Bucs Cannot Wear Throwback Due to Safety Issue

[Still MIGHTY]

If the NFL was to actually be taken at its word, it's a legitimate question without a legitimate answer. Now of course Richardson will have a new Colts helmet. But if team's aren't allowed to have throwback helmets because of the reasons the NFL has put forth, then in a technical sense, the same would apply in Richardson's Browns/Colts transition.

And honestly, having played football, how hard is it to break in a helmet? Obviously, I didn't play at an NFL or college level, but I also don't remember it being all that difficult to break in a helmet to fit on your head safely.

[BlueSky]

I asked someone who knows more about helmets than most of us ever will why they can't just repaint the helmets between games. He said it's not that simple, that when helmets go in for painting there's also reconditioning and stress-testing that has to be done. It's not feasible for the team to do it so the helmets go back to the manufacturer. Obviously that wouldn't be possible between games.

@ Goth...yeah, never mind.

[John in KY]

I asked someone who knows more about helmets than most of us ever will why they can't just repaint the helmets between games. He said it's not that simple, that when helmets go in for painting there's also reconditioning and stress-testing that has to be done. It's not feasible for the team to do it so the helmets go back to the manufacturer. Obviously that wouldn't be possible between games.

@ Goth...yeah, never mind.

That was also in Lucas' interview with the "equipment guy" - besides the reconditioning aspect there was the paint itself. Modern finishes need 4-5 days to completely "set"/harden, meaning a repainted helmet sent out Sunday night wouldn't be ready for Wednesday practice. That also leads me to believe that "equipment guy" was his contact with the Giants since they use that chrome finish on their helmets.

It does seem like the real issue is the guys who are wearing long-discontinued helmets - anyone still wearing a Riddell VSR-4 (like Brady - it's even worse with him because he likes the earliest version of the VSR-4 because he thinks the padding is "softer") or someone wearing an old Schutt Air Advantage (does anyone in the NFL still use the old Pro Air II?).

[BBTV]

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.

Not true. Lawsuits happen because things that could have been prevented weren't. Even if the company doesn't care about the people that slip and fall in their stores, they don't want to get sued, so they put the "caution wet floor" signs up. People see those, and (most of them, anyway) don't slip, fall, and sue the store. Therefore, a measure that was taken to avoid a lawsuit is directly correlated with people's safety.

If some panel suggests that there may be a correlation between playing in unbroken in helmets and concussions, and the league ignores it, then someone who gets a head injury while wearing a throwback helmet could easily have a case by stating that the league was told that it could be an issue but ignored the recommendation. So, the league, not wanting to have that lawsuit on their hands, bans throwback helmets.

Is there a direct correlation between new helmets and brain injuries? Maybe yes, maybe no.

If the league does nothing, can someone get a brain injury by wearing a new helmet? Maybe yes, maybe no.

If the league bans the throwback helmets, can someone get a brain injury that can be blamed on a new helmet? Definitely No.

Nobody has all the answers to the questions when it comes to brain injuries and football, but if you can cross off as many "maybes" as you can, eventually you'll be left with a lot of "no" answers. Eventually when the answer to every question is "no", then the players brains will be safe.*

*of course that time will never come, but anything that gets us closer to it is fine with me.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

There's no helmet that can eliminate brain injuries, because concussions (and sub-concussive impacts) occur within the skull, when the brain sloshes around and impacts the inside of the skull.

What helmets can prevent is skull fracture, by cushioning the the head. But, as Dave Zirin and others have pointed out, this skull protection can actually work against protecting the brain, because it can prevent those external head injuries which might serve as indicators of possible brain injuries, thereby leading players not to sit out when they should.

[Gothamite]

Which is exactly why helmets should be minimized or eliminated altogether.

[CS85]

Which is exactly why helmets should be minimized or eliminated altogether.

This will not happen. There's gotta be a huge sample size of this happening and having data collected before the NFL even considers it. This is where the XFL would've fit in nicely.

