Let's solve the concussion issue in here... (1 Viewer)

[comfortably numb]

My suggestions...

The 1st step to solving the concussion issue in the NFL is to realize it will never be completely taken out of the game.

It just can't seem to be the epidemic it appears to be.

many of us are complaining the game has changed.

No one knows what is a legal or illegal hit is anymore and the game is evolving into something many people are not happy with.

The NFL keeps tweaking rules but no tweaks will be help the long term view point of letting your 13 year old kid play HS football

The sport needs a redefining change on a "tackle"

From pop warner to the NFL

This is the only way to not only protect players but to protect the dangerous image football currently has.

I would make the below changes with an annouceeement from a committe of people from the

NFL, NCAA, HS athletics, pop warner and even the candian football league.

Fact is we have more info and awareness in regards to concussions then ever before.

Fact is players are bigger and stronger then ever before.

None of these 2 things are changing

Players are essentially human missiles on the field.

This is something we can alter.

#1 thing I do is NO contact practices with helmets

The repeated head butting that goes on during practices can't be good for a persons heads from a young age all the way to higher levels.

You can wear helmets to run routes but if there will be contact, players must be helmet-less or wear some other protective leather coating if you wish, but no helmets.

This will help begin the process of players realizing their heads are not tools to make a tackle.

My 2nd proposition is to redefine a "tackle"

Players now are so conditioned to make a big hit for a variety of reasons.

-dislodge the ball

-make it on ESPN

-inflict pain and fear for the next go round

Here are some legal hits on a football field I would do away with yesterday.

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/icarly/images/8/83/Violent-football-tackle.gif/revision/latest?cb=20120104201739

https://media.giphy.com/media/bH1zaCXNT7eNi/giphy.gif

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/article/media_slots/photos/000/624/602/MonsterHit_original.gif?1353813696

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=hardest+hits+football+gif&imgrc=2ZSHH-56kF0hrM%3A&ei=PsCTVuHJMsyy-AHSw4Aw&emsg=NCSR&noj=1#emsg=NCSR&imgdii=ORUgmTHU19f-jM%3A%3BORUgmTHU19f-jM%3A%3BxN50zipRXf7GvM%3A&imgrc=ORUgmTHU19f-jM%3A

http://cjzero.com/gifs/RidleyHitPollard.gif

http://gif.mocksession.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/CLEAN-TACKLE.gif

You see a common theme in all these.

The players are trying to "tackle" someone by just hitting them as hard as they can.

If your arms are in a position closer to your body making yourself a weapon. That is a penalty.

If you lead with your shoulder to hit someone. That is a penalty

I propose a tackle must consist of a player who is making the tackle having his arms out, in a take down position.

Like this

http://joelbergsma.com/images/tackle.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/FQ1vROMFrlkZ2/giphy.gif

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1870169/clowneyhit_medium.gif

http://images.wildammo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/HILL-POLICE-TACKLE.gif

https://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/miller-sack3-11-24-12.gif?w=1000

In all the above, the player made an attempt to tackle and bring down the player holding the ball.

This is what i would build off of.

Remove "hits" from football and encourage a "proper tackle".

If a proper tackle is made and it happens to involve helmet to helmet contact...I would allow that and draw no penalty.

In soccer, if you recklessly attack someone's feet or legs with your legs.

You get a red card. You are immediately ejected, your team is short 1 player and you are suspended for the following game.

It looks like soccer takes attacking someone's legs VERY seriously.

Soccer realizes it stars make the sport and you have to protect them; and their livelihood is their legs.

Football should implement something similar, even as college is doing.

Targeting draws a penalty and/or an ejection.

I would STILL follow that with a suspension for the following game.

Every Sunday we see a few really bad helmet to helmet hits or worse, legal forearm to helmet hits.

These are so obvious and need to garner an ejection.

There is NO room for them in football. NONE.

This whole process will ready and fully implemented for the 2018 football seasons.

2017 preseason will have all the new rules and be called as such

2017 regular season will go back to the old rules for 1 last year to confirm all the changes and work out any kinks

2018 we play football across the United States making actual tackles and hopefully a safer product on the field.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Remove helmets.

 

[Stealthycat]

coaches need to tell their players to tackle - if you lead with a shoulder, try to hurt vs tackle, remove them from the game, kick them off the team etc

"big hits" is a thug mentality thing that costs teams penalties and should be unacceptable

 

[Pipes]

Remove helmets.

