Other Concussions and Player Safety Issues

[ERead]

Hey guys,

I thought I'd start a thread about the big talking point in the NFL at the moment - that of player concussions. We have had star players sitting out games recently due to the lingering effects of concussion, so it is a big deal.

You guys have probably read heaps on this already, so I won't post a bunch of links here. Go to any American news outlet.

Now, apparently, they are thinking about introducing rules for running backs to stop the head clashes: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/sports/football/04hits.html.

I doubt the data would exist, but I do wonder if the move to hard helmets and hard pads is increasing the prevalence of head injuries in the sport.

I also wonder why they haven't made a helmet (even one that is destroyed if hit too hard) that is more concussion proof. I had thought that was the idea of the Revolution helmets.

Any thoughts?

 

[Burningleviathan]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

Telling RBs they can't lower their heads would lead to some interesting results. Would pretty much get rid of the Power Back RB wouldn't it?

It would be interestin g to compare the concussions in the AFL to the NFL as we have pretty much heard nothing over here in regards to long term affects of repeat concussions. We seem to get them a bit as well.

I wonder how much of this based on th fear of post playing day issues which has been raised over the past few years. How much of that is based in reality and how much is more of a "possible link".

Concussions will occur regardless of rules changes. It's an impact sport with a lot of bodies in a small area. The NFL do have to look after thier players welfare though. If there is a good link between concussions and serious long term healtrh afftects then it owes a duty of care to make sure the possible affects are limited.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

There was an article last year or two showcasing new concussion proof helmets, they looked overly space-age and weird, but hopefully the NFL looks into THIS as a way to minimize concussions rather than bringing in more soft rules.

For ****s sake!

 

[DB10]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

They should probably look into a different helmet design and go to something more similar to a Formula 1 helmet. Those things are so strong yet so light, and are not made from plastic - they're made with a carbon fibre shell, kevlar and polyethylene (to resist penetration). They are put through the most rigurous testing by the FIA to ensure driver safety. Felipe Massa would have likely died had he been driving in another era as his helmet protected him when being hit in the head by a spring traveling at something like 300k/ph.

I realise that that is probably going to be ridiculously expensive, and fitting 53 players in the NFL would not come cheap. How they'd get it down to high school level would be a major challenge - concussions happen there too, right?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

Here is the thread from a couple years ago about a future helmet...
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=415163&highlight=helmet

Here is the article at the time...
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/080214

And some pictures of a couple different designs...

 

[MarcusP2]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

I think the main reason the helmets aren't widely used are because the players don't like them/aren't used to them. Warner said he used one in practice last week and hated it. I would think they would have to be mandated to become standard.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

Better they get used to it than have the game get softer.
What do they want? $10m a year contracts and a soft game?

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

Hey guys,

I thought I'd start a thread about the big talking point in the NFL at the moment - that of player concussions. We have had star players sitting out games recently due to the lingering effects of concussion, so it is a big deal.

...

I doubt the data would exist, but I do wonder if the move to hard helmets and hard pads is increasing the prevalence of head injuries in the sport.

I also wonder why they haven't made a helmet (even one that is destroyed if hit too hard) that is more concussion proof. I had thought that was the idea of the Revolution helmets.

Any thoughts?

Hey ER, good thread ('though the topic has been touched on elsewhere on the board from time to time, it is worth a standalone discussion I reckon).

The most high profile recent article (which seems to have widened the coverage of concussion beyond traditional sports media) was a feature length article by Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker magazine back in October (see http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell I think you may need to be a subscriber though, if you can't access it let me know and I'll find a public version).

Once you read past the hype comments about dogfighting, the article actually has some amazing photos of player hits, and also references some preliminary medical studies into the issue.

A number of the studies seem to involve using sensors to measure G force impacts of different contacts, helmets and playing positions, or medical scanning to assess brain structure changes. Not a surprise that most of the initial work focused on the massive high G force hits, and how to reduce or prevent them (things like helmet design, rule adjustments, or different neck padding systems).

But, at least for me, the most fascinating (and scary) part was the stats on the cumulative impact of the repetitive low intensity hits (which are almost all incurred in practice, warm ups and low intensity blocks away from the main play). Apologies for the long quotes, and if it has been posted on the forum before I'm sorry...

