The football dilemma

[-jk]

We've talked on this issue in various other threads, but I thought it might deserve its own.

The NFL, its ardent fans, and major sponsors have a problem, and Mike Wise has done a nice job summarizing the dilemma (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/super-bowl-nfl-confronts-the-highest-stakes/2013/01/28/b92e1fd8-69a0-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html).


If he had a son, the leader of the free world says he is uncertain he would let him play football. If one of the most ferocious hitters in the game is right, someone will die on a field and the NFL will become extinct in 30 years or less.

The most popular sport in America causes irreparable harm to many of its participants, some of whom will stammer through sentences after they retire, lose their memories and have their dinners served to them through intravenous needles.

Now armed with more information than ever about football and brain injuries, we think long and hard whether our kids should strap on a helmet and pads. But we’re glad other parents’ kids do and we conveniently forget that all 110 men voluntarily putting their cartilage and brains at risk on Sunday night are someone’s sons.

It's a good, if somewhat depressing, read.

-jk

[Matches]

Very conflicted about this issue.

People have died during NASCAR races. We didn't stop having them.

Hank Gathers died during a basketball game. We didn't scuttle the sport.

Football is a violent sport. No question. But so is hockey. So is boxing. Heck, so is wrestling. Is football worse than the others? I don't really know, and I don't necessarily trust the media to inform me.

[-jk]

Very conflicted about this issue.

People have died during NASCAR races. We didn't stop having them.

Hank Gathers died during a basketball game. We didn't scuttle the sport.

Football is a violent sport. No question. But so is hockey. So is boxing. Heck, so is wrestling. Is football worse than the others? I don't really know, and I don't necessarily trust the media to inform me.

All these are true. But of mainstream sports, only boxing and football have bone jarring hits as an integral part of the rules of the game, and boxing has already been marginalized.

I would agree that the lurid aspect of some sports - spectacular crashes in car races being the classic example - appeals to the same base instinct.

-jk

[A-Tex Devil]

All these are true. But of mainstream sports, only boxing and football have bone jarring hits as an integral part of the rules of the game, and boxing has already been marginalized.

I would agree that the lurid aspect of some sports - spectacular crashes in car races being the classic example - appeals to the same base instinct.

-jk


Do retired rugby and aussie rules, or even irish football, players have similar rates of post-career brain injury? Honest question. I imagine that the physical limitations of tackling without pads might reduce this some. I also wonder if the improvement in helmet technology just in the past 5 years will start to make a difference, along with simply better understanding the problem.

Edited to add -- removing a lot of the old astroturf fields has to help as well.

[Jarhead]

Do retired rugby and aussie rules, or even irish football, players have similar rates of post-career brain injury? Honest question. I imagine that the physical limitations of tackling without pads might reduce this some. I also wonder if the improvement in helmet technology just in the past 5 years will start to make a difference, along with simply better understanding the problem.

Edited to add -- removing a lot of the old astroturf fields has to help as well.

Adding anything to the helmet short of a half a foot of sponge rubber-like material to the weapon we call a helmet won't help. The problem is that there is nothing the helmet can do to keep the brain from sloshing around inside the skull when a players helmet makes contact with something that stops it in its tracks. That's where the concussions come from. Helmets may stop lacerations to the scalp or minimize damage to the skull, but the helmet cannot keep the brain in place in any collision. It's not only the brain, either. Connective tissues, joints and supporting bones in the neck and shoulders also suffer consequences when a helmet makes a sudden stop. I would make a recommendation for a sticker on the helmet warning that any helmet contact is against the law, Newton's law.

[greybeard]

Very conflicted about this issue.

People have died during NASCAR races. We didn't stop having them.

Hank Gathers died during a basketball game. We didn't scuttle the sport.

Football is a violent sport. No question. But so is hockey. So is boxing. Heck, so is wrestling. Is football worse than the others? I don't really know, and I don't necessarily trust the media to inform me.

The media is hiding the truth and the focus exclusively on concusions is a game of hide the pea. Nonconcusive injuries are brain killers, causing memory distortion, illusions, forgetfulness, inability to comprehend, and perform routine tasks without great discipline. The costs of long term care are going to be astronomical But, so are the costs of caring for and rehabing all thes torn ACLs, MCL, LCLs, rotator cuffs, torn muscles and connective tissu, you name it. Anytime a soft injury occurs, there is at least one MRI, usually more conducted,at least several specialists conducing their own evaluations, conferences, minor rehabs and that is for the ones determined to be "minor enough not to end some poor expendible's seasn. Who currently pays for all this and what is the insurance pool. Through in the rehabs, the continued imaging that goes with it, and we are talking real dollars. Now, if the NFL is forcd to self fund for these costs and the continued care of retired players suffering from debilitations reasonally atributtable to football related injuries those billion dollar broadcast contracts ain't gonna look that big. And, no one will be able to say the media is overstating anything. The numbers will be breathtaking.

Butthe real killer is going to begin when players who don't make the pros start suing universities, colleges and their conferences for the long term health costs traceable to having a love for football but no choice other than to play games that rules allow to be unnedessarily dangerous. And, when the first high school distrist gets hit with a similar suit, Howard had better have more to show than his advocacy for some protective rules against concussions in pee wee football.

I think that basketball and other sports will not be far behind. Goodbye pull down rims, goodbye hanging on rims unless a genuine risk of being undercut, perhaps goodbye duning all together, calling pushing and shoving inside, call walking and carrying the ball, and bye bye all demostrations of ankind.

Baseball, so long aluminum bats, cut norml seasons way back and no television of preseson games, cut back on the number of playoff levels, and maximize the number of games a player can play a month, unless he is on a doctor supervised performnce enhancer remedy.

These sports did fine before the violence and pizaz, smaller but just fine, with true affinity bases. The multi, multi billion follsr industries that the SHOW in each sport will lose its blot, much less prodct will be sold, and everybody would do just f9ne without the collusion betwen the product sellers and their pitchmen at universities who get paid big time for displaying all sorts of uniforms when thei teams take the court.