I think there would be more concussions with players smacking their heads on the ground.

 

[scothawk]

Rugby is now regularly penalising tacklers for not using the arms. Its easy to run into somebody at full speed with your shoulder and hope the collision dislodges the ball - its a lot harder if you have to wrap your arms around them whilst making the hit.

Despite this rule the sport still sees big hits in every game.

 

[jabarony]

Put 6 inch padding (or some kind of add-resistance-as-it-gets-compressed-material) on the outside of the helmets. It would look ridiculous, but it would greatly reduce the violent brain-to-skull trauma that occurs.

When the NFL legal rep that reads this runs it up the chain of command so it gets implemented and saves them 100's of millions of dollars, I'll take a 1% finders/consultant fee. Thanks.

 

[comfortably numb]

Rugby is now regularly penalising tacklers for not using the arms. Its easy to run into somebody at full speed with your shoulder and hope the collision dislodges the ball - its a lot harder if you have to wrap your arms around them whilst making the hit.

Despite this rule the sport still sees big hits in every game.

Right

I see no other way around this.

40-50 years ago players were fat, out of shape and had partime jobs in the off season.

Now we are dealing with athletes who are physical specimens and human weapons with legal hits.

The best players in the 50's and 60's were no where close to the shape the 8th string LB is in.... for college team.

Throw PEDs into the mix and football...not just the NFL has to adapt.

 

[comfortably numb]

Put 6 inch padding (or some kind of add-resistance-as-it-gets-compressed-material) on the outside of the helmets. It would look ridiculous, but it would greatly reduce the violent brain-to-skull trauma that occurs.

When the NFL legal rep that reads this runs it up the chain of command so it gets implemented and saves them 100's of millions of dollars, I'll take a 1% finders/consultant fee. Thanks.

I feel the helmet is a whole nother aspect of this thing.

Even the safest helmet would be limited if we allow the type of violent hits that go on in every practice and game.

Looking into the helmet itself is also a good benefit that football can come up with.

 

[ericttspikes]

Bubble Soccer!

 

[ShamrockPride]

NFL trying to take concussions out of a game with men running full speed. Let's think about this. A "proper" tackle is lowering your squared shoulders. Well, what happens to be right between your shoulders? Oh right, that would be your skull and brain. So even a "proper" tackle tells you to put your head right in harm's way. And sure, head is supposed to be off to the side of a players body. Tell that to them when you're just trying to take a guy down running as fast as he can, a blazer such as DeSean. Trying to eliminate concussions, even largely reducing them, is just an exercise in futility.

 

[Mookie]

Reduce the number of concussions by eliminating the big head shots. Recognize and treat them more effectively when they occur. That's all you can do.

 

[comfortably numb]

NFL trying to take concussions out of a game with men running full speed. Let's think about this. A "proper" tackle is lowering your squared shoulders. Well, what happens to be right between your shoulders? Oh right, that would be your skull and brain. So even a "proper" tackle tells you to put your head right in harm's way. And sure, head is supposed to be off to the side of a players body. Tell that to them when you're just trying to take a guy down running as fast as he can, a blazer such as DeSean. Trying to eliminate concussions, even largely reducing them, is just an exercise in futility.

Good point.

Lets just cancel the sport.

I understand what you are saying but disagree about it being futile. You can eliminate a good amount of concussions by simply not allowing a certain kind of hit.

The problem is you are saying "eliminate" concussions.

That is the #1 problem with the perception and why I said..."The 1st step to solving the concussion issue in the NFL is to realize it will never be completely taken out of the game."

It doesn't need to be eliminated...as that is impossible it just needs to appear to not be an epidemic.

MMA is one of the most popular mainstream sports now.

They had change their rules to mandate gloves as the sport was too bloody and violent; and the point of their sport is to give someone a a concussion.

There are things that can be done but the NFL has been dancing around with rule tweaks and politic like talk to avoid responsibility.

 

[Joe Summer]

Oh sure, why don't we just change the name of the game to "Sarcastiball", that sounds just great.

 

[lod01]

coaches need to tell their players to tackle - if you lead with a shoulder, try to hurt vs tackle, remove them from the game, kick them off the team etc

"big hits" is a thug mentality thing that costs teams penalties and should be unacceptable

Exactly. It's hard, however, to try and teach really stupid people a concept like that when all they want to do is react.

