49 replies to this topic

[TheoShmeo]

So we're discussing the future of football in another thread.

Many people I've spoken or e-mailed with have indicated that they will not let their kids play organized football or have serious reservations about the same.

But how will things like Seau's death and the sum total of similar and related items impact how we view the NFL in the short run (before the impact of kids playing football etc has a chance to take hold)?

For my part, I don't see any change in how I will view the NFL in the short run. The Patriots near miss in the Super Bowl and their free agency and draft moves have me as interested as ever.

At the same time, it's unsettling to look out on the field from my cozy seat at Gillette and realize that a good percentage of the players will experience severe trauma in the not too distant future.

[Average Reds]

Your post used to be my position, and it's still largely correct. But over the past year, the cumulative impact of player suicides, player lawsuits and increasing awareness (on my part) of the long term effects of playing football are beginning to turn me off. The NFL cannot continue down this path, and I can't continue ignoring the carnage that I'm watching.

Can't really quantify how this will effect my viewing habits, but my interest in the sport is certainly changing and my viewing habits are sure to follow.

[Otis Foster]

I'm a few degrees off from your sentiments, but not too far away. I'll continue to watch with a fairly high level of interest in personnel moves, etc. but with underlying uneasiness about where some of these guys will wind up post career. I don't know what the league can do about possible underlying causes (different equipment, artificial surfaces, 320 lb guys running into one another at warp speed?). It will go through all the gestures, I say gestures because I don't know how they'll take necessary remedial steps. It's possible there are better medical monitoring precautions they can take, like placing league-engaged medical personnel at each game who will intervene immediately to test players who sustain head shots and mandatory side-lining until reviewed and OK'd medically. At the end of all this, the game is what it is, and either I'll let my fan interest overcome my qualms, or I'll dial out completely.

[PedrosRedGlove]

I still love the NFL and will continue to watch. My major shift of opinion is actually in regards to Roger Goodell. Sure he may be strict, and Spygate sucked, but a lot of posters in other threads have brought up the point that he is only doing what he has to to protect the long term viability of his sport and league. I do not want to see a player put into a coma or worse on the playing field, and I don't want to see Wes Welker end up like Muhammad Ali. The game has to be fundamentally changed for this to be avoided.

The main things I want to see are 1. more changes to the rules on tackling, the game will still be as fast, fun, and exciting to watch without players launching themselves like missiles at each other, and 2. more advancements in helmet and protection technology. Sidenote on that: one thing I never got is why they don't try to alter the exterior shell of a helmet to increase safety. I don't mean to remove the hard shell at all. But why only put padding on the inside of the helmet? Wouldn't a thin (1/4" maybe?) layer of some softer plastic or foam material lining the outside of the helmet do a lot of good? Having an outer layer that could compress would lengthen the period of impact, and therefore reduce at least some of the force transferred to the head/spine, right? Physicists?

[wutang112878]

I really dont like saying it, but this really wont affect how much football I watch, and I really think the concussion issue is a major issue that that NFL should address purely from an ethical standpoint.

The main things I want to see are 1. more changes to the rules on tackling, the game will still be as fast, fun, and exciting to watch without players launching themselves like missiles at each other

I think he has done a pretty good job at this, to the point that the players are criticizing the changes he has made. And as Bill has pointed out they are basically moving towards getting rid of kickoffs completely.

2. more advancements in helmet and protection technology. Sidenote on that: one thing I never got is why they don't try to alter the exterior shell of a helmet to increase safety. I don't mean to remove the hard shell at all. But why only put padding on the inside of the helmet? Wouldn't a thin (1/4" maybe?) layer of some softer plastic or foam material lining the outside of the helmet do a lot of good? Having an outer layer that could compress would lengthen the period of impact, and therefore reduce at least some of the force transferred to the head/spine, right? Physicists?

The problem is that what the helmet is trying to protect is basically like a jar of pickles, concussions are caused when the brain gets moved around and hits the skull. I could wrap my groceries in a ton of pillows, but if they sustained the force of typical NFL impact the pickles are still going to hit the side of the jar some amount of the time.

Edited by wutang112878, 04 May 2012 - 11:20 AM.

[PedrosRedGlove]

Yes that is true, complete prevention will never be possible unless the NFL becomes a flag football league, but it still doesn't make sense to me the way helmets are designed. Take your example, you drop that jar of pickles on the pavement, would you rather it: A. be completely unprotected so glass meets pavement, B. be inside a padded coffee can so the can takes the instantaneous impact and the padding absords some of the force, or C. inside a padded coffee can coated with a soft rubber or foam material, further absorbing the impact of the pavement. I'm not a physicist, but it just seems laughable that helmets are designed the way they are, I don't see how having the exterior material be rock hard has anything to do with protecting the player's head, it only turns what should be a shield into a weapon.

