Will Helmets make a comeback?

[Balony_pony16]

Interesting to see the focus on concussion in both the media and the new AFL rules, with players risking being subbed out of games after being "dazed", together with the new findings of brian injury (dementia etc...) associatated with hard contact sports...Will the helmet make a comeback?

I would imagine players like Joel selwood would strongly consider it should they begin to get subbed out on a frequent basis.

 

[PieNSauce]

Interesting to see the focus on concussion in both the media and the new AFL rules, with players risking being subbed out of games after being "dazed", together with the new findings of brian injury (dementia etc...) associatated with hard contact sports...Will the helmet make a comeback?

I would imagine players like Joel selwood would strongly consider it should they begin to get subbed out on a frequent basis.

Helmets are more likely to be totally banned than make a comeback. The evidence from the NFL is that helmets encourage the sort of play that can result in serious concussion. Pretty sure the AFL isn't going to allow that.

 

[WCE_phil]

Helmets are more likely to be totally banned than make a comeback. The evidence from the NFL is that helmets encourage the sort of play that can result in serious concussion. Pretty sure the AFL isn't going to allow that.

Maybe you should compare the helmets used in the afl and those used in the NFL. To the op yes i think they will. I also think they should be compulsary for 3 months after any major concussion and for 1 month after any minor one.

 

[Hanis]

The bigger the better!!!

 

[Shawt]

Maybe you should compare the helmets used in the afl and those used in the NFL. To the op yes i think they will. I also think they should be compulsary for 3 months after any major concussion and for 1 month after any minor one.

Helmets evolved into what you see now in the NFL, due to players taking more, and more risks with the "protection" they were given.

 

[krisholio14]

The bigger the better!!!

First thing I thought of

 

[PieNSauce]

Maybe you should compare the helmets used in the afl and those used in the NFL. To the op yes i think they will. I also think they should be compulsary for 3 months after any major concussion and for 1 month after any minor one.

I guess there may be a case for temporary use after a concussion but then that clearly just lends weight to the theory that players should have an enforced holiday rather than take to the field again. IMO giving a player any kind of head protection is likely to lead to less care in potential head on contact situations and I have a strong suspicion that the AFL will not be in a hurry to encourage it.

 

[Mitho]

Agree RE: Making players go in harder thinking they have more protection.

What I will say is that it wouldn't stop MOST concussions anyway. It may stop gashes opening up and slight concussions, but the concussion is caused when the brain gets bumped around and sloshed in the skull, therefore you can suffer a concussion simply from whiplash.
Even witha helmet, Selwood wouldn't have stood a snowflakes chance in hell of not being concussed.

 

[mollyfud]

I heard one of the leading AFL doctors (perhaps the Cats one) say that:
1) Helmets don't stop the head shaking (my turn not his) that causes concussion
2) (as was said above) wearing a helmet can make a player feel they are extra protected and encourage risky behaviors
3) Helmets could actually lead to more concussion as it increases the surface area of the head so could cause more contact that cause concussion.
4) Helmets are mainly good at stopping injuries caused by impact. Cuts and fractures.

HTH

 

[Balony_pony16]

Helmets are more likely to be totally banned than make a comeback. The evidence from the NFL is that helmets encourage the sort of play that can result in serious concussion. Pretty sure the AFL isn't going to allow that.

are you talking about the tactic players would use in going head first to use their hard helmets as a weapon in a tackle? That tactic is banned over there now. The soft helmets won't create that behaviour

 

[Balony_pony16]

I agree the selwood type concussion wouldn't be prevented by helmets...but incidents like Waites, and clark (who the media has questioned for going back on) would perhaps be prevent with helmets.

Selwoods was a knock out involving impact and most damaging the neck twisting/shaking...like a boxers KO.

Players will still get symptoms of a concussion with direct impacts...no different to that of people falling off bikes, or getting punched out wilst on the ground (ie no neck "shaking")

 

[Jaeger]

No.

Shaun Burgoyne wore a helmet for his first few games last year and found it hot and uncomfortable. I'd imagine a lot of players, particularly midfielders, would have that problem.

They also look terrible.

 

[Guroo]

If sports are serious about reducing head injuries then headgear should be compulsary. They may look like shit and cause some discomfort but if they can make any impact on the number of concussions then make everyone wear them.

Any objections surely can't be more importiant then keeping players on the field. If its then proven that they don't reduce injuries then ditch them later.

 

[blue healer]

If sports are serious about reducing head injuries then headgear should be compulsary. They may look like shit and cause some discomfort but if they can make any impact on the number of concussions then make everyone wear them.

Any objections surely can't be more importiant then keeping players on the field. If its then proven that they don't reduce injuries then ditch them later.

I agree with this. And while I agree that it's not a good look and will make players harder to identify I think the duty of care for the AFL is no different to that of ordinary employers. If people in the workplace are likely to get a bash on the head they are forced to wear head protection.

I don't think the comparison to NFL is legit and we certainly don't need that kind of (over the top) helmet. Rugby players have used headgear for years (albeit mainly to avoid cauliflower ears) and seem to not suffer too much from heat or embarrassment.