Take Pacman Jones for instance. He 'knows' Brown was faking. If he was faking, he flat out punked your stupid asses and you got what you deserved. That means Brown was smarter than you. What an idiot that guy is. He's so stupid that he doesn't even realize his statement makes him look like a moron. To top it off, Joens is such a moron that he reacted and received another 15 ayrd penalty.

The ref should have just referred to that one as '15 yard penalty - additional stupidity'.

 

[zftcg]

The thing to keep in mind with helmets was that they were added to the game to prevent other types of head injuries, like skull fractures, and also to protect the face (that's why facemasks have grown steadily more elaborate over the years). So if you get rid of them, you might reduce concussions but see more of the other types of injuries they were originally designed to prevent.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Remove helmets.

I think there would be more concussions with players smacking their heads on the ground.

Not even remotely close.

You dont see many (if any at all) concussions from school grounds.

Even with intramural tackle football games with colleges/adults.

 

[comfortably numb]

The thing to keep in mind with helmets was that they were added to the game to prevent other types of head injuries, like skull fractures, and also to protect the face (that's why facemasks have grown steadily more elaborate over the years). So if you get rid of them, you might reduce concussions but see more of the other types of injuries they were originally designed to prevent.

Right

I don't think removing helmets for game play is a good idea.

If that were implemented it would be changed the 1st time a player got up from a pile and everyone realized his eye ball was hanging out of his socket.

 

[The General]

Continue to define clean and bad hits. Stiffer series fines or suspensions for the player and team for violations.

These guys chose to play a violent sport. There are many violent, dangerous professions.

 

[BroadwayG]

Remove helmets.

I think there would be more concussions with players smacking their heads on the ground.

Not even remotely close.

You dont see many (if any at all) concussions from school grounds.

Even with intramural tackle football games with colleges/adults.

I know it's highly unlikely due to the high standards of medical care provided on school grounds and intramurals, but perhaps there are a lot more concussions there, but they simply go undiagnosed.

 

[comfortably numb]

Remove helmets.

I think there would be more concussions with players smacking their heads on the ground.

Not even remotely close.

You dont see many (if any at all) concussions from school grounds.

Even with intramural tackle football games with colleges/adults.

These people playing these games you are referencing do not have million dollar contracts and celebrity like exposure on the line though.

 

[ShamrockPride]

NFL trying to take concussions out of a game with men running full speed. Let's think about this. A "proper" tackle is lowering your squared shoulders. Well, what happens to be right between your shoulders? Oh right, that would be your skull and brain. So even a "proper" tackle tells you to put your head right in harm's way. And sure, head is supposed to be off to the side of a players body. Tell that to them when you're just trying to take a guy down running as fast as he can, a blazer such as DeSean. Trying to eliminate concussions, even largely reducing them, is just an exercise in futility.

Good point.

Lets just cancel the sport.

I understand what you are saying but disagree about it being futile. You can eliminate a good amount of concussions by simply not allowing a certain kind of hit.

The problem is you are saying "eliminate" concussions.

That is the #1 problem with the perception and why I said..."The 1st step to solving the concussion issue in the NFL is to realize it will never be completely taken out of the game."

It doesn't need to be eliminated...as that is impossible it just needs to appear to not be an epidemic.

MMA is one of the most popular mainstream sports now.

They had change their rules to mandate gloves as the sport was too bloody and violent; and the point of their sport is to give someone a a concussion.

There are things that can be done but the NFL has been dancing around with rule tweaks and politic like talk to avoid responsibility.

Sure fine. Address the other 90% of my post you chose not to nitpick. Proper fundamental tackling as is taught now and has been for decades tells you to put your head right in the line of fire. You and I are talking about different tackles. You're talking about "lowering the boom" shoulder shots. I'm talking about "proper form" wrap-ups. Tell me how we fix the wrap-ups. How else can we tackle?

 

[comfortably numb]

Continue to define clean and bad hits. Stiffer series fines or suspensions for the player and team for violations.

These guys chose to play a violent sport. There are many violent, dangerous professions.

This is very true and just like in every dangerous profession new standards are put in place to reduce the risk of injury or loss of life.

Football has tried and continues to try but yet, here we are with an epidemic that has every parent deciding if their kid is going to play football or a different sport.

The people who built skyscrapers 80 years ago did so with no safety harnesses, now they have to use them. People still fall and die but generally or perceptionaly speaking, they are safer.