There was a movie Sounder, if you haven't, see it. A family of sharechroppers, especilly the Daddy, pushed his some for 15 years to go off to college. When the day came, his father drove his son and the boy's dog, sounder down to thetraom station. The son hd fought leaving for almost as long as his father had dreampt of it. Most of us can identify with the kid, his ambivolence in leaving his home and the better life in front of him. As they drove down the road, the kid looked back and starring at their babin that passed as a home said, You know, dad, I'm sure gonn miss this place but I ain't onna worry aout it?"

Wirjs fir ne,

[brumby041]

Do retired rugby and aussie rules, or even irish football, players have similar rates of post-career brain injury? Honest question. I imagine that the physical limitations of tackling without pads might reduce this some. I also wonder if the improvement in helmet technology just in the past 5 years will start to make a difference, along with simply better understanding the problem.

Edited to add -- removing a lot of the old astroturf fields has to help as well.

The way that these games are structured would lead one to believe that these sorts of injuries are far less common. The players rarely (if ever) approach each other at full speed and hit, like in (American) football. I know rugby players that think that American football is crazy (and stupid) for the emphasis on hitting, as opposed to strategically playing a game.

[Reisen]

For anyone bored, google "rugby injuries".

This thread has taken a weird turn. Basketball, soccer, heck, probably any contact sport have a ton of soft tissue injuries. The whole "someone is going to die" meme seems a little overdramatic. People die playing sports all the time, and there are a ton of sports way more dangerous (in terms of lethality) than professional football. Racing has been mentioned, but most winter sports (skiing, luge, bobsled, etc.) can be bad. Anything in the water (surfing, triathlons, etc.) has risk of drowning.

There are inherent risks in pursuing high activity sports, and there always has been. What we're seeing here is the sharks smelling blood in the water and circling the NFL and college football knowing there is a ton of money in potential lawsuits.

Now, that said, it does seem there are specific issues to football with regards to concussive and sub-concussive injuries. To address that, I think you're going to need a combination of technology (helmets, neck guards) and rule changes. The rule changes are the easy ones. Getting rid of the kickoff, more aggressively flagging rough play, and getting rid of spearing are easy ones. Bernard Pollard's hit on Ridley shouldn't be legal, and should be legislated out of football the same way james Harrison's hits have been.

But why do we care about soft tissue injuries in the NFL, when we're seeing medical techniques dealing with them more effectively than ever, and players making a ton of money anyway. That's something virtually every athlete, from freshman girls soccer players to olympic gymnasts have to deal with. But a tiny fraction of them are compensated the way NFL players are, so I'm not too worried about guys like RGIII.

[moonpie23]

i don't think we'll ever see a player die on the field.....he may LOOK like he was dead, but the story will be that he died later in the hospital.

football isn't going to go away due to violence or injuries. We ALL want to see that Jedaveon Clowney hit on the running back, we just want to see him get up like in Madden NFL. Football is violent. "We" (the sports fans) don't want Brian's Song in our sports, "We" want The Hunger Games!

Nascar, hockey, and boxing have and continue to survive including physical injuries.

take fighting out of hockey, and it's gone....take crashes out of Nascar, and it's gone.....Take boxing out of boxing and......uh...well


the line will be drawn in court by what the NFL knew and when they knew it......much like the tobacco companies.

[AncientPsychicT]

take fighting out of hockey, and it's gone.

I actually think hockey could do without the fighting. It cheapens the product on the ice when the league allows violent side shows purely to draw more attention, and it distracts from what otherwise is a fast-paced, beautiful, exciting game to watch.

Hitting, however, is an integral part of the game and should not be diminished. Here's where I think hockey differs from football: hockey players hate helmets and only really use them for head protection from the puck/the boards, and even then, they don't do much. When they hit, they go for the core of the body, not the head, and they use their shoulders to initiate the hit, not the head.

The problem with football is that most players intentionally use their heads as a weapon and see other players' heads as a target. These repeated big and small blows to the head are what cause the concussions and brain damage, not the inherent physicality of the sport. So ultimately, football will not and shouldn't go away if they get back to teaching proper fundamentals instead of going for the highlight hit.



Sidenote: hockey still has its share of concussions, though the sport in general is much more strict about when they will let a player return from one. As a Bruins fan, I can give you two great examples of this: Marc Savard and Nathan Horton. Savvy's career is pretty much over thanks to a concussion he suffered on the ice, while Horton was effectively sidelined for a year with one. That's not to say that these guys can't think or walk, it's just that medical personnel realize the risk of letting them play and will not/didn't clear them.

[sporthenry]

I actually think hockey could do without the fighting. It cheapens the product on the ice when the league allows violent side shows purely to draw more attention, and it distracts from what otherwise is a fast-paced, beautiful, exciting game to watch.

Hitting, however, is an integral part of the game and should not be diminished. Here's where I think hockey differs from football: hockey players hate helmets and only really use them for head protection from the puck/the boards, and even then, they don't do much. When they hit, they go for the core of the body, not the head, and they use their shoulders to initiate the hit, not the head.

The problem with football is that most players intentionally use their heads as a weapon and see other players' heads as a target. These repeated big and small blows to the head are what cause the concussions and brain damage, not the inherent physicality of the sport. So ultimately, football will not and shouldn't go away if they get back to teaching proper fundamentals instead of going for the highlight hit.



Sidenote: hockey still has its share of concussions, though the sport in general is much more strict about when they will let a player return from one. As a Bruins fan, I can give you two great examples of this: Marc Savard and Nathan Horton. Savvy's career is pretty much over thanks to a concussion he suffered on the ice, while Horton was effectively sidelined for a year with one. That's not to say that these guys can't think or walk, it's just that medical personnel realize the risk of letting them play and will not/didn't clear them.

No doubt hockey can do without the fighting and wouldn't be surprised if it is removed during our lifetime. But I disagree about the hits being that clean. People don't lower their heads like in football and use their helmets to make a hit but there is still a ton of hits to the head especially with guys launching themselves at the offensive player. Probably not as much as football b/c hitting isn't required on every play but it is still an issue that will becoming bigger as CTE becomes more problematic.

And as far as concussions being monitored better, just look at Landeskog, who sustained a concussion and was allowed to play the rest of the game last week. And with the NFL, you can cite Jahvid Best as proof of them being strict. While concussions might not be as big of an issue in the NHL, they are still an issue and the game will move away from this hitting like Scott Stevens much like the NFL has tried to remove hits.

