Bucs Cannot Wear Throwback Due to Safety Issue

[Lee.]

That's the spirit. While we're at it we might as well go back to leather helmets and screws for cleats.

[Kevin W.]

Very lame. Typical big corporation mish mash of blah blah blah to save their butt in a one in a million chance someone gets injured. Growing so tired of the NFL and their over regulation.

One in a million? Yeah, that's not even close to correct.

[BlueSky]

Very lame. Typical big corporation mish mash of blah blah blah to save their butt in a one in a million chance someone gets injured. Growing so tired of the NFL and their over regulation.

One in a million? Yeah, that's not even close to correct.

I think he means in terms of the chances of an injury resulting directly from wearing a different helmet. I don't really get it if the helmets are identical except for paint job and decals. I suppose the padding and such gets broken in something like a pair of shoes but still...

[guest23]

The NFL could care less about player safety. These rules are being put in place under the guise of player safety so they won't face lawsuits/settlements. They can say "we penalize, we protect, etc." I mean everyone knows the risks associated with the sport and nobody has trouble accepting money for a jersey for $300, buying a ticket for $250, selling a highlight DVD of big hits, and the players don't have a problem cashing their paycheck for 7 figures knowing the risks. Do you really think football will exist in the next decade at all or will it be a shell of itself?

The lawsuits / settlements are a direct result of a lack of concern for player safety. Therefore, instituting measures to avoid those lawsuits directly correlates to an increase in concern for player safety.

Whether the increased safety is born out of a genuine concern for the players, or merely a concern of possible lawsuits is completely 100% irrelevant.

The end result is all that matters. And if the end result is fewer brain damaged players living with dementia or killing themselves, then it's a good decision. Of course only time will tell if this move actually had any impact, but the intent is what matters on day one.

I don't know what planet you live on but there is Zero Correlation that measures taken to avoid lawsuits will lead to an increase in player safety. As many others have stated the new policy in its entirety is a Failure Of Logic as there are numerous scenarios and examples in practice where players will continue to use more than one helmet in a year.

The "if" portion of safety being increased due to this rule is not even close to be direct causation nor could you even loosely correlate the two for the numerous reasons already stated.

This is a token gesture based on legal self interest and nothing more as the rule is not rooted in any quantitative or scientific approach.

[queso fundido]

The Falcons might not be able to do the red helmets but they still can throw back to this look.

It would make this Falcons fan very happy.

[Cosmic]

The NFL could care less about player safety. These rules are being put in place under the guise of player safety so they won't face lawsuits/settlements. They can say "we penalize, we protect, etc." I mean everyone knows the risks associated with the sport and nobody has trouble accepting money for a jersey for $300, buying a ticket for $250, selling a highlight DVD of big hits, and the players don't have a problem cashing their paycheck for 7 figures knowing the risks. Do you really think football will exist in the next decade at all or will it be a shell of itself?

The lawsuits / settlements are a direct result of a lack of concern for player safety. Therefore, instituting measures to avoid those lawsuits directly correlates to an increase in concern for player safety.

Whether the increased safety is born out of a genuine concern for the players, or merely a concern of possible lawsuits is completely 100% irrelevant.

100% irrelevant? I don't think so. Just speaking generally, if you care about a problem, you will try your darndest to fix it. If you are trying to avoid lawsuits, you will limit your "legal exposure". They're not always the same thing.

I believe that if the NFL was serious about player safety, they would be funding studies on "wacky" things like getting rid of helmets. Instead, they seem like they want to keep the status quo as much as possible.

[Gothamite]

they seem like they want to keep the status quo as much as possible.

Of course they are do - just read all the hysterical overreaction, on this thread and elsewhere, to this very minor step. We hear about dresses, and feminization, so many wailing for the lost manhood of the game. What do you think would happen if the NFL proposed truly radical measures to improve player safety?

Wanting to take conservative steps towards a resolution is not the same as not wanting to get there.

Do I wish that they would just jump ahead to the inevitable and ban polycarbonate helmets? Of course. But that's not a realistic hope, since I personally don't make up enough of a consumer base to dictate policy, and the vast majority of fans give no clear indication of giving a damn for player safety.

Small steps are the best we can hope for from a large corporation wanting to improve its process in the face of a customer base devoutly (and loudly) opposed to any such changes.