“The first concussion was during preseason. The team was doing two-a-days,” he said, referring to the habit of practicing in both the morning and the evening in the preseason. “It was August 9th, 9:55 A.M. He has an 80-g hit to the front of his head. About ten minutes later, he has a 98-g acceleration to the front of his head.” To put those numbers in perspective, Guskiewicz explained, if you drove your car into a wall at twenty-five miles per hour and you weren’t wearing your seat belt, the force of your head hitting the windshield would be around 100 gs: in effect, the player had two car accidents that morning. He survived both without incident. “In the evening session, he experiences this 64-g hit to the same spot, the front of the head. Still not reporting anything. And then this happens.” On his laptop, Guskiewicz ran the video from the practice session. It was a simple drill: the lineman squaring off against an offensive player who wore the number 76. The other player ran toward the lineman and brushed past him, while delivering a glancing blow to the defender’s helmet. “Seventy-six does a little quick elbow. It’s 63 gs, the lowest of the four, but he sustains a concussion.”...

"...what sidelined the U.N.C. player, the first time around, was an accidental and seemingly innocuous elbow, and none of the blows he suffered that day would have been flagged by a referee as illegal. Most important, though, is what Guskiewicz found when he reviewed all the data for the lineman on that first day in training camp. He didn’t just suffer those four big blows. He was hit in the head thirty-one times that day. What seems to have caused his concussion, in other words, was his cumulative exposure.
​

and most amazingly​

"The HITS data suggest that, in an average football season, a lineman could get struck in the head a thousand times, which means that a ten-year N.F.L. veteran, when you bring in his college and high-school playing days, could well have been hit in the head eighteen thousand times: that’s thousands of jarring blows that shake the brain from front to back and side to side, stretching and weakening and tearing the connections among nerve cells, and making the brain increasingly vulnerable to long-term damage."​

​

​

Telling RBs they can't lower their heads would lead to some interesting results. Would pretty much get rid of the Power Back RB wouldn't it?

It would be interestin g to compare the concussions in the AFL to the NFL as we have pretty much heard nothing over here in regards to long term affects of repeat concussions. We seem to get them a bit as well.

I wonder how much of this based on th fear of post playing day issues which has been raised over the past few years. How much of that is based in reality and how much is more of a "possible link".

Concussions will occur regardless of rules changes. It's an impact sport with a lot of bodies in a small area. The NFL do have to look after thier players welfare though. If there is a good link between concussions and serious long term healtrh afftects then it owes a duty of care to make sure the possible affects are limited.

Good call - I think knee injuries and OP have had a lot of focus from the medicos in the AFL, but personally I'm getting just as concerned about the potential for serious cumulative damage at junior levels. I think rugby union may have done some work in the area, but I don't have a link...

Here is the thread from a couple years ago about a future helmet...
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=415163&highlight=helmet

Here is the article at the time...
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=lukas/080214

And some pictures of a couple different designs...

Thanks GG. Great read. For info, the New Yorker article had a quote on the helmet design changes as a solution:

“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?”​

BpG. ​

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

I emailed and spoke on the phone once to a head honcho in the NRL, can't remember his name, but he was in the NRL rules committee. Anyway, I told him (a few years ago) the NRL should endeavor towards standardizing helmet use to prevent concussions and other head/facial injuries, like the NFL had broken ground on literally 50 years before. How far behind NRL is etc. And he laughed at me, and mocked me, called me an idiot etc.

I gave him examples of Horse Racing, F1, Ice Hockey, Cricket, etc, many sports out there moving with the times to provide safety measures for head injuries, as they are the most serious injury possible. He still laughed and mocked.

 

[Woodson]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

I emailed and spoke on the phone once to a head honcho in the NRL, can't remember his name, but he was in the NRL rules committee. Anyway, I told him (a few years ago) the NRL should endeavor towards standardizing helmet use to prevent concussions and other head/facial injuries, like the NFL had broken ground on literally 50 years before. How far behind NRL is etc. And he laughed at me, and mocked me, called me an idiot etc.

I gave him examples of Horse Racing, F1, Ice Hockey, Cricket, etc, many sports out there moving with the times to provide safety measures for head injuries, as they are the most serious injury possible. He still laughed and mocked.

Collision sports are forever going to be in situation that a likely spinal injury will turn the 'rules of the game' on it's head. (pardon the pun). The NRL have addressed the spear tackles in recent times with more heavier suspensions so I can see why that NRL rules committee guy disliked your idea GG.. still should of been educated enough to give you a better response but that's just the 'pigheaded arrogance' in him to belittle you without justified reason.. there are plenty of his type that aren't worth the time to bother in extracting meaningful discussions... they'll get their karma coming to them one way or another.

As for the NFL... common sense has to prevail. A hard hit can knock some harder down for the count than others so it's not whether the helmet is sturdy but the situation in question. The NFL have made helmet to helmet contact in an intentional situation an illegal practice with HEAVY fines issued but I keep wondering what the difference between 'Goal line Collisions' and the standard accidental helmet to helmet collision that can't possibly be graded with the same degree of danger?

I don't have issues if the NFL puts a mandate 1-3 week concussion ban on playing after a heavy collision that leaves them immediately concussed as opposed to 'dazed' but they need to draw the line of such a situtation. Dazed as in coming off for a play or two.. I remember Terrell Davis of the Broncos back in the day who was up with the fairies... was put in as a decoy
after being concussed, rested a few plays and put back on. Will the NFL tolerate such situations? is the burning question that needs to be asked.

 

[footylover18]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

I agree with GG. Rules changes should be kept to a minimal. The helmet to helmet rule is a good one, but if they try to include too many new rules then you will lose some of the intensity that makes the NFL compelling to watch. Besides, a number of the concussions that have happened this year have been from collisions that no rule could prevent, an example is the knee to the helmet hit.

There should certainly be a rule that if you have suffered a concussion then you can not re-enter the game. The next step is definately improved technology in the helmets. Concussions will always occur, the worrying thing is that the rate of concussions seems to be rising, they will continue to rise as players continue to not only get bigger but also faster resulting in harder hits.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

I emailed and spoke on the phone once to a head honcho in the NRL, can't remember his name, but he was in the NRL rules committee. Anyway, I told him (a few years ago) the NRL should endeavor towards standardizing helmet use to prevent concussions and other head/facial injuries, like the NFL had broken ground on literally 50 years before. How far behind NRL is etc. And he laughed at me, and mocked me, called me an idiot etc.

I gave him examples of Horse Racing, F1, Ice Hockey, Cricket, etc, many sports out there moving with the times to provide safety measures for head injuries, as they are the most serious injury possible. He still laughed and mocked.

Collision sports are forever going to be in situation that a likely spinal injury will turn the 'rules of the game' on it's head. (pardon the pun). The NRL have addressed the spear tackles in recent times with more heavier suspensions so I can see why that NRL rules committee guy disliked your idea GG.. still should of been educated enough to give you a better response but that's just the 'pigheaded arrogance' in him to belittle you without justified reason.. there are plenty of his type that aren't worth the time to bother in extracting meaningful discussions... they'll get their karma coming to them one way or another.

As for the NFL... common sense has to prevail. A hard hit can knock some harder down for the count than others so it's not whether the helmet is sturdy but the situation in question. The NFL have made helmet to helmet contact in an intentional situation an illegal practice with HEAVY fines issued but I keep wondering what the difference between 'Goal line Collisions' and the standard accidental helmet to helmet collision that can't possibly be graded with the same degree of danger?

I don't have issues if the NFL puts a mandate 1-3 week concussion ban on playing after a heavy collision that leaves them immediately concussed as opposed to 'dazed' but they need to draw the line of such a situtation. Dazed as in coming off for a play or two.. I remember Terrell Davis of the Broncos back in the day who was up with the fairies... was put in as a decoy
after being concussed, rested a few plays and put back on. Will the NFL tolerate such situations? is the burning question that needs to be asked.

I agree with GG. Rules changes should be kept to a minimal. The helmet to helmet rule is a good one, but if they try to include too many new rules then you will lose some of the intensity that makes the NFL compelling to watch. Besides, a number of the concussions that have happened this year have been from collisions that no rule could prevent, an example is the knee to the helmet hit.

There should certainly be a rule that if you have suffered a concussion then you can not re-enter the game. The next step is definately improved technology in the helmets. [/quote]

Helmet design will do very little to help. The rule change you suggest may make a little difference, but fundamentally the problem is the 18,000 hits over a career - so sadly the only real solution is to reduce the number of hits, which means curtailing a player's career to 7,00 hits or less, which could mean that a Steven Jackson finishes his career at 3rd year uni.

This will never happen, wil it? SO maybe the only other silution is that all of us NFL maniacs should contribute (at a rate of 10 cents a day per season coverage??) to a fund that supports the detailed, extensive and ongoing care of former gridiron players (note: this should include college players as well as NFL, USFL or AFL players...). If we love this game so much (which I certainly do!!), shouldn't we be prepared to fund the costs of keeping past players in a decent standard of living?? Includin preventative medical treatment??

Concussions will always occur, the worrying thing is that the rate of concussions seems to be rising, they will continue to rise as players continue to not only get bigger but also faster resulting in harder hits.[/

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

This will never happen, wil it? SO maybe the only other silution is that all of us NFL maniacs should contribute (at a rate of 10 cents a day per season coverage??) to a fund that supports the detailed, extensive and ongoing care of former gridiron players (note: this should include college players as well as NFL, USFL or AFL players...). If we love this game so much (which I certainly do!!), shouldn't we be prepared to fund the costs of keeping past players in a decent standard of living?? Includin preventative medical treatment??