Truck drivers 40? years ago could drive 25 hours a day, now they have standards in which they have to take rest periods and prove this with a log. There are still many accidents on the road with truck drivers but generally or perceptionaly speaking, they are safer.

 

[Pipes]

Remove helmets.

I think there would be more concussions with players smacking their heads on the ground.

Not even remotely close.

You dont see many (if any at all) concussions from school grounds.

Even with intramural tackle football games with colleges/adults.

I'm talking elite 250 pound athletes tackling guys. QB's now get concussions with their heads smacking against the ground on normal tackles...imagine if they didn't have helmets? I would suspect a skull fracture or two.

Really they just need to penalize guys for leading with their heads...offense and defense alike. Not allow hits like the Shazier hit on Saturday night.

 

[comfortably numb]

NFL trying to take concussions out of a game with men running full speed. Let's think about this. A "proper" tackle is lowering your squared shoulders. Well, what happens to be right between your shoulders? Oh right, that would be your skull and brain. So even a "proper" tackle tells you to put your head right in harm's way. And sure, head is supposed to be off to the side of a players body. Tell that to them when you're just trying to take a guy down running as fast as he can, a blazer such as DeSean. Trying to eliminate concussions, even largely reducing them, is just an exercise in futility.

Good point.

Lets just cancel the sport.

I understand what you are saying but disagree about it being futile. You can eliminate a good amount of concussions by simply not allowing a certain kind of hit.

The problem is you are saying "eliminate" concussions.

That is the #1 problem with the perception and why I said..."The 1st step to solving the concussion issue in the NFL is to realize it will never be completely taken out of the game."

It doesn't need to be eliminated...as that is impossible it just needs to appear to not be an epidemic.

MMA is one of the most popular mainstream sports now.

They had change their rules to mandate gloves as the sport was too bloody and violent; and the point of their sport is to give someone a a concussion.

There are things that can be done but the NFL has been dancing around with rule tweaks and politic like talk to avoid responsibility.

Sure fine. Address the other 90% of my post you chose not to nitpick. Proper fundamental tackling as is taught now and has been for decades tells you to put your head right in the line of fire. You and I are talking about different tackles. You're talking about "lowering the boom" shoulder shots. I'm talking about "proper form" wrap-ups. Tell me how we fix the wrap-ups. How else can we tackle?

I honestly do not know how to fix wrap ups. Maybe you can not and maybe that is OK?

The point is not to eliminate the concussion, the point is to make the sport safer.

I agree with you eliminating them is futile but disagree that they can not be largely reduced with

-better "tackling"

-removal of leading with a shoulder

-immediate ejections followed with suspensions

-limiting head/head contact in practices with helmets

There is no perfect fix just a safer one.

 

[Stealthycat]

it amazes me at the lack of tackling in a football game - the thug players trying to make a "big hit" and the RB/WR/TE skips on by or bounces off for another 4 yards .... I would go insane on these players trying to shoulder hit a player down vs tackling him

make no mistake - the hit on Antonio Brown was intended to take him out of the game and/or hurt him

that hit cost the Bengals a win and it was a hit - it wasn't in any way, shape or form an attempted tackle

 

[Franknbeans]

I think using the arms is a good first step

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Rugby is now regularly penalising tacklers for not using the arms. Its easy to run into somebody at full speed with your shoulder and hope the collision dislodges the ball - its a lot harder if you have to wrap your arms around them whilst making the hit.

Despite this rule the sport still sees big hits in every game.

I think the comparisons to rugby are useful. One of the more difficult transitions for me going from football to rugby was tackling technique. One lesson quickly learned was that helmets, shoulder pads and other padding used by football players is much more in the nature of offensive weapons used to hit, rather than serving a protective role. However, I note that in rugby, arm-tackling can be effective because in most cases its enough to wrap the runner, and no great problem if he drags the tackler several yards downfield before going down. In many situations, the tackler actually prefers to hold the ball carrier up, prevent him from going to ground so as to create a maul. In contrast, in many if not most tackling situations in football, the tackler has to stop a runner on a dime (and drive him back) as in most football situations every yard (or inch) counts. I think this is a fundamental difference in the gameplay that to a large degree dictates a different tackling technique.

 

[ericttspikes]

It is a violent sport that has really large, fast dudes running into another. Sports science has evolved since it's inception and determined that it is dangerous to the brain (duh).