[SumnerH]

Yes that is true, complete prevention will never be possible unless the NFL becomes a flag football league, but it still doesn't make sense to me the way helmets are designed. Take your example, you drop that jar of pickles on the pavement, would you rather it: A. be completely unprotected so glass meets pavement, B. be inside a padded coffee can so the can takes the instantaneous impact and the padding absords some of the force, or C. inside a padded coffee can coated with a soft rubber or foam material, further absorbing the impact of the pavement. I'm not a physicist, but it just seems laughable that helmets are designed the way they are, I don't see how having the exterior material be rock hard has anything to do with protecting the player's head, it only turns what should be a shield into a weapon.

The argument is that soft exteriors aren't as slippery, so they cause more twisting and spine/neck injuries. I don't know that there's ever been a study of that, but it seems at least plausible.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

The problem with the soft outer shell is that it won't glance off of whatever is being hit the way a hard shell can. Essentially you'd making what otherwise would have been a glancing blow into a much more dangerous hit.

[Average Reds]

The problem with the soft outer shell is that it won't glance off of whatever is being hit the way a hard shell can. Essentially you'd making what otherwise would have been a glancing blow into a much more dangerous hit.

I actually remember reading in Sports Illustrated some years ago (meaning - more than 10 years ago) about college teams who would use the padded helmets during practice and they noticed a significant decline in concussions. However, my recollection is that the helmets were abandoned because the head coaches (all of them who adopted the helmet for practice) hated not hearing the sound of impact, because this was one of the ways they gauged whether the player was able to deliver a solid hit or not.

I will try to find the article for reference, but if my memory is correct, the padded exterior to the helmet did not result in any greater injury risk and did result in fewer concussions.

Edit: Holy fuck, I'm as old as dirt. I found the article and it's from 1978. Not as conclusive as I remembered it, but it does directly refute the charge that a soft outer shell causes more injuries due to torque.

I believe that pages 8 and 9 are the ones that talk about padded helmets, but the entire article is in the SI archives and can be found here:

http://sportsillustr...971/1/index.htm

Edited by Average Reds, 04 May 2012 - 01:04 PM.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

Why not just add the extra padding under the hard shell?

[Awesome Fossum]

It's worth noting that a few NFL players used a soft outer padding on their helmets -- Mark Kelso is the one I know from memory.

[maufman]

Yes that is true, complete prevention will never be possible unless the NFL becomes a flag football league, but it still doesn't make sense to me the way helmets are designed. Take your example, you drop that jar of pickles on the pavement, would you rather it: A. be completely unprotected so glass meets pavement, B. be inside a padded coffee can so the can takes the instantaneous impact and the padding absords some of the force, or C. inside a padded coffee can coated with a soft rubber or foam material, further absorbing the impact of the pavement. I'm not a physicist, but it just seems laughable that helmets are designed the way they are, I don't see how having the exterior material be rock hard has anything to do with protecting the player's head, it only turns what should be a shield into a weapon.

In your example, so long as you keep the jar from breaking, you're all set -- you don't care if the pickle juice gets shaken up. To apply that analogy to the human head, breaking the jar is a fractured skull; shaking the juice is a concussion. Helmets are designed to protect against the former. They don't do much about the latter, and the best evidence suggests there isn't an easy fix. (A Grantland article that was linked in another thread has an excellent discussion of this.)

As for the poll question, it seems Junior Seau's death is making a lot of Pats' fans go through the angst that, as a Steelers' fan, I went through a few years ago after Mike Webster died. Webster's death might have dampened my enthusiasm for a season or so, but I'm back into the NFL as much as ever now. One of the reasons I'm watching as much football as ever is because my 6-year old son loves it -- but ironically, I will discourage him from playing when he's old enough (though I probably won't forbid it).

I said I don't know if I will continue to follow the sport as avidly in the long term. I used to watch boxing 20 years ago, but the Gerald McClellan tragedy pretty much ruined that for me.

Edited by maufman, 04 May 2012 - 03:23 PM.

[collings94]

I hear a lot of people saying that parents are concerned about their kids playing football. But I think what will really change the tide as far as parents wanting their kids to play is whent he general perception of playing football becomes more negative. I don't have any real evidence to back this up, but I think when someone might say "MY son plays Football," one's mind thinks of positives. Putting Football on your college application can help you get into schools, Football is seen as teaching teamwork and discpline and in the South, every kid dreams of playing for the varsity team. Until all this changes, the NFL, and Football in general will remain the same.

