NFL Changes 2015

[Old School Fool]

EDIT: Wrong thread.

[oldschoolvikings]

There's a difference between a team like the Bucs and Patriots (for example) breaking out a throwback once or twice a year and college teams wearing a different helmet every week.

If I see orange jerseys and white helmets I say "Oh, the Bucs have throwbacks on, great!" Not "ZOMG WHAT TEAM IZ THAT!!!11!" It doesn't mess with the identity. (And in Tampa's case given what they wear now, the creamsicles twice a year would be really refreshing. lol)

The one helmet rule didn't stop teams from having multiple different helmets cluttering their identity, it stopped teams, like the Bucs and Patriots, from wearing awesome throwbacks. I can't think of one team that used an alternate helmet for alternates sake, pretty much every one was a throwback (or substitute for a leather helmet) or some sort. Maybe the Steelers yellow one but that's it.

That's because the NFL only allowed alternate helmets if they were part of a throwback uniform. The Steelers yellow helmet was part of a throwback uniform and was never worn with their regular jerseys and pants.

I think this is the policy the NFL should go back to. The one helmet color rule is a dumb rule and eliminated the potential for a lot of great throwback options because the teams would have to use a different color helmet to have an accurate throwback (See: Bucs, Patriots, Falcons. Limiting teams to only one helmet for their primary uniform package is a good rule.

I reread my post above yours and realized it may have been misleading. I've edited it for clarity. I didn't mean that teams should be allowed to have an alternate helmet. I think teams should only be allowed to wear one helmet, but should be permitted a different colored helmet from their standard package if it's necessary to complete a throwback uniform.

We're on the same page.

The NFL didn't enact it the one helmet rule just because they wanted to be buzzkills. They deal with a lot of legal battles when players retire relating to concussions and head injuries. Many times these players take the stance that the NFL didn't let them wear the helmet they always wear (in situations like throwback games). So the NFL eliminated that option so it was one less court battle they had to deal with. Although the rule stinks asthetically, I completely understand where the NFL is coming from and would do the exact same thing in their shoes.

I there a source that you're basing these player claims on? This is the first time I've heard of that but it may be the case as you can claim just about anything in a lawsuit. That would be the only reason for this policy that would make actual legal sense is to simply limit the scope of future claims and make it harder to sue. The whole suppression of known health risks to to employees is still remains a massive liability.

On second thought that there's absolutely no logic behind that player claim angle either. Aside from the cowboys, steelers and some others I don't think there are enough instances of 2nd helmets being worn regularly to generate a reliable sample set that would show a correlation. Also every single helmet worn must be certified safe and properly fit to the player's approval. Combine that with helmets breaking mid season or even mid game players have always been forced to change helmets at some point.

If you're the NFL, and you believe there's even a .01% chance that the issue of multiple helmets might come up in a future lawsuit, its beyond a no-brainer... you pass a rule against multiple helmets. Instantly, Period.

Can you imagine having that conversation with a group of lawyers? Hey, even a slight chance of a lawsuit vs. a few teams wearing cool throwbacks once or twice a year? Any lawyer would look at you like you're crazy for even debating it. And unless you're one of us crazy uniform nerds, you wouldn't even know it happened.

[OnWis97]

There's a difference between a team like the Bucs and Patriots (for example) breaking out a throwback once or twice a year and college teams wearing a different helmet every week.

If I see orange jerseys and white helmets I say "Oh, the Bucs have throwbacks on, great!" Not "ZOMG WHAT TEAM IZ THAT!!!11!" It doesn't mess with the identity. (And in Tampa's case given what they wear now, the creamsicles twice a year would be really refreshing. lol)

The one helmet rule didn't stop teams from having multiple different helmets cluttering their identity, it stopped teams, like the Bucs and Patriots, from wearing awesome throwbacks. I can't think of one team that used an alternate helmet for alternates sake, pretty much every one was a throwback (or substitute for a leather helmet) or some sort. Maybe the Steelers yellow one but that's it.

That's because the NFL only allowed alternate helmets if they were part of a throwback uniform. The Steelers yellow helmet was part of a throwback uniform and was never worn with their regular jerseys and pants.

I think this is the policy the NFL should go back to. The one helmet color rule is a dumb rule and eliminated the potential for a lot of great throwback options because the teams would have to use a different color helmet to have an accurate throwback (See: Bucs, Patriots, Falcons. Limiting teams to only one helmet for their primary uniform package is a good rule.