The problem is that it isn't just the big hits that is causing the damage, it is also the repetitive sub concussive hits of line-men, blockers, and well, every one who plays a long time. It's a dangerous sport that has left a wake of brain damaged people. It is a futile effort unless you don't use your head at all. Then what do you have? How do you officiate offensive and defensive linemen? Can you penalize a tackler using his head at all, not just head to head but having his helmet touch any part of the other player? No way.

The NFL product is so bad right now and a lot of that is due to the rules implemented to help deflect lawsuits. Nobody wants to see DHB play in place of Antonio Brown next week. If the NFL is serious, he won't be playing. The concussion protocol has helped to water down the talent. The new rules have fans wondering what is and what isn't legal. The refs and the league don't administer the rules consistently. It's a bad product that is getting worse year by year.

Because the league generates so much revenue, and gambling on the sport is huge, the NFL is doing the best it can to keep it going. The tipping point will be when gamblers don't want to wager on the sport because of the how arbitrary the outcomes are based on these rules.

 

[The General]

Continue to define clean and bad hits. Stiffer series fines or suspensions for the player and team for violations.

These guys chose to play a violent sport. There are many violent, dangerous professions.

This is very true and just like in every dangerous profession new standards are put in place to reduce the risk of injury or loss of life.

Football has tried and continues to try but yet, here we are with an epidemic that has every parent deciding if their kid is going to play football or a different sport.

The people who built skyscrapers 80 years ago did so with no safety harnesses, now they have to use them. People still fall and die but generally or perceptionaly speaking, they are safer.

Truck drivers 40? years ago could drive 25 hours a day, now they have standards in which they have to take rest periods and prove this with a log. There are still many accidents on the road with truck drivers but generally or perceptionaly speaking, they are safer.

The NFL and PA are putting things in place to make it safer, right?

Penalties and fines along with continuing to look at rules to define what is safe is the way to go IMO. Always going to be dangerous though.

 

[scothawk]

Rugby is now regularly penalising tacklers for not using the arms. Its easy to run into somebody at full speed with your shoulder and hope the collision dislodges the ball - its a lot harder if you have to wrap your arms around them whilst making the hit.

Despite this rule the sport still sees big hits in every game.

I think the comparisons to rugby are useful. One of the more difficult transitions for me going from football to rugby was tackling technique. One lesson quickly learned was that helmets, shoulder pads and other padding used by football players is much more in the nature of offensive weapons used to hit, rather than serving a protective role. However, I note that in rugby, arm-tackling can be effective because in most cases its enough to wrap the runner, and no great problem if he drags the tackler several yards downfield before going down. In many situations, the tackler actually prefers to hold the ball carrier up, prevent him from going to ground so as to create a maul. In contrast, in many if not most tackling situations in football, the tackler has to stop a runner on a dime (and drive him back) as in most football situations every yard (or inch) counts. I think this is a fundamental difference in the gameplay that to a large degree dictates a different tackling technique.

The tackle distance is actually a very good point.

But I think a good number of the explosive hits happen past the first down marker where inches arent quite as important. Its normally on receivers who cannot brace themselves for impact until the ball is caught and they have regained some traction. During the period in doing so is the dangerous period for these scaled up hits.

 

[menobrown]

Don't see a solution other than some major advancement in helmet technology.

From an NFL perspective to protect themselves legally their best step is to always be honest with their medical findings, always make players aware of the risk, continue to tweak concussion protocol methods in place and if they don't already do so and it's legally enforceable have all players sign waivers acknowledging the risk.

What none of that fixes however is lower level non-NFL football and possibility or rise in concussion fear leading to severely decreased levels of participation and eventually popularity of the sport. For that I see no solution but the NFL is not alone, just the hardest hit. As we are understanding more about concussions we are seeing it's more prominent in all sports then we originally thought. I don't know anything about soccer but have two nephews who are big time soccer players and their dad was telling me last week that a group of parents in California are trying to make a rule which would eliminate head shots in soccer.

 

[comfortably numb]

Don't see a solution other than some major advancement in helmet technology.

From an NFL perspective to protect themselves legally their best step is to always be honest with their medical findings, always make players aware of the risk, continue to tweak concussion protocol methods in place and if they don't already do so and it's legally enforceable have all players sign waivers acknowledging the risk.

What none of that fixes however is lower level non-NFL football and possibility or rise in concussion fear leading to severely decreased levels of participation and eventually popularity of the sport. For that I see no solution but the NFL is not alone, just the hardest hit. As we are understanding more about concussions we are seeing it's more prominent in all sports then we originally thought. I don't know anything about soccer but have two nephews who are big time soccer players and their dad was telling me last week that a group of parents in California are trying to make a rule which would eliminate head shots in soccer.

good point about the lower level.