[moonpie23]

i cannot imagine that a sport which allows the REFS to basically take a break and WATCH the fighting will ever eliminate that portion of the spectacle...

[Jim3k]

Taking some offline advice from -jk, I am posting this WaPo story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/highschools/spenser-rositano-retires-at-20-sixth-concussion-cuts-boston-college-safetys-career-short/2013/12/12/994a7c62-620f-11e3-bf45-61f69f54fc5f_story.html?tid=pm_sports_pop) here about the medical condition of BC footballer Spenser Rositano. He is (was) a pretty good college player, one who played in our league and who I think drew the respect of his opponents.

As the story points out, his six concussions, beginning in high school, have led him to give up football. Let's all hope he has not permanently damaged himself and that he has a decent future awaiting him.

In many ways, this is one of those stories in which one of us, or our children, could be saying, "There but for the grace of God, go I." Let's pull for Rositano to overcome this condition and live his life with full brain acuity.

Let's also hope that BC has his back as he goes forward for his degree. This story does not cover that aspect of his situation.

[DueBlevil]

Let's also hope that BC has his back as he goes forward for his degree. This story does not cover that aspect of his situation.

The story does mention "Retirement from football is still growing on Rositano, whose remaining education at Boston College will continue to be covered by the school (he is due to graduate in December 2014)."

Thanks for sharing the article. Sometimes I don't know how a human being can literally survive playing this game as long as some people do.

[Jim3k]

The story does mention "Retirement from football is still growing on Rositano, whose remaining education at Boston College will continue to be covered by the school (he is due to graduate in December 2014)."



Yep. Missed it. :rolleyes: Glad BC is stepping up. I was pretty sure they would.

[-jk]

One more year of college. What then?

He's in a world of hurt.

-jk

[Papa John]

Adding anything to the helmet short of a half a foot of sponge rubber-like material to the weapon we call a helmet won't help. The problem is that there is nothing the helmet can do to keep the brain from sloshing around inside the skull when a players helmet makes contact with something that stops it in its tracks. That's where the concussions come from. Helmets may stop lacerations to the scalp or minimize damage to the skull, but the helmet cannot keep the brain in place in any collision. It's not only the brain, either. Connective tissues, joints and supporting bones in the neck and shoulders also suffer consequences when a helmet makes a sudden stop. I would make a recommendation for a sticker on the helmet warning that any helmet contact is against the law, Newton's law.

This is why I think the way to fix football is to go back to leather helmets sans facemasks.



take fighting out of hockey, and it's gone....

Bull... There is far less fighting in hockey today than there was in the 1970s and 1980s when I was growing up, and the game is just as exciting, if not more so. I'd like to see them outlaw fighting in hockey altogether... It would enhance the grace and beauty of the game.

[davekay1971]

1) Education education education - The information is out there an improving regarding the potential brain injury risks of playing football. Informed parents can decide whether or not to allow their kids to play, at what level, and under what rules (ie: does your local Pop Warner league has good protective gear and appropriate protective rules?). When young players are old enough to make their own decisions, they can make the same judgement calls. Yes, I know, this view actually believes in the ability of individuals to make their own decisions about their health and safety.

2) Rules and enforcement of rules - football is still a great game when spearing, helmet-to-helmet hits, defenseless player rules, etc are in the game and enforced. At lower levels of play (college and below) enforce those rules with yardage plus suspensions; at the NFL level enforce them with yardage + suspensions + fines.

3) Equipment - there is finally a movement toward really improving the helmets to better protect injury. The technology is there, and must be employed at every level. This will make football more expensive to play, and have a big impact on the accessibility to the game, which will have a big effect on depth of the talent pool...but that's a price worth paying.

I'm not sure football is on the way to extinction due to it's violence. What's one of the most rapidly growing "sports" in popularity? MMA. Why? Because it's ludicrously violent. MMA has made a conscious decision to minimize the protection of it's participants in order to maximize excitement. Football has, due to increased scrutiny, finally gotten on board with rules changes and equipment changes to protect participants...although those changes are not perfect. Football is still incredibly popular. Football will survive the violence inherent in the sport, and, hopefully, that violence will be mitigated to minimize the potential for long term injury of it's participants.

As a parent, I am in much the same position as the POTUS in that I have just one son who, at 14, is "alarmingly un-athletic" and therefore safe from traumatic brain injury on the gridiron. I also have three daughters, but their main danger from football is likely to come from overly aggressive tackling by players off the field. Which brings me to my stance on the second amendment and my ownership of land and a shovel...:D

[neuro]

I am a pediatric neurologist. I diagnosis and treat sports related concussions on a regular basis.

I LOVE football. I played in high school. I loved it. I love watching it on TV now.

However, my enjoyment is diminishing rapidly with every bone-jarring hit I see. I cringe with every helmet to helmet hit. I shudder every time someone is slow to get up after hard tackle.

Every concussion, by DEFINITION, is brain damage. For some the damage will repair and go away. For others, there will be permanent deficits, but which are mild and will not be picked up without methodical pre- and post-concussion neuropsychologic testing. For yet others, one concussion will cause notable permanent injury. Each concussion is additive. A previous concussion renders the brain more likely to have new deficits from even milder forces.

I have parents ask me "so when can Johnnie go back and play football". I tell them "if it were my child, never".

The game is going to have to fundamentally change in order to continue to exist. It's a shame that we allow children under 18, who are not adults and don't have the capacity to accurately assess judge the risk/rewards of playing, to continue to play this sport. I think if parents were properly educated they would never consent to having their kids play. Word will get out, parents and communities will learn and understand the realities of the game, and something is going to change.

[Reisen]

I am a pediatric neurologist. I diagnosis and treat sports related concussions on a regular basis.

I LOVE football. I played in high school. I loved it. I love watching it on TV now.

However, my enjoyment is diminishing rapidly with every bone-jarring hit I see. I cringe with every helmet to helmet hit. I shudder every time someone is slow to get up after hard tackle.

Every concussion, by DEFINITION, is brain damage. For some the damage will repair and go away. For others, there will be permanent deficits, but which are mild and will not be picked up without methodical pre- and post-concussion neuropsychologic testing. For yet others, one concussion will cause notable permanent injury. Each concussion is additive. A previous concussion renders the brain more likely to have new deficits from even milder forces.

I have parents ask me "so when can Johnnie go back and play football". I tell them "if it were my child, never".

The game is going to have to fundamentally change in order to continue to exist. It's a shame that we allow children under 18, who are not adults and don't have the capacity to accurately assess judge the risk/rewards of playing, to continue to play this sport. I think if parents were properly educated they would never consent to having their kids play. Word will get out, parents and communities will learn and understand the realities of the game, and something is going to change.

I played one season in middle school, and then was not allowed by my parents to play after that. No concussions, fortunately.

My kids will not be allowed to play either. There are plenty of other sports.

[DieHard]

While I agree that football is vicious, all sports at some point will cause head injuries. I am not suggesting we stop regulating, and making each sport safer, but at some point we need to realize that it is part of higher athletics in general. How are you going to stop a soccer player from heading the ball, or a collision in the outfield, or a gymnast falling? Either you play what you are gifted at with all your ability (and for many cases it allows people to go to a great institution like Duke), or we stop it all at the youth level. I, for one, think team athletics does more good for society in general than the harm it causes to a few.

[-jk]

While I agree that football is vicious, all sports at some point will cause head injuries. I am not suggesting we stop regulating, and making each sport safer, but at some point we need to realize that it is part of higher athletics in general. How are you going to stop a soccer player from heading the ball, or a collision in the outfield, or a gymnast falling? Either you play what you are gifted at with all your ability (and for many cases it allows people to go to a great institution like Duke), or we stop it all at the youth level. I, for one, think team athletics does more good for society in general than the harm it causes to a few.

As I posted before:


... [O]f mainstream sports, only boxing and football have bone jarring hits as an integral part of the rules of the game, and boxing has already been marginalized.

I would agree that the lurid aspect of some sports - spectacular crashes in car races being the classic example - appeals to the same base instinct.

-jk

And my kids' soccer league doesn't allow heading.

-jk

[Edouble]

While I agree that football is vicious, all sports at some point will cause head injuries. I am not suggesting we stop regulating, and making each sport safer, but at some point we need to realize that it is part of higher athletics in general. How are you going to stop a soccer player from heading the ball, or a collision in the outfield, or a gymnast falling? Either you play what you are gifted at with all your ability (and for many cases it allows people to go to a great institution like Duke), or we stop it all at the youth level. I, for one, think team athletics does more good for society in general than the harm it causes to a few.

This is possibly the worst argument I have ever read about anything.

By your logic, cooking could cause a head injury if someone stands up from the 'fridge' while the freezer door is open above them.

Clearly, football is one of a few sports that stands out among many as being much, much riskier with regard to the potential for chronic neurological injury.

[DieHard]

Take your bike away from your kid now.

From the American Association of Neurological Surgeons website...

The following 20 sports/recreational activities represent the categories contributing to the highest number of estimated head injuries treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms in 2009.

Cycling: 85,389
Football: 46,948
Baseball and Softball: 38,394
Basketball: 34,692
Water Sports (Diving, Scuba Diving, Surfing, Swimming, Water Polo, Water Skiing, Water Tubing): 28,716
Powered Recreational Vehicles (ATVs, Dune Buggies, Go-Carts, Mini bikes, Off-road): 26,606
Soccer: 24,184
Skateboards/Scooters: 23,114
Fitness/Exercise/Health Club: 18,012
Winter Sports (Skiing, Sledding, Snowboarding, Snowmobiling): 16,948
Horseback Riding: 14,466
Gymnastics/Dance/Cheerleading: 10,223
Golf: 10,035
Hockey: 8,145
Other Ball Sports and Balls, Unspecified: 6,883
Trampolines: 5,919
Rugby/Lacrosse: 5,794
Roller and Inline Skating: 3,320
Ice Skating: 4,608

The top 10 sports-related head-injury categories among children ages 14 and younger:

Cycling: 40,272
Football: 21,878
Baseball and Softball: 18,246
Basketball: 14,952
Skateboards/Scooters: 14,783
Water Sports: 12,843
Soccer: 8,392
Powered Recreational Vehicles: 6,818
Winter Sports: 6,750
Trampolines: 5,025

[uh_no]

Take your bike away from your kid now.

From the American Association of Neurological Surgeons website...

The following 20 sports/recreational activities represent the categories contributing to the highest number of estimated head injuries treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms in 2009.

Cycling: 85,389
Football: 46,948
Baseball and Softball: 38,394
Basketball: 34,692
Water Sports (Diving, Scuba Diving, Surfing, Swimming, Water Polo, Water Skiing, Water Tubing): 28,716
Powered Recreational Vehicles (ATVs, Dune Buggies, Go-Carts, Mini bikes, Off-road): 26,606
Soccer: 24,184
Skateboards/Scooters: 23,114
Fitness/Exercise/Health Club: 18,012
Winter Sports (Skiing, Sledding, Snowboarding, Snowmobiling): 16,948
Horseback Riding: 14,466
Gymnastics/Dance/Cheerleading: 10,223
Golf: 10,035
Hockey: 8,145
Other Ball Sports and Balls, Unspecified: 6,883
Trampolines: 5,919
Rugby/Lacrosse: 5,794
Roller and Inline Skating: 3,320
Ice Skating: 4,608

The top 10 sports-related head-injury categories among children ages 14 and younger:

Cycling: 40,272
Football: 21,878
Baseball and Softball: 18,246
Basketball: 14,952
Skateboards/Scooters: 14,783
Water Sports: 12,843
Soccer: 8,392
Powered Recreational Vehicles: 6,818
Winter Sports: 6,750
Trampolines: 5,025

would be interesting to see what percentage of the cycling head related injuries among children would have been mitigated by the proper use of a helmet.

Not that anecdotes prove anything: my sister, even whilst wearing a helmet, suffered a concussion and incurred a short hospital stay from riding her bike, and it was only when she showed how she wore it that we realized it was both too small and being worn too far back on the head.

I'll be the first to admit cycling is dangerous, having taken my share of spills, but i also wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are exaggerated by improper use of safety equipment.

[-jk]

Nice try. And the primary cause of death for kids is car accidents.

Until you add participation rates, this table is not terribly helpful though.

Anecdotally, around here way more kids ride - and ride year round - than play tackle football even in season.

-jk

[DieHard]

I only pulled out the statistics from the first Google search I could find, when accused of being an idiot.

My original statement was more of a social statement than trying to fix anything. I was talking about a high level of sports competition. I consider this more than youth league sports or ridding your bike without a helmet. I consider this at a level that you are being scouted for either college or professional sports. I was not discussing common household accidents while cooking. I said each sport should continue to regulate to make it as safe as possible, but there is only so much you can do. It is part of competing.

The NFL put in a new rule about hitting the head, and they have more knee injuries than ever before. I understand that mental illness due to injury in the long term is worse than a bad knee, but it is still a lifetime of pain and alters your way of life. It can also end a career, just like a head injury. As long as people are willing to watch. As long as it gives people a chance to compete. We will play the sport.

The overall good team sport brings to society is better than the negatives.

[davekay1971]

Nice try. And the primary cause of death for kids is car accidents.

Until you add participation rates, this table is not terribly helpful though.

Anecdotally, around here way more kids ride - and ride year round - than play tackle football even in season.

-jk

Still, the far greater danger to our society, unfortunately starting at a very young age, is the LACK of participation in sports. When parents forbid football due to fear of a brain injury, but buy a Playstation 4 for Christmas, they are making a decision that significantly increases long term health risk. See the rates of childhood obesity, the staggering increase in diabetes, and the related heart disease risk.

Football versus soccer? Go with soccer.
Football versus mastering Call of Duty: Ghost? Go with football. Sans helmet if need be.

[uh_no]

Still, the far greater danger to our society, unfortunately starting at a very young age, is the LACK of participation in sports. When parents forbid football due to fear of a brain injury, but buy a Playstation 4 for Christmas, they are making a decision that significantly increases long term health risk. See the rates of childhood obesity, the staggering increase in diabetes, and the related heart disease risk.

Football versus soccer? Go with soccer.
Football versus mastering Call of Duty: Ghost? Go with football. Sans helmet if need be.

while sports are great, don't undersell the merits of gaming....not that i'm a heavy gamer, but research has demonstrated benefits such as incraesed problem solving ability and fine motor skills from gaming.

While it receives a bad rap (wrap?) i find the claim dubious that it's any worse than any other trivial skill that one could acquire...such as perhaps learning to juggle or some craft.


As with anything else, when used in excess, it's detrimental, and I would argue that someone who did nothing but play sports all day is not inherently better than someone who plays video games all day...both are lacking balance in their lives and would do better to be more well rounded.

There is a rather evocative book (at least in my opinion) by the title "Everything Bad is Good For You," which discusses many of the current amusements that are considered "bad" and how when viewed from a more quantitative vantage, may actually be superior to more classical ones.

[gus]

Cycling: 85,389
Football: 46,948


Assuming approximately 50% of cyclists and 0% of football players are girls, this statistic doesn't really help the argument that cycling is more dangerous than football. If you add in the amount of time actually spent cycling, vs amount of time actually playing contact football, and adjust for particiaption... cycling will look a lot safer than football.

[sagegrouse]

Assuming approximately 50% of cyclists and 0% of football players are girls, this statistic doesn't really help the argument that cycling is more dangerous than football. If you add in the amount of time actually spent cycling, vs amount of time actually playing contact football, and adjust for particiaption... cycling will look a lot safer than football.



A few years ago I was involved in a defense study where the effectiveness of armor on tanks was a subject. At some point, we were told, it doesn't matter how effective the armor is, the kinetic energy of a weapon hitting the tank jars the tank so much that no one inside can survive -- even if the armor repels the projectile.

Think about about two 230-pound football players going at each other at full speed. Can any helmet protect the heads of these players in a head-to-head collision? It seems clear that the rules have to limit the kind of contact that occurs in the sport.

sagegrouse
'And a total detour from the subject at hand: As the father and grandfather of gymnasts, I seem to recall a statistic from years ago that the only sport with a higher incidence of injuries -- of any kind -- than football was gymnastics. One reason is exposure -- gymnasts in my experence train from 10 to 20 hours per week on a year-around basis. Our family's experience is consistent with that data -- we had at least two broken bones. Serious football players may train that amount, but the contact part is limited to the season and preseason. In gymnastics, the contact with the balance beam, floor, bars, and vault occur every day'

[johnb]

In regards to ER stats: when I played football quite a long time ago, we never really went to the ER for anything. Perhaps things have changed, but we shook it off when we got our bell rung; it was very clearly part of the culture to minimize injuries. I had at least one concussion with loss of consciousness and a broken finger as a grade school quarterback and the ER was never discussed.

In multiple years on school-age football teams, I know of only one guy who went to the ER, and he had broken his arm playing against us (the 6th grader who got his arm broke cried, as did our defensive player who did the actual breaking). I recall an unusual blend of emotions: I felt sorry for the kid whose arm was broken and could identify with my teammate who had hurt the kid, but the more overriding and intense feeling was that we were SUPPOSED to be trying to hurt the other players, that the other kid wasn't just a 6th grader who happened to attend the school a few miles away but instead a rival whose injury was tangible proof of our toughness. I felt embarrassed by the tears of my teammate but mostly numb, excited, and ready to get to the next play. The only limit to the pain I wanted to inflict was the referees; pretty much anything we could get away with was fair game. While I didn't bite or scratch when in a pile of players, I knew/saw/felt guys do it and thought it both unsportsmanlike/whoosy and tempting retaliation. Of course, the tough guy sensation was when I played linebacker; my interest in big hits went down quite a lot when I was throwing the football--but even then I wanted the other side to come away from the experience feeling dejected and self-loathing; I loved to make the other team hang their heads.

We also played teams of widely varying abilities. I still recall the visceral pleasure in crushing teams that were younger/smaller than us as well as the physical anxiety/fear when we played the occasional game against a much bigger/better team. All my pubertal emotional turmoil was jacked up in a way that my later efforts on the math team never quite generated.

But those early experiences did leave me somewhat addicted--not to opioids but to the intensity of those feelings, and I can still get a whiff of the intensity by watching games on tv. Without those early experiences, I doubt if I would be particularly interested in watching.