I reread my post above yours and realized it may have been misleading. I've edited it for clarity. I didn't mean that teams should be allowed to have an alternate helmet. I think teams should only be allowed to wear one helmet, but should be permitted a different colored helmet from their standard package if it's necessary to complete a throwback uniform.

We're on the same page.

The NFL didn't enact it the one helmet rule just because they wanted to be buzzkills. They deal with a lot of legal battles when players retire relating to concussions and head injuries. Many times these players take the stance that the NFL didn't let them wear the helmet they always wear (in situations like throwback games). So the NFL eliminated that option so it was one less court battle they had to deal with. Although the rule stinks asthetically, I completely understand where the NFL is coming from and would do the exact same thing in their shoes.

I there a source that you're basing these player claims on? This is the first time I've heard of that but it may be the case as you can claim just about anything in a lawsuit. That would be the only reason for this policy that would make actual legal sense is to simply limit the scope of future claims and make it harder to sue. The whole suppression of known health risks to to employees is still remains a massive liability.

On second thought that there's absolutely no logic behind that player claim angle either. Aside from the cowboys, steelers and some others I don't think there are enough instances of 2nd helmets being worn regularly to generate a reliable sample set that would show a correlation. Also every single helmet worn must be certified safe and properly fit to the player's approval. Combine that with helmets breaking mid season or even mid game players have always been forced to change helmets at some point.

If you're the NFL, and you believe there's even a .01% chance that the issue of multiple helmets might come up in a future lawsuit, its beyond a no-brainer... you pass a rule against multiple helmets. Instantly, Period.

Can you imagine having that conversation with a group of lawyers? Hey, even a slight chance of a lawsuit vs. a few teams wearing cool throwbacks once or twice a year? Any lawyer would look at you like you're crazy for even debating it. And unless you're one of us crazy uniform nerds, you wouldn't even know it happened.

Thank you!

I keep seeing "it's a terrible rule because there is no proof that wearing multiple helmets is dangerous." So? I'd argue the burden-of-proof is on the other side. If there's even any yet-to-be-disproven theory that multiple helmets has a negative impact on safety than why not play it safe? Am I cynical enough to believe this may be a PR move? Sure. But I can buy the idea that it's also a safety (and CYA for the NFL) decision.

Look, I would love the Bucs to be able to wear the white Bucco Bruce helmet once a year. And I like the occasional brown-leather throwback, etc. But whether or not the rule is mean to protect the brands of these teams, I don't have any problem with "when in doubt, be safe," even if the extra safety is marginal and this is low-hanging fruit.

[guest23]

There's a difference between a team like the Bucs and Patriots (for example) breaking out a throwback once or twice a year and college teams wearing a different helmet every week.

If I see orange jerseys and white helmets I say "Oh, the Bucs have throwbacks on, great!" Not "ZOMG WHAT TEAM IZ THAT!!!11!" It doesn't mess with the identity. (And in Tampa's case given what they wear now, the creamsicles twice a year would be really refreshing. lol)

The one helmet rule didn't stop teams from having multiple different helmets cluttering their identity, it stopped teams, like the Bucs and Patriots, from wearing awesome throwbacks. I can't think of one team that used an alternate helmet for alternates sake, pretty much every one was a throwback (or substitute for a leather helmet) or some sort. Maybe the Steelers yellow one but that's it.

That's because the NFL only allowed alternate helmets if they were part of a throwback uniform. The Steelers yellow helmet was part of a throwback uniform and was never worn with their regular jerseys and pants.

I think this is the policy the NFL should go back to. The one helmet color rule is a dumb rule and eliminated the potential for a lot of great throwback options because the teams would have to use a different color helmet to have an accurate throwback (See: Bucs, Patriots, Falcons. Limiting teams to only one helmet for their primary uniform package is a good rule.

I reread my post above yours and realized it may have been misleading. I've edited it for clarity. I didn't mean that teams should be allowed to have an alternate helmet. I think teams should only be allowed to wear one helmet, but should be permitted a different colored helmet from their standard package if it's necessary to complete a throwback uniform.

We're on the same page.

The NFL didn't enact it the one helmet rule just because they wanted to be buzzkills. They deal with a lot of legal battles when players retire relating to concussions and head injuries. Many times these players take the stance that the NFL didn't let them wear the helmet they always wear (in situations like throwback games). So the NFL eliminated that option so it was one less court battle they had to deal with. Although the rule stinks asthetically, I completely understand where the NFL is coming from and would do the exact same thing in their shoes.

