Is It Time to Retire the Football Helmet?

[bterreson]

Article found here: http://online.wsj.co...?mod=rss_Sports

<h3 class="byline">

</h3>Thisfootball season, the debate about head injuries has reached a criticalmass. Startling research has been unveiled. Maudlin headlines have beenwritten. Congress called a hearing on the subject last month.

As obvious as the problem may seem (wait, you mean football is dangerous?),continuing revelations about the troubling mental declines of someretired players—and the ongoing parade of concussions during games—havecreated a sense of inevitability. Pretty soon, something will have tobe done.

Counterintuitive,or just plain dangerous? WSJ's Reed Albergotti discusses with colleagueChaz Repak why some experts think an NFL without helmets would vastlyreduce on-field injuries in American football.

Butbefore the debate goes any further, there's a fundamental question thatneeds to be investigated. Why do football players wear helmets in thefirst place? And more important, could the helmets be part of theproblem?

"Some people have advocated for years to take the helmet off, takethe face mask off. That'll change the game dramatically," says FredMueller, a University of North Carolina professor who studies headinjuries. "Maybe that's better than brain damage."

The first hard-shell helmets, which became popular in the 1940s,weren't designed to prevent concussions but to prevent players in thatrough-and-tumble era from suffering catastrophic injuries likefractured skulls.

But while these helmets reduced the chances of death on the field,they also created a sense of invulnerability that encouraged players tocollide more forcefully and more often. "Almost every single play,you're going to get hit in the head," says Miami Dolphins offensivetackle Jake Long.

What nobody knew at the time is that these small collisions may bejust as damaging. The growing body of research on former footballplayers suggests that brain damage isn't necessarily the result of anyone trauma, but the accumulation of thousands of seemingly innocuousblows to the head.

Theproblem is that there's nothing any helmet could do to stop the brainfrom taking lots of small hits. To become certified for sale, afootball helmet has to earn a "severity index" score of 1200, accordingto testing done by the National Operating Committee on Standards forAthletic Equipment, or Nocsae. Dr. Robert Cantu, a Nocsae board memberand chief of neurosurgery at Emerson Hospital in Concord, Mass., saysthat to prevent concussions, helmets would have to have a severityindex of 300—about four times better than the standard. "The only wayto make that happen, Dr. Cantu says, "is to make the helmet much biggerand the padding much bigger."

The problem with that approach, he says—other than making playerslook like Marvin the Martian—is that heavier helmets would be morelikely to cause neck injuries.

One of the strongest arguments for banning helmets comes from theAustralian Football League. While it's a similarly rough game, the AFLnever added any of the body armor Americans wear. When comparing AFLresearch studies and official NFL injury reports, AFL players appear toget hurt more often on the whole with things like shoulder injuries andtweaked knees. But when it comes to head injuries, the helmeted NFLplayers are about 25% more likely to sustain one.

AndrewMcIntosh, a researcher at Australia's University of New South Wales whoanalyzed videotape, says there may be a greater prevalence of headinjuries in the American game because the players hit each other withforces up to 100% greater. "If they didn't have helmets on, theywouldn't do that," he says. "They know they'd injure themselves." Dhani Jones, a linebacker for the Cincinnati Bengals who has playedrugby, too, says head injuries in that sport do happen, but they'remostly freak accidents. "In football, you're taught to hit with yourface," he says. "You're always contacting with your 'hat,' which isyour head."

Taking away helmets might have other benefits for the sport. Itwould bring down the cost of equipment, which can be crippling for someschools. A slower game might also be more palatable to some parents.And with their heads uncovered, football players might be moreattractive to endorsers.

By all accounts, banning helmets isn't on anyone's agenda. GregAiello, a spokesman for the NFL, says the league isn't contemplatingthe idea. Its focus is on improving helmet technology and on rules"that help take the head out of the game." Not wearing helmets, hesays, "is not going to eliminate the risk of concussion in a sport thatinvolves contact." Dr. Thom Mayer, a medical adviser to the NFLplayers' union, says there isn't enough research showing that playingwithout helmets would reduce brain injury. "It's an interestingtheoretical question, but I don't think anybody would consider playingNFL football without a helmet," he says.

Larry Maddux, the head of research and development for helmet-makerSchutt, says even without helmets, players would inadvertently get hitin the head—and regular knocks and bumps could turn into concussions.Thad Ide, the vice president of research and development at Riddell,the NFL's official helmet sponsor, says getting rid of helmets would bea bad move. "There would always be incidental contact," he says.

So what should be done?

Julian Bailes, a neurosurgeon who has conducted brain research forthe players' union, says the NFL should change the rules so linemenaren't allowed to go into three-point stances before plays—a rule thatwould prevent them from springing head-first into other players. Hesays he would also stop all head contact in football practices. Dr.Cantu says brain injuries could be reduced by enforcing rules alreadyon the books in the NFL—especially helmet-to-helmet hits, which are notalways called by officials. "There have to eventually be some hardsanctions for referees," he says.