[soxfan121]

As for the poll question, it seems Junior Seau's death is making a lot of Pats' fans go through the angst that, as a Steelers' fan, I went through a few years ago after Mike Webster died.

Similarly, most of us have had this moment of reckoning concerning baseball and steroid use. I decided long ago that steroid abuse was "bad" but I kept on watching baseball, and football (and most other competitive sports).

The more interesting question to me is if Seau's autopsy finds no CTE but use of PEDs. I realize this is highly unlikely but people have been quick to embrace CTE as an explanation for Seau's suicide but few are mentioning other potential complicating factors, like possible PED use. And the line between PED and 'cutting-edge treatment' has always been a fuzzy one, back to McGwire & andro. CTE is a serious problem in football. I'm also fairly sure that PED use is as well (no rigorous HGH testing) and has been for a long time. It's never just one thing.

Edited by soxfan121, 04 May 2012 - 05:37 PM.

[PedrosRedGlove]

In your example, so long as you keep the jar from breaking, you're all set -- you don't care if the pickle juice gets shaken up. To apply that analogy to the human head, breaking the jar is a fractured skull; shaking the juice is a concussion. Helmets are designed to protect against the former. They don't do much about the latter, and the best evidence suggests there isn't an easy fix. (A Grantland article that was linked in another thread has an excellent discussion of this.)

I know it wasn't a perfect example, it wasn't even originally mine. But it seems pretty obvious to me that C>B>A in terms of reducing the force with which the pickles hit the side of the jar. Obviously I understand the solution is not as simple as I stated, but it is in no way so complex that modern corporate scientific technology could not come up with a solution. Average Reds SI article has some pretty interesting stuff, stuff that supports the idea that this entire issue is a culture war, a lack of solutions isn't the problem, players and coaches preferring to ignore them for the tough violent status quo is:

Paterno has long advocated padded helmets but does not get much support from his colleagues. Coaches resist, says Dr. Cooper, "because a padded helmet doesn't give 'em that big whack when somebody gets hit. It's the same reason they don't like padded shoulder pads. Coaches want to hear noise. They love noise. Equipment makers know that coaches, not physicians, buy helmets.

"Most coaches today never played in the helmet that is being used. They don't realize. Cornell used padded helmets for 20 years. Teams were thrilled to play Cornell. Head and neck injuries were reduced, and when they went home they weren't all black and blue. Cornell would still be using 'em, but MacGregor [the manufacturer] quit making 'em. MacGregor's lawyers told 'em to get the hell out of the helmet business because it'll burn your tail. They sold the molds to Bill Kelley [president of a firm in Grand Prairie, Texas] and Kelley still makes 'em for Gene Upshaw and two or three other pros. They won't play without 'em.

"Coaches say padded helmets are dangerous because the padding increases torque stress. They say it causes pinched nerves. Baloney. If that was all there was to it, they could coat the padding with Teflon. The coaches wanted their noise back." Well, maybe not all the time. Oklahoma, for instance, practices in padded helmets but changes to hard-shell helmets for games.

Former Cornell team physician Dr. Alexius Rachun confirms that at Cornell there was "no increase in the number of pinched nerves" because of padded helmets. The Stanford Research report on NFL injuries found other "reasons" had been given by the manufacturers for not padding helmets: teams objected that manufacturers "couldn't paint the team logos on soft helmets" and were afraid of "increased equipment costs." Also—the most unconscionable rationale of all—teams "did not wish to protect members of the opposition unless their [own] were also protected." Any excuse, says Dr. Rachun, "is a terrible injustice to the player. These tough football coaches just feel the only way to play the game is to beat the hell out of the opponent."

EDIT: bolded for emphasis

Edited by PedrosRedGlove, 04 May 2012 - 06:57 PM.

[CaptainLaddie]

I know I'm a bleeding heart liberal and all but -- these guys know what they're getting themselves into. It's tragic and all, but at this point every NFL player KNOWS that there's a chance his brains will be turned to scrambled eggs on the next snap. I mean, if you've played high school ball and you're good enough to play college, you have to have an idea of the dangers of football --- especially after all we've heard in the last few years about concussions.

I think it's horrible what happened to Seau. I would never wish that upon someone. But if you're willing to play 18 years in a violent and physical sport you have to also accept what happens to your head.

Edited by CaptainLaddie, 05 May 2012 - 03:21 AM.