I there a source that you're basing these player claims on? This is the first time I've heard of that but it may be the case as you can claim just about anything in a lawsuit. That would be the only reason for this policy that would make actual legal sense is to simply limit the scope of future claims and make it harder to sue. The whole suppression of known health risks to to employees is still remains a massive liability.

On second thought that there's absolutely no logic behind that player claim angle either. Aside from the cowboys, steelers and some others I don't think there are enough instances of 2nd helmets being worn regularly to generate a reliable sample set that would show a correlation. Also every single helmet worn must be certified safe and properly fit to the player's approval. Combine that with helmets breaking mid season or even mid game players have always been forced to change helmets at some point.

If you're the NFL, and you believe there's even a .01% chance that the issue of multiple helmets might come up in a future lawsuit, its beyond a no-brainer... you pass a rule against multiple helmets. Instantly, Period.

Can you imagine having that conversation with a group of lawyers? Hey, even a slight chance of a lawsuit vs. a few teams wearing cool throwbacks once or twice a year? Any lawyer would look at you like you're crazy for even debating it. And unless you're one of us crazy uniform nerds, you wouldn't even know it happened.

Thank you!

I keep seeing "it's a terrible rule because there is no proof that wearing multiple helmets is dangerous." So? I'd argue the burden-of-proof is on the other side. If there's even any yet-to-be-disproven theory that multiple helmets has a negative impact on safety than why not play it safe? Am I cynical enough to believe this may be a PR move? Sure. But I can buy the idea that it's also a safety (and CYA for the NFL) decision.

Look, I would love the Bucs to be able to wear the white Bucco Bruce helmet once a year. And I like the occasional brown-leather throwback, etc. But whether or not the rule is mean to protect the brands of these teams, I don't have any problem with "when in doubt, be safe," even if the extra safety is marginal and this is low-hanging fruit.

It's not safer and there's no doubt. Not even 0.000000001%. This is a fabricated risk that is not based in reality. Acknowledging it as a potential risk is irresponsible and distracts from the core issue of brain injuries and player safety.

[Gothamite]

Having helmets at all is irresponsible and distracts from the core issue of brain injuries and player safety.

[guest23]

Having helmets at all is irresponsible and distracts from the core issue of brain injuries and player safety.

I agree about plastic helmets. Rugby style padded caps could work.

[Gothamite]

Sure, scrum caps to protect against abrasions and minor contact wounds. Nothing more.

[gosioux76]

Sure, scrum caps to protect against abrasions and minor contact wounds. Nothing more.

But then the Cleveland Browns wouldn't have a logo.

[guest23]

Sure, scrum caps to protect against abrasions and minor contact wounds. Nothing more.

But then the Cleveland Browns wouldn't have a logo.

They can design a silhouette of jimmy haslam and use that.

[oldschoolvikings]

There's a difference between a team like the Bucs and Patriots (for example) breaking out a throwback once or twice a year and college teams wearing a different helmet every week.

If I see orange jerseys and white helmets I say "Oh, the Bucs have throwbacks on, great!" Not "ZOMG WHAT TEAM IZ THAT!!!11!" It doesn't mess with the identity. (And in Tampa's case given what they wear now, the creamsicles twice a year would be really refreshing. lol)

The one helmet rule didn't stop teams from having multiple different helmets cluttering their identity, it stopped teams, like the Bucs and Patriots, from wearing awesome throwbacks. I can't think of one team that used an alternate helmet for alternates sake, pretty much every one was a throwback (or substitute for a leather helmet) or some sort. Maybe the Steelers yellow one but that's it.

That's because the NFL only allowed alternate helmets if they were part of a throwback uniform. The Steelers yellow helmet was part of a throwback uniform and was never worn with their regular jerseys and pants.

I think this is the policy the NFL should go back to. The one helmet color rule is a dumb rule and eliminated the potential for a lot of great throwback options because the teams would have to use a different color helmet to have an accurate throwback (See: Bucs, Patriots, Falcons. Limiting teams to only one helmet for their primary uniform package is a good rule.

I reread my post above yours and realized it may have been misleading. I've edited it for clarity. I didn't mean that teams should be allowed to have an alternate helmet. I think teams should only be allowed to wear one helmet, but should be permitted a different colored helmet from their standard package if it's necessary to complete a throwback uniform.

We're on the same page.

