Is It Time to Retire the Football Helmet?

[Saintsfan]

One difference between Rugby and Football, certainly Rugby Union, is that the hits and tackles in Football tend to be higher on the body. In Rugby they tend to be from the waist down. In football, a lot of the physical contact seems to me to be focussed around the chest and shoulders, relatively speaking at least. One important difference as far as the head is concerned, therefore, is that its easier in Rugby to get the head out of the way of the opponents body.

Incidentally the form of Rugby that you will see in the Olympics is Sevens, which is a lot less physical than the full 15 a side version of the game. Its a speedier version of the game that emphasizes speed and running.

Sguse, though, does make a good point about the nature of the game. You can't make a cheap shot against an opponent without some fear of repercussion. The game is well refereed largely as well.

[JH42XCC]

an NFL without football helmets? What a ridiculous idea!

After all, helmets were originally designed to protect players from catastrophic skull fractures.

[Saintsfan]

an NFL without football helmets? What a ridiculous idea!

After all, helmets were originally designed to protect players from catastrophic skull fractures.

But really, honestly, how many types of player are at consistent risk of head injuries? More so than other sports I mean? I would agree that perhaps linemen are, but does a QB really need a helmet? or a wide receiver or defensive back? Do linesmen really need the kind of helmets they wear nowadays? And is it the presence of the helmets that results in such aggresive blocking and attacking in the line?

If you compare rugby, say, to football, you could argue that takeaway some of the padding and the helmets, make linemen wear scrumcaps, allow others to wear limited form of head protection if they want to, and you might have a more exciting product to watch? Just saying.

here is some Rugby League for comparrison

and some rugby union

[max]

I am totally for retiring the football helmet. I would love to see a NFL-type summer league begin play with or without helmets or turbans. "Turban" might be the wrong word, but I heard that a Muslim-style turban absorbs hard hits to the head better than the hard helmet that the NFL and all football players in North America wear. The problem will be getting the Alabama high school football coaches and fans to switch from a helmet's "Crunch" to the "pooof" of cloth headdresses..."turbans," nonetheless.

A NFL without helmets will lead to fewer deaths. absolutely.

More people will be able to play football.

More face-time that football players do not get relative to basketball, baseball, even hockey players.

Year-round NFL season, like the English Premier League. American football will become the #1 sport in America, hands down.

The NFL will grow and apparel companies will grow with the changes in the league.

My vote is definitely "YES."

[HedleyLamarr]

an NFL without football helmets? What a ridiculous idea!

After all, helmets were originally designed to protect players from catastrophic skull fractures.

But really, honestly, how many types of player are at consistent risk of head injuries? More so than other sports I mean? I would agree that perhaps linemen are, but does a QB really need a helmet? or a wide receiver or defensive back? Do linesmen really need the kind of helmets they wear nowadays? And is it the presence of the helmets that results in such aggresive blocking and attacking in the line?

Actually, the offensive and defensive linemen are the ones least likely to get head injuries, as your blocking techniques are geared towards the armpits. Rarely are linemen in a position where they're getting routinely hit in the head. Instead, leg injuries are the most common occurance for lineman.

All your skill position players definitely need helmets, as defenders are taught to go full-speed to hit and tackle the ball-carrier, no matter who it is. Also, to avoid giving the offensive players an advantage with equipment, defensive players need a head device to protect them from a WR or RB running full-speed at them.

The helmets do more help than harm.....

[Gothamite]

So you say. I'm far from convinced.

[The_Admiral]

Two articles worth reading on players' brains:

http://www.gq.com/sports/profiles/200909/nfl-players-brain-dementia-study-memory-concussions?currentPage=9&printable=true This focuses on the research done by Dr. Omalu and how he ran afoul of the NFL, which tried to cover up his research.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all Some overlap here, of couse, but Gladwell makes some interesting although unsettling parallels between football and dogfighting.

[Gothamite]

Some pretty disturbing articles. Thank you.

Money quotes for this discussion, emphasis mine.