That is why I think the most important thing that can be done is the style of tackle to be enforced from every stage early on.

Most schools on lower levels cant even afford the equipment they do have let alone some new fancy (most likely more expensive) helmet that would be invented.

Another thing I would preach as a coach is to simply go down or out of bounds more.

I know I know...wussification of america blah blah

The Rams got teased with this when Holt/Bruce were playing in the late 90's but as players, avoiding the big hit by ducking to the ground or out of bounds is so much more beneficial long term.

So many times I see a player take a nasty hit just trying to get an extra yard.

When ya need it I understand go for it but when you already got the 1st? Avoid the hit if possible

 

[Ministry of Pain]

coaches need to tell their players to tackle - if you lead with a shoulder, try to hurt vs tackle, remove them from the game, kick them off the team etc

"big hits" is a thug mentality thing that costs teams penalties and should be unacceptable

Should we take Ronnie Lott out of the HoF? **** Nighttrain Lane?

The folks who seem to cringe at big tackles have really ruined this sport IMHO.

I want a fair legal hit to be defined and then work from there. But booth announcers clutching rosary beads and guys getting flagged when players are running right into them and making the tackle look worse than it is, this must stop.

It's called football, it's the NFL, it has violence in the game. I don't like the crown of the helmet hits and never have, it is used like a weapon and needs to be removed or at least players need to know they will not be safe leading with their head.

I'm all for rules that will define what a true tackle is and the safest way to enforce those rules. But within those rules are going to be players that hit harder and they shouldn't be penalized, part of the game is holding on to the football, they're called fumbles for a reason.

 

[fruity pebbles]

You're assuming the NFL really cares about the concussion issue and doesnt just want to appear like it cares. Edelman playing til the end of the Superbowl last year told me all i needed to know. If Antonio plays this weekend thats even further reinforcement. We care until the games too big to care.

 

[comfortably numb]

coaches need to tell their players to tackle - if you lead with a shoulder, try to hurt vs tackle, remove them from the game, kick them off the team etc

"big hits" is a thug mentality thing that costs teams penalties and should be unacceptable

Should we take Ronnie Lott out of the HoF? **** Nighttrain Lane?

The folks who seem to cringe at big tackles have really ruined this sport IMHO.

I want a fair legal hit to be defined and then work from there. But booth announcers clutching rosary beads and guys getting flagged when players are running right into them and making the tackle look worse than it is, this must stop.

It's called football, it's the NFL, it has violence in the game. I don't like the crown of the helmet hits and never have, it is used like a weapon and needs to be removed or at least players need to know they will not be safe leading with their head.

I'm all for rules that will define what a true tackle is and the safest way to enforce those rules. But within those rules are going to be players that hit harder and they shouldn't be penalized, part of the game is holding on to the football, they're called fumbles for a reason.

This night train lane?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-baj4wfgrsxU/UjNPd49X3CI/AAAAAAAAZMM/AArky0vlxwg/s1600/nighttrain3.jpg

Yea, I'm not looking to take anyone out of anything but the game has changed.

I want the best world class athletes playing every Sunday. If taking out some big hits from the game is the result of that, I am fine with it.

 

[NCCommish]

Remove helmets.

Yep. Lots of data suggests that helmets are definitely part of the problem.

 

[Shutout]

Put 6 inch padding (or some kind of add-resistance-as-it-gets-compressed-material) on the outside of the helmets. It would look ridiculous, but it would greatly reduce the violent brain-to-skull trauma that occurs.

When the NFL legal rep that reads this runs it up the chain of command so it gets implemented and saves them 100's of millions of dollars, I'll take a 1% finders/consultant fee. Thanks.

I feel the helmet is a whole nother aspect of this thing.

Even the safest helmet would be limited if we allow the type of violent hits that go on in every practice and game.

Looking into the helmet itself is also a good benefit that football can come up with.

Years ago, one of the proposals made was to remove player helmets from the game. Sounds stupid and counter productive but SO many players interviewed said "yeah, I 'd be thinking twice and three times before getting my head near anything if I didn't have a helmet TO USE AS A WEAPON (guy actually said that). ANother player said they'd probably completely change the way they tackled, too (which I'm sure would lead to 90-85 games...just like the NFL wants it anyway).

