7 ms·

I don't buy the argument that the new rules and equipment have made the game more dangerous. Back in the old days, 100 years ago or so, it wasn't uncommon for p

I don't buy the argument that the new rules and equipment have made the game more dangerous. Back in the old days, 100 years ago or so, it wasn't uncommon for people to die on the field http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/sports/football/21thorpe.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/sports/football/21thorpe.h... the 1910 rule changes were a reaction to a raft of horrifying deaths on the field. A total of 26 players died in 1909, including 10 at the college level. Thirteen in 1908. Eighteen in 1905.

edwardunknown 14y ago
Australian football doesn't use the helmets and has 25% fewer concussions. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527881984299454.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870440240457452...
- rohansingh 14y ago
  I prefer this comparison to the GP's since it controls for the level of medical technology. There may have been a spate of deaths in the early 20th century, but they may not have happened today. Not to mention that a single year could be an extreme outlier.
- rdouble 14y ago
  Aside from a similar ball shape, Australian rules football is nothing like American football.
- douglasisshiny 14y ago
  The article isn't about concussions. It's about hits that do not cause one to show visible mental effects, but are in fact a very mild form of concussion (TBI). And it's about players thousands upon thousands of those hits throughout their life.
qeorge 14y ago
I've always had trouble with the "no pads is a natural limiter to the amount/intensity of the hits" argument. That said - those hard plastic helmets are weapons. They can hurt a player a lot more than a skull. Not sure what to do with that conclusion. I love watching NFL football but its obviously a form of killing people slowly for our entertainment. I don't see how it can sustain unless we all look the other way on the brain injuries.
- nicksergeant 14y ago
  The thing is - the players don't care. It's a badge of honor. It will sustain for as long as people want to play the game.
  - drumdance 14y ago
    The active players don't care. Lots of former players have gone on record as wishing they'd never even heard of football.
  - ratherbefuddled 14y ago
    They would if they weren't wearing head to toe padded protection. It would actually hurt, and pain would limit the needless aggression. Works fine in Rugby (union and league) and Aussie rules, with players every bit as hard and aggressive.
    - wtvanhest 14y ago
      Just look at the size of rugby players vs. NFL players. It is completely ridiculous to assert that taking the pads off players is the solution. If you put some full backs from the NFL in a rugby game, players would literally die (and I mean literally, literally). They are massive. Seeing these guys in person blows your mind (figuratively). [added] I don't know how good of a source it really is, but there are some infographics in this form that show a difference. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=137938303&page=1 http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=137938303&#38... They put the NFL player at 25% more weight which is insane when you consider a guy that is 6'2 and 250 lbs.
- HarryHirsch 14y ago
  The rugby players that I know tell me that their pain limits how hard they tackle an opponent. They would not like to see padding introduced because a player would trust their armour overmuch and increase the risk of injury.
  - qeorge 14y ago
philwelch 14y ago
The better comparison would be with rugby, where players rarely wear anything more than a padded cap to protect the ears.
scott_s 14y ago
You've coupled rules and equipment, but the deaths caused rule changes, but not equipment changes.

edwardunknown 14y ago

Australian football doesn't use the helmets and has 25% fewer concussions. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527881984299454.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870440240457452...

rohansingh 14y ago
I prefer this comparison to the GP's since it controls for the level of medical technology. There may have been a spate of deaths in the early 20th century, but they may not have happened today. Not to mention that a single year could be an extreme outlier.
rdouble 14y ago
Aside from a similar ball shape, Australian rules football is nothing like American football.
douglasisshiny 14y ago
The article isn't about concussions. It's about hits that do not cause one to show visible mental effects, but are in fact a very mild form of concussion (TBI). And it's about players thousands upon thousands of those hits throughout their life.

qeorge 14y ago

I've always had trouble with the "no pads is a natural limiter to the amount/intensity of the hits" argument. That said - those hard plastic helmets are weapons. They can hurt a player a lot more than a skull. Not sure what to do with that conclusion. I love watching NFL football but its obviously a form of killing people slowly for our entertainment. I don't see how it can sustain unless we all look the other way on the brain injuries.

nicksergeant 14y ago
The thing is - the players don't care. It's a badge of honor. It will sustain for as long as people want to play the game.
- drumdance 14y ago
  The active players don't care. Lots of former players have gone on record as wishing they'd never even heard of football.
- ratherbefuddled 14y ago
  They would if they weren't wearing head to toe padded protection. It would actually hurt, and pain would limit the needless aggression. Works fine in Rugby (union and league) and Aussie rules, with players every bit as hard and aggressive.
  - wtvanhest 14y ago
    Just look at the size of rugby players vs. NFL players. It is completely ridiculous to assert that taking the pads off players is the solution. If you put some full backs from the NFL in a rugby game, players would literally die (and I mean literally, literally). They are massive. Seeing these guys in person blows your mind (figuratively). [added] I don't know how good of a source it really is, but there are some infographics in this form that show a difference. http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=137938303&page=1 http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=137938303&#38... They put the NFL player at 25% more weight which is insane when you consider a guy that is 6'2 and 250 lbs.
HarryHirsch 14y ago
The rugby players that I know tell me that their pain limits how hard they tackle an opponent. They would not like to see padding introduced because a player would trust their armour overmuch and increase the risk of injury.
- qeorge 14y ago

philwelch 14y ago

The better comparison would be with rugby, where players rarely wear anything more than a padded cap to protect the ears.

scott_s 14y ago

You've coupled rules and equipment, but the deaths caused rule changes, but not equipment changes.