[Homar]

If concussions and CTE were confined to the professional ranks, I'd be persuaded by the "these guys know what they're getting themselves into" argument, and let them simply reap what they choose to sow. But NFL players are the tiny tip of a great iceberg of football players, beginning with kids as young as eight or nine. The pickles start sloshing around in the jar well before the players know what they're getting themselves into.

My last attraction to boxing died when it became unmistakably clear what too many head shots had done to Muhammad Ali, one of the truly defining athletes of my generation. I admire athletes who are dedicated and who put themselves through amazing suffering to master their craft. But that same admiration makes it painful for me to watch when it costs them their ability to function in good health in their later years. I don't know yet how this will all sift out for me; I know that I won't be watching football as carelessly as I once did.

But what I do know for sure is that I would never let my sons play this game.

[ZP1]

In the long term, I don't think CTE is a huge deal. Given how fast medical science has been moving, I would guess that within 15-20 years, we'll know far more about concussions and how to immediately fix the damage associated with them.

In the short term, it's really bad press for the NFL, but there's nothing they can really do about it without drastically altering the way the game is played. I'm not really sure what it would take to make the NFL's policies change appreciably (besides a massive lawsuit that was successful).

[fairlee76]

In the long term, I don't think CTE is a huge deal. Given how fast medical science has been moving, I would guess that within 15-20 years, we'll know far more about concussions and how to immediately fix the damage associated with them.

In the short term, it's really bad press for the NFL, but there's nothing they can really do about it without drastically altering the way the game is played. I'm not really sure what it would take to make the NFL's policies change appreciably (besides a massive lawsuit that was successful).

Not trying to be a snarky a-hole here, but when you say "how fast medical science has been moving," what does that mean? Any examples that are applicable to the CTE/concussion debate? Because I have seen nothing that indicates the near proximity of a medical breakthrough that would allow team doctors to "fix" the damage caused by concussions.

[Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat]

Why not just add the extra padding under the hard shell?

Because this would create a much bigger helmet. As much lip service as the players might give to wanting a "safer" helmet, they won't wear something that makes them look like The Great Gazoo. You also have to be careful about adding more weight to the helmet, as it could potentially lead to more neck injuries.

[Worst Trade Evah]

It was just a little clip on ESPN, but for some reason I was moved by watching Jamaal Lewis fumble for words and ask for the question to be repeated. For all I know, he's always been that way, but it was somehow striking. I agree that long-term there will be some kind of sea change in football. I'm sure there will be fewer parents willing to get their kids involved, so at some point the pipeline and some associated interest will shrink.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

Because this would create a much bigger helmet. As much lip service as the players might give to wanting a "safer" helmet, they won't wear something that makes them look like The Great Gazoo. You also have to be careful about adding more weight to the helmet, as it could potentially lead to more neck injuries.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I thought the padded helmets were basically standard helmets with extra padding added to the outside of the shell. If that's the case, and the lack of the "whack" is really the biggest complaint against them, it would seem to me you could just add the same amount of additional padding under the shell and have similar safety performance. Then again if it were that simple, it probably would have been tried by now, so I'm probably missing something.

[wutang112878]

Given how fast medical science has been moving, I would guess that within 15-20 years, we'll know far more about concussions and how to immediately fix the damage associated with them.

I have a feeling we wont be in the implementation stage of such medical advancements for this in the next 20 years. Today Tommy John surgery is at the point where medical professionals have almost mastered it, the first was done in the mid 70s. I think ACL surgery has been around longer than that and it took a longer timeframe for them to really perfect as well. And this is tendon surgery, to my knowledge I dont think our understanding of the brain is anywhere close to this and I believe we understood more about tendons in the 70s than we do about the brain right now. Medical science is moving fast, but the science around the brain is advancing much more slowly than most other issues.

[Average Reds]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I thought the padded helmets were basically standard helmets with extra padding added to the outside of the shell. If that's the case, and the lack of the "whack" is really the biggest complaint against them, it would seem to me you could just add the same amount of additional padding under the shell and have similar safety performance. Then again if it were that simple, it probably would have been tried by now, so I'm probably missing something.

Think of it this way.

A race car hitting a solid wall at 150mph+ has a devastating impact on the driver, because no matter how sophisticated the safety features of the car, the car itself cannot absorb all of that energy. The installation of SAFER barriers at NASCAR/Indy car tracks and the use of soft rubber barriers on road courses in recent years has dramatically increased driver safety by significantly lowering the force that transfers to the car/driver in collisions.