 

[Old Smiley]

Take helmets out of the game and you're asking for the sorts of catatstrophic, sometimes fatal injuries that led to their adoption in the first place. Too many knees and elbows flying around.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

This is very true and just like in every dangerous profession new standards are put in place to reduce the risk of injury or loss of life.

Football has tried and continues to try but yet, here we are with an epidemic that has every parent deciding if their kid is going to play football or a different sport.

The people who built skyscrapers 80 years ago did so with no safety harnesses, now they have to use them. People still fall and die but generally or perceptionaly speaking, they are safer.

Truck drivers 40? years ago could drive 25 hours a day, now they have standards in which they have to take rest periods and prove this with a log. There are still many accidents on the road with truck drivers but generally or perceptionaly speaking, they are safer.

It's not like football related safety has just been sitting stagnant next to those two.

Football related deaths are down 500% at all levels from what they were in the 1960's. Over that same span, construction deaths are down only 300% and truck driving deaths are barely down at all since 1975 (the earliest date I could find data for, but which happens to meet your 40 year barometer). What that means is that football safety has actually improved (significantly) more than the two fields you're using as an example of improving safety.

There is a balance in all sports, jobs, and activities between safety and convenience/entertainment, and with all of them there is a tipping point where you can err to far in one direction. Driving trucks would be much safer if there was a national speed limit of 20mph. Constructing buildings would be safer if we limited all buildings to two stories. Baseball would be safer if they played with a tennis ball instead of a baseball.

I agree that any progress we can make without disturbing things too much is worth looking into, but I think we're encroaching on that territory with some of the suggestions. Judgement calls already frustrate viewers, adding some of the stuff like trying to define an "arm tackle" would just be maddening for most people to watch, and that's not even accounting for most spectators enjoying good clean hits where no one gets hurt. And how much is that really going to reduce anything?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Troy Aikman suggested eliminating helmets, or going back to the old style leather helmets with no facemasks - in an interview about 7 or 8 years ago. Obviously it would change the game dramatically. I expect the league, fans and players would not welcome that change, although it would likely reduce head injuries.

 

[Doug B]

Old thread with some ideas: Can NFL tackling rules be reasonably altered?

An excerpt:

It seems clear that certain types of tackling techniques that are physically riskier than others. The question I'm raising is this: can safer tackling techniques be legislated within the rules of the game of football? Here are some speculative rule changes that come to mind -- haven't considered all angles or potential game-play consequences, just brainstorming:

• Illegal for tacklers to leave their feet if their shoulder, chest, or head touches the ball carrier -- this means that if DB wants to blow up a WR over the middle, they cannot launch themselves like a missle. They can still run through the WR, but the fact that the ground dissipates some of the force should lessen the impact of these over-the-middle tackles. Note that the way this rule is worded, the intent is to still allow diving at a ball carries feet, or a last-second dive to grab a jersey, or tackle attempts like that. So long as there's no leaving the feet to launch the upper body into a ball carrier, the tackle is legal.
• Illegal for shoulder, chest, or head of tackler to touch the ball carrier if at least one hand does not touch the ball carrier -- I'd call this the "wrap-up" rule, and it also aims to discourage launching-type tackles. I considered proposing that BOTH hands must touch the ball carrier if the tackler's upper-body conacts the ball carrier, but I was thinking that might be a little too restrictive. Maybe the two-hand version of the rule could be instituted for QBs in the pocket.
• Institute a tackling "strike zone" -- The tackler's upper body (shoulders, helmet, chest) can only contact the ball carrier's body between the shoulders and knees. This one is actually partially in place, as explicit head shots are forbidden. Diving at a player's feet to trip them up with the hands or arms would still be legal.
• Relax the pass-intereference rules in favor of the defense -- Saw this proposed elsewhere. The idea is that with pass-interference rules so strongly favoring the offense, defenses have adopted the strategy ot taking hard shots at receivers to jar caught balls loose. Letting DBs guard routes more physically would give the defense another option. My corollary is to perhaps change the 5-yard-bump zone into a 10-yard zone, or even 15 yards -- bring back true bump-&-run coverage.

So ... are these kinds of proposals (not necessarily these specific ones) reasonable? How much safer can tackling rules help make the game? Enough to get us to credible, player-approved 18-game seasons? And what kinds of game-safety changes do others envision the NFL adopting in the near future?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Troy Aikman suggested eliminating helmets, or going back to the old style leather helmets with no facemasks - in an interview about 7 or 8 years ago. Obviously it would change the game dramatically. I expect the league, fans and players would not welcome that change, although it would likely reduce head injuries.

