5 ms·

There is only so much safety when you're talking about 300 pounds meeting 250 pounds. The problem with football is physics.

Klathmon 9y ago
Then change the rules of the game. Racing did it, they regulated the max amount of fuel, they reduced the top speeds, they added safety barriers, etc... Do it with football. Change their gear, change the allowed "hits", remove their cleats, etc... I don't actually watch football so I'm not sure what would help or wouldn't, but don't act like this is just impossible to resolve. Yeah, people would probably hate these kinds of solutions right now, but if you get the public opinion on your side, and you start moving in that direction people will change, they will realize being able to watch a safer form of football with their favorite players in it beats being able to watch "current football" but with all their favorite players horribly injured with their lives ruined.
- mnm1 9y ago
  This is happening, although not as much as it could and probably should be. One example is moving kickoffs to a higher yard line so that the chance of a touchback (no return) is greater. Since kickoff returns are some of the more dangerous plays, it lessens the times returns actually happen. Helmet to helmet collision rules are another example. So is the rule for the horse collar tackle. Things are changing, but perhaps not enough or fast enough. Further, as a huge fan, these rules are minor changes and do not at all detract from the game, IMO.
  - ktRolster 9y ago
    They should just play flag football and skip that tackling stuff.
  - jimnotgym 9y ago
    I really don't know anything about American football, but in Rugby a lot of work has gone into this kind of thing. You can't tackle a player who has jumped to catch the ball until his feet touch the ground. If you pick a player up, you are responsible for putting them down. High tackles (around the neck) or not attempting to wrap your arms around a player when (so you 'clothes-line them) you tackle is much heavily penalized. All of these will result in 10 minutes in the sin-bin at least, maybe bans after the game. All head injuries result in the player being sent for 'assessment' by a doctor during the game, and a concussion protocol which enforces long breaks from the game. With regards to American football I have two questions 1) Is the impact to the brain higher because of the protective equipment? Would people tackle as ferociously without it? You are allowed very little of that gear in Rugby. Head clashes in particular are rare in Rugby, without the helmet you put your head to the side of someone when you tackle! 2) American football players seem to carry a lot of body mass for fast people. Is it possible that their advanced sports science is a bit too pharmaceutical in nature? I wouldn't want to suggest anything, but is there a chance steroid use is widespread? If this is the case then clamping down here would presumably lessen the hits?
    - fencepost 9y ago
      It's likely that a bit of the size /bulking up is steroid based, but a lot more is just based on the relative size of the population pool and the kinds of exercise and diet regimens used with a focus on size and burst speed. Where some sports will stop at a certain level then focus on stamina and maintenance, US football may keep pushing for more bulk.
      - jimnotgym 9y ago
        How much time would the average player actually spend on the pitch in American Football? It seems a lot of sprints and changes. Rugby players play for 80 minutes with one half-time break. I'm guessing that produces a more compromised physique.
    - jdmichal 9y ago
      I've definitely heard arguments along the lines of your (1) before. I personally think it's a promising route, but it would definitely need to be a slow one. Right now, if you just took everyone's gear away, the players would probably end up killing each other. Not purposefully; just out of rote training and muscle memory. It would be good to introduce the behavioral bans first, then eventually remove the gear. Out of curiosity, how severe is the average injury in Rugby?
      - jimnotgym 9y ago
        My general impression from playing a bit of Rugby and watching a fair but, with no statistical analysis at all.. I would say the most common injuries by far are related to muscle strains, tendons and ligaments etc like you could see in any sport. Cuts to the head are fairly common, as are the fabulous 'cauliflower ears' caused from bleeding inside your ear. But this is from being squashed and abraded, not hit. I haven't watched too much American football, but it seems a lot more stop-start, with considerably more changing of players. In Rugby you are running around for 80 minutes, so more athletic injuries rather than collision related. Perhaps having to pace yourself also lessens the hits? Spinal injuries seem very rare, and are much more likely due to some kind of contortion rather than impact. Concussion does happen, but normally seems to be an accidental clash of heads or falling on a knee, perhaps. When it happened to me it was a result of me running to join a ruck (think lots of people pushing each other over a ball on the the floor after a player has been tackled), which kind of split in half and someones head slipped through to catch me in the face. In the top level, if the referee sees you suffer a head injury or get knocked out you are sent off to see the doctor for 10 minutes. If he suspects concussion you wont play again for two weeks. A Welsh international (George North, Wales is Rugby mad btw) got a concussion on his