Is It Time to Retire the Football Helmet?

[STL FANATIC]

Maybe I'm just making the same argument as people who are against fighting in hockey--an argument I'm on the other side of.

How much of that has to do with the current construction of the Blues? If you were DET FANATIC, would you hold the same view on fighting?

I really think so. Maybe it's a bit subconscious, but I didn't even consider the Blues willingness to throw down when I wrote that. I've long supported fighting in hockey because I believe it is a way for players to police themselves from cheapshots or overly aggressive hits. Hockey is a physical and emotional game, and fighting creates a controlled setting release that aggression and emotion, and from what I can tell (I have no studies), is also a safer encounter than a ticked off skater flying across the rink to line up a defenseless player. Tradition is no reason to keep something bad around, but I would use it as a tiny bit of support in this case as well.

When I type out my reasoning like that, it actually makes me think that football might benefit from allowing two players to throw down the helmets and go at it. BUT, I wouldn't actually advocate it. Fighting has been a part of hockey for a long time, it is regulated with-in the game. To suddenly introduce it into a sport that has not had it would send the wrong message and probably not accomplish what I'm suggesting it would in theory and does in hockey.

Anyways, back to your original question, I really think those are my feelings on fighting in hockey regardless of allegiance. I actually would assume a large portion of Red Wings fans still support fighting for those same reasons regardless of the fact that they haven't employed a real enforcer type in nearly a decade.

[Waffles]

One thing I've noticed more acutely this week is the overemphasis on illegal hits as the root of football's brain trauma problem - understandable, given the carnage on Sunday, but not a complete picture of the situation. A significant portion of football-related brain trauma cases are the result of continuous sub-concussive hits sustained by linemen on every routine snap of every game, not just egregiously brutal open-field takedowns. Cumulatively, butting heads with an opposing lineman for hundreds of snaps a season from pee-wee football to the pros can be just as devastating as sustaining a series of traumatic concussions like we saw this weekend.

Undoubtedly, increased vigilance and stiffer penalties for illegal hits is a step in the right direction for mitigating the danger of traumatic brain injury. But those kinds of plays are still the exception, not the rule - whereas the clash between offensive and defensive lines is a fundamental part of the game that happens every time the ball is snapped.

I also dispute the notion that "the players know what they're getting into" when it comes to all of the long-term effects of playing football. I accept it if we're talking about knees or hips, but so much of what we know about the link between football and brain trauma has come out in the last five years, and we're still learning more. And, if anything, their being professionals at the highest level puts them in a position of greater risk - more likely to ignore warning signs and take liberties with their health if it keeps them playing and keeps the paychecks coming.

[BBTV]

Right - those new-fangled helmets might be perfect for linemen, but wouldn't really do anything to solve the problem out in the open field.

[STL FANATIC]

Channing Crowder makes me want to give myself a concussion.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5708701

How stupid can you be? Not only is he taking shots at the league and suggesting he's going to ignore their rule, but he clearly has no clue what kind of health risks he's in for.

And his assertion that this is about money? No. The increased roughing the passer regulations 10-15 years ago were about protecting assets. This is real. While he seems to realize that he gets defensive concussions, he doesn't seem to make the link that the NFL telling him not to hit that way is not only to prevent offensive injuries but also those concussions he's currently sustaining.

The only thing valid he said is perhaps accidentally implying that the league would be better off without helmets.

[Lights Out]

Glad to see the players are taking the new rules seriously.

What a joke - and then, safety-disregarding losers like Crowder are most likely going to be the loudest when whining at owners during the possible strike, when they're pretty much walking risks to themselves and players around them.

[Gothamite]

Right - those new-fangled helmets might be perfect for linemen, but wouldn't really do anything to solve the problem out in the open field.

New helmets won't help linemen.

If you want to help linemen, ban the 3-point stance. Starting with Game One of next season, make it a 5-yard penalty to have a hand on the turf when the ball is snapped, and that will reduce some of the bone-jarring collisions that appear to cause CTE.

[floydnimrod]

One issue I've yet to see someone tackle (awful pun intended!) is: without football helmets, how do players protect their heads from smacking against the gound when they are taken down? I know a helmet only somewhat softens the blow against the turf/grass, but no helmet at all would be even worse.