Im reasonably sure that us fans already contribute enough, without needing to dip in for a fund for players that earn more in a season than i will in the vast majority of my career.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

Im reasonably sure that us fans already contribute enough, without needing to dip in for a fund for players that earn more in a season than i will in the vast majority of my career.

STKO thanks for this - helped me to realise I should have explained what I meant a bit better.

I have no intention of suggesting a "fan fund" for today's era of players (the likes of JaMarcus, TO, Crabtree or either of the Mannings, for example). What I'm talking about is a small (less than 1%) contribution off every ticket to fund help for players who played from the 40s to the early 80s.

By the way, can you name me the Oline or the Dline for the Iggles for seasons 77 to 81? Or tell me what they are doing today??

Go ahead, have a go...

FWIW, more than 50% of that cohort (which would surely rank as the second best era of Iggles success ever) is on either unemployment or incarceration benefit at the moment.

So, if the great Iggles teams have players that are struggling, how are the Oline or Dline players of the more ordinary teams from that era doing?? And is it really much of an impost for us fans to pay an extra $2 per team jersey to fund some basic services for them??

Call me a commie - but I'd rather help out the Iggles Oline from 78/79 or the Miami Dline from 71/72 than pay anything towards the "hero" players of today...

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

It should come down to the NFL itself that sets up a retirement fund and illness/injury fund for vets and old-timers, like those pre-modern era guys who used to sweat blood and break bones for minimal pay.

There's enough money in the NFL itself to handle that. Could even make it NFL + the team itself contributes a percentage of annual profit towards that.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

It should come down to the NFL itself that sets up a retirement fund and illness/injury fund for vets and old-timers, like those pre-modern era guys who used to sweat blood and break bones for minimal pay.

There's enough money in the NFL itself to handle that. Could even make it NFL + the team itself contributes a percentage of annual profit towards that.

I'd generally agree with that logic, except that it is the same logic that Ford, GM and US Steel used to fund "compensation schemes". And of course, as soon as the economy starts to tank, today's employees take all of the funds preserved for earlier years employees. Hence my suggestion that a fan tax fund directly (and explicitly, to a fund independent of the NFL, current day teams or the NFLPA) some kind of scheme for the former players. $2 a jersey sounds like a lot to us when we pay hundreds for every genuine jersey imported to Australia. For fans in the US, if they paid that rate for the discount shirst, there'd be almost no difference to the retail price - and the old guys would at least have some funds to draw on...

Just my cynical commie idea...

But hey, maybe we could put the Abbott, the Bishop or the Kenneally in charge of the old players fraternity???

BpG

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

That's the same tho. Sales from merchandise and ticket sales all come from fans. Throw in corporate boxes, advertising, and tv rights, there's plenty of money there for the "franchise's" side of contribution.

I mean, all those things are part of a franchise's annual profit margins (fan generated stuff) so it's the same really just to have the NFL say "10% of all annual profit must be deposited into an annual fund." Then the NFL can contribute like 1% of all it's own revenue to each team's fund as well.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

That's the same tho. Sales from merchandise and ticket sales all come from fans. Throw in corporate boxes, advertising, and tv rights, there's plenty of money there for the "franchise's" side of contribution.

I mean, all those things are part of a franchise's annual profit margins (fan generated stuff) so it's the same really just to have the NFL say "10% of all annual profit must be deposited into an annual fund." Then the NFL can contribute like 1% of all it's own revenue to each team's fund as well.

Yeah, all that is fine, but like I said - do you really trust the NFL or its teams to actualluy preserve the fund over the long term, and genuinely look after former players from decades ago??

I mean, you are a Raiders fan - surely looking at Fat Al's complete failure to deliver on promises of support for the genuinely great Raiders players of the 60s 70s and 80s is more than enough evidence of the need for a fan funded independent scheme? (Note - for fan funded read 4% tax on owner profits, player salary and TV ad revenue - all of which goes to an INDEPENDENT, non-NFL, non-team body).

Go ahead, call me a commie.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

Well, the NFL (commish) represents the 32 owners. So there's validity to what you say. I guess that's what the Players Union is there for too. I guess the annual tax as you suggest makes it more watertight. Government basically.

But rather than call it "fan funded" I'd just say it as an annual tax on all owners and the NFL itself.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

STKO thanks for this - helped me to realise I should have explained what I meant a bit better.

I have no intention of suggesting a "fan fund" for today's era of players (the likes of JaMarcus, TO, Crabtree or either of the Mannings, for example). What I'm talking about is a small (less than 1%) contribution off every ticket to fund help for players who played from the 40s to the early 80s.