It's the same principal at work with helmets. Padding on the outside of a helmet can significantly lower the amount of force that transfers to the helmet/head from the collision itself, and this is the most effective way of reducing the eventual trauma that transfers to the head. (This is especially true if the collision is with another padded helmet.) Lowering the amount of force associated with hits allows the padding on the interior of the helmet work better at protecting the head.

Edited by Average Reds, 08 May 2012 - 10:41 AM.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

I don't think the NASCAR analogy works because the safety of those barriers is that they are not rigid and will break away, receiving the majority of force of impact. The padding on a helmet doesn't actually lower the force, it just dissipates it (i.e., distributes it more evenly throughout the helmet). Perhaps it's true that padding on the outside of a hard shell does a better job of dissipating the force of a blow than the same amount of padding on the inside of the shell, but I'm not convinced that's the case.

[Average Reds]

I don't think the NASCAR analogy works because the safety of those barriers is that they are not rigid and will break away, receiving the majority of force of impact. The padding on a helmet doesn't actually lower the force, it just dissipates it (i.e., distributes it more evenly throughout the helmet). Perhaps it's true that padding on the outside of a hard shell does a better job of dissipating the force of a blow than the same amount of padding on the inside of the shell, but I'm not convinced that's the case.

My understanding is that this is not the case, on two levels.

First, I do know that the SAFER barrier is installed as a permanent part of the wall at ovals and it does not break away - it dissipates the force by providing a cushion.

Second, dissipation of energy from a collision by using a cushion can significantly lower the force that is transferred to cars or helmets. It's not just distributed more evenly - it's less force. (For helmets, the force that is dissipated is absorbed by the padding in the same way that the SAFER barriers absorb a significant portion of the force of a car.)

I know that I'm not doing a good job explaining this (probably because I'm not a physicist) but as it was explained to me, the hard shell is the key to the amount of force. And a cushion that prevents a hard shell from crashing directly into another hard shell is what lowers that overall force absorbed by the shell, and whatever is inside it.

Edited by Average Reds, 08 May 2012 - 11:19 AM.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

OK, my apologies on the NASCAR thing, I don't follow it and made an assumption based on your statement that it lowers the force.

Anyway, my point is that given the same amount and type of padding, I don't think it matters whether the dissipation happens inside or outside the shell of the helmet. If it does matter, can anyone explain the physics behind it.

[Max Power]

Similarly, most of us have had this moment of reckoning concerning baseball and steroid use. I decided long ago that steroid abuse was "bad" but I kept on watching baseball, and football (and most other competitive sports).

The more interesting question to me is if Seau's autopsy finds no CTE but use of PEDs. I realize this is highly unlikely but people have been quick to embrace CTE as an explanation for Seau's suicide but few are mentioning other potential complicating factors, like possible PED use. And the line between PED and 'cutting-edge treatment' has always been a fuzzy one, back to McGwire & andro. CTE is a serious problem in football. I'm also fairly sure that PED use is as well (no rigorous HGH testing) and has been for a long time. It's never just one thing.

I always find it funny how six foot tall, 220 pound baseball players are steroid freaks, but 6' 6" 350 pound football players who can run like college sprinters are just "big." There's no doubt the vast, vast majority of NFL players are using PEDs. When you have a bunch of juiced up guys wearing body armor that makes them feel invincible running at full speed into each other then taking pain killers to get back on the field the next week, no helmet is going to provide adequate protection. The best solution I've heard is to make the padding less protective so the guy doing the hitting thinks twice about using himself as a missile.

[ShaneTrot]

Isn't the real problem for the long term viability of football not the NFL but the colleges and the high schools? Kids don't get paid to play and if this continues schools will be sued, mothers will fret and the feeder system for the NFL will breakdown.

[judyb]

Isn't the real problem for the long term viability of football not the NFL but the colleges and the high schools? Kids don't get paid to play and if this continues schools will be sued, mothers will fret and the feeder system for the NFL will breakdown.

Yes, the Grantland article linked in the other thread, if you haven't read it.

http://www.grantland...future-football

[crystalline]

OK, my apologies on the NASCAR thing, I don't follow it and made an assumption based on your statement that it lowers the force.

Anyway, my point is that given the same amount and type of padding, I don't think it matters whether the dissipation happens inside or outside the shell of the helmet. If it does matter, can anyone explain the physics behind it.