First from CQ:

"Helmets are not the answer. The brain has a certain amount of play inside the skull. It's buoyed up in the cerebral spinal fluid. It sits in this fluid, floats. When the head suddenly stops, the brain continues, reverberates back. So when I hit, boom, my skull stops, but my brain continues forward for about a centimeter. Boom, boom, it reverberates back. So you could have padding that's a foot thick. It's not going to change the acceleration/deceleration phenomenon. And a lot of these injuries are rotational. The fibers get torn with rotation. You've got a face mask that's like a fulcrum sitting out here: You get hit, your head swings around. That's when a lot of these fibers are sheared-by rotation. A helmet can't ever prevent that.

"And have you seen helmets lately? In the old days of football, you had this leather cap to protect your ears. That was it. Youd never put your head in the game. You'd be knocked out after the first play! Even in the'60s, the helmet was a light shell. The modern helmet is like a weapon.

"So I told the NFL, I said, 'Why don't you take the head out of the game? Just take it out of the game! Let the linemen start from a squatting position instead of getting down for head-to-head. Have them stand up like they do on pass protection. So there's not this obligatory head contact.'

"Nothing. They had nothing to say. Who am I? I'm only a guy who has concussed hundreds of rats in the lab, a player for ten years, and a sideline doctor for twenty years. What do I know? Some stupid neurosurgeon."

And from The New Yorker:

But if C.T.E. is really about lots of little hits, what can be done about it? Turley says that it's impossible for an offensive lineman to do his job without "using his head." The position calls for the player to begin in a crouch and then collide with the opposing lineman when the ball is snapped. Helmet-to-helmet contact is inevitable. Nowinski, who played football for Harvard, says that "proper" tackling technique is supposed to involve a player driving into his opponent with his shoulder. "The problem,' he says, 'is that, if you're a defender and you're trying to tackle someone and you decide to pick a side, you're giving the other guy a way to go-and people will start running around you." Would better helmets help? Perhaps. And there have been better models introduced that absorb more of the shock from a hit. But, Nowinski says, the better helmets have become-and the more invulnerable they have made the player seem-the more athletes have been inclined to play recklessly. "People love technological solutions," Nowinski went on. "When I give speeches, the first question is always: 'What about these new helmets I hear about?' What most people don't realize is that we are decades, if not forever, from having a helmet that would fix the problem. I mean, you have two men running into each other at full speed and you think a little bit of plastic and padding could absorb that 150 gs of force?"

[BB61]

This would just be easier if you all admitted that the Gridiron game is inferior and took on the Australian code.

But seriously, folks.

I cannot speak for rugby, since I don't play rugby and (while I'm a fan), I haven't watched enough of it to give the kind of commentary that I can for the Australian game.

Hitting in footy is very, very closely regulated. The umpires try their best to call and otherwise discourage anything that would be unduly violent. The rules of footy state that only the ballcarrier an be tackled, and only between the knees and shoulders. Players shepherding the ballcarrier (think moving picks in baseketball) cannot tackle, but can through a "hip and shoulder" so long as it's between the knees and shoulders.

Can football adapt those sort of rules? Sure.

Will it ever happen? No.

Firstly, fans will complain about it because they are afraid of change. Especially with football. See: Arena Football.

Secondly, players will complain about it because they'll need to retrain themselves to play in this new style, especially those who learn to play a certain way. They'll say that, in fact, they're more tentative to play this way, and that hinders their ability to play.

Thirdly, and this goes back to "firstly", there will be a heap of rules attached to this, and due to the learning curve involved, will increase the number of penalties, which will slow down play, which isn't what the players, fans, league, or most importantly, the networks, want.

So in conclusion, it's a great idea, but it'll never happen.

[Gothamite]

Firstly, fans will complain about it because they are afraid of change. Especially with football. See: Arena Football.

Not sure I follow.

[Saintsfan]

an NFL without football helmets? What a ridiculous idea!

After all, helmets were originally designed to protect players from catastrophic skull fractures.

But really, honestly, how many types of player are at consistent risk of head injuries? More so than other sports I mean? I would agree that perhaps linemen are, but does a QB really need a helmet? or a wide receiver or defensive back? Do linesmen really need the kind of helmets they wear nowadays? And is it the presence of the helmets that results in such aggresive blocking and attacking in the line?