[Gothamite]

Simple - smaller, lighter helmets can still provide plenty of protection against lighter hits like that.

I don't know that anyone is advocating eliminating helmets entirely, just the modern kind which are designed to protect against high-speed collisions (often at the expense of the kind of knocks you mention).

[Saintsfan]

I wonder if there is some value in outlawing helmets in practice? Players might then have to learn better tackling techniques, and how to block not headfirst?

[BlueSky]

Channing Crowder makes me want to give myself a concussion.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5708701

How stupid can you be? Not only is he taking shots at the league and suggesting he's going to ignore their rule, but he clearly has no clue what kind of health risks he's in for.

And his assertion that this is about money? No. The increased roughing the passer regulations 10-15 years ago were about protecting assets. This is real. While he seems to realize that he gets defensive concussions, he doesn't seem to make the link that the NFL telling him not to hit that way is not only to prevent offensive injuries but also those concussions he's currently sustaining.

The only thing valid he said is perhaps accidentally implying that the league would be better off without helmets.

Consider the source. Here's Channing's take when the Dolphins went to play in London:

===

Miami Dolphins linebacker Channing Crowder has admitted not knowing people speak English in London. The NFL player might want to check a map to see where he's playing Sunday's prestige game against the New York Giants at Wembley Stadium.

Crowder, who comes from Atlanta in Georgia, may be praised on the field, but confessed geography was not his strong point. He admitted he did not know until now where London was - or that Londoners spoke English. "I couldn't find London on a map if they didn't have the names of the countries," he said. "I swear to God. I don't know what nothing is. I know Italy looks like a boot. I learned that."

Crowder added: "I know (Washington Redskins linebacker) London Fletcher. We did a football camp together. So I know him. That's the closest thing I know to London. He's black, so I'm sure he's not from London. I'm sure that's a coincidental name."

===

The London Fletcher reference is hilarious, but overall, his ignorance is really much more tragic than funny. On the helmet thing, Channing clearly needs to be informed that the helmet is provided as protection, not as a weapon:

===

"If I get a chance to knock somebody out, I'm going to knock them out and take what they give me," Crowder said Wednesday. "They give me a helmet, I'm going to use it."

===

The problem with what's happening, IMHO at least, is that they're going beyond enforcement against flagrant penalties. A perfect example is when Reggie Bush got blown up by Sheldon Brown.

It was a violent but legal hit but in today's NFL, it might draw a flag and if it did, that would be horses**t. It's not that I tune in to see guys get nailed but the nature of the game itself is that occasionally they DO get nailed. What's next, Michelin Man pads for everyone?

And all this about defenseless players? They're ALL defenseless if they're not looking at the guy in front of them. Will they start penalizing defenders for drilling QBs on full speed unblocked blitzes from the blind side? If anybody's defenseless, it's a QB focused on looking downfield.

Bottom line: protect the players from flagrant head shots; DON'T make it the National Pansy League (which they're close to already with the QBs).

P.S. Found during my image search...for the Eagles fan who has everything:

[AJM]

http://deadspin.com/5669697/what-if-potential-concussion-victims-dont-want-the-nfl-to-crack-down

I read this article and it only strengthened my position on the whole head shot discussion...if players start aiming lower, how many players' careers will be ended or cut short due to knee/leg injuries from big hits (that by comparison don't look as bad as head shots on tv)? Granted, I'd personally rather have a career ending leg injury than potentially being paralyzed.

Great debate by former players here: http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/news/story?id=5701512

[STL FANATIC]

From reading the rule book, a defenseless player only comes into play with a hit to the head or neck area or BY the helmet or facemask to ANY area. Really, both of those things are illegal anyways, so the defenseless player rule is just a clarification on a broader rule.

They're not changing rules or turning the league soft. They're just beginning to realize they made very good rules a long time ago and need to enforce them before somebody gets killed (unfortunately, with the CTE, it's probably too late, but before anything worse happens).

[The_Admiral]

Malcolm Gladwell is kind of a posturing lightweight and not really an authority on much of anything, but he recently said something to the effect of "middle class families won't let their kids play football anymore" in light of the research done on head trauma, and I think that's very likely. He compared it to the Army as well, if I'm not mistaken. So a generation or two from now, now more than it already is, football will be the province of the poor looking for their only way out and creepy southern families who treat it as some sort of legacy (big Army parallel here). Parents won't allow kids with decent prospects and supportive families to mortgage their futures on a game that causes copious brain damage.

