Game Under Attack - Helmet Contact

[Bison bison]

There is a very good chance our grandkids will play a very different game than we did.

[IndyBison]

The vast majority of studies I've seen show football as having he highest rate, with the UNC study of 100k students ranking girls soccer around 5th or 6th.

I would consider riding a bike in nearly the same category as breathing. Nearly every kid does it, so there will be plenty of concussions but how many per 1000 or per hour of activity?

I'd say the rugby to football would be a better comparison.

Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Tapatalk

I thought I had heard somewhere that girls soccer was higher. The bike reference is from parents pulling kids out of football because of the concussion risk. If you are OK with your son riding his bike you should be OK with him playing football. The concussion risk is the same. But perception is reality and if parents continue to pull their sons out of football we'll eventually lose football. One local league has gone from 125 players to 75 players in 1 year. The primary reason is risk of injury. Having current or former NFL players saying they don't want their kids playing football doesn't help.

At this rate we will be watching flag football in 10yrs

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

If we don't do anything the chance of flag football is even greater. Or no football at all.

[LITTLEGUYSINGREEN]

The reason the rules committee (made up of coaches and not officials BTW) has increased the penalty for targeting is because the game we love is under attack. Concussions are a huge concern and past attempts to get players to remove the head from the game have not worked. If they aren't able to get players to change technique, football could eventually go the way of boxing. Youth leagues are starting to see major reductions in participation already. The popularity of the game will sustain it for awhile, but if behaviors aren't changed it could be in significant jeopardy. None of us want to see that. You have to accept the possibility of some cracked eggs when addressing this.

If anyone has any other ideas to get players to tackle properly I'd love to hear them.



Also, the rule is there to protect the tackler as much as it is the opponent. They are just as susceptible to head injuries as the guy receiving the hit.

The problem I have with this rule is the ejection portion without the benefit of instant replay. The game moves so fast it is very hard for the refs to always see the hit as it actually happens. I think if a penalty as severe as ejection is imposed, instant replay should be used. In the case of tonight's play with Shepard, the ball carrier tucked his head down just as Shepard was coming in for the hit. I would have been hard for Sheppard to adjust his body position to adapt to what the ball carrier did. In any case, it was not a case of malicious intent. It didn't appear he was looking for helmet to helmet contact. It just happened to turn out that way. I feel if it there isn't malicious intent, the player shouldn't be ejected.

[td577]

Some have said (hopefully jokingly) that getting rid of helmets is the only way to get players to change.

I have been one to say it, but just because it was half in jest doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it. Players would completely change the way they initiate contact if there was no helmets. I also don't know what it would do to the game and how much different it would be without the equipment. Part of the game is the violence, just there are lines and it seems like all the time those boundaries are getting narrower. So maybe the goal is equipment that protects against serious injury but doesn't eliminate pain.

I have become less of a boxing fan because of what Bisonguy is saying. I have been watching more MMA stuff lately and my wife thinks it is so brutal. I explained to her that with the lesser gloves, there should be less blunt force trauma injuries. While they wear gloves, the purpose is to prevent lacerations to the face of the opponent and to protect enough to allow for the striking style the fans want to see. Boxing is about completely protecting the hands and it is all about blunt force trauma. To make boxing safer, they should make the gloves considerably smaller and worry about protecting against lacerations caused by knuckles rather than broken hands. There is only so much a hand can take and strikes to the head have to be calculated for both timing and proper force.

If football started going with less pads or padding that can protect against serious injury but don't alleviate pain, maybe some of the helmet to helmet or completely vicious hits would taper down. It will force those to become more technically proficient. Part of the problem is us fans have glorified the headhunters at various levels of football and put a serious premium on those that can inflict the most pain. I love the game and I love watching the guys that can hit hard. For me, it has always been part of the game and over the years have always had serious respect for the guys that could flat out hit. Ronnie Lott, Jack Tatum, Steve Atwater, and of course LT were favorite players of mine growing up. A couple of those guys probably wouldn't have been able to change their game.

[IndyBison]

[QUOTE=LITTLEGUYSINGREEN;761866]The problem I have with this rule is the ejection portion without the benefit of instant replay. The game moves so fast it is very hard for the refs to always see the hit as it actually happens. I think if a penalty as severe as ejection is imposed, instant replay should be used. In the case of tonight's play with Shepard, the ball carrier tucked his head down just as Shepard was coming in for the hit. I would have been hard for Sheppard to adjust his body position to adapt to what the ball carrier did. In any case, it was not a case of malicious intent. It didn't appear he was looking for helmet to helmet contact. It just happened to turn out that way. I feel if it there isn't malicious intent, the player shouldn't be ejected.[/QUOTE

He was trying to blow up the receiver. That by definition is malicious intent. Sometimes they hit helmets and sometimes they get lucky and don't. If a runner is truly lowering his head he's likely to no longer be defenseless. Then the only way you can have targeting is if the defender leads with the crown of his helmet. Then it doesn't matter where he hits the opponent. This is fairly easily corrected by proper technique. Players continue to chose blow-ups rather than tackles. I don't feel bad for them if they get a couple wrong.