Actually, the offensive and defensive linemen are the ones least likely to get head injuries, as your blocking techniques are geared towards the armpits. Rarely are linemen in a position where they're getting routinely hit in the head. Instead, leg injuries are the most common occurance for lineman.

All your skill position players definitely need helmets, as defenders are taught to go full-speed to hit and tackle the ball-carrier, no matter who it is. Also, to avoid giving the offensive players an advantage with equipment, defensive players need a head device to protect them from a WR or RB running full-speed at them.

The helmets do more help than harm.....

I am certainly less than convinced that your arguments make any kind of sense at all. A lineman is lined up head on with his opposite number. Head shots are inevitable, if not common. Skill position players are more unlikely to suffer head trauma, especially if tackling techniques are good.

[The_Admiral]

The scientists, Ira Casson, Elliot Pellman, and David Viano, were all members of the NFL?s Mild Traumatic Brain Injury committee. In tone their letter to the editor struggled to remain calm, but everyone could read the subtext: We own this field. We are not going to bow to some no-name Nigerian with some bull theory.

The attack against Omalu was that he had misinterpreted his own neuropathological findings. In his calmer moments, Omalu considered the fact that neither Casson, Pellman, nor Viano were neuropathologists. He wondered, How can doctors who are not neuropathologists interpret neuropathological findings better than neuropathologists?

Drs. Casson and Viano have "resigned" from their posts. It looks like the NFL is getting serious, or more likely being pressured to get serious.

[Gothamite]

Actually, the offensive and defensive linemen are the ones least likely to get head injuries, as your blocking techniques are geared towards the armpits. Rarely are linemen in a position where they're getting routinely hit in the head. Instead, leg injuries are the most common occurance for lineman.

All your skill position players definitely need helmets, as defenders are taught to go full-speed to hit and tackle the ball-carrier, no matter who it is. Also, to avoid giving the offensive players an advantage with equipment, defensive players need a head device to protect them from a WR or RB running full-speed at them.

The helmets do more help than harm.....

I am certainly less than convinced that your arguments make any kind of sense at all. A lineman is lined up head on with his opposite number. Head shots are inevitable, if not common. Skill position players are more unlikely to suffer head trauma, especially if tackling techniques are good.

I tend to agree with Saintsfan. Helmets have allowed linemen to line up directly with their opposite number, knocking helmet against helmet when the ball is snapped. The first player whose brain was shown to have CTE, Mike Webster, was a center.

Remember, we're not talking about recognizable head injuries here. We're talking about small injuries that occur whenever the head get hit, thousands of small injuries that add up to a collective brain damage not visible for years or decades. If it was as obvious as a broken leg, then the NFL would have a much harder time stonewalling.

That's why one of the suggestions is to have linemen start from a squatting or standing position instead of a three-point stance. Eliminate the rocketing at one another, and perhaps you can eliminate some of the brain damage.

And I don't see the problem with that. Rule changes happen all the time. Horse-collar tackles are dangerous. So the NFL banned them. The game is no less exciting for the rule change, and much safer for the men who play it. No reason that can't happen again.

[The_Admiral]

What's scary to think about is that the thousands of hits that Webster and his contemporaries accrued came in an age where football players, while still football players and all, weren't the freaks they are today. This generation of linemen could well be taking much harder hits than Webster had taken, and subsequently developing more brain damage.

[Gothamite]

Sure is scary.

In fifteen years, we could be having the same conversation about any number of men playing now. Instead of six times the national average for dementia, we could be talking about ten or twelve times. That means potentially a whole lot of contemporary players could develop CTE.

And what's it going to be like if a marquee player like Peyton Manning exhibits these symptoms? Or Tom Brady?

That's why it's so important that the NFL acts, or is forced to act.

[HedleyLamarr]

I am certainly less than convinced that your arguments make any kind of sense at all. A lineman is lined up head on with his opposite number. Head shots are inevitable, if not common. Skill position players are more unlikely to suffer head trauma, especially if tackling techniques are good.

