theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 15, 2010 9:27:33 GMT -5
I understand your points, but is the sport getting significantly more dangerous or are we simply more aware of injuries? I don't know. As for parents not letting their kids play, I think that has some merit. The difference between a potential knee injury and a potential brain injury could be viewed drastically differntly by a lot of parents. Everything that I've heard has been that larger people (high school linemen are comparable to college linemen a generation ago) has been the contributing factor. That, plus a few more games a year (one more regular season game, a conference championship game, one more round of high school playoffs), adds up. It'll take a long time before I turn on football, but the doubt is there. Even with all of the protection, it seems that we're cheering for people who, as a result of playing, will suffer significant brain injury as a result of playing the sport. That makes me queasy.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 21, 2010 12:57:24 GMT -5
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 22, 2010 13:01:12 GMT -5
I understand your points, but is the sport getting significantly more dangerous or are we simply more aware of injuries? I don't know. As for parents not letting their kids play, I think that has some merit. The difference between a potential knee injury and a potential brain injury could be viewed drastically differntly by a lot of parents. Everything that I've heard has been that larger people (high school linemen are comparable to college linemen a generation ago) has been the contributing factor. That, plus a few more games a year (one more regular season game, a conference championship game, one more round of high school playoffs), adds up. It'll take a long time before I turn on football, but the doubt is there. Even with all of the protection, it seems that we're cheering for people who, as a result of playing, will suffer significant brain injury as a result of playing the sport. That makes me queasy. Good points. I heard an interview with Wayne Peace just the other day. He was the Gator quarterback in the early 80s. Anyhow, he said that he was bigger than 4 of the starting 5 linemen one year. He wasn't "small," but he was no Jared Lorenzen either. I think Peace was something like 6'2 and 230 pounds or so. In a little over 1 generation, the average Florida offensive linemen have put on about 80 pounds! And your point about the increased number of games makes a lot of sense too. Simply from a statistical standpoint, the roughly ten percent increase in the number of games, because of adding the 12th game, would presumably add about 10 percent to overall injuries. For the teams that also play in a conference title game, that is closer to a twenty percent increase. Also, you would think that there would also be an additional increase due to the aggregate effect of the added games from year to year. When you combine that to the increase in the size of the players, it only makes sense that you will see more and more severe injuries.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Sept 22, 2010 19:55:24 GMT -5
This is a serious issue that really needs to be addressed, first by the NFL and then everyone will follow suit. So here a few thoughts: Off point, this reminds me of a funny story. My wife is a neurologist. Back when Magic was still playing, he was injured in a collision, and suffered a concussion. An announcer (don't think it was Chick - I think it was a nationally televised game) made some comment about how fortunate it was that Magic only had a concussion, and hadn't blown out his knee. My wife went completely bonkers over that comment. I tried to explain to her that a blown out knee could cost Magic an entire season, whereas with a concussion he would likely return in a few days, but she wouldn't hear any of it, saying something like any brain injury is worse than the worst knee injury. Your wife was right (obviously because she is a neurologist). the new push, which i agree with, is to characterize a head injury as, no a concussion, but as a brain injury, i.e. when your brain hits your skull its like when a fist hits your face. The brain, if it could be seen, would look pretty beat up: it would likely have bruises, redness, and likely capillaries would have burst so there would be some bleeding. Its hard to compare the punch to the face injury with a brain injury because usually the punch hurts more. Thats because the brain doesnt have nerves, only their endings, so it doesnt really feel pain. Second, there are helmets available, for both hockey and football, that significantly reduce the force transferred to the brain during a hit. They are bigger, look ridiculous and are more expensive. Teams dont want to pay for them, and many players dont want to play with them because of how they look. If the NFL (and NHL) really want to be serious about this issue they would make these helmet style mandatory. But that is not a true fix, and this brings us back to what hifi asked: is the game more dangerous or are the injuries just more reported? Well it doesnt matter, people are still getting hurt; but yes