return from a concussion break and this resulted in him spending the best part of a year out of the game! I don't think head on head hits are common at all. When you tackle in Rugby you have to attempt to wrap your arms around the player, and tackles are much more 'tacklers shoulder to midriff or legs'. I think being winded or hurting your stomach muscles is most likely. you certainly cannot tackle above shoulder high. Re: protective equipment, I wore non at all. Gum shields are common, as is electrical tape around your ears and some petroleum jelly on your eye-brows! Now a number of players where a 'scrum-cap' which is a close fitting lightly padded cloth device to help stop cuts and abrasion to your head. Professional players often wear a kind of shoulder pad designed to protect your collar bone, but it barely makes a dent in your shirt it is so small!
- coredog64 9y ago
  One idea I've heard would be to increase the number of games in a season (without significantly increasing the calendar length). More games means coaches have to optimize for not injuring players.
  - rfrank 9y ago
    More games = more potential for injury. People need time to rest and recover after those games, Monday & Thursday night games are already extremely demanding on their bodies.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      Sports that play more games do naturally cycle through rosters of players to let some rest, and prevent injury to optimize for healthy players. Look at basketball. It's not uncommon to see star players not play for a few games in a row. With so many games played, a few games isn't statistically as much as a single football game in the normal season. At 16 games for a normal season, a single football game makes a huge difference, and it can be hard to sit out an overworked player when that may make the difference between a win and a loss.
      - rfrank 9y ago
        Comparing injury rates between sports without acknowledging the fundamental differences in the games and how physical they are is an incorrect way to view the problem. Attempting to force teams to bench their best players for injury prevention / adding games to the schedule that will be played by the bench players will also lower the quality of pro games, and turn off even more fans to the NFL - which is already not doing great.
        kbenson 9y ago
        I wasn't comparing injury rates, I was comparing the willingness of a coach to sit out a player, and attributing some level of influence on that decision based on how many games are in a season (and thus how important every individual game is). Additionally, nobody was talking about forcing coaches to bench players, we're talking about setting up the system such that coaches feel it's in the best interest of the team to occasionally bench (rest) players. Also, you don't send an entire team of lower quality players out at once, you cycle them through such that you're still always playing at a high level, just maybe not the peak possible (which you often aren't because of injuries anyway). There may be additional benefit to running more games when it comes to fan viewing and involvement, I'm not sure, but there's probably good data on it for many other sports.
- jordigh 9y ago
  The history of the rules of football is a constant struggle between making the game less deadly while preserving the inherent bloodlust in it. Fans and players want the game to be violent. People were clamouring for safer rules from the very beginning in the history of the game. Concessions have been made, little by little. It's a huge struggle and debate each time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_football#Violence_and_controversy_.281905.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_football#V...
peeters 9y ago
To a certain extent sure, but there's a full spectrum. Football does have safer rules than it did a couple decades ago, so obviously there is and has been room for change. Rugby has similar sized guys (not quite as big, but big) and don't even wear protective gear (not that rugby players are immune to concussions). There's a big spectrum of rules in similar games, and football is still pretty far on the dangerous end of that spectrum. One of the issues with football is that because they're wearing helmets they think that contact on the head is safe. It's incredibly not.
- acjohnson55 9y ago
  Rugby Union does a lot to regulate how contact happens. Rugby League (actually a different sport) has a combination of the lack of protection of Union and the outright violence of American Football. I don't follow League enough to know whether the lack of protection tends to lessen injuries. I understand it to be a game with a short shelf life for top players.
iClaudiusX 9y ago
Grand Prix racing involves a 1500 pound car hitting a wall at +200 mph, with fuel. Death used to be guaranteed during the course of a season, but now any serious injury is rare. Dismissing safety as impossible "because physics" is just silly. Technical solutions are the easy part. It's the culture change that is difficult.
Retric 9y ago
You might be surprised, while mandating full exoskeletons is off the table there is quite a bit more we could do, You can for example mandate braces which would prevent most joint injury. The added weight while minor slightly reduces performance so it can't catch on at an individual or team level.
- taneq 9y ago
  There seems to be a fair amount of body armour (helmets, padding etc) involved already. I'd imagine there was a lot of resistance when that was introduced, but it's normal now.