That's the thing....the tackling techniques aren't that great. Why do you think the NFL has emphasized the penalty-calling on hits made toward the legs and head?

Lineman don't suffer the same amount of head injuries due to the nature of their job. They aren't butting heads like mountain goats. They aren't facing high-speed collisions the way WR's, RB's, and QB's face.

The NFL could get away with no helmets back then because the players were smaller, slower, and weaker. No way in hell could a player not suffer any sort of head injury in today's game, should players play without helmets. Do you honestly expect players will slow down, stop lifting weights, and get smaller bodies?

Today's NFL game is simply too fast to even fathom playing it without a helmet, even if every player is helmetless.

[Saintsfan]

I am certainly less than convinced that your arguments make any kind of sense at all. A lineman is lined up head on with his opposite number. Head shots are inevitable, if not common. Skill position players are more unlikely to suffer head trauma, especially if tackling techniques are good.

That's the thing....the tackling techniques aren't that great. Why do you think the NFL has emphasized the penalty-calling on hits made toward the legs and head?

Lineman don't suffer the same amount of head injuries due to the nature of their job. They aren't butting heads like mountain goats. They aren't facing high-speed collisions the way WR's, RB's, and QB's face.

The NFL could get away with no helmets back then because the players were smaller, slower, and weaker. No way in hell could a player not suffer any sort of head injury in today's game, should players play without helmets. Do you honestly expect players will slow down, stop lifting weights, and get smaller bodies?

Today's NFL game is simply too fast to even fathom playing it without a helmet, even if every player is helmetless.

First off, I am not advocating that the NFL should go helmetless, i think that would be too much of a jump of cultures. I think the rugby videos I posted show that you could play NFL football, certainly away from the line of scrimmage, without helmets.

One thing I would add though is that there is some evidence that headguards in amateur boxing can actually increase headtrauma, as it dissipates the hit. I don't know what research has been done on this in football, if any, but I would imagine that given that most head trauma in backfield players would come from collisions either on the field, or with players 'post tackle' (most backfield tackling being done with the arms, and around the chest area), it could be that those injuries aren't helped that much from the helmet.

[jimbojohnny56]

The problem is the way the game is being played and officiated. There should be no helmet to helmet contact. Not just for the QB but any position. Players need to stop leading with their helmet and using it as a weapon.You should not be allowed to use your helmet to make contact with any part of another player. You tackle with your shoulder and wrap with your arms. I also think if the league were to take lineman out of three point stance that would help and it would be something we could all get used to after a while. If these were the rules and they were called properly we could decrease the risk of concussion and truly have the players be safer if that is what the NFL really wants. Take the head out of the game. That helmet was designed to protect the head and not be used to inflict damage on your oppponent and yourself in the process.

[Gothamite]

The NFL doesn't really "want" to mess with the golden goose. So what they want is of no consequence.

Eliminating the three-point stance would be an excellent first step. That's a no-brainer and could be implemented with very little impact in the fan experience. But while I doubt that we can ever go back to helmetless football, I do think that it's time to dial back helmet protection. If players didn't have a false sense of security, they very well might not put themselves in positions to sustain these hits.

One thing I would caution against is too many mentions of concussions. That's where the conversation seems to always get sidetracked, because it's not about concussions. The real problem seems to come from the thousands of tiny head hits which aren't themselves that noticeable at the time but add up to serious brain damage.

Concussions may indeed have a technological solution - more padding, better padding. Which results in more perceived invulnerability, more leading with the helmet, more brain damage. So by focusing on that as the issue, we may be making the problem even worse.

[BlueSky]

One question I haven't seen addressed is what percentage of the total number of players are affected? It stands to reason that some will inevitably suffer one lingering effect of playing or another. I don't mean to minimize it, but it reminds me of air safety statistics. Some very tiny percentage of passengers will be killed or injured over time and two things are true: it's extremely unlikely it will be you, but it's horrible if it is. My point is that if this is .000001% of those who play the game, does it makes sense to fundamentally change the game to try and prevent it?

Again, I'm not advocating one approach over another because I just don't think we have adequate data to do so.