more injuries are being reported at a pro level so that accounts for a lot of it. But there is a strong argument that says bigger, harder pads lead players to play faster/harder and the hits hurt more because the pads are hard plastic. This is somewhat true and pads would be better to focus on absorbing force, not deflecting it like hard plastic does. The next point has to do with culture. Boz gave a great summary of the differences between NHL hits and NFL hits, but there is more to it. The culture in the NHL has been more concerned about head injuries than the NFL has for quite some time. This isnt to say that there arent guys in the NHL who are hiding symptoms or coaches who are forcing concussed players to play, only that once someone exhibits symptoms they are often taken out of activity immediately and take lots of time off- years even. There is a bigger consciousness that repeated concussions can kill (hey Andy Ried, are you listening???). That brings me to my final point. The NFL has to get serious about this. The best answer i have thought of is to hire another "official" who is a doctor who is paid by the league but is independent from the other officials. This doctor would have to ability to call any player out of the game at any time because of concerns of a head injury and examine him. If this doctor says the play cant play, then they cant play, period. This may sound drastic, and of course it could end a teams season to have a star player pulled out of a game, but it will save lives. Andy Reid put Stewart Bradley (the player who stumbled around the field like he was drunk) back in the game. That is a joke and disgraceful. Had Bradley been hit like that again he may not have made it off the field. That is the truth of this situation. The NFL likes to talk about how no one has ever died during a game, well they came pretty close two weeks ago with Bradley and its disgusting.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 22, 2010 23:03:34 GMT -5
I agree with the requirement for an independent official who has to clear players who may have suffered head injuries. In addition, the on-field officials should have the authority to order a player to get an all-clear before he returns. The problem with Bradley was that the Eagles' doctor was busy with Kevin Kolb at the time, so he didn't see Bradley staggering around on the field. Presumably the same problem would have befallen a neutral official doctor, so the on-field officials should be able to order a player out of the game in those circumstances.
However, there are two separate issues regarding brain injuries at work here. The first is the concussion issue, which jgalt covered well. However, there's a second issue that's related but separate - the repeated blows to the head causing degenerative brain disease issue.
There has been a belief up until now that the only threat to players' brains is single, big blows that knock a player out or give them a concussion. However, more recent research is showing that there's also a big risk from frequent smaller blows to the head. For the most part people don't notice these small blows on their own, but when they add up they can lead to some very scary brain diseases that can dramatically affect players' behavior. This sort of brain disease has shown up in a disturbingly high number of autopsies of football players who have committed suicide.
This is an issue that the NFL hasn't really taken on yet, since it's much newer than the concussion issue in terms of public awareness. However, it also has the potential to be much more damaging to the sport's long-term viability. Solving it will require some major changes to the sport's culture and rules to dramatically reduce the number of blows to the head that players suffer, both in practice and in games. Stuff like eliminating certain drills or mandating 2 point stances for every player on the field (including linemen) have been mentioned.
This is another issue that sets the NFL apart from the NHL - hockey players don't get banged in the head dozens of times every game and practice.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 23, 2010 10:43:15 GMT -5
The most recent TMQ spends half the article on this, emphasizing how the NFL has been pulling up the rear and how high schools do much better.
The NFL needs to do more, from a business standpoint if nothing else. People aren't going to participate if it shows that people turn into vegetables ten years after playing.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,199
|
Post by hoyarooter on Sept 23, 2010 12:51:39 GMT -5
Good posts, guys. To me, this is really the key:
"There has been a belief up until now that the only threat to players' brains is single, big blows that knock a player out or give them a concussion. However, more recent research is showing that there's also a big risk from frequent smaller blows to the head. For the most part people don't notice these small blows on their own, but when they add up they can lead to some very scary brain diseases that can dramatically affect players' behavior. This sort of brain disease has shown up in a disturbingly high number of autopsies of football players who have committed suicide."
