On Rule changes and head injuries

Temo

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
362
Just because there's been a lot of gripping about the Alan Ball play, I just wanted to share why that rule exists.

Not going to paste the entire article, just selections of it. Click the link to read it all. Worth a read.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all

“Lately, I’ve tried to break it down,” Turley said. “I remember, every season, multiple occasions where I’d hit someone so hard that my eyes went cross-eyed, and they wouldn’t come uncrossed for a full series of plays. You are just out there, trying to hit the guy in the middle, because there are three of them. You don’t remember much. There are the cases where you hit a guy and you’d get into a collision where everything goes off. You’re dazed. And there are the others where you are involved in a big, long drive. You start on your own five-yard line, and drive all the way down the field—fifteen, eighteen plays in a row sometimes. Every play: collision, collision, collision. By the time you get to the other end of the field, you’re seeing spots. You feel like you are going to black out. Literally, these white explosions—boom, boom, boom—lights getting dimmer and brighter, dimmer and brighter.

....

In the meantime, late last month the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research released the findings of an N.F.L.-funded phone survey of just over a thousand randomly selected retired N.F.L. players—all of whom had played in the league for at least three seasons. Self-reported studies are notoriously unreliable instruments, but, even so, the results were alarming. Of those players who were older than fifty, 6.1 per cent reported that they had received a diagnosis of “dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, or other memory-related disease.” That’s five times higher than the national average for that age group. For players between the ages of thirty and forty-nine, the reported rate was nineteen times the national average. (The N.F.L. has distributed five million dollars to former players with dementia.)

...

McKee got up and walked across the corridor, back to her office. “There’s one last thing,” she said. She pulled out a large photographic blowup of a brain-tissue sample. “This is a kid. I’m not allowed to talk about how he died. He was a good student. This is his brain. He’s eighteen years old. He played football. He’d been playing football for a couple of years.” This was a teen-ager, and already his brain showed the kind of decay that is usually associated with old age. “This is completely inappropriate,” she said. “You don’t see tau like this in an eighteen-year-old. You don’t see tau like this in a fifty-year-old.”

McKee is a longtime football fan. She is from Wisconsin. She had two statuettes of Brett Favre, the former Green Bay Packers quarterback, on her bookshelf. On the wall was a picture of a robust young man. It was McKee’s son—nineteen years old, six feet three. If he had a chance to join the N.F.L., I asked her, what would she advise him? “I’d say, ‘Don’t. Not if you want to have a life after football.’ ”

...

Football faced a version of this question a hundred years ago, after a series of ugly incidents. In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt called an emergency summit at the White House, alarmed, as the historian John Sayle Watterson writes, “that the brutality of the prize ring had invaded college football and might end up destroying it.” Columbia University dropped the sport entirely. A professor at the University of Chicago called it a “boy-killing, man-mutilating, money-making, education-prostituting, gladiatorial sport.” In December of 1905, the presidents of twelve prominent colleges met in New York and came within one vote of abolishing the game. But the main objection at the time was to a style of play—densely and dangerously packed offensive strategies—that, it turns out, could be largely corrected with rule changes, like the legalization of the forward pass and the doubling of the first-down distance from five yards to ten. Today, when we consider subtler and more insidious forms of injury, it’s far from clear whether the problem is the style of play or the play itself.

...

The force of the first hit was infinitely greater than the second. But the difference is that the first player saw that he was about to be hit and tensed his neck, which limited the sharp back-and-forth jolt of the head that sends the brain crashing against the sides of the skull. In essence, he was being hit not in the head but in the head, neck, and torso—an area with an effective mass three times greater. In the second case, the player didn’t see the hit coming. His head took the full force of the blow all by itself. That’s why he suffered a concussion. [Defense Receiver alert] But how do you insure, in a game like football, that a player is never taken by surprise?

...

Casson is right. There is nothing else to be done, not so long as fans stand and cheer. We are in love with football players, with their courage and grit, and nothing else—neither considerations of science nor those of morality—can compete with the destructive power of that love.
 

Reality

Staff member
Messages
31,232
Reaction score
72,763
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Obviously, you are not reading those threads nor did you notice in the game that Ball did not hit his head, he led with his shoulder and hit the other player's chest. The other player's head snapped forward, not backward, which proves this.

There are very few people arguing against the rule of no head contact but the rule of defenseless receiver has gone too far. If Ball had not hit him, there was still a chance he could catch the ball. It's the same reason why Roy Williams got hit last week .. had he not been hit, he still had a chance of catching it.

Now, how much of a chance? Neither one was likely even without a hit but when you are a defender and you see a guy reaching and/or tipping the ball, your instinct is to prevent any chance of that happening no matter how minimal the chance.


-Reality
 

Temo

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
362
It looked to me like Ball hit the player's head with his shoulder, which is a clear violation of the rules.

If anyone has a video, I will gladly retract.
 

AdamJT13

Salary Cap Analyst
Messages
16,583
Reaction score
4,529
Temo;3011170 said:
It looked to me like Ball hit the player's head with his shoulder, which is a clear violation of the rules.

If anyone has a video, I will gladly retract.

Ball hit him in the chest/shoulder with the back of his shoulder. Like many other unnecessary roughness penalties, the problem is that the receiver's head is attached to his shoulders. So as he's coming down, the bottom of his facemask appears to touch part of Ball, or come close enough to make the ref think it did.

It's a ticky-tack penalty, but the NFL wants to call it that way for the sake of safety. Well, except when it's Tony Romo getting hit helmet-to-helmet, I guess.

The only way to avoid those penalties is to hit the guy lower.
 

Temo

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
362
AdamJT13;3011214 said:
Ball hit him in the chest/shoulder with the back of his shoulder. Like many other unnecessary roughness penalties, the problem is that the receiver's head is attached to his shoulders. So as he's coming down, the bottom of his facemask appears to touch part of Ball, or come close enough to make the ref think it did.

It's a ticky-tack penalty, but the NFL wants to call it that way for the sake of safety. Well, except when it's Tony Romo getting hit helmet-to-helmet, I guess.

The only way to avoid those penalties is to hit the guy lower.


If that's the case with Ball, then obviously I'm in the wrong here. When I was watching the game it looked clearly like a shoulder-to-helmet deal. Will try to find a video to debunk myself (or others, as is fit).
 

Rampage

Benched
Messages
24,117
Reaction score
2
Defensive players are gonna start trying to hurt guys if they keep getting flagged for bs penalties to protect the offensive players.
 

Reality

Staff member
Messages
31,232
Reaction score
72,763
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
AdamJT13;3011214 said:
Ball hit him in the chest/shoulder with the back of his shoulder. Like many other unnecessary roughness penalties, the problem is that the receiver's head is attached to his shoulders. So as he's coming down, the bottom of his facemask appears to touch part of Ball, or come close enough to make the ref think it did.

It's a ticky-tack penalty, but the NFL wants to call it that way for the sake of safety. Well, except when it's Tony Romo getting hit helmet-to-helmet, I guess.

The only way to avoid those penalties is to hit the guy lower.
The problem is, as Troy Aikman said in the broadcast, football is a violent game. If they make it illegal to hit another player's head but when they hit the chest, they call it a shot to the head because, as you said, the other player's head snaps forward, then players will simply move their hits lower. Next, you will have players suffer more and more rib injuries until eventually one or more players suffer bruised or collapsed lungs, damaged kidneys, etc. and then the NFL will outlaw hitting the player above the waist. That will lead to ACL/MCL tears, career ending knee/hip/ankle injuries, etc.

Injuries will always happen in football until they remove the contact aspect of the game and once that happens, I doubt many people will watch.


-Reality
 

joseephuss

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,041
Reaction score
6,920
If they want to make it such a critical issue then they need to allow it to be a reviewable play. I think it is a good thing that they are trying to protect the players, but sometimes they are going to miss. They did yesterday with the Ball play. He better not get fined for it because if the league(Gene Washington) can watch that video and think he went head hunting then they need to just quit their jobs.

Now look at the Ray Lewis hit on Ochocinco. That is head hunting.
 

Temo

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,946
Reaction score
362
Reality;3011307 said:
The problem is, as Troy Aikman said in the broadcast, football is a violent game. If they make it illegal to hit another player's head but when they hit the chest, they call it a shot to the head because, as you said, the other player's head snaps forward, then players will simply move their hits lower. Next, you will have players suffer more and more rib injuries until eventually one or more players suffer bruised or collapsed lungs, damaged kidneys, etc. and then the NFL will outlaw hitting the player above the waist. That will lead to ACL/MCL tears, career ending knee/hip/ankle injuries, etc.

Injuries will always happen in football until they remove the contact aspect of the game and once that happens, I doubt many people will watch.


-Reality

The author of the article made it quite clear that there really isn't any solution to the problem. No rule change or technological advance is going to fully protect players.

As long as the NFL is the game that's been been played for nearly a century, head injuries will continue to occur and players will have to settle for lower life expectancy and quality.
 

Reality

Staff member
Messages
31,232
Reaction score
72,763
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Temo;3011383 said:
The author of the article made it quite clear that there really isn't any solution to the problem. No rule change or technological advance is going to fully protect players.

As long as the NFL is the game that's been been played for nearly a century, head injuries will continue to occur and players will have to settle for lower life expectancy and quality.

I envision players running around in fluffy bubble suits 20 years from now where it looks like a giant human game of bumper cars :)


-Reality
 

Khartun

AmarilloCowboyFan
Messages
3,133
Reaction score
1,682
Reality;3011441 said:
I envision players running around in fluffy bubble suits 20 years from now where it looks like a giant human game of bumper cars :)


-Reality

ZOLTAN!

http://img60.*************/img60/569/dudemeet020nc.jpg
 
Top