Ashman wore one for years and didn't seem to suffer too much and while I agree no kind of headgear is going to protect much in the Sellwood case, a lot of the worst injuries I've seen are when a player is out to it and loses control of his head when it hits the ground (a la SOS). Even in these cases helmets probably wouldn't eliminate the concussion but would surely lessen the impact.

There are enough ways to get seriously injured in contact sports but anything that can be done to reduce risk is surely obligatory on the controlling body.

Better to do it now than be forced to by a serious injury later and when you hear coaches and commentators use the "when it's your turn to go" expression and see the shit put on players if there is even a hint of pulling out of a contest it's likely to just keep getting harder.

It's a sport FFS you don't have to die.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

 

[hk89]

If helmets helped with concussion they should be compulsory - irrespective of how ugly they are - but unfortunately they don't seem to. Here is a study that looked at concussion in rugby players using similar soft helmets to those being discussed here, and they didn't seem to help:
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20092302-18827.html

 

[PieNSauce]

are you talking about the tactic players would use in going head first to use their hard helmets as a weapon in a tackle? That tactic is banned over there now. The soft helmets won't create that behaviour

Nope. No need to go into a detailed answer as plenty of others in this thread have already done so. The research I've read says that helmets do not decrease the likelihood for concussion whether or not they increase the likelihood of a player to indulge in more risky play. It was never about cheating but more about the false sense of confidence a helmet gives the wearer whether it's hard or soft.

 

[thedaz47]

I heard one of the leading AFL doctors (perhaps the Cats one) say that:
1) Helmets don't stop the head shaking (my turn not his) that causes concussion
2) (as was said above) wearing a helmet can make a player feel they are extra protected and encourage risky behaviors
3) Helmets could actually lead to more concussion as it increases the surface area of the head so could cause more contact that cause concussion.
4) Helmets are mainly good at stopping injuries caused by impact. Cuts and fractures.

HTH

Drawing one hell of a long bow there.

 

[PieNSauce]

Drawing one hell of a long bow there.

Why? It's totally logical to suggest that if the diameter of the head is larger because of the helmet it's more likely to get hit in a contest. Where's the long bow?

 

[Gen Y]

Why? It's totally logical to suggest that if the diameter of the head is larger because of the helmet it's more likely to get hit in a contest. Where's the long bow?

The Force of impact is proportional to the momentum of the player divided by the time of the collision.

Helmets increase the time of the collision (with padding), thus reducing the force experienced by the brain.

while there may be more incidental contact, the types of contact that cause concussion WILL be reduced with a helmet.

 

[thedaz47]

10mm of padding on a person's head doesn't really make it a bigger target... and how many concussions occur due to the type of glancing blow that you'd incur by being hit on the helmet in an area that wouldn't hit the head?

 

[PieNSauce]

The Force of impact is proportional to the momentum of the player divided by the time of the collision.

Helmets increase the time of the collision (with padding), thus reducing the force experienced by the brain.

while there may be more incidental contact, the types of contact that cause concussion WILL be reduced with a helmet.

Source? I totally disagree and as far as I'm aware there is no evidence provided which supports that theory. The only studies I've seen in fact directly contradict such a finding.

10mm of padding on a person's head doesn't really make it a bigger target... and how many concussions occur due to the type of glancing blow that you'd incur by being hit on the helmet in an area that wouldn't hit the head?

Excuse me but 10mm all round equates to a 20mm diameter increase. Fire a 20mm larger projectile through a forrest and you proportionaltely increase the likelihood of striking wood. Simple maths.

 

[Balony_pony16]

Nope. No need to go into a detailed answer as plenty of others in this thread have already done so. The research I've read says that helmets do not decrease the likelihood for concussion whether or not they increase the likelihood of a player to indulge in more risky play. It was never about cheating but more about the false sense of confidence a helmet gives the wearer whether it's hard or soft.

like all medical debates, you can find research articles which support either argument.

I found the new rule interesting on the weekend in that waite was subbed of when he looked ready to play, and also the heat the lions got for allowing clark to return after he was dazed but not subbed...should these sort of incidences increases I suggest that helmets could make some sort of a comeback

 

[PieNSauce]

like all medical debates, you can find research articles which support either argument.

I found the new rule interesting on the weekend in that waite was subbed of when he looked ready to play, and also the heat the lions got for allowing clark to return after he was dazed but not subbed...should these sort of incidences increases I suggest that helmets could make some sort of a comeback

There's some truth in what you say, but I just haven't seen anything in recent times to suggest anything other than that they do not decrease the incidence of concussion. My feeling is that the AFL is more likely to give more weight to recent studies and if helmets did start to proliferate I'd suggest they might act to limit their use at least.

 

[thedaz47]

Excuse me but 10mm all round equates to a 20mm diameter increase. Fire a 20mm larger projectile through a forrest and you proportionaltely increase the likelihood of striking wood. Simple maths.

I don't disagree. I only argue the size of the increase.

I think you'll find most people will agree that it's negligible, and that wearing a helmet will increase the incident of head contact is gratuitous and absurd.