To many, the solution is to come up with a better helmet. The NFL iscurrently conducting independent testing of helmets with a focus on"more accurate and comparative information about concussive forces,"says neurologist Ira Casson, a co-chair of the NFL's Mild TraumaticBrain Injury Committee.

In the past, attempts to create a better helmet haven't met withmuch success. Robert Cade, who is better known as an inventor ofGatorade, created a shock-absorbing helmet that was used by a number ofNFL players in the 1970s. In the late 1980s, Bert Straus, an industrialdesigner, came up with the ProCap, a soft outer shell that fits overhelmets to help absorb blows. It was also used by some NFL players butalso never caught on.

Nonetheless, the strongest argument for the helmet may turn out tobe an economic one. The NFL is shaped around the notion that playerscan run into each other at high speeds without consequence. It's thesame sort of idea that has made Nascar the nation's most popular formof motorsport. And beyond all this, there's the very real question ofwhether the prospect of serious mental impairment later in life willever discourage people from playing the game—let alone watching.

"Without the helmet, they wouldn't hit their head in stupid plays,"says P. David Halstead, technical director for the Nocsae, the groupthat sets helmet-safety standards. But without helmets, the game"wouldn't be football," he says.

[neo_prankster]

Article found here: http://online.wsj.co...?mod=rss_Sports

<h3 class="byline">

</h3>Thisfootball season, the debate about head injuries has reached a criticalmass. Startling research has been unveiled. Maudlin headlines have beenwritten. Congress called a hearing on the subject last month.

As obvious as the problem may seem (wait, you mean football is dangerous?),continuing revelations about the troubling mental declines of someretired players?and the ongoing parade of concussions during games?havecreated a sense of inevitability. Pretty soon, something will have tobe done.

Counterintuitive,or just plain dangerous? WSJ's Reed Albergotti discusses with colleagueChaz Repak why some experts think an NFL without helmets would vastlyreduce on-field injuries in American football.

Butbefore the debate goes any further, there's a fundamental question thatneeds to be investigated. Why do football players wear helmets in thefirst place? And more important, could the helmets be part of theproblem?

"Some people have advocated for years to take the helmet off, takethe face mask off. That'll change the game dramatically," says FredMueller, a University of North Carolina professor who studies headinjuries. "Maybe that's better than brain damage."

The first hard-shell helmets, which became popular in the 1940s,weren't designed to prevent concussions but to prevent players in thatrough-and-tumble era from suffering catastrophic injuries likefractured skulls.

But while these helmets reduced the chances of death on the field,they also created a sense of invulnerability that encouraged players tocollide more forcefully and more often. "Almost every single play,you're going to get hit in the head," says Miami Dolphins offensivetackle Jake Long.

What nobody knew at the time is that these small collisions may bejust as damaging. The growing body of research on former footballplayers suggests that brain damage isn't necessarily the result of anyone trauma, but the accumulation of thousands of seemingly innocuousblows to the head.

Theproblem is that there's nothing any helmet could do to stop the brainfrom taking lots of small hits. To become certified for sale, afootball helmet has to earn a "severity index" score of 1200, accordingto testing done by the National Operating Committee on Standards forAthletic Equipment, or Nocsae. Dr. Robert Cantu, a Nocsae board memberand chief of neurosurgery at Emerson Hospital in Concord, Mass., saysthat to prevent concussions, helmets would have to have a severityindex of 300?about four times better than the standard. "The only wayto make that happen, Dr. Cantu says, "is to make the helmet much biggerand the padding much bigger."

The problem with that approach, he says?other than making playerslook like Marvin the Martian?is that heavier helmets would be morelikely to cause neck injuries.

One of the strongest arguments for banning helmets comes from theAustralian Football League. While it's a similarly rough game, the AFLnever added any of the body armor Americans wear. When comparing AFLresearch studies and official NFL injury reports, AFL players appear toget hurt more often on the whole with things like shoulder injuries andtweaked knees. But when it comes to head injuries, the helmeted NFLplayers are about 25% more likely to sustain one.

AndrewMcIntosh, a researcher at Australia's University of New South Wales whoanalyzed videotape, says there may be a greater prevalence of headinjuries in the American game because the players hit each other withforces up to 100% greater. "If they didn't have helmets on, theywouldn't do that," he says. "They know they'd injure themselves." Dhani Jones, a linebacker for the Cincinnati Bengals who has playedrugby, too, says head injuries in that sport do happen, but they'remostly freak accidents. "In football, you're taught to hit with yourface," he says. "You're always contacting with your 'hat,' which isyour head."