I can point out a difference in physics: hard vs soft shells change the timecourse of the acceleration experienced by the player's head. Think about what happens to the velocity of the head in the milliseconds after impact of two softshell helmets: not much, because the softshell deforms. For two hardshell helmets immediately after impact, to a first approximation the hardshell has not deformed at all and the player's head is starting to suddenly move relative to the helmet. The actual effect on the brain is not simple, though - to take the pickle jar analogy, imagine simulating two hardshells colliding by hitting the jar with something hard, like a hammer. You don't have to hit the jar very hard at all to break the jar (roughly similar to a skull fracture) but at that same impact velocity, essentially nothing happens to the pickles inside - they hardly move.
So the design of helmets is not simple, but it does seem to me if you can make the outsides slippery, adding softshell padding may well help. (I have come around on this - at first I compared them to ski and bike and rockclimbing helmets have a hard shell to make them slide off objects on impact, but there the difference may be able sliding a long way on a surface. The SI article above is informative.)

[crystalline]

I have a feeling we wont be in the implementation stage of such medical advancements for this in the next 20 years. Today Tommy John surgery is at the point where medical professionals have almost mastered it, the first was done in the mid 70s. I think ACL surgery has been around longer than that and it took a longer timeframe for them to really perfect as well. And this is tendon surgery, to my knowledge I dont think our understanding of the brain is anywhere close to this and I believe we understood more about tendons in the 70s than we do about the brain right now. Medical science is moving fast, but the science around the brain is advancing much more slowly than most other issues.

We knew more about tendons in 1200 AD then we know about the brain now.
That's changing fast, but I highly doubt we come up with a way to treat concussions in 20 years, because that involves rebuilding damaged brain cells. A drug for Alzheimers or other neurodegenerative diseases may be on roughly that horizon, but there the task is to stop degeneration, not repair damage.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

I can point out a difference in physics: hard vs soft shells change the timecourse of the acceleration experienced by the player's head. Think about what happens to the velocity of the head in the milliseconds after impact of two softshell helmets: not much, because the softshell deforms. For two hardshell helmets immediately after impact, to a first approximation the hardshell has not deformed at all and the player's head is starting to suddenly move relative to the helmet.

Doesn't the padding inside the hard shell begin deforming within milliseconds of impact, significantly reducing sudden acceleration of the head relative to the support structure of the helmet? To be clear, I'm not comparing existing helmets to those with a softshell. I'm talking about a hardshell helmet with the same amount of padding as a softshell, but all the padding is on the inside. So basically it would be the same (over)size helmet as a softshell, but would look more like a regular helmet and still sound like a regular helmet on impact (which apparently is important to old school coaches at least). Possibly the overall size and weight of it would be problematic, but should be no more so than the softshell alternative which seems to have been rejected primarily on the basis of the lack of "whack".

One significant difference that occurred to me after I made my previous post is that the padding on a softshell helmet has basically unlimited space to deform, whereas the same padding would be confined to a limited area inside a hardshell and, therefore, perhaps less deformable?

[Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat]

For "experts" beyond old school coaches, it's more than the lack of a "whack." There has been quite a bit of research done since 1978.

-The basic function of a football helmet is to protect against catastrophic head injuries, and they do a pretty good job of that.
-Concussions are very difficult to protect against because they can be caused by many different impacts--head to head, knee to head, head to ground, whiplash effect, hits to front, back, or side of head, etc. That makes coming up with one design that is a panacea almost impossible.
-The more glancing the blow, the less chance there is for serious injury. Along with the Gazoo appearance, this is one of the reasons why the Pro Cap failed. Padding on the outside significantly decreases the glancing nature of the blow, in effect, creating a whole bunch of sticking points.
-While helmets are not designed as neck protection, they are at least designed with the neck in mind. Increasing the length of impact time, along with potentially adding weight, puts more stress on the neck, which has been deemed very dangerous by experts beyond old time football coaches.

The fact is, one of the biggest issues with concussions is that players still return to play too soon, and that's when all hell starts breaking loose. Often a player feels better, but that doesn't mean that his brain is healed(and despite the dark room thing in hockey, it is just as bad if not worse in there--Marc Savard is an unfortunately perfect example). There are procedures that each team is supposed to follow governing this, comparing cognitive function to the player's baseline. But there is no way in hell that teams are abiding by this as strictly as they must--just look at the Colt McCoy fiasco this year.

Bottom line, football is extremely unique in that head impacts are the norm, rather than the exception. Bicycle helmets are great, and if they ever have to actually protect the head, they basically self destruct and get thrown away by the happy consumer. At most levels of play, baseball helmets get more abuse by being thrown on the ground than protecting a head. Etc, etc. Severely penalizing hits with the head and to the head would help(although this is tricky, as the big open field tackles are sort of easy, but how about a back putting his head down to get the extra yard or a defensive player plugging a hole by doing the same--not so easy but extremely prevalent). Strictly enforcing return to play protocol would help. But given the size and speed of the players, and the basic nature of the game, I don't see head injuries going away. Just maybe managed a bit better.