Perhaps it's because I'm a neurologist's spouse, but frankly, it's amazing to me that this issue has only come to the forefront in the last year or two. I've known for a long time that repeated blows to the head are a bad thing, even if they don't result in concussions. Why are so many boxers "punchdrunk"? This isn't new. As an aside, it's also why our seven year old daughter won't be playing soccer. We don't think small children should intentionally be hitting balls with their heads.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Sept 23, 2010 19:08:04 GMT -5
There were some hearings on the hill today about his subject, mostly in relation to high school sports.
Now I dont think that this is an issue that congress needs to be involved in, but i am happy to see the issue getting more attention.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 24, 2010 1:03:29 GMT -5
Congress shouldn't have to take action on this. However, if the football leagues from the top down fail to take on this issue, then some form of government intervention is needed. Right now we have a mishmash set of rules, where some states have certain rules on head injuries and others have none at all. Even the strictest rules out there aren't enough, because they only deal with the concussion issue and not the repeated blows to the head issue.
Again, football *should* police itself on this issue. It's in the sport's best interest to root out this problem, otherwise the sport could be in serious trouble in a generation or two because parents don't let their kids play the sport anymore. The NFL has the most to lose, so they should be the ones leading the charge. But so far the NFL's reaction has been disappointing to say the least.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 24, 2010 8:37:17 GMT -5
Washington has taken action before. The NCAA was formed because a few people died every year in college "football" games using a variety of dangerous strategies (notably the flying wedge). Teddy Roosevelt threatened to ban it before colleges worked together on codifying rules and making it less violent.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Sept 24, 2010 8:49:50 GMT -5
My prediction: a generation or two from now there will be no football in this country. Boxing in this country will be gone. Basketball will be played with head-gear and on softened surfaces. Soccer will be played with helmets. Cheerleading will be without tosses in the air. Not sure about baseball.
Sound extreme? Check back in with me in 2050 but walk softly on my grave.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 24, 2010 12:08:28 GMT -5
easyed, I feel your pain.
stig and rooter wrote:
There has been a belief up until now that the only threat to players' brains is single, big blows that knock a player out or give them a concussion. However, more recent research is showing that there's also a big risk from frequent smaller blows to the head. For the most part people don't notice these small blows on their own, but when they add up they can lead to some very scary brain diseases that can dramatically affect players' behavior
That is a good point. If you want to see a celebrety example, just think of Muhammed Ali. When you see footage of him in his prime, he was very eloquent ... to a fault many would say. But some 20 or 30 years later, you could tell that his brain was jello, and I'm not talkling about after the onset of Parkinsons either. What I'm talking about was well before that. On a more personal level, my landlord in college was a former boxer. Now he was an old dude -- probably about 70 at the time, but you could tell that his brain wasn't operating at full speed. His wife was the sweetest lady, bless her heart, but she had to pretty much take care of him. Again, maybe he was developing alzheimers. I don't know, but I don't think so. Now either of these could have been the result of earlier knockout blows, but my guess is that much of the deterioration resulted from the repeated poundings from the "littler" blows years before.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Sept 24, 2010 15:09:06 GMT -5
My prediction: a generation or two from now there will be no football in this country. Boxing in this country will be gone. Basketball will be played with head-gear and on softened surfaces. Soccer will be played with helmets. Cheerleading will be without tosses in the air. Not sure about baseball. Sound extreme? Check back in with me in 2050 but walk softly on my grave. Basketball doesn't really have much of a history with head injuries, so on that count it should be fine. Soccer might adopt padded headgear of some sort, like you occasionally see in rugby or with soccer goalies (see Peter Cech). Hard shell helmets would create more problems than they'd solve. Boxing is already dying, and it has nothing to do with head injuries. You could argue that the same goes for baseball. That sport's been in a long and slow but maybe irreversible decline. Cheerleading? I hope it goes away. If they want to call it a sport, call it athletic dance-off. Leading cheers shouldn't be about showing off, it should be about supporting the team. If you want to have pretty girls on the sidelines, call them sideline girls. When was the last time the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders actually led a cheer? As for football, there's a lot of things that can be done to alleviate the head injury problem, it's just a matter of finding the will to do them. For example, in most top-level race series there's an impact sensor on the car that transmits a signal whenever the car has an impact over a certain amount. If that sensor gets triggered, the medical staff are immediately notified and the driver is taken directly to the medical center, even if they show no signs of an injury. They then have to pass a strict set of tests and get cleared by the series-appointed doctor before they can race again. It wouldn't be that difficult to put an impact sensor inside a football helmet and run a similar system. It would be expensive so the NFL would have to lead the way, but eventually it would trickle down to the rest of the sport. Look how in-helmet earphones have spread since the NFL pioneered them. Other things like mandatory 2-point stances and better education for coaches regarding the dangers of certain drills in practice would help with the repeated blows to the head issue. But overall these issues will require a cultural change in football. People inside the sport are going to have to stop glorifying playing through injuries and loud helmet crunching noises.