Taking away helmets might have other benefits for the sport. Itwould bring down the cost of equipment, which can be crippling for someschools. A slower game might also be more palatable to some parents.And with their heads uncovered, football players might be moreattractive to endorsers.

By all accounts, banning helmets isn't on anyone's agenda. GregAiello, a spokesman for the NFL, says the league isn't contemplatingthe idea. Its focus is on improving helmet technology and on rules"that help take the head out of the game." Not wearing helmets, hesays, "is not going to eliminate the risk of concussion in a sport thatinvolves contact." Dr. Thom Mayer, a medical adviser to the NFLplayers' union, says there isn't enough research showing that playingwithout helmets would reduce brain injury. "It's an interestingtheoretical question, but I don't think anybody would consider playingNFL football without a helmet," he says.

Larry Maddux, the head of research and development for helmet-makerSchutt, says even without helmets, players would inadvertently get hitin the head?and regular knocks and bumps could turn into concussions.Thad Ide, the vice president of research and development at Riddell,the NFL's official helmet sponsor, says getting rid of helmets would bea bad move. "There would always be incidental contact," he says.

So what should be done?

Julian Bailes, a neurosurgeon who has conducted brain research forthe players' union, says the NFL should change the rules so linemenaren't allowed to go into three-point stances before plays?a rule thatwould prevent them from springing head-first into other players. Hesays he would also stop all head contact in football practices. Dr.Cantu says brain injuries could be reduced by enforcing rules alreadyon the books in the NFL?especially helmet-to-helmet hits, which are notalways called by officials. "There have to eventually be some hardsanctions for referees," he says.

To many, the solution is to come up with a better helmet. The NFL iscurrently conducting independent testing of helmets with a focus on"more accurate and comparative information about concussive forces,"says neurologist Ira Casson, a co-chair of the NFL's Mild TraumaticBrain Injury Committee.

In the past, attempts to create a better helmet haven't met withmuch success. Robert Cade, who is better known as an inventor ofGatorade, created a shock-absorbing helmet that was used by a number ofNFL players in the 1970s. In the late 1980s, Bert Straus, an industrialdesigner, came up with the ProCap, a soft outer shell that fits overhelmets to help absorb blows. It was also used by some NFL players butalso never caught on.

Nonetheless, the strongest argument for the helmet may turn out tobe an economic one. The NFL is shaped around the notion that playerscan run into each other at high speeds without consequence. It's thesame sort of idea that has made Nascar the nation's most popular formof motorsport. And beyond all this, there's the very real question ofwhether the prospect of serious mental impairment later in life willever discourage people from playing the game?let alone watching.

"Without the helmet, they wouldn't hit their head in stupid plays,"says P. David Halstead, technical director for the Nocsae, the groupthat sets helmet-safety standards. But without helmets, the game"wouldn't be football," he says.

Retire the Football Helmet?

Sounds like someone wants to see the NFL go bankrupt.

[Epiphanic]

In football, you're taught to hit with your face. You're always contacting with your "hat," which is your head.

Perhaps we need to start teaching safer hits. Is this true? I never played football in school, but it seems plausable. I see running backs lower their heads plowing for that extra yard (which often leads to helmet-to-helmet).

[The_Admiral]

Having never played football, I can't speak from experience, but this isn't the first time I've read about the issue. The problem with building a better helmet is that it still doesn't allay the concerns regarding rotational force applied to the brain, which is what causes concussions, which are what cause chronic traumatic encephalopathy, which is what causes retired offensive linemen to mistake their ovens for laundry baskets or think secret government agents are out to kill them.

[zmspartans]

getting rid of a helmet? SERIOUSLY ? absolutely absurd. HAVING played before, i can tell you the loss of a helmet would make the game almost into a non-contact sport. and if they want to keep football the way it is but make it safer, getting rid of a helmet is CERTAINLY not how to do so. and i was taught to NOT hit with your head, because thats what leads to the most serious injuries, like getting paralyzed.

[infrared41]

getting rid of a helmet? SERIOUSLY ? absolutely absurd. HAVING played before, i can tell you the loss of a helmet would make the game almost into a non-contact sport. and if they want to keep football the way it is but make it safer, getting rid of a helmet is CERTAINLY not how to do so. and i was taught to NOT hit with your head, because thats what leads to the most serious injuries, like getting paralyzed.

Actually it's not as crazy as it sounds. In the football thread from a few years ago I wrote that one way to minimize injuries was to get rid of some of the equipment. As equipment technology advances, the uniform becomes more weapon and less protection. How many on-field Rugby tragedies do we hear about every year? Or on-field soccer tragedies? As we saw in the "Girl Gone Wild" thread, soccer can get pretty nasty yet we rarely if ever see a sight like we saw in the Cal game when Best went air born.