The NFL didn't enact it the one helmet rule just because they wanted to be buzzkills. They deal with a lot of legal battles when players retire relating to concussions and head injuries. Many times these players take the stance that the NFL didn't let them wear the helmet they always wear (in situations like throwback games). So the NFL eliminated that option so it was one less court battle they had to deal with. Although the rule stinks asthetically, I completely understand where the NFL is coming from and would do the exact same thing in their shoes.

I there a source that you're basing these player claims on? This is the first time I've heard of that but it may be the case as you can claim just about anything in a lawsuit. That would be the only reason for this policy that would make actual legal sense is to simply limit the scope of future claims and make it harder to sue. The whole suppression of known health risks to to employees is still remains a massive liability.

On second thought that there's absolutely no logic behind that player claim angle either. Aside from the cowboys, steelers and some others I don't think there are enough instances of 2nd helmets being worn regularly to generate a reliable sample set that would show a correlation. Also every single helmet worn must be certified safe and properly fit to the player's approval. Combine that with helmets breaking mid season or even mid game players have always been forced to change helmets at some point.

If you're the NFL, and you believe there's even a .01% chance that the issue of multiple helmets might come up in a future lawsuit, its beyond a no-brainer... you pass a rule against multiple helmets. Instantly, Period.

Can you imagine having that conversation with a group of lawyers? Hey, even a slight chance of a lawsuit vs. a few teams wearing cool throwbacks once or twice a year? Any lawyer would look at you like you're crazy for even debating it. And unless you're one of us crazy uniform nerds, you wouldn't even know it happened.

Thank you!

I keep seeing "it's a terrible rule because there is no proof that wearing multiple helmets is dangerous." So? I'd argue the burden-of-proof is on the other side. If there's even any yet-to-be-disproven theory that multiple helmets has a negative impact on safety than why not play it safe? Am I cynical enough to believe this may be a PR move? Sure. But I can buy the idea that it's also a safety (and CYA for the NFL) decision.

Look, I would love the Bucs to be able to wear the white Bucco Bruce helmet once a year. And I like the occasional brown-leather throwback, etc. But whether or not the rule is mean to protect the brands of these teams, I don't have any problem with "when in doubt, be safe," even if the extra safety is marginal and this is low-hanging fruit.

It's not safer and there's no doubt. Not even 0.000000001%. This is a fabricated risk that is not based in reality. Acknowledging it as a potential risk is irresponsible and distracts from the core issue of brain injuries and player safety.

First off, I'm not sure what kind of research you've done that let's you be so sure, but OK. Even if true, I didn't say the NFL was doing it because they thought it was safer. I said they were doing it to prevent the issue being raised in future lawsuits, which (unless you're clairvoyant) you can't say would never happen.

[guest23]

There's a difference between a team like the Bucs and Patriots (for example) breaking out a throwback once or twice a year and college teams wearing a different helmet every week.

If I see orange jerseys and white helmets I say "Oh, the Bucs have throwbacks on, great!" Not "ZOMG WHAT TEAM IZ THAT!!!11!" It doesn't mess with the identity. (And in Tampa's case given what they wear now, the creamsicles twice a year would be really refreshing. lol)

The one helmet rule didn't stop teams from having multiple different helmets cluttering their identity, it stopped teams, like the Bucs and Patriots, from wearing awesome throwbacks. I can't think of one team that used an alternate helmet for alternates sake, pretty much every one was a throwback (or substitute for a leather helmet) or some sort. Maybe the Steelers yellow one but that's it.

That's because the NFL only allowed alternate helmets if they were part of a throwback uniform. The Steelers yellow helmet was part of a throwback uniform and was never worn with their regular jerseys and pants.

I think this is the policy the NFL should go back to. The one helmet color rule is a dumb rule and eliminated the potential for a lot of great throwback options because the teams would have to use a different color helmet to have an accurate throwback (See: Bucs, Patriots, Falcons. Limiting teams to only one helmet for their primary uniform package is a good rule.

I reread my post above yours and realized it may have been misleading. I've edited it for clarity. I didn't mean that teams should be allowed to have an alternate helmet. I think teams should only be allowed to wear one helmet, but should be permitted a different colored helmet from their standard package if it's necessary to complete a throwback uniform.

We're on the same page.

The NFL didn't enact it the one helmet rule just because they wanted to be buzzkills. They deal with a lot of legal battles when players retire relating to concussions and head injuries. Many times these players take the stance that the NFL didn't let them wear the helmet they always wear (in situations like throwback games). So the NFL eliminated that option so it was one less court battle they had to deal with. Although the rule stinks asthetically, I completely understand where the NFL is coming from and would do the exact same thing in their shoes.