Oh, and another reason for the helmets is so that we can objectify our opponents by not really getting to watch their faces. While basketball is played with a lot of effort, there is still a lot of grace. My impression is that football is played with a whole lot of pain and grimacing; not very appealing for the cameras. I guess we could get rid of helmets, blockers, and tackling, but flag football has not generated much of an audience despite its potential to be a lot like outdoor basketball with a soupcon of ultimate frisbee. I doubt whether Roman senators wanted their kids to grow up to be gladiators.

Anyway, while I'd be concerned about neuropsychiatric injuries, I'd be even more concerned that my child would hone these unappealing personality traits--though I guess they are similar to those we hone in soldiers, who share a lot of demographic characteristics with elite football players.

[duke79]

I am a pediatric neurologist. I diagnosis and treat sports related concussions on a regular basis.

I LOVE football. I played in high school. I loved it. I love watching it on TV now.

However, my enjoyment is diminishing rapidly with every bone-jarring hit I see. I cringe with every helmet to helmet hit. I shudder every time someone is slow to get up after hard tackle.

Every concussion, by DEFINITION, is brain damage. For some the damage will repair and go away. For others, there will be permanent deficits, but which are mild and will not be picked up without methodical pre- and post-concussion neuropsychologic testing. For yet others, one concussion will cause notable permanent injury. Each concussion is additive. A previous concussion renders the brain more likely to have new deficits from even milder forces.

I have parents ask me "so when can Johnnie go back and play football". I tell them "if it were my child, never".

The game is going to have to fundamentally change in order to continue to exist. It's a shame that we allow children under 18, who are not adults and don't have the capacity to accurately assess judge the risk/rewards of playing, to continue to play this sport. I think if parents were properly educated they would never consent to having their kids play. Word will get out, parents and communities will learn and understand the realities of the game, and something is going to change.

Thanks for your input. Obviously, you see a lot more brain injuries to kids and know more about the adverse consequences than probably anyone on this board. I don't have any sons but would not allow them to play football, given what we know about head injuries. Obviously, head injuries happen in other sports or in everyday life, but it just seems like the odds of head injuries are more likely in football where direct head to head contact happens on a frequent basis. I wonder how many responsible parents would allow their kids in a car without seat belts or would allow their teenage kids to drive drunk?

[gus]

A few years ago I was involved in a defense study where the effectiveness of armor on tanks was a subject. At some point, we were told, it doesn't matter how effective the armor is, the kinetic energy of a weapon hitting the tank jars the tank so much that no one inside can survive -- even if the armor repels the projectile.

Think about about two 230-pound football players going at each other at full speed. Can any helmet protect the heads of these players in a head-to-head collision? It seems clear that the rules have to limit the kind of contact that occurs in the sport.

sagegrouse
'And a total detour from the subject at hand: As the father and grandfather of gymnasts, I seem to recall a statistic from years ago that the only sport with a higher incidence of injuries -- of any kind -- than football was gymnastics. One reason is exposure -- gymnasts in my experence train from 10 to 20 hours per week on a year-around basis. Our family's experience is consistent with that data -- we had at least two broken bones. Serious football players may train that amount, but the contact part is limited to the season and preseason. In gymnastics, the contact with the balance beam, floor, bars, and vault occur every day'

I always have trouble explaining that concept when discussing car safety. So many people think huge, indestructible behemoths are safer than cars that are designed to not survive an accident (i.e. to absorb the energy of impact).

I usually settle on "all that energy from the impact is going somewhere: either into crumpling the car, or the internal organs of the people in the car."

I wonder if they have to make helmets that get destroyed on impact.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I always have trouble explaining that concept when discussing car safety. So many people think huge, indestructible behemoths are safer than cars that are designed to not survive an accident (i.e. to absorb the energy of impact).

I usually settle on "all that energy from the impact is going somewhere: either into crumpling the car, or the internal organs of the people in the car."

I wonder if they have to make helmets that get destroyed on impact.

That's actually a pretty good idea, although having to have a team carry dozens of extra replacements, at many $hundreds each, would be impracticable for all but Div. 1A teams from a cost standpoint.

Someone please explain to me how hitting your head on the pavement while wearing a bike helmet is different (better) than hitting one's head on the ground or another player while wearing a football helmet? The brain is going to scramble badly from either jarring impact with an immovable (or opposite moving) object.

I have one (grown) daughter. I was more concerned with whether my son (if she was born a he instead) would have a bris or just a circumcision after birth :confused:, not whether he would play football when he grew up. And how come soccer headers are allowed? That's a concussion waiting to happen. An intentional jarring impact.

[orrnot]

I think the rugby emphasis on wrapped tackling is not fully appreciated as a distinction from American football. In rugby, a player simply knocked to the pitch can hop up and run on with the ball. To get a player down (and thus force him to give up the ball) you have to take him down in your grasp. This devalues high speed collisions over surety of grasp.

I wonder what the impact of a wrapping rule would be in American football. It would dramatically affect the sport but I'm not sure it would destroy it. If I instituted such a rule in American football I'd probably increase the first down required yardage to 15 or 20. Maybe a lesser step would be to institute "wrap rules" at lower levels of American football. That might be more socially acceptable and do little damage to the style of play in the collegiate and professional ranks.

Rugby also benefits, safety-wise, from not allowing "obstruction," or blocking, which comes very close to being at the essence of American football.

[peterjswift]

I wonder if they have to make helmets that get destroyed on impact.

Most bike helmets are designed that way. In fact, many bike helmet manufacturers will actually replace (for free) your helmet after it was crunched in an accident of some sort. A lot of climbing, biking, whitewater and equestrian helmets are made that way as well, though not all. The super lightweight plastic shell over ABS foam on the average bike helmet is really intended to get crunched pretty badly in an accident - it absorbs and spreads the energy...but is useless afterwards. This style of helmet is really only worthwhile in situations where any helmet contact is very rare. For a football player, this would obviously not be a good choice.

This is actually why a helmet for one sport might not be a good helmet for another. Helmets are certified for the sport they are intended to be used in. Some helmets might have multiple certifications, but most are designed for one specific sport. This is why, while skateboard helmets might look "cool" - they aren't necessarily what you want to be wearing while biking....and that football helmet is probably a bad choice as well.

[-jk]

That's actually a pretty good idea, although having to have a team carry dozens of extra replacements, at many $hundreds each, would be impracticable for all but Div. 1A teams from a cost standpoint.

Someone please explain to me how hitting your head on the pavement while wearing a bike helmet is different (better) than hitting one's head on the ground or another player while wearing a football helmet? The brain is going to scramble badly from either jarring impact with an immovable (or opposite moving) object.

I have one (grown) daughter. I was more concerned with whether my son (if she was born a he instead) would have a bris or just a circumcision after birth :confused:, not whether he would play football when he grew up. And how come soccer headers are allowed? That's a concussion waiting to happen. An intentional jarring impact.

Bike helmets are designed to crush - like the crumple zones in modern cars. If you have a solid hit wearing one, you should replace it. In decades of (mostly mountain) biking, I've had one bike crash where I hit my head - I put a solid dent and cracked my helmet. (The rest of my crashes just resulted in various scrapes and bruises.)

Usually Bell (a major bike helmet manufacturer) will give a discount on the replacement from a crash. Not sure about the other companies.

The big difference between football and biking is that hitting your head in a serious bike wreck is the exception, not an everyday part of the sport. (And I'm not talking about the X-games style of biking - or any other X-games sport - those are insane, too.)

-jk

[uh_no]

I wonder if they have to make helmets that get destroyed on impact.

They in fact do.

While what you say is partially true, that things getting destroyed absorbs the impact, but while destruction is effective, it is not necessary in all cases. All that is required for the aceleration to occur over a longer time (your old high school physics F=ma=m*v/t). If we make a huge crumple zone, in a car, the acceleration starts when the car first imacts, and ends when the car comes to a stop, near the end of the crumple zone. This "spreads the acceleration out" increasing the t in the formula above, decreasing F (force). This is exactly how bicycle helmets work (and tons of other things, like the SAFR barriers at race tracks), where the foam effectively gets destroyed as it compresses from it's initial width to it's final width.

Such a scheme, though, is ineffective when the buffer needs to absorb multiple impacts, such as a floor of a basketball court, or, say, a football helmet. In these cases, the helmet needs to both absorb the impact and return to it's' original state. The padding compresses like in a bicycle helmet or in a car, but unlike the two, it then springs back to it's initial state. In theory it can be equally as effective (as a pad of the same width that gets destroyed) so long as the acceleration is evenly distributed across time from when the impact first occurs until the padding is maximally compressed. This, of course, is only an ideal, and the "springy" nature of the padding that allows it to not be destroyed also means the acceleration is not constant, and is greater the further the foam is compressed (so while not an ideal spring, it exhibits spring like quantities).

What it comes down to is some mass is coming in at some velocity, and for a given thickness of padding, there is a minimum amount of force which must necessarily be transmitted regardless of whether the material is destroyed or not. For those that are interested, here is the derivation (assuming an ideal material that gives constant acceleration:

F=ma
F=m*v1-v0/t (definition of acceleration)
F=m*v/t (final velocity is 0)
F=m*(x1-x0)/t^2 (definition of velocity)
F=m*x/t^2 (defining final position as 0)

This says the force applied only depends on the mass, the distance over which we slowed it down, and the time it took to slow it down. We now have to relate time to distance

v(t)=v1*(tf-t)/tf (velocity at time t is initial velocity multiplied by the fraction of time left before we stop...or final time minus current time over final time)
v[av]=v1-0/2 (since velocity is linear with time, the average velocity against time is simply the initial velocity minus the final velocity over 2)
v[av]=v1/2
x=v[av]*t (the distance to stop is the average velocity mutliplied by the time it takes to stop)
x=v1*t/2 (substitution)
t=2*x/v1 (ALGEBRAAAAA)

now plug that value of t into the equation from the first steps:

F=m*x/(2*x/v)^2
F=m*x/(4*x^2/v^2)
F=mxv^2/4x^2
F=mv^2/4x

There you have it! Given an incoming velocity and assuming the material will stop the incoming object with ABOUT constant accelration, then the force will increase with the square of velocity, linearly with mass, and most importantly, inversely proportional to the distance over which the object is stopped. So given we aren't going to decrease the speed of the players or their mass, the best we can do is increase the width of the padding of the helmet, or attempt to eliminate the hits

Extra credit: figure out the scale factor so that we can input pounds, mph, and inches and get back Gs

[sagegrouse]

They in fact do.


F=ma
F=m*v1-v0/t (definition of acceleration)
F=m*v/t (final velocity is 0)
F=m*(x1-x0)/t^2 (definition of velocity)
F=m*x/t^2 (defining final position as 0)

This says the force applied only depends on the mass, the distance over which we slowed it down, and the time it took to slow it down. We now have to relate time to distance

v(t)=v1*(tf-t)/tf (velocity at time t is initial velocity multiplied by the fraction of time left before we stop...or final time minus current time over final time)
v[av]=v1-0/2 (since velocity is linear with time, the average velocity against time is simply the initial velocity minus the final velocity over 2)
v[av]=v1/2
x=v[av]*t (the distance to stop is the average velocity mutliplied by the time it takes to stop)
x=v1*t/2 (substitution)
t=2*x/v1 (ALGEBRAAAAA)

now plug that value of t into the equation from the first steps:

F=m*x/(2*x/v)^2
F=m*x/(4*x^2/v^2)
F=mxv^2/4x^2
F=mv^2/4x

There you have it! Given an incoming velocity and assuming the material will stop the incoming object with ABOUT constant accelration, then the force will increase with the square of velocity, linearly with mass, and most importantly, inversely proportional to the distance over which the object is stopped. So given we aren't going to decrease the speed of the players or their mass, the best we can do is increase the width of the padding of the helmet, or attempt to eliminate the hits

Well, boys and girls, I think we stumbled on Uh No's sweet spot. -- sage

[alteran]

Take your bike away from your kid now.

From the American Association of Neurological Surgeons website...

The following 20 sports/recreational activities represent the categories contributing to the highest number of estimated head injuries treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms in 2009.