[Gothamite]

The XFL? They'd only have been interested in causing more injuries, so long as the league could get them on camera.

I know, it'll take a long time to get there. But I've been saying for years that's where I see the NFL ending up.

[TalktoChuck]

The XFL? They'd only have been interested in causing more injuries, so long as the league could get them on camera.

I know, it'll take a long time to get there. But I've been saying for years that's where I see the NFL ending up.

A football league that uses less padding and no helmet would be perfect to brand and market as "Xtreme" while secretly trying to make the game safer.

[Gothamite]

Maybe until somebody actually watches the game, which wouldn't have any of the huge knock-down hits that McMahon claimed the NFL was lacking.

An NFL without helmets would rely less on bulk and brute force and more on things like solid tackling fundamentals. No bone-crunching collisions, no three-point stances. What I'd characterize as the opposite of "XTREME!!!"

[Kevin W.]

It's the same problem in hockey and football. When you put the players in suits of armor, you not only put more force behind every hit because there's more weight, you also encourage them to hit harder because they feel it's safer when it actually isn't.

Lessen the amount of padding and teach them how to hit safely. In fact, I'd be entirely supportive of getting rid of helmets entirely in football, but not in hockey for obvious reasons.

[perfesser]

Helmets and their logos are such an important part of teams' identities that it's hard to see them disappearing, just on that basis. Assuming they are here to stay, what should their purpose be? Protecting against hits from other helmets? Protecting the head from contact with the ground? The board has debated some potential rules changes that would minimize the need for helmets such as requiring defenders to extend their arms when tackling or eliminating the three-point stance. Does anyone have any new ideas along those lines?

[AndrewPF]

Guess this means the Patriots wont be donning Pat Patriot any time soon either.

That is the best thing about the issue....I hate Patriot Pat!

You probably just hate the Patriots in general.

[Gothamite]

Helmets and their logos are such an important part of teams' identities that it's hard to see them disappearing, just on that basis. Assuming they are here to stay, what should their purpose be? Protecting against hits from other helmets? Protecting the head from contact with the ground? The board has debated some potential rules changes that would minimize the need for helmets such as requiring defenders to extend their arms when tackling or eliminating the three-point stance. Does anyone have any new ideas along those lines?

Helmets could continue to act as a protective measure, like thigh pads. They just wouldn't be solid enough for anybody to consider leading with his head, in my world.

Prohibiting three-point stances is a very good idea. Easy to implement, would end a significant amount of hits.

I'd also like to see them consider pulling back on the "down by contact" rule. I think case can be made that a defender should have to ride an offensive player all the way to the dirt. That would encourage real tackling and eliminate the bumper car, hit-''em-and-watch-them-fall-down nonsense that passes for tackling today.

[perfesser]

I was just reading Under Armour's explanations of their new fabric in the college football thread. They claim their non-stretch, rip-stop fabric makes it impossible to get hold of a player's jersey. But does this make players safer? Yes, I know holding is generally against the rules but we all know it happens on every play. Receivers will like it and linemen will too, as long as it's the other guy trying to grab them. But it seems like allowing players to move at top speed at all times makes for bigger and more frequent hits.

[BigShoop]

Why not let them break them in during practice? Seems logical to me. That's what hockey goalies do with their pads.

It's also what the Bucs have done in previous years.

This whole thing is stupid. NoFunLeague

[nash61]

Will Trent Richardson be wearing a Browns helmet in Indy?

POTD.

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

^ THAT is worthy of POTD nom.

[JackieMoon]

Didnt the Bears wear their throwback helmets this past weekend? What is the difference???

[Joshawaggie]

Didnt the Bears wear their throwback helmets this past weekend? What is the difference???

It was their regular helmets with the decals taken off.

[oldschoolvikings]

Didnt the Bears wear their throwback helmets this past weekend? What is the difference???

I think we've covered this a few times... the Bears just removed the decals from the regular helmet and switched out the facemask. They don't have a throwback helmet.