[IndyBison]

I have been one to say it, but just because it was half in jest doesn't mean there isn't some truth to it. Players would completely change the way they initiate contact if there was no helmets. I also don't know what it would do to the game and how much different it would be without the equipment. Part of the game is the violence, just there are lines and it seems like all the time those boundaries are getting narrower. So maybe the goal is equipment that protects against serious injury but doesn't eliminate pain.

I have become less of a boxing fan because of what Bisonguy is saying. I have been watching more MMA stuff lately and my wife thinks it is so brutal. I explained to her that with the lesser gloves, there should be less blunt force trauma injuries. While they wear gloves, the purpose is to prevent lacerations to the face of the opponent and to protect enough to allow for the striking style the fans want to see. Boxing is about completely protecting the hands and it is all about blunt force trauma. To make boxing safer, they should make the gloves considerably smaller and worry about protecting against lacerations caused by knuckles rather than broken hands. There is only so much a hand can take and strikes to the head have to be calculated for both timing and proper force.

If football started going with less pads or padding that can protect against serious injury but don't alleviate pain, maybe some of the helmet to helmet or completely vicious hits would taper down. It will force those to become more technically proficient. Part of the problem is us fans have glorified the headhunters at various levels of football and put a serious premium on those that can inflict the most pain. I love the game and I love watching the guys that can hit hard. For me, it has always been part of the game and over the years have always had serious respect for the guys that could flat out hit. Ronnie Lott, Jack Tatum, Steve Atwater, and of course LT were favorite players of mine growing up. A couple of those guys probably wouldn't have been able to change their game.

Great analysis! Those guys played at a time when the knowledge of concussions was much less. Guys would get their bell rung but go back in. I also wonder if you look at their hits if they were tackles or blow-ups. You can still tackle someone with a hard hit. The NFL and ESPN have not helped by glorifying the big hits. Local sports often highlight the "hit of the week". More often than not those hits are illegal.

[LITTLEGUYSINGREEN]

[QUOTE=IndyBison;761874]

The problem I have with this rule is the ejection portion without the benefit of instant replay. The game moves so fast it is very hard for the refs to always see the hit as it actually happens. I think if a penalty as severe as ejection is imposed, instant replay should be used. In the case of tonight's play with Shepard, the ball carrier tucked his head down just as Shepard was coming in for the hit. I would have been hard for Sheppard to adjust his body position to adapt to what the ball carrier did. In any case, it was not a case of malicious intent. It didn't appear he was looking for helmet to helmet contact. It just happened to turn out that way. I feel if it there isn't malicious intent, the player shouldn't be ejected.[/QUOTE

He was trying to blow up the receiver. That by definition is malicious intent. Sometimes they hit helmets and sometimes they get lucky and don't. If a runner is truly lowering his head he's likely to no longer be defenseless. Then the only way you can have targeting is if the defender leads with the crown of his helmet. Then it doesn't matter where he hits the opponent. This is fairly easily corrected by proper technique. Players continue to chose blow-ups rather than tackles. I don't feel bad for them if they get a couple wrong.

Still doesn't address the issue of ejection without the benefit of instant replay. If a penalty as severe as ejection for two halves if imposed, then instant replay should be mandatory. This is a severe consequence for a penalty, the refs can't afford to get it wrong and it shouldn't be left up to judgment.

[td577]

[QUOTE=LITTLEGUYSINGREEN;761880]

Still doesn't address the issue of ejection without the benefit of instant replay. If a penalty as severe as ejection for two halves if imposed, then instant replay should be mandatory. This is a severe consequence for a penalty, the refs can't afford to get it wrong and it shouldn't be left up to judgment.

Maybe the answer is an appeal process where a coach can submit video evidence to the ncaa and the next game penalty can be challenged. If there is undeniable evidence then make the appeal. There would have to be some sort of negative consequence if the coach wasted their time. I don't know what that would be because it can't be more punishment for the involved player. Lose a scholarship next year? At least then only very well defined misjudgment would be challenged.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4

[IndyBison]

Maybe the answer is an appeal process where a coach can submit video evidence to the ncaa and the next game penalty can be challenged. If there is undeniable evidence then make the appeal. There would have to be some sort of negative consequence if the coach wasted their time. I don't know what that would be because it can't be more punishment for the involved player. Lose a scholarship next year? At least then only very well defined misjudgment would be challenged.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4

Many conferences without replay have implemented review processes for guys ejected in the 2nd half of a game. If they determine the hit was not targeting they will not be suspended for the first half of the following game. Our D3 conference is doing that. If the hit today had happened in the second half I bet it would have been reviewed. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the direction we've been given I doubt it would be reversed.

[td577]

Many conferences without replay have implemented review processes for guys ejected in the 2nd half of a game. If they determine the hit was not targeting they will not be suspended for the first half of the following game. Our D3 conference is doing that. If the hit today had happened in the second half I bet it would have been reviewed. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the direction we've been given I doubt it would be reversed.

I wasn't thinking about the hit today but rather in any case where an official makes the wrong call, the mistake can be minimized. I didn't know about the review process when it carries over to the next game. I thought that was automatic. Hopefully this is at all levels of college football.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4