A commission on the tickets would really just fall back to where the responsibility should lie, with the NFL, which i think its entirely reasonable. The revenue for the game is more than enough that this could be taken care of, without a raise on the financial burdens shouldered by the fans, especially at a time when unemployment is above 10% in America.

By the way, can you name me the Oline or the Dline for the Iggles for seasons 77 to 81? Or tell me what they are doing today??

Go ahead, have a go...

FWIW, more than 50% of that cohort (which would surely rank as the second best era of Iggles success ever) is on either unemployment or incarceration benefit at the moment.

Certainly couldnt name the entire lines. Have a reasonable knowledge of the Superbowl team in 81. Know the standouts on D line for example like Claude Humphrey etc. Got to remember that it predates my birth somewhat.

Jaworski is certainly still employed.

So, if the great Iggles teams have players that are struggling, how are the Oline or Dline players of the more ordinary teams from that era doing?? And is it really much of an impost for us fans to pay an extra $2 per team jersey to fund some basic services for them??

Theres enough money in the sport for the burden for this to not fall back onto the fans.

For what its worth, i dont feel its reasonable to try and buck pass this. Responsibility lies with the league, and the individual employers within it, not with the fans.

Call me a commie - but I'd rather help out the Iggles Oline from 78/79 or the Miami Dline from 71/72 than pay anything towards the "hero" players of today...

Actually, i think the idea of passing the loss onto consumers is a very capitalist one.

I feel confident theres enough money in the sport already for this to be adequately addressed, without trying to levy more out of the fans.

 

[footylover18]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

Suggesting the fans cough up additional funds to pay for player health care plans after their retirement is silly. Where do people think all the money that's in the game comes from? Fans pay for tickets, pay for season tickets, corporate boxes, merchandise, drinks and food and the stadium, even by watching the games for free on the tv is leading to massive advertising revenue for the TV networks that pay the NFL huge sums of money for the exclusive rights to broadcast the games. There is billions and billions of dollars in the NFL, have you seen what the teams are going for these days? There is more money in the NFL than any other sport in America. There is plenty of money from where a retirement medical fund can be sourced from. It's up the players union to stand up to the owners and the NFL at the CBA agreement and demand that such a thing be set up. Simple really.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

This is why congress has been getting snappy with goodell. Cos he annually 'promises' to do something about it, but annually finds excuses.

 

[footylover18]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

In fact, in an interview with Stephen Dubner (author of Freakonomics), the NFL Players Union Executive George Atallah said that the main issues that the NFLPU plan to tackle over the next 12 months are "dealing with the health and safety issues of the game and N.F.L. players, negotiating a new C.B.A., and protecting and preparing our membership for a prospective lockout."

It appears it's certainly on their agenda.

 

[usalion]

Re: NFL concussion discussion

Very touchy issue- concussions are one of those things that need special care- it isn't as though you can take a pain killer and play on it with no risk of it getting worse....and the damage done can be debilitating in ways that are very sad to think about. The "suck it up and play" attitude just doesn't work here- sure, the Steeler players want to make the playoffs, but what will Big ben be doing in five years if he gets whacked again trying to play through his concussion? One would hope the steeler management would want him playing long term for them...not putting numbers up for five years and then being out of the game because his brains are totally scrambled.

You can talk about them setting up a fund all you want, but I'll guarantee you the owners will then turn around and stick it to the fans by raising ticket prices- to make up the extra cost they are putting into the fund. So the fans wILL end up paying one way ro another- and if you don't go to the game, the products you buy associated with the game will also rise in price because television rates will continue to grow.

A change in helmets and a change in rules may help- but it also might change the game in ways that haven't been thought of- teddy Roosevelt did it at the beginning of the last century because fo the deaths in football games....maybe we need that type of thing again?

and yes, injuries of thsi sort happen at college and high school level- nature of the beast- and these schools don't have the mega bucks to put out on the gear the NFL does.

 

[ERead]

Re: NFL Concussions

Would football be safer if the helmet was banned?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527881984299454.html

And if it was banned and the style of play was different, would it still be as good a game?

I would love to see the experiment where rules were changed and techniques were changed to allow for a no helmet environment (figuring that the number of head injuries would go down).

I can't help but think that most fans (and probably players) prefer the game as it is, but will football survive if the players (including high school and college players) keep getting permanently hurt?

There is heaps of evidence to suggest that there will be some big break throughs in helmet technology this year, which is encouraging.

http://newsroom.intel.com/community...ng-researchers-to-make-football-helmets-safer