Edited by Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat, 09 May 2012 - 12:02 PM.

[PedrosRedGlove]

-The more glancing the blow, the less chance there is for serious injury. Along with the Gazoo appearance, this is one of the reasons why the Pro Cap failed. Padding on the outside significantly decreases the glancing nature of the blow, in effect, creating a whole bunch of sticking points.
-While helmets are not designed as neck protection, they are at least designed with the neck in mind. Increasing the length of impact time, along with potentially adding weight, puts more stress on the neck, which has been deemed very dangerous by experts beyond old time football coaches.

I understand the reasoning behind thinking the softshell could lead to other injury problems, but is there any actual proof of this? It seems like the ProCap failed largely because it simply wasn't a popular look amongst players. There isn't much evidence either way, but must of the anecdotes from people who have used them seem really positive in terms of injury/pain prevention.

[Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat]

I understand the reasoning behind thinking the softshell could lead to other injury problems, but is there any actual proof of this? It seems like the ProCap failed largely because it simply wasn't a popular look amongst players. There isn't much evidence either way, but must of the anecdotes from people who have used them seem really positive in terms of injury/pain prevention.

The truest way to get proof is to have a statistically significant number in actual play and then measure the results. So no, that doesn't exist. There is, however, well developed scientific opinion that I read years ago when I was in the industry. I'm not sure I can dig it up now or if it's all even public information.

Edited by Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat, 09 May 2012 - 09:18 PM.

[simplyeric]

Doesn't the padding inside the hard shell begin deforming within milliseconds of impact, significantly reducing sudden acceleration of the head relative to the support structure of the helmet? To be clear, I'm not comparing existing helmets to those with a softshell. I'm talking about a hardshell helmet with the same amount of padding as a softshell, but all the padding is on the inside. So basically it would be the same (over)size helmet as a softshell, but would look more like a regular helmet and still sound like a regular helmet on impact (which apparently is important to old school coaches at least). Possibly the overall size and weight of it would be problematic, but should be no more so than the softshell alternative which seems to have been rejected primarily on the basis of the lack of "whack".

One significant difference that occurred to me after I made my previous post is that the padding on a softshell helmet has basically unlimited space to deform, whereas the same padding would be confined to a limited area inside a hardshell and, therefore, perhaps less deformable?

think of it this way:

The "whack!" itself is indicative of the rate of dissipation and deformation. The sharp sound indicates that the energy is not dissipating through deformation as quickly on the hard shell as with the soft shell. Hit a drum with a hard stick, it will make a louder sharper noise than with a padded tip (same size, same force).
And, while the time-frames are very very small, it is relevant whether deformation and dissipation starts in a few milliseconds or tens of milliseconds, because the accelleration not linear, but is seconds squared. (and "jerk" is cubed...which is why such thin layers of padding can be so effective).

There are fabrics out now that are flexible become rigid based on certain types/amounts of stress. Some will become rigid at a point load rather than a distributed load (puncture resistance rather than shock absorbption). I would bet that someone could come up with a fabric that becomes rigid/slippery with laterally applied loads but remains pliant with more perpendicular loads. And/or sub-layers that would allow an outer surface to shear off under higher (kneck twisting) forces, that could be replaced.

Lastly, there's some part of the concussion that comes from the intial wrench, and some from the secondary impact of the brain within the braincase surging back against the skull (the initial impact moves the skull, which moves the brain...then the skull decelerates and so the brain hits the other side of the head: two impacts). I'd think some engineering could also basically slow the subsequent deceleration of the head, reducing the secondary impact.

Could a combination of various things (changes to rules, tackling, materials, enginnering) reduce concussions to an "acceptable" rate?

(and I'd give that a much higher chance of success than medical practice catching up. You can graft a torn ligament, and you can also go through like with busted/partially healed ACL...but you can't graft brain any time soon, and we see what happens when you go through life with a busted up portion of your brain).

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

Sorry I missed your post simplyeric. I absolutely agree the material just millimeters under the outer surface of the hard shell receives a more focused and discrete force at the point of impact than the same point on a soft shell. But what really matters is the force at the the inner surface in contact with the head in. Given the same amount of padding, I'm still not convinced that the force to the head is greater simply because the hard potion of the helmet is struck first. Does it matter if the force dissipates through x amount of padding, basically transfers instantaneously through a hard layer, and then dissipates further through y amount of padding vs. an instantaneous transfer through an outer hard layer (with some minimal amount of dissipation) and then the bulk of the dissipation through x+y amount of padding?

I agree with everything else said here, I'm simply questioning whether the order of the material being struck makes a difference..

[simplyeric]

Sorry I missed your post simplyeric. I absolutely agree the material just millimeters under the outer surface of the hard shell receives a more focused and discrete force at the point of impact than the same point on a soft shell. But what really matters is the force at the the inner surface in contact with the head in. Given the same amount of padding, I'm still not convinced that the force to the head is greater simply because the hard potion of the helmet is struck first. Does it matter if the force dissipates through x amount of padding, basically transfers instantaneously through a hard layer, and then dissipates further through y amount of padding vs. an instantaneous transfer through an outer hard layer (with some minimal amount of dissipation) and then the bulk of the dissipation through x+y amount of padding?

I agree with everything else said here, I'm simply questioning whether the order of the material being struck makes a difference..

The "whack" sound from hard helmets implies that the force is not dissipating (through deformation) as quickly: some of the impact energy is being released as noise, What you are referring to as "transfers instantaneously through a hard layer" is not actually instantaneous, and the minute time differences are relevant (as is the total effective dissipation, which is also probably less than with hard helmets, up to a point where the all-soft shell can't deform enough).
The thing is that concussions are related not just to the ultimate pressure at the skull, but also to the overall acceleration/deceleration of the skull and brain. So miniscule timeframes are not irrelevant.

Other thoughts on helmet technology:
-can a helmet be composed of a geometry of soft and sliding panels such that impact normal to the padding is abosrbed through deformation, while glancing blows are dealt with by physical repositioning of panels within the overall "dome" shape of a helmet?
-can a helmet be engineered using more of a gel (liqui-gel? gas?) medium, because a fluid medium would tend to equalize pressure across a broader area

(having probably oversold myself here, I should point out that I'm not a physicist or materials scientist. this is just something that falls into a subset of some things I have studied and/or read up on)

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

The "whack" sound from hard helmets implies that the force is not dissipating (through deformation) as quickly: some of the impact energy is being released as noise, What you are referring to as "transfers instantaneously through a hard layer" is not actually instantaneous, and the minute time differences are relevant (as is the total effective dissipation, which is also probably less than with hard helmets, up to a point where the all-soft shell can't deform enough).
The thing is that concussions are related not just to the ultimate pressure at the skull, but also to the overall acceleration/deceleration of the skull and brain. So miniscule timeframes are not irrelevant.

I don't think we're really saying anything different. When I said the force "basically transfers instantaneously through a hard layer", I was referring to the fact that the hard layer offers very little protection from head injury in and of itself (without padding). I realize that the transfer of energy actually occurs over the course of a few nanoseconds or whatever and that the minute time difference is in fact relevant.

I think the source of our disconnect may be where you refer to the "all-soft shell". I was referring to the ProCap with the softer over shell that goes over the hard outer shell of regular helmet. I was simply questioning whether taking that same amount of additional soft padding that the ProCap has and putting under a modified (oversized) outer shell would be any less effective. You would still get the "whack" on impact as well as better slippability on glancing blows. I realize there is better technology and more effective materials today such that a large oversized helmet probably isn't necessary, but again, I was simply wonder whether the order of the materials (ProCap -- X padding - hard shell - Y padding -- vs. "modified traditional helmet" -- hard shell - X padding - Y padding) makes any difference.

It's worth noting that a few NFL players used a soft outer padding on their helmets -- Mark Kelso is the one I know from memory.

[Statman]

CTE, Seau, etc. is not going to change the way I follow the NFL nor how I view the games.

As a matter of fact, I think the entire concussion issue is getting out of hand. Every pundit is talking about it like it's a matter of national security and I even saw a sports writer say this could cause the demise of the NFL. Talk about overreaction!

Last time I checked, no one is forcing these players to play in the NFL. If they are worried about concussions and not being able to walk, then retire like Matt Light and Jacob Bell and then STFU.

There are hundreds of thousands of folks who work in as dangerous, if not more dangerous jobs and they get paid a hell of a lot less than your typical NFL player. What about the police, firefighters, electrical workers, factory workers and coal miners out there who are making $40k-$60k annually? How come no one is outraged at the job-related risks that they face?

And don’t even get me started on the soldiers serving in the military. Those guys lose body parts and end up shooting themselves because of job-related PTSD, yet folks like Whitlock and Simmons aren't writing about them.

The NFL players out there should stop complaining and play.

Edited by Statman, 16 May 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[wutang112878]

As a matter of fact, I think the entire concussion issue is getting out of hand. Every pundit is talking about