|
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Sept 27, 2010 21:55:31 GMT -5
Boxing is already dying, and it has nothing to do with head injuries. You could argue that the same goes for baseball. That sport's been in a long and slow but maybe irreversible decline. Not to go off on a tangent, but people seem to say this all the time and its just a strange thing to say. TV ratings may be down from the 80s due to fragmentation of the marketplace, but attendance numbers are way up from the so-called golden age of the 50s and 60s (and even the 70s and 80s), and have only declined slightly in the economic downturn of the past few years.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,737
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 28, 2010 10:28:56 GMT -5
Going to a fight is fun, b/c it's an experience. But the lack of marquee heavyweight match-ups is an issue for the TV ratings, I think.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Sept 28, 2010 10:32:07 GMT -5
Going to a fight is fun, b/c it's an experience. But the lack of marquee heavyweight match-ups is an issue for the TV ratings, I think. I think Jack was talking about baseball, not boxing, since Stig seems to think that both are dying sports.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,737
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 28, 2010 10:53:52 GMT -5
Going to a fight is fun, b/c it's an experience. But the lack of marquee heavyweight match-ups is an issue for the TV ratings, I think. I think Jack was talking about baseball, not boxing, since Stig seems to think that both are dying sports. Gotcha. Baseball's not even close to dying, unless you are comparing to the pervasiveness of the sport in like 1910.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 28, 2010 10:59:50 GMT -5
This was certainly before my time, but well before most people had TVs, listening to your most local baseball team on the radio was, in fact the National Pastime. I think the advent of the multitude of televisions essentially killed off much of radio baseball as we knew it then. Secondly, with the advent of channels and then cable and dish providers, the availability of other sports began to win over many traditional but casual baseball fans.
As for boxing, I think the process was somewhat similar. In the "old days" the revenues came from the gate -- ticket sales, as well as whatever monies the winning radio networks would agree to provide. Still, the marquee fight every couple of months was THE event that everyone was glued to the radio for. Again, the advent of television, channels and then ultimately cable and dish companies, those particular fans are no longer consolidated into an easily identifiable and targetable audience. Sorry, I didn't mean to get that far off subject.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,737
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 28, 2010 11:10:27 GMT -5
Well, yes. What people don't seem to get about the phrase national pastime is that is isn't entirely about being a spectator sport. Yes, football has higher ratings. But it isn't like baseball was.
Not only did people follow professional baseball -- despite not having tv or the internet - by using newspaper accounts, the radio (later), watching barnstorming, etc., but they actually followed semi-pro/amateur with a passion and amazingly, actually played the game.
There were town teams and company teams and all sorts of amateur clubs and teams and semi-pro teams. While the "majors" stuck to a few cities in the Northeast, mostly, the "minors" flourished as independents, and at the turn of the century, the talent level wasn't all that different.
Kids played it constantly -- there wasn't nearly the interest in any of the alternative organized sports -- basketball was being invented, so was football, etc.
The only place you see that level of dominance in a single sport these days are in sci-fi movies about ultra-violent future sports.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,737
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Sept 28, 2010 11:18:41 GMT -5
Back to the point - i think a weight restriction would be awesome.
One, it would improve the health of everyone involved.
Two, the game would be faster and more wide open.
|
|