alone, you can instantly tell that the speaker is not actually serious. 

[Cosmic]

4 hours ago, dsaline97 said:

 

That's one of my questions on these new VICIS helmets. Over time, you'd think there's a chance it'd look like this....

Especially since, from what I've read about it (which I admit isn't that much), the company designed these helmets after a car that absorbs the driver in a crash.

I don't they've taken that much inspiration from modern cars.  A flexible outer shell of the helmet spreads the force of the hit out over a longer period of time; it's the same principle that cars use, but they don't bounce back.

[neo_prankster]

30 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

People talk about concussions because that's what the NFL and equipment manufacturers want us to be talking about. There is a possibility that they might be able to come up with a concussion-resisting helmet, but substantive rule changes are the only way to deal with sub-concussive impacts.

 

Fundamentally change the sport?  Or work on new tech?  No surprise which the NFL would rather face. 

 

So when you hear anyone in the sport (or the league, or the media, or the various suppliers) mention "concussions" alone, you can instantly tell that the speaker is not actually serious. 

 

What sort of rule changes could be considered substantive?

[Gothamite]

At a minimum?  Eliminating the 3-point stance and punt returns.  Penalizing the knock-down style of "tackling" that has become so common.  

 

Better?  Eliminate contact at the line.  Outlaw plastic shells and body armor. 

[neo_prankster]

24 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

At a minimum?  Eliminating the 3-point stance and punt returns.  Penalizing the knock-down style of "tackling" that has become so common.  

 

Better?  Eliminate contact at the line.  Outlaw plastic shells and body armor. 

 

Yeah count me in as part of the Zap the 3 point stance camp.

 

Should the neutral zone be modified to the CFL rule?

 

What sort of softer materials should supplant the polycarbonates currenty in use?

[Gothamite]

9 hours ago, neo_prankster said:

What sort of softer materials should supplant the polycarbonates currenty in use?

 

None.  Except the helmet, which might be replaced with something akin to a rugby scrum cap. Protect against abrasions, not collisions. 

[TBGKon]

12 hours ago, neo_prankster said:

 

 

Should the neutral zone be modified to the CFL rule?

Can you elaborate, I'm not familiar with this one.

[Sport]

In the CFL the offense and defensive lines have to line up 1 yard apart from each other instead of being on opposite sides of the same line. The result is the player has more time to get into the opponent in front of him and use his hands more. Less helmet to helmet headbutting. 

[neo_prankster]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

In the CFL the offense and defensive lines have to line up 1 yard apart from each other instead of being on opposite sides of the same line. The result is the player has more time to get into the opponent in front of him and use his hands more. Less helmet to helmet headbutting. 

Yeah that's what I meant.

[UnclearInitial]

I was thinking that maybe the NFL could take a page out of how soccer handles dangerous play. A helmet to helmet hit is an immediate ejection on top of a suspension, and charging into a tackle with your head is a warning. Do that a number of times (let's say 3) in a game, and the player is ejected, kind of like the dangerous play yellow card in soccer. It doesn't get rid of the problem with the smaller hits, but players would be way more careful about properly tackling and thus tackling technique would be prioritized

[Gothamite]

10 hours ago, McCarthy said:

In the CFL the offense and defensive lines have to line up 1 yard apart from each other instead of being on opposite sides of the same line. The result is the player has more time to get into the opponent in front of him and use his hands more. Less helmet to helmet headbutting. 

 

That would be a big improvement, unless the linesmen use that space to get a running start. 

[Discrim]

On Wednesday, August 03, 2016 at 8:09 PM, neo_prankster said:

Yeah count me in as part of the Zap the 3 point stance camp.

 

Should the neutral zone be modified to the CFL rule?

I'd be in favor of both, honestly.  I'm in favor of softening (or eliminating) helmets and shoulder pads (and these guys are giving the latter option a go), given that players have basically been using their helmets as weapons since plastic replaced leather, and shoulder pads for even longer (anyone who's ever read anything about Jim Thorpe can recall a blurb or two about opponents accusing him of doctoring his pads with metal). 

 

Far as youth participation goes, I'd be in favor of flag supplanting tackle, though I think some form of blocking would have to be allowed if we're worried about learning fundamentals.  I know one thing, I think this is a flat out brilliant idea.

 

Having given this a lot of thought, a radical change (that might have nothing to do with safety) I'd be completely in favor of would be eliminating the game clock, and going to possessions, e.g. each team gets 3 possessions in a quarter or something to that effect.  Of every sport that uses a clock, I've come to feel football is the one most poorly suited for one, and could easily transistion to something more akin to a tennis or baseball-like structure.

[BBTV]

On 8/4/2016 at 9:21 PM, anythinglogos said:

I was thinking that maybe the NFL could take a page out of how soccer handles dangerous play. A helmet to helmet hit is an immediate ejection on top of a suspension, and charging into a tackle with your head is a warning. Do that a number of times (let's say 3) in a game, and the player is ejected, kind of like the dangerous play yellow card in soccer. It doesn't get rid of the problem with the smaller hits, but players would be way more careful about properly tackling and thus tackling technique would be prioritized

 

While in theory this all makes sense, in reality this leads to too many subjective calls and potentially incorrect (and game-changing) ejections.  We see that frequently now when drives are extended because of "blows to the head" or "helmet to helmet hit" that never actually happened (most of the time against the QB, but also receivers.)

 

Now if you allow replay to help out with these types of calls, it works a lot better.  There will always be inadvertent / coincidental hits that come in to question.

 

 

On 8/4/2016 at 10:21 PM, Gothamite said:

 

That would be a big improvement, unless the linesmen use that space to get a running start. 

 

LOL.  While linemen are more athletic these days than in the past, I'm not sure most of them could get a good running start in 10 yards, let alone 1.  The increased neutral zone would probably lead to increased use of hands in blocking, which would be a good thing.  I don't think it would make much sense for linemen (even if they could, which I doubt) to run and ram their targets.

[Gothamite]

Fair enough.

 

Eliminating that initial burst where the entire two lines crash into each other for pretty much no reason at all would be a good step.   Start by restricting the blocking to the spots where the ball moves. 

[dont care]

i feel like the additional yard really won't change much. Defenders are still going to have to go around or bull through the line, there will be some additional blocking with the hands initially  but after that you are still going to get sholder pad and helmet impact. And I think it could cause for a more running start causing higher impacts possibly. Some D lineman in the NFL can run sub 5 second 40's nowadays could easily accelerate to a high speed in that yard I believe. I don't know for certain though, maybe it's something sport science could investigate. 

[Gothamite]

I would ban all contact at the line except at the ball.  Block for a runner, but no more crashing for crashing's sake.  And, of course, when they're not wearing helmets they won't be smashing into each other so much anyway. 

 

I'd also get rid of most "down by contact."  Play the game the way they did in the 1940s, when defenders had to actually stop forward progress.  Too many defenders just hit the ball carrier to knock him down, which we should disincentivize. 

[DaytonBlue]

Somehow in the internet wormhole I was reading about this a bunch and here are some thoughts:

 

-no tackling before high school

-all levels should have limits on amount of full contact similar to those being enacted by many state HS associations such as Ohio's

-reduce Thursday Night football to only teams that did not play the previous week (This might not fly for Thanksgiving games but the other TNF games are often garbage.) 

-2nd bye week in NFL for more recovery time (I'd even have all the teams in a conference have a bye at once.)

-absolutely no expansion of 16-game season ever