I there a source that you're basing these player claims on? This is the first time I've heard of that but it may be the case as you can claim just about anything in a lawsuit. That would be the only reason for this policy that would make actual legal sense is to simply limit the scope of future claims and make it harder to sue. The whole suppression of known health risks to to employees is still remains a massive liability.

On second thought that there's absolutely no logic behind that player claim angle either. Aside from the cowboys, steelers and some others I don't think there are enough instances of 2nd helmets being worn regularly to generate a reliable sample set that would show a correlation. Also every single helmet worn must be certified safe and properly fit to the player's approval. Combine that with helmets breaking mid season or even mid game players have always been forced to change helmets at some point.

If you're the NFL, and you believe there's even a .01% chance that the issue of multiple helmets might come up in a future lawsuit, its beyond a no-brainer... you pass a rule against multiple helmets. Instantly, Period.

Can you imagine having that conversation with a group of lawyers? Hey, even a slight chance of a lawsuit vs. a few teams wearing cool throwbacks once or twice a year? Any lawyer would look at you like you're crazy for even debating it. And unless you're one of us crazy uniform nerds, you wouldn't even know it happened.

Thank you!

I keep seeing "it's a terrible rule because there is no proof that wearing multiple helmets is dangerous." So? I'd argue the burden-of-proof is on the other side. If there's even any yet-to-be-disproven theory that multiple helmets has a negative impact on safety than why not play it safe? Am I cynical enough to believe this may be a PR move? Sure. But I can buy the idea that it's also a safety (and CYA for the NFL) decision.

Look, I would love the Bucs to be able to wear the white Bucco Bruce helmet once a year. And I like the occasional brown-leather throwback, etc. But whether or not the rule is mean to protect the brands of these teams, I don't have any problem with "when in doubt, be safe," even if the extra safety is marginal and this is low-hanging fruit.

It's not safer and there's no doubt. Not even 0.000000001%. This is a fabricated risk that is not based in reality. Acknowledging it as a potential risk is irresponsible and distracts from the core issue of brain injuries and player safety.

First off, I'm not sure what kind of research you've done that let's you be so sure, but OK. Even if true, I didn't say the NFL was doing it because they thought it was safer. I said they were doing it to prevent the issue being raised in future lawsuits, which (unless you're clairvoyant) you can't say would never happen.

"When in doubt, be safe" from even a legal liability standpoint continues to be a red herring as there's zero doubt. To continue to legitimize the league's bogus public stance no matter how significant is irresponsible. The league's only safeguard from liability at this point is to not play football as the game and the equipment inherently put the players at risk, wearing a second helmet is irrelevant.

[Gothamite]

"When in doubt, be safe" from even a legal liability standpoint continues to be a red herring as there's zero doubt.

Again, I'd like to see your scientific research on that question.

Or you could tell us where you went to law school, since you know more about liability claims than the NFL's team of lawyers.

[Teal]

I wonder if Miami's alternate will be orange or navy?

[OnWis97]

Sure, scrum caps to protect against abrasions and minor contact wounds. Nothing more.

But then the Cleveland Browns wouldn't have a logo.

I know this is a joke, but I have wondered at times whether the NFL would be hesitant to get rid of helmets because of how key they are in the league's marketing.

[guest23]

"When in doubt, be safe" from even a legal liability standpoint continues to be a red herring as there's zero doubt.

Again, I'd like to see your scientific research on that question.

Or you could tell us where you went to law school, since you know more about liability claims than the NFL's team of lawyers.

I've posted links before on this subject and you don't need extensive scientific research to dismiss an illogical myth that continues to be irresponsibly parroted on this board. Everybody is assuming that a legal team helped craft this policy while it's equally possible was created by a PR team for PR purpose and simply vetted/approved by counsel.

Do me a favor and tell me where you believe the additional risk is derived from wearing multiple (certified and properly fitted) helmets over the course of a season.

[leopard88]

"When in doubt, be safe" from even a legal liability standpoint continues to be a red herring as there's zero doubt.

Again, I'd like to see your scientific research on that question.

Or you could tell us where you went to law school, since you know more about liability claims than the NFL's team of lawyers.