Our heads aren't designed to carry around something the size and weight of the modern football helmet. Yeah they're great protection against blunt impact but they can also cause problems when the extra weight makes a head snap more violently.

Just my opinion.

[jrh31584]

I just don't think today's players would know how to play without a helmet, at least for a few years.

[DustDevil61]

While there is a point about the added weight a helmet has, I don't see anything happening as far as getting rid of the helmet altogether. I do see innovations being made that make the helmet lighter and less bulky, though.

[Sguse1]

HAHA I play college rugby and every time i mention that to a football player i get the same reaction... "Rugby? Thats the sport with no pads right? Wow you must be crazy to do that!"

[fkaKrock5cent]

getting rid of a helmet? SERIOUSLY ? absolutely absurd. HAVING played before, i can tell you the loss of a helmet would make the game almost into a non-contact sport. and if they want to keep football the way it is but make it safer, getting rid of a helmet is CERTAINLY not how to do so. and i was taught to NOT hit with your head, because thats what leads to the most serious injuries, like getting paralyzed.

+1 I play at the High School level and EVERY PRACTICE coaches would remind us to use our shoulder pads to tackle, not out helmets. Not only because of the effects it has health wise, but it's also better form; you have a much high likely hood of hitting some one with your head up then your head down.

The way to go is just teaching the right way to use a helmet. Also, if you play football (especially professionally), you know the risk/cost of playing. Why do you think NFL plays demand so much?

[The Fixer]

its so much more fun to play with pads on though!!!! helmets make the contact harder and thus more fun. i love it. had to sit out all season this year, having relapses

[The Fixer]

i agree that they do need to UPDATE the helmet to be safer though. remember the AFL (arena not austrailian) 2 years ago, the concussion monitors? that would be amazing. Im a fan of air helmets too which make them soo much safer

[fkaKrock5cent]

i agree that they do need to UPDATE the helmet to be safer though. remember the AFL (arena not austrailian) 2 years ago, the concussion monitors? that would be amazing. Im a fan of air helmets too which make them soo much safer

Could you explain the monitors? I never herd of them. Did it monitor how severe the damage was?

[The Fixer]

http://www.sportinggoodsnewswire.com/AFL_debuts__shockometer__as_helmet_safety_feature-3032.htm

http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/files/articles/Shockometer_Full_Helmet.jpg

http://sports.espn.go.com/extra/afl/news/story?id=3269214

i think its just a prototype but i think it could turn into something

[The_Admiral]

helmets make the contact harder and thus more fun. i love it. had to sit out all season this year, having relapses

Sounds like The Fixer needs some fixing!

[chuckymack]

During my senior year of high school, we got a new defensive coordinator, who was one of those d-bags who taught the kids to lead with their facemask. He'd always get onto me because I led with my shoulders. One day I finally got sick of it and told him I'd rather be kicked off he team than to break my neck. He tried to kick me off the team, so I went to the head coach about it. I could hear the head coach screaming at him all the way at the other endzone.

He was fired the following year.

[jr79]

HAHA I play college rugby and every time i mention that to a football player i get the same reaction... "Rugby? Thats the sport with no pads right? Wow you must be crazy to do that!"

The thinner rugby style headgear that some players wear would be a better option as it doesn't give you that sense of invulnerability that encourages head first charges/tackles but it provides a modicum of protection against concussions and other head injuries. Interestingly on the agenda for the International Rugby Board at the moment is the rising injury tolls in elite level rugby, seemingly caused by the increasing size of players since the game turned professional in the mid 1990s. The centres and wingers today are bigger than some of the forwards of that era. First thing they said was "no way we're putting on pads and helmets".

I've long held the belief that all the protective gear in American Football makes the game less safe. It's a bit like driving an SUV... you feel safe because you're in a big car but you're considerably more lethal to all of those around you.

[BlueSky]

Watch some Australian rules football before you dismiss this out of hand. It's not rugby and it's a rough game, played with no pads and no helmets.

One huge issue (tongue-in-cheek here) would be losing the marketing power of the helmet logo. Fortunately there's already a solution and a working prototype:

Waiting for someone to complain that it needs a gray facemask.

[DEAD!]

Watch some Australian rules football before you dismiss this out of hand. It's not rugby and it's a rough game, played with no pads and no helmets.

One huge issue (tongue-in-cheek here) would be losing the marketing power of the helmet logo. Fortunately there's already a solution and a working prototype:

Waiting for someone to complain that it needs a gray facemask.

Today's UniWatch blog had a link to this exact pic.

It's hard to use Australian football as a comparison because the game is different. It's tough, but tackling and shoulder contact rules are more restricted than the NFL.

[Saintsfan]

Hmmmm, I think there is more of a case to get rid of some of the other padding. I think that getting rid of some of the padding and helmets would totally change the way the game is played. I think most people would say for the worse.