[Gothamite]

You could be right.

I sure as hell won't ever let my sons play football. Not the way it's played now. Soccer, rugby, other rough sports I'd be okay with. But football? Never. Not at any level.

[The_Admiral]

If I have a son one day, he'll never play football. I won't allow it, and he won't even have the genetics for it anyway. I hope nobody gets CTE from playing chess.

[BlueSky]

Malcolm Gladwell is kind of a posturing lightweight and not really an authority on much of anything, but he recently said something to the effect of "middle class families won't let their kids play football anymore" in light of the research done on head trauma, and I think that's very likely. He compared it to the Army as well, if I'm not mistaken. So a generation or two from now, now more than it already is, football will be the province of the poor looking for their only way out and creepy southern families who treat it as some sort of legacy (big Army parallel here). Parents won't allow kids with decent prospects and supportive families to mortgage their futures on a game that causes copious brain damage.

WTF? What's your problem with the Army? Are you really so ignorant as to think the only people in the military just don't have other options? Wow, yeah, like that author, Dartmouth grad, and former Marine officer Nathaniel Fick. Or Pat Tillman. Or Medal of Honor winners Randy Shughart and Gary Gordon. What a bunch of losers.

Back on topic, before we strike football from American society, can we at least see some numbers on how many play the game with no ill effects whatsoever vs. those who suffer long-term injuries? Take a look at a few fatality traffic accidents and you'd probably think parents would never allow their little angels to drive. Well, driving is a lot more dangerous than football and just about every kid over 17 has a license.

[STL FANATIC]

[back on topic, before we strike football from American society, can we at least see some numbers on how many play the game with no ill effects whatsoever vs. those who suffer long-term injuries? Take a look at a few fatality traffic accidents and you'd probably think parents would never allow their little angels to drive. Well, driving is a lot more dangerous than football and just about every kid over 17 has a license.

Thing is we don't know how dangerous football is. We're finding out it's a lot more dangerous than the 1 in 10,000 (making that up completely) chance you get paralyzed on a play. And it's only getting more dangerous the way it's played right now.

Count me in the group that won't let my kids play football as the sport stands now (if I ever have kids that is).

[Gothamite]

Back on topic, before we strike football from American society, can we at least see some numbers on how many play the game with no ill effects whatsoever vs. those who suffer long-term injuries? Take a look at a few fatality traffic accidents and you'd probably think parents would never allow their little angels to drive. Well, driving is a lot more dangerous than football and just about every kid over 17 has a license.

Pro Football players have early-onset dementia rates up to nineteen times that of the general population. Let's not pretend that CTE isn't real, and isn't a serious problem.

[BlueSky]

Back on topic, before we strike football from American society, can we at least see some numbers on how many play the game with no ill effects whatsoever vs. those who suffer long-term injuries? Take a look at a few fatality traffic accidents and you'd probably think parents would never allow their little angels to drive. Well, driving is a lot more dangerous than football and just about every kid over 17 has a license.

Pro Football players have dementia rates eight times that of the general population. Let's not pretend that CTE isn't a serious problem.

Nobody's pretending anything. That's good data if it's accurate, and that's my point, let's base our actions on facts. You guys just sound a little kneejerk is all, and I guarantee some member of the indignant "my child will never play football crowd" is letting their kid ride a bike or skate without a helmet or not wear a seatbelt, both of which are gigantic risks.

So why don't you guys protest this horrific situation by refusing to watch any more football? Aren't you part of the problem, like people who go to dogfights?

ETA - sorry, quoted you before your edit.

[The_Admiral]

WTF? What's your problem with the Army? Are you really so ignorant as to think the only people in the military just don't have other options?

Are you so naive as to think that military recruiters don't prey on people whose options are limited? There are demographic shifts going on there since Vietnam and it's silly to pretend it's not happening. Most people who don't have to serve in the military won't. That's fine. The people who choose to want to. I don't think I was wrong in drawing a parallel between the creepy southern families where you play football for Inordinately Important Small-Town High School because that's what your dad did and his dad did, and the creepy southern families where you join the Army because . . .

I can't believe you're comparing riding a bicycle to confirmed repetitive subconcussive head trauma.