Time To Retire Helmets?
"Some people have advocated for years to take the helmet off, take the face mask off. That'll change the game dramatically," says Fred Mueller, a University of North Carolina professor who studies head injuries. "Maybe that's better than brain damage."
4 months ago
BillsNYC
22 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I like the concept I really do. People wouldn’t launch themselves all over the place.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008.
"Matt’s pretty valuable to y’all. Cherish him." - BG
by MattRichWarren on Nov 11, 2009 9:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I’ve heard this arguments for years, and its the most ridiculous thing ever. This isn’t the national rugby league. People like the NFL because of the explosive plays, the giant hits, and the physicality. Take that away, and what do you have left?
These players know what they are getting themselves in to. 99% of players, to man, say that they’d rather deal wtih the injuries and play in the NFL then never have a chance at the NFL at all.
While we’re at it, we should consider taking away the goalie mask and the baseball glove.
by quantumuprising on Nov 11, 2009 9:13 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Goalie masks and baseball gloves don’t make the game more violent. Football helmets do. People think they have complete protection to throw their bodies everywhere. They would have to change the other pads too.
Playing Realistic Optimist at Buffalo Rumblings since 2008.
"Matt’s pretty valuable to y’all. Cherish him." - BG
by MattRichWarren on Nov 11, 2009 9:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I figured that response would come. It doesn’t change the argument. Taking away the goalie mask or the baseball glove COMPLETELY changes the game. So would taking away the football helmet.
As i said, it would become the national rugby league. All leg and ankle tackles. No more routes over the middle. No hard runs. Even worse special teams. Is that what you really want?
by quantumuprising on Nov 11, 2009 9:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Um, did you ever see the game of hockey before they wore goalie masks?
2010 Bills' truth in advertising: "Look out Cleveland, this year we score 6!" - bluecollarbuffalo
by thefourwinds on Nov 11, 2009 10:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
it is interesting, and
it might lessen the “impact” incidents. However, it is tackle football and I’m not sure I’d like a 350lb. widebody falling on my bare melon while it is resting on the ground (or worse yet field turf)
by fansince60 on Nov 11, 2009 9:38 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Artifical turf
caused more injuries, but they didn’t require all teams to play on natural grass. They improved the turf. Same idea here. Make helmets better and enforce the helmet to helmet hit and not using the helmet as a weapon rules.
Firemen breath smoke, police officers get foot problems, labors have bad backs and knee problems, etc. Every job takes its toll. Most don’t pay like the NFL.
"Are the Bills better than we think, or do they just suck the life out of most teams they play and drag them down to their level? - oompaloompa
by Joe P. on Nov 11, 2009 11:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Football players start very young. I doubt we’d be able to convince a parent of a 10 year old kid to send his kid out on the gridiron with no head protection. No kids playing football…hello baseball and basketball.
Technology will catch up…look at all the advancements in helmet tech already.
You are blinding beacon of light from heaven.
by Scrumtrulescent on Nov 11, 2009 9:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well, we have a rugby age group called the ‘nappy league’ where kids start at 5 with no helmets (or any other pads).
The reason this question is being raised in the first place is because the dramatic incidence of concussions might disuade parents from encouraging their kids to play gridiron. And thats with the helmets!
by AussieBill on Nov 11, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
its not necessarily the impact that causes the damage to the brain – its the sudden stopping of the skull while the brain inside is still moving forward with momentum. helmet or no, when head moving at a certain speed meets an unforgiving object, brain will get sloshed around in the head.
by oompaloompa on Nov 11, 2009 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Helmets are never going away...
This article reminds me of when I was a kid in my late teens playing tackle football sans equipment. Without the helmet and pads, you were definitely more thoughtful about the collisions in which you were about to enter. We weren’t just some guys playing ball in the back yard. We had our own uniforms and played 11 on 11, occasionally against one of the nearby high school teams. Yeah there were bump, bruises, sprains and once in a while, a broken collar bone, but no major injuries.