I've posted links before on this subject and you don't need extensive scientific research to dismiss an illogical myth that continues to be irresponsibly parroted on this board. Everybody is assuming that a legal team helped craft this policy while it's equally possible was created by a PR team for PR purpose and simply vetted/approved by counsel.

Do me a favor and tell me where you believe the additional risk is derived from wearing multiple (certified and properly fitted) helmets over the course of a season.

I don't profess to know how sound the science on this may be. In fact, I suspect that it is probably pretty weak. However, juries can be very unpredictable. Therefore, any time you can take an arrow out of your opponent's quiver, it is a plus . . . no matter how crooked the arrow.

Member of the Maryland Bar since 1993.

[guest23]

"When in doubt, be safe" from even a legal liability standpoint continues to be a red herring as there's zero doubt.

Again, I'd like to see your scientific research on that question.

Or you could tell us where you went to law school, since you know more about liability claims than the NFL's team of lawyers.

I've posted links before on this subject and you don't need extensive scientific research to dismiss an illogical myth that continues to be irresponsibly parroted on this board. Everybody is assuming that a legal team helped craft this policy while it's equally possible was created by a PR team for PR purpose and simply vetted/approved by counsel.

Do me a favor and tell me where you believe the additional risk is derived from wearing multiple (certified and properly fitted) helmets over the course of a season.

I don't profess to know how sound the science on this may be. In fact, I suspect that it is probably pretty weak. However, juries can be very unpredictable. Therefore, any time you can take an arrow out of your opponent's quiver, it is a plus . . . no matter how crooked the arrow.

Member of the Maryland Bar since 1993.

Do you honestly think a jury will be swayed by such a minuscule detail? I also understand that the common lawyer answer to every question about risk and juries is that anything is possible but you simply can't assign all risks equal merit all the time. This is the equivalent of putting on safety goggles during a nuclear meltdown or tightening your safety belt before your plane plunges 30k feet into the ocean.

[ltjets21]

May be wrong thread but what was up with Kurt Warners Facemask in the 02 super bowl?

[FinalBeast]

May be wrong thread but what was up with Kurt Warners Facemask in the 02 super bowl?

I forgot the exact reason, but he had something wrong with his throat and and decided to change facemarks for this game for extra protection.

Edit: Bruised throat and hurt vocal cords

http://staugustine.com/stories/010802/spo_413415.shtmlhttp://staugustine.com/stories/010802/spo_413415.shtml

[leopard88]

"When in doubt, be safe" from even a legal liability standpoint continues to be a red herring as there's zero doubt.

Again, I'd like to see your scientific research on that question.

Or you could tell us where you went to law school, since you know more about liability claims than the NFL's team of lawyers.

I've posted links before on this subject and you don't need extensive scientific research to dismiss an illogical myth that continues to be irresponsibly parroted on this board. Everybody is assuming that a legal team helped craft this policy while it's equally possible was created by a PR team for PR purpose and simply vetted/approved by counsel.

Do me a favor and tell me where you believe the additional risk is derived from wearing multiple (certified and properly fitted) helmets over the course of a season.

I don't profess to know how sound the science on this may be. In fact, I suspect that it is probably pretty weak. However, juries can be very unpredictable. Therefore, any time you can take an arrow out of your opponent's quiver, it is a plus . . . no matter how crooked the arrow.

Member of the Maryland Bar since 1993.

Do you honestly think a jury will be swayed by such a minuscule detail? I also understand that the common lawyer answer to every question about risk and juries is that anything is possible but you simply can't assign all risks equal merit all the time. This is the equivalent of putting on safety goggles during a nuclear meltdown or tightening your safety belt before your plane plunges 30k feet into the ocean.

I don't think it is likely, but I've learned not to assume anything. About five years ago, I represented a client in an appeal of a two day trial that turned completely on about 45 seconds of testimony (which took up about half a page of the trial transcript). Both trial attorneys didn't give that part of the testimony any thought during trial, but the trial result and the appeal hinged on it.

I agree that all of us make decisions about likelihoods and risks of harm on a regular basis (and not always the right ones). In the NFL's case the one helmet rule might be addressing a minimal risk of harm and/or liability, but it comes at practically zero cost to the league. If there are any costs, it is that we uniform geeks are mad about the rule and teams might sell a little less throwback merchandise because they can't wear the uniforms on the field. Those are small prices to pay if they provide any reduction in the risk of ten figure liability.

As for your last point . . . if the captain came on and announced that all of the plane's engines had failed, wouldn't you tight your seatbelt a little bit . . . just in case.