The modern, hard football helmet was introduced in 1970. There were 74 deaths directly related to pro/semi-pro football injuries in the 40 years proceeding the invention of the modern football helmet. In the 45 years since the introduction of the modern helmet, there have been 5.

Source: http://www.unc.edu/depts/nccsi/2012FBInj.pdf

 

[Pipes]

Troy Aikman suggested eliminating helmets, or going back to the old style leather helmets with no facemasks - in an interview about 7 or 8 years ago. Obviously it would change the game dramatically. I expect the league, fans and players would not welcome that change, although it would likely reduce head injuries.

I disagree they need some sort of helmet protection. I'm thinking back to the concussion Aaron Rodgers got a few years ago in Detroit where he was running and tackled as he was going down. Completely legal hit but the back of his head slammed off the turf and he was still concussed and end up with additional padding in his helmet as a result. I'd hate to think of the results of that play had he not had a helmet on. I know there have been others as well.

Yes guys flying around going helmet first because they think they are invincible is a huge part of the problem but I don't see how they go one without any sort of head protection.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

The most obvious thing that can be done that I believe will have an immediate impact on concussion rates: Go back to natural grass fields and require all fields will be long bladed grass. This will slow everyone down and reduce the impact of collisions. It is simple physics.

 

[comfortably numb]

The most obvious thing that can be done that I believe will have an immediate impact on concussion rates: Go back to natural grass fields and require all fields will be long bladed grass. This will slow everyone down and reduce the impact of collisions. It is simple physics.

I could get on board with this if statistics show it would help which common sense seems to indicate it would help.

I don't want to hear about cost issues from an NFL team on this either.

 

[Quasimoto]

What color should the flags be? How big? How should they be attached? How severely should we penalize players who make physical contact to the body of the ball carrier beyond what is necessary to grasp and remove the flag from the waistband? These are the questions the modern NFL will be addressing if it continues down the path of trying to make safe a game that was never intended to be safe. Once they've converted from tackle to flag they can then turn their attention to making the NFL co-ed.

 

[comfortably numb]

What color should the flags be? How big? How should they be attached? How severely should we penalize players who make physical contact to the body of the ball carrier beyond what is necessary to grasp and remove the flag from the waistband? These are the questions the modern NFL will be addressing if it continues down the path of trying to make safe a game that was never intended to be safe. Once they've converted from tackle to flag they can then turn their attention to making the NFL co-ed.

As long as the flag isn't white to signify surrender because if proper steps aren't taken now the best athletes of tomorrow will be moving away from football to other more interesting and safer sports.I'm all for addressing current rules and relaxing them to allow for more contact that has recently been taken away.

 

[fruity pebbles]

What color should the flags be? How big? How should they be attached? How severely should we penalize players who make physical contact to the body of the ball carrier beyond what is necessary to grasp and remove the flag from the waistband? These are the questions the modern NFL will be addressing if it continues down the path of trying to make safe a game that was never intended to be safe. Once they've converted from tackle to flag they can then turn their attention to making the NFL co-ed.

As long as the flags are connected to tear away shorts

 

[32 Counter Pass]

The most obvious thing that can be done that I believe will have an immediate impact on concussion rates: Go back to natural grass fields and require all fields will be long bladed grass. This will slow everyone down and reduce the impact of collisions. It is simple physics.

I could get on board with this if statistics show it would help which common sense seems to indicate it would help.

I don't want to hear about cost issues from an NFL team on this either.

Hell of a lot cheaper than a billion $$ law suit, declining participation at lower levels (youth and high school), and bad pr.

Taking this idea even further, I grew up watching teams like the Vikings play ball in mud bowls, which was always cool. I would love it if one or two indoor teams had similar field conditions. Talk about a home field advantage!

 

[comfortably numb]

What color should the flags be? How big? How should they be attached? How severely should we penalize players who make physical contact to the body of the ball carrier beyond what is necessary to grasp and remove the flag from the waistband? These are the questions the modern NFL will be addressing if it continues down the path of trying to make safe a game that was never intended to be safe. Once they've converted from tackle to flag they can then turn their attention to making the NFL co-ed.

As long as the flags are connected to tear away shorts

What if the females are linemen...still want tear away shorts?