My fiends that played Rugby had a similar experience. I always felt that the equipment made the game more dangerous…but it has evolved with it, making them inextricably linked. This is true for all sports, except perhaps for soccer. Imagine taking away the shin guards: every 5 minutes you’d have 2-3 guys crying on the turf holding their legs, instead of the 2-3 you normally see per game.
"They're Killin' Me Whitey. They're Killin' Me" -- Lou Saban
by NJBill on Nov 11, 2009 10:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
“I always felt that the equipment made the game more dangerous…but it has evolved with it, making them inextricably linked.”
that’s the rub. if you take away the pads, the whole game changes.
I was thinking about what line men would do without pads the other day – they’d probably slap at each other like Sumo wrestlers.
BTW, I recommend Sumo as a spectator sport. And if you’ve got the heft, you might even give it a go. great sport.
by oompaloompa on Nov 11, 2009 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I've played (women's) rugby for seven years...
and taking away helmets would definitely change the game of football. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it would change for the better, but you would see markedly better tackling technique out there. Rugby players laugh at the way footballers often launch themselves shoulder first above someone’s center of gravity without wrapping their arms around. That is simply not the best way to bring someone down.
However, the objective of tackling is different between the sports – in rugby you can afford to tackle below the center of gravity and give up a yard if the person falls forward (except at the goal line) as long as you bring the ballcarrier down. In football that extra yard counts too much so that’s why players are taught to tackle in a way that has a higher chance of failing spectacularly or connecting spectactularly. Helmets accomodate this approach.
Either way, I like my rugby the way it is and I like my football the way it is. Football is way more contrived and unnecessarily complicated and stuff like pads and helmets and first down markers and radio headsets and timeouts help make it that way, but I still watch every Sunday.
by k8 on Nov 11, 2009 11:22 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
On a lighter note...
head-butts would be much more entertaining.
Twitter: helping to make anti-social people anti-socially social.
by TheAfghanTwilight on Nov 11, 2009 11:22 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
how about use and/or design a better helmet?
Good Luck With Your Firings Mr. Wilson….Go Bills!
by killascript on Nov 11, 2009 12:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
nah, that’s way too obvious.
I signed up for Second Life about a year ago. Back then my life was so great that I literally wanted a second one. In my Second Life I was also a paper salesman and I was also named Dwight. Absolutely everything was the same. Except I could fly. - Dwight Schrute
by kaisertown on Nov 11, 2009 1:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
no, that’s the whole problem we’re talking about. Better helmets and better designs have enabled players to be more violent. Because the players feel they have good helmets that will protect them, they don’t think twice about launching themselves like missiles or going headfirst to make a play.
The whole thesis of this conversation is that football players without helmets would have to change their tactics radically to reduce injuries. Guys without helmets aren’t going to spear other players and so forth anymore.
by quantumuprising on Nov 11, 2009 1:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
where's the bad in that?
Last tiem I checked this was American Football, and the players where the gear because it is a violent game. The players will play as they do, and a better helmet can keep them safer. No helmet would do little, but change the ENTIRE game.
Forget the missiling, or tackling, think about just the play at the line of scrimmage. Often lineman on either side of the ball are going facemask to facemask, and that is part of the game. There is risk everywhere, no helmets is not a good idea, and there should just be better technology.
SAme goes for other aspects of life like car accidents. Of course it doesn’t make fiscal sense to have a car with AI and sensors that drives itself, and avoids crashes with some type of sonar that would keep cars from hitting each other, but it would work if it wasn’t so expensive.
But in football, there is plenty of dough, and if you keep coaching not to spear guys with your helmet (something that to me has gone down alot) and also make better equipment, than its all good.
This stuff takes time, and we are on the right track for a safer game
Good Luck With Your Firings Mr. Wilson….Go Bills!
by killascript on Nov 11, 2009 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You should read the article, it talks about the problems with designing a better helmet and the dangerous tactics used.
by AussieBill on Nov 11, 2009 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
SB Nation's home for daily Buffalo Bills coverage.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