Cycling: 85,389
Football: 46,948
Baseball and Softball: 38,394
Basketball: 34,692
Water Sports (Diving, Scuba Diving, Surfing, Swimming, Water Polo, Water Skiing, Water Tubing): 28,716
Powered Recreational Vehicles (ATVs, Dune Buggies, Go-Carts, Mini bikes, Off-road): 26,606
Soccer: 24,184
Skateboards/Scooters: 23,114
Fitness/Exercise/Health Club: 18,012
Winter Sports (Skiing, Sledding, Snowboarding, Snowmobiling): 16,948
Horseback Riding: 14,466
Gymnastics/Dance/Cheerleading: 10,223
Golf: 10,035
Hockey: 8,145
Other Ball Sports and Balls, Unspecified: 6,883
Trampolines: 5,919
Rugby/Lacrosse: 5,794
Roller and Inline Skating: 3,320
Ice Skating: 4,608

The top 10 sports-related head-injury categories among children ages 14 and younger:

Cycling: 40,272
Football: 21,878
Baseball and Softball: 18,246
Basketball: 14,952
Skateboards/Scooters: 14,783
Water Sports: 12,843
Soccer: 8,392
Powered Recreational Vehicles: 6,818
Winter Sports: 6,750
Trampolines: 5,025

These numbers are interesting but completely meaningless in the context of determining safety. Children are on bikes ALL THE TIME. A small minority of children play football for a couple hours a week only for a limited part of the year. It's just not comparable.

How many career cyclists are having difficulty walking from repetitive brain injury? Or killing themselves after having massive brain-trauma related issues? Anyone? Beuhler?

[Tom B.]

I always have trouble explaining that concept when discussing car safety. So many people think huge, indestructible behemoths are safer than cars that are designed to not survive an accident (i.e. to absorb the energy of impact).

I usually settle on "all that energy from the impact is going somewhere: either into crumpling the car, or the internal organs of the people in the car."




See also: Earnhardt, Dale. Watching it in real time, his wreck didn't look all that bad. The car didn't flip or fly apart -- it just went into the wall and skidded to a stop. And it killed him.

[gus]

They in fact do.

I meant football helmets, which are intended to be continually re-used.

I'm not sure about your math, but algebra in text notation always gives me headaches (plus I think you have a typo in there).

But regardless, you're assuming a perfectly inelastic collision, which of course is never the case. In other words, you're assuming an ideal case, where crumple zones and deforming materials aren't necessary.

You need to consider energy to fully appreciate the effects of the collision, as immediately post impact the head will continue to have kinetic energy. The goal is to reduce, as much as possible, that energy.

[uh_no]

I meant football helmets, which are intended to be continually re-used.

I'm not sure about your math, but algebra in text notation always gives me headaches (plus I think you have a typo in there).

But regardless, you're assuming a perfectly inelastic collision, which of course is never the case. In other words, you're assuming an ideal case, where crumple zones and deforming materials aren't necessary.

You need to consider energy to fully appreciate the effects of the collision, as immediately post impact the head will continue to have kinetic energy. The goal is to reduce, as much as possible, that energy.

This is in fact, not true.

I have assumed nothing about where the energy dissipates. I have only calculated the force applied to the head, which is the same regardless of the elasticity of the collision. Elasticity only speaks to the energy which may be extracted

Using the force combined with the energy lost in the materials (and consequently the energy remaining in the system), we can calculate how far the brain moves relative to the rest of the head.

For a concussion you would need 2 things (pseudo science warning!!!) enough energy to move the head enough to close the distance between the cranium and the brain, and enough force/acceleration so that the brain hits the cranium at speed. Since there is certainly ample energy to move the head the required distance (and we can do the calculation if you like...but regardless of the elasticity of the collision, there is clearly enough energy to move the head a fraction of an inch), all we must consider is the force.

So yes, if we were talking about much larger distances to move the target object, we would need to take energy and elasticity into account, but with ample energy and tiny distances, the force is the dominating measure

[ncexnyc]

You can't beat DBR. It's the only place I can come on a daily basis and get not only a math lesson, but a physics lesson as well:rolleyes:

[rasputin]

You can't beat DBR. It's the only place I can come on a daily basis and get not only a math lesson, but a physics lesson as well:rolleyes:

My head hurts from reading this thread.

[luburch]

I opened this thread and thought it was going to be a discussion on how Duke has become a football school with a basketball problem. Boy was I wrong.

[throatybeard]

would be interesting to see what percentage of the cycling head related injuries among children would have been mitigated by the proper use of a helmet.

Not that anecdotes prove anything: my sister, even whilst wearing a helmet, suffered a concussion and incurred a short hospital stay from riding her bike, and it was only when she showed how she wore it that we realized it was both too small and being worn too far back on the head.

I'll be the first to admit cycling is dangerous, having taken my share of spills, but i also wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are exaggerated by improper use of safety equipment.

This is neither here nor there w/r/t concussions, but I just decided Uh No is from a more British part of the former empire than the US.

[throatybeard]

See also: Earnhardt, Dale. Watching it in real time, his wreck didn't look all that bad. The car didn't flip or fly apart -- it just went into the wall and skidded to a stop. And it killed him.

You're absolutely right. That was...I'm at a loss for an adjective here. Insane?

I had some Duke people over to my house for the Duke-SJU game earlier in the day. It's been so long that I can't remember screen names, or who all it was. It was like Siedsma, Weks, Weks' little sister and her BFF. Tieguy, I think. Duke roughed up Saint John's, and Doherty's UNC team coughed it up at Clemson. It was the beginning of the end for the 2001 UNC team, but we didn't know that then. We were flipping back and forth during commercials. We just happened to tune in for the last couple laps of the Daytona 500.

We saw DE Sr die in turn 3, but we didn't know it at first. It just looked like no big deal in the grand scheme of NASCAR wrecks. Later, Prince Jr came out to make the announcement.

I'm not a huge NASCAR guy, (but I'm also not one of these condescending people who likes to poo on NASCAR). It's hard to say what that was like by analogy with another sport. The best I can come up with, and it isn't perfect, is Peyton Manning is killed on the field from head trauma during a Super Bowl. Or like, dies after the game from a hit.

I'll never forget the 1998 and 2001 Daytona 500s.

[uh_no]

This is neither here nor there w/r/t concussions, but I just decided Uh No is from a more British part of the former empire than the US.

do not colour me with such rubbish!