Klathmon 9y ago

Then change the rules of the game. Racing did it, they regulated the max amount of fuel, they reduced the top speeds, they added safety barriers, etc... Do it with football. Change their gear, change the allowed "hits", remove their cleats, etc... I don't actually watch football so I'm not sure what would help or wouldn't, but don't act like this is just impossible to resolve. Yeah, people would probably hate these kinds of solutions right now, but if you get the public opinion on your side, and you start moving in that direction people will change, they will realize being able to watch a safer form of football with their favorite players in it beats being able to watch "current football" but with all their favorite players horribly injured with their lives ruined.

mnm1 9y ago
This is happening, although not as much as it could and probably should be. One example is moving kickoffs to a higher yard line so that the chance of a touchback (no return) is greater. Since kickoff returns are some of the more dangerous plays, it lessens the times returns actually happen. Helmet to helmet collision rules are another example. So is the rule for the horse collar tackle. Things are changing, but perhaps not enough or fast enough. Further, as a huge fan, these rules are minor changes and do not at all detract from the game, IMO.
- ktRolster 9y ago
  They should just play flag football and skip that tackling stuff.
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  I really don't know anything about American football, but in Rugby a lot of work has gone into this kind of thing. You can't tackle a player who has jumped to catch the ball until his feet touch the ground. If you pick a player up, you are responsible for putting them down. High tackles (around the neck) or not attempting to wrap your arms around a player when (so you 'clothes-line them) you tackle is much heavily penalized. All of these will result in 10 minutes in the sin-bin at least, maybe bans after the game. All head injuries result in the player being sent for 'assessment' by a doctor during the game, and a concussion protocol which enforces long breaks from the game. With regards to American football I have two questions 1) Is the impact to the brain higher because of the protective equipment? Would people tackle as ferociously without it? You are allowed very little of that gear in Rugby. Head clashes in particular are rare in Rugby, without the helmet you put your head to the side of someone when you tackle! 2) American football players seem to carry a lot of body mass for fast people. Is it possible that their advanced sports science is a bit too pharmaceutical in nature? I wouldn't want to suggest anything, but is there a chance steroid use is widespread? If this is the case then clamping down here would presumably lessen the hits?
  - fencepost 9y ago
    It's likely that a bit of the size /bulking up is steroid based, but a lot more is just based on the relative size of the population pool and the kinds of exercise and diet regimens used with a focus on size and burst speed. Where some sports will stop at a certain level then focus on stamina and maintenance, US football may keep pushing for more bulk.
    - jimnotgym 9y ago
      How much time would the average player actually spend on the pitch in American Football? It seems a lot of sprints and changes. Rugby players play for 80 minutes with one half-time break. I'm guessing that produces a more compromised physique.
  - jdmichal 9y ago
    I've definitely heard arguments along the lines of your (1) before. I personally think it's a promising route, but it would definitely need to be a slow one. Right now, if you just took everyone's gear away, the players would probably end up killing each other. Not purposefully; just out of rote training and muscle memory. It would be good to introduce the behavioral bans first, then eventually remove the gear. Out of curiosity, how severe is the average injury in Rugby?
    - jimnotgym 9y ago
      My general impression from playing a bit of Rugby and watching a fair but, with no statistical analysis at all.. I would say the most common injuries by far are related to muscle strains, tendons and ligaments etc like you could see in any sport. Cuts to the head are fairly common, as are the fabulous 'cauliflower ears' caused from bleeding inside your ear. But this is from being squashed and abraded, not hit. I haven't watched too much American football, but it seems a lot more stop-start, with considerably more changing of players. In Rugby you are running around for 80 minutes, so more athletic injuries rather than collision related. Perhaps having to pace yourself also lessens the hits? Spinal injuries seem very rare, and are much more likely due to some kind of contortion rather than impact. Concussion does happen, but normally seems to be an accidental clash of heads or falling on a knee, perhaps. When it happened to me it was a result of me running to join a ruck (think lots of people pushing each other over a ball on the the floor after a player has been tackled), which kind of split in half and someones head slipped through to catch me in the face. In the top level, if the referee sees you suffer a head injury or get knocked out you are sent off to see the doctor for 10 minutes. If he suspects concussion you wont play again for two weeks. A Welsh international (George North, Wales is Rugby mad btw) got a concussion on his return from a concussion break and this resulted in him spending the best part of a year out of the game! I don't think head on head hits are common at all. When you tackle in Rugby you have to attempt to wrap your arms around the player, and tackles are much more 'tacklers shoulder to midriff or legs'. I think being winded or hurting your stomach muscles is most likely. you certainly cannot tackle above shoulder high. Re: protective equipment, I wore non at all. Gum shields are common, as is electrical tape around your ears and some petroleum jelly on your eye-brows! Now a number of players where a 'scrum-cap' which is a close fitting lightly padded cloth device to help stop cuts and abrasion to your head. Professional players often wear a kind of shoulder pad designed to protect your collar bone, but it barely makes a dent in your shirt it is so small!
coredog64 9y ago
One idea I've heard would be to increase the number of games in a season (without significantly increasing the calendar length). More games means coaches have to optimize for not injuring players.
- rfrank 9y ago
  More games = more potential for injury. People need time to rest and recover after those games, Monday & Thursday night games are already extremely demanding on their bodies.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Sports that play more games do naturally cycle through rosters of players to let some rest, and prevent injury to optimize for healthy players. Look at basketball. It's not uncommon to see star players not play for a few games in a row. With so many games played, a few games isn't statistically as much as a single football game in the normal season. At 16 games for a normal season, a single football game makes a huge difference, and it can be hard to sit out an overworked player when that may make the difference between a win and a loss.
    - rfrank 9y ago
      Comparing injury rates between sports without acknowledging the fundamental differences in the games and how physical they are is an incorrect way to view the problem. Attempting to force teams to bench their best players for injury prevention / adding games to the schedule that will be played by the bench players will also lower the quality of pro games, and turn off even more fans to the NFL - which is already not doing great.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        I wasn't comparing injury rates, I was comparing the willingness of a coach to sit out a player, and attributing some level of influence on that decision based on how many games are in a season (and thus how important every individual game is). Additionally, nobody was talking about forcing coaches to bench players, we're talking about setting up the system such that coaches feel it's in the best interest of the team to occasionally bench (rest) players. Also, you don't send an entire team of lower quality players out at once, you cycle them through such that you're still always playing at a high level, just maybe not the peak possible (which you often aren't because of injuries anyway). There may be additional benefit to running more games when it comes to fan viewing and involvement, I'm not sure, but there's probably good data on it for many other sports.
jordigh 9y ago
The history of the rules of football is a constant struggle between making the game less deadly while preserving the inherent bloodlust in it. Fans and players want the game to be violent. People were clamouring for safer rules from the very beginning in the history of the game. Concessions have been made, little by little. It's a huge struggle and debate each time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_football#Violence_and_controversy_.281905.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_football#V...

peeters 9y ago

To a certain extent sure, but there's a full spectrum. Football does have safer rules than it did a couple decades ago, so obviously there is and has been room for change. Rugby has similar sized guys (not quite as big, but big) and don't even wear protective gear (not that rugby players are immune to concussions). There's a big spectrum of rules in similar games, and football is still pretty far on the dangerous end of that spectrum. One of the issues with football is that because they're wearing helmets they think that contact on the head is safe. It's incredibly not.

acjohnson55 9y ago
Rugby Union does a lot to regulate how contact happens. Rugby League (actually a different sport) has a combination of the lack of protection of Union and the outright violence of American Football. I don't follow League enough to know whether the lack of protection tends to lessen injuries. I understand it to be a game with a short shelf life for top players.

iClaudiusX 9y ago

Grand Prix racing involves a 1500 pound car hitting a wall at +200 mph, with fuel. Death used to be guaranteed during the course of a season, but now any serious injury is rare. Dismissing safety as impossible "because physics" is just silly. Technical solutions are the easy part. It's the culture change that is difficult.

Retric 9y ago

You might be surprised, while mandating full exoskeletons is off the table there is quite a bit more we could do, You can for example mandate braces which would prevent most joint injury. The added weight while minor slightly reduces performance so it can't catch on at an individual or team level.

taneq 9y ago
There seems to be a fair amount of body armour (helmets, padding etc) involved already. I'd imagine there was a lot of resistance when that was introduced, but it's normal now.