[mavhusker]

Just curious, but shouldn't Trent Richardson NOT be allowed to play on Sunday, then? I'm sure he didn't bring his Browns helmet to Indy and have the equipment staff paint it white. If it's a risk for player's to not change helmets for one week, then his 2 days of practice wouldn't be enough time to mold his new helmet properly.

[Gothamite]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is more about trying to fit, break in and maintain two sets of helmets for an entire team. The equipment staff would have a much easier time taking care of a handful of players, if that is truly the issue.

[shaydre1019]

I'm sure some of you have read the story that uniwatch just posted As a follow up. But for those of you that haven't, he interviewed an nfl equipment manager (I assume the giants) and basically what the problem is is that some players wear older models that are no longer being manufactured and that the team has little to none left in stock. So the problem is that the nfl doesn't want THESE players switching to an entirely different helmet model just for a game. Which actually makes a lot more sense.

He said that basically all modern helmets dont need breaking in anymore, it was more common 5-10 years ago.

[shaydre1019]

I'm sure some of you have read the story that uniwatch just posted As a follow up. But for those of you that haven't, he interviewed an nfl equipment manager (I assume the giants) and basically what the problem is is that some players wear older models that are no longer being manufactured and that the team has little to none left in stock. So the problem is that the nfl doesn't want THESE players switching to an entirely different helmet model just for a game. Which actually makes a lot more sense.

He said that basically all modern helmets dont need breaking in anymore, it was more common 5-10 years ago.

[themightyspitz]

Just curious, but shouldn't Trent Richardson NOT be allowed to play on Sunday, then? I'm sure he didn't bring his Browns helmet to Indy and have the equipment staff paint it white. If it's a risk for player's to not change helmets for one week, then his 2 days of practice wouldn't be enough time to mold his new helmet properly.

Nah, he'll just be sporting this come Sunday:

Actually, the more I look at it, this could be a decent Broncos concept...

[jc...]

Hash tag Clevejacked

[tubby34]

Vinyl heat shrink wrap would work, and of the team does it right they won't come off easily.

Those that suggest spray bombing a helmet, the issue with that is the paint weakens the plastic shell and can make it even more dangerous. It needs to be painted right or not at all. Multiple coats of paint won't be much safer and if it chips it looks like crap.

Automotive vinyl wraps that are used to make cars a matte black or matte white would be perfect. With it being heat shrinked onto the helmet it wouldn't come off. A massive collision that would result in a concussion anyway are what it would take to have it scratch.

And if only a handful of players need that, according to uniwatchs follow up, where's the true danger.

[Cosmic]

they seem like they want to keep the status quo as much as possible.

Of course they are do - just read all the hysterical overreaction, on this thread and elsewhere, to this very minor step. We hear about dresses, and feminization, so many wailing for the lost manhood of the game. What do you think would happen if the NFL proposed truly radical measures to improve player safety?

Wanting to take conservative steps towards a resolution is not the same as not wanting to get there.

Do I wish that they would just jump ahead to the inevitable and ban polycarbonate helmets? Of course. But that's not a realistic hope, since I personally don't make up enough of a consumer base to dictate policy, and the vast majority of fans give no clear indication of giving a damn for player safety.

Small steps are the best we can hope for from a large corporation wanting to improve its process in the face of a customer base devoutly (and loudly) opposed to any such changes.

If they wanted to ease into radical changes, they could at least be funding research into things like no helmets. People wouldn't care. How many people knew anything about this Head, Neck, and Spine (is that it?) committee that the NFL has set up?

[Gothamite]

I knew about it. Anybody who reads the New York Times knows about it.

But the fans in general don't care about player safety, only preserving the game exactly as it is today. That's an awfully fine line for the league to walk, which I have to keep reminding myself.

[Cosmic]

I knew about it. Anybody who reads the New York Times knows about it.

But the fans in general don't care about player safety, only preserving the game exactly as it is today. That's an awfully fine line for the league to walk, which I have to keep reminding myself.

I assumed that some type of group such as that existed, but I haven't been following their every move. I don't know what the coverage in the Times has been like. Fans wouldn't care until it seemed like it was actually going to affect the game.

[Gothamite]

If you care about the sport, you should consider reading the Times every now and again - the coverage is really quite excellent. Don't have to follow their every move.

[FiddySicks]

Will Trent Richardson be wearing a Browns helmet in Indy?

POTD.

[CS85]

Will Trent Richardson be wearing a Browns helmet in Indy?

POTD.

Nah, just a very legit question. The answer to which is: