Will Helmets make a comeback?

[CousinOfModra]

I prefer the beanie (rocket ship).

However if the AFL feel it necessary than go ahead.

 

[thedaz47]

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.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/bicycles/helmetandgear.html

 

[PieNSauce]

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.

The point that was made was that at the very least it will not reduce the incidence of concussion. Regardless, mathematically it very definitely will increase the incidence of contact to the head and a 5 year old maths student could work that out. Deflection is a very old ploy!

 

[PieNSauce]

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/bicycles/helmetandgear.html

Certainly wouldn't disagree that it's wise to wear a helmet when playing football whilst riding a bicycle on the road! Relevance?

 

[thedaz47]

Far from a 5 year old maths student here, but nice try. I'm curious as to where I was attempting to deflect please.

The NSW Government data might be for bicycles, but I figured that there would be a correlation between the two forms of blunt force. I've since found hk89's link above though, and am willing to accept that they may be little benefit. I'm not, however, prepared to acknowledge that wearing a helmet will increase your risk of contact to the head or serious head injury.

 

[PieNSauce]

Far from a 5 year old maths student here, but nice try. I'm curious as to where I was attempting to deflect please.

The NSW Government data might be for bicycles, but I figured that there would be a correlation between the two forms of blunt force. I've since found hk89's link above though, and am willing to accept that they may be little benefit. I'm not, however, prepared to acknowledge that wearing a helmet will increase your risk of contact to the head or serious head injury.

The first observation I would make is that again you talk of increasing serious head injury by wearing a helmet. I have to ask where you got that notion from since nobody here appears to be saying it so there is no argument. (Looks a lot like deflection to me.) On the separate topic of collision incidence, most people with a modicum of logic would assume that the greater the circumference of the head, the greater the likelihood of its colliding with someone else when diving into a pack but clearly that concept is beyond you.

Secondly, when riding a bicycle it's fairly unusual to be diving under packs or meeting other players in head to head battle. The type of extreme force suffered by a cyclist on the road in a road accident is generally far greater and the use of helmets in cycling is more for the value they provide in preventing the crushing of bone rather than any concern about concussion.

 

[thedaz47]

The first observation I would make is that again you talk of increasing serious head injury by wearing a helmet. I have to ask where you got that notion from since nobody here appears to be saying it so there is no argument. (Looks a lot like deflection to me.) On the separate topic of collision incidence, most people with a modicum of logic would assume that the greater the circumference of the head, the greater the likelihood of its colliding with someone else when diving into a pack but clearly that concept is beyond you.

Secondly, when riding a bicycle it's fairly unusual to be diving under packs or meeting other players in head to head battle. The type of extreme force suffered by a cyclist on the road in a road accident is generally far greater and the use of helmets in cycling is more for the value they provide in preventing the crushing of bone rather than any concern about concussion.

This is frustrating.

1. Read what my first post was a reply to and try again.
2. I don't disagree, just argue that the increase isn't worth consideration.
3. I understand this, but surely the advantages of reducing the impact still holds true. I'm not arguing that there will be a 60% and 58% decrease, just that there certainly won't be an increase.

 

[shiraz]

I understand the evidence for helmets preventing concussion is not great.

What I don't understand is that some people seem to be suggesting that players wont wear helmets because the evidence endorsing them is not great.

The evidence supporting powerbands was not great. That didn't stop players wearing powerbands.

With regard to the OP, I think helmets will make a (partial) comeback, as some players come to believe that helmets will prevent concussion.

 

[PieNSauce]

This is frustrating.

1. Read what my first post was a reply to and try again.
2. I don't disagree, just argue that the increase isn't worth consideration.
3. I understand this, but surely the advantages of reducing the impact still holds true. I'm not arguing that there will be a 60% and 58% decrease, just that there certainly won't be an increase.

I agree it's frustrating so let's leave out the peripheral issues and simply concentrate on the central premise that helmets reduce the incidence or severity of concussion. That's what we were discussing and I'm saying that nobody seems to be able to provide any evidence that this is so wheras even the study linked in this thread suggests it is not. On that basis alone, why would the AFL want to endorse their use? In the absence of any such evidence and in view of recent studies particularly in relation to the NFL, I'd be more inclined to think they would want to restrict their use as much as possible.

 

[masai]

Come on down Basil Campbell .....

As for the Phil Narkle photo, he looked far better in a black and white helmet.

 

[thedaz47]

I addressed someone else. It was you who introduced the periphery discussion in trying to defend their outlandish claim that helmets will increase the number of concussions that we see.

 

[DaVe86]

I think wearing a helmet is a very sensible idea and should make a comeback.

However it won't because it de-glamorises the game.

 

[PieNSauce]

I addressed someone else. It was you who introduced the periphery discussion in trying to defend their outlandish claim that helmets will increase the number of concussions that we see.

Pfft. I quoted clear reasons backed by official studies as to why it's unlikely they'll be allowed to flourish. If that's off-topic then I'm confused what the topic is.

 

[Balony_pony16]

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.

But there a heaps of recent studies that either show:
1) Helmets do prevent concussion
2) Helmets don't...
3) or Studies are inconclusive and prove either.

one of my main points in this thread is that with the new rule based on a unproven test, should players be forced to sit out the game when it could be argued that they aren't consussed (ask waite), and potentially force out of games on a regular basis...some players might be forced to consider using a helmet.

Or maybe players will take their time returning to their feet to get their bearings rather then risk the media heat by stumbling about like Mitch Clark.

 

[AllenJakovich13]

I used to hate wearing them when I played junior footy.


First player that comes to mind when I think of Helmets outside Nathan Burke would be John Hutton..

 

[Balony_pony16]

I used to hate wearing them when I played junior footy.


First player that comes to mind when I think of Helmets outside Nathan Burke would be John Hutton..

what about S hart? got smash every game in and under the packs

 

[SydneyGoose]

Studies regarding the protective properties of Rugby Scrum caps are generally correct about concussion protection being minimal. This is because they're not designed for that, merely to prevent cuts, scratches, and cauliflower ears.

However, Soccer Goal Keeper headgear DOES give some protection, because it's designed to help goalies survive head clashes with goal posts.

As a whole wearing appropriately designed head gear WILL reduce the chance of concussion. HOWEVER players are human and humans are stupid. They will via learned deviance (the psychological phenomena that lead to the challenger shuttle disaster) come to think that it will PREVENT concussion or damage, which it won't, and will abuse themselves by taking stupid Selwood like risks with their head.

Head gear should be worn (and shouldn't be called a helmet as that make people think it will stop concussion). There should also be a significant amount of education on concussion given to Players regarding the risks of concussion etc. to encourage them to stop dropping their heads. Finally the AFL should introduce measures where by players who do act so as to intentionally receive a head high contact get punished, preferably by suspension.

Some concussions can't be prevented by head gear. But some can and should be.

 

[Furn]

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?

yep, try boxing with headgear and without it and try slipping punches, much harder with the gear on, plus you cant see as well.

 

[fairfooty]

Mollyfud is completely correct - and as someone so eloquently put it its the brain 'sloshing' around in the skull after impact that does the damage and helmets make little/no difference to the 'sloshing'. Boxers wear helmets and still wind up 'punch drunk' (post-concussive syndrome). The only way to go close to avoiding this serious injury is no head contact and to severely punish offenders - a couple of serious suspensions will make a difference IMO.

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

 

[stugots]

sounds like it might just be easier to remove the heads....

works for chooks, for a while

 

[fairfooty]

And there's one in every thread...

sounds like it might just be easier to remove the heads....

works for chooks, for a while

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

This country is so PC I wouldn't be surprised within 10 years all AFL players were forced to wear helmets and no bumping other players on the field.

If you don't want to get hurt, don't box, don't play footy, don't play union etc... It's actually pretty simple logic. Bell should've had a desk job.

 

[fairfooty]

Have you actually read this thread? Whats being politically correct got to to do with it? Helmets have little to no effect on player safety and actually encourage risky behaviour - its highly unlikely that the AFL would go down that road, now or in the future.

Seems there are now two in this thread... who seem to know nothing about this topic....

This country is so PC I wouldn't be surprised within 10 years all AFL players were forced to wear helmets and no bumping other players on the field.

If you don't want to get hurt, don't box, don't play footy, don't play union etc... It's actually pretty simple logic. Bell should've had a desk job.

 

[pablo668]

Well I was going to make some kind of smartarse comment with Basil Campbell, Phil Narkle and John Hutton involved somwheres, but I've been beaten to it.

Bugger.

 

[Hipster Doofus]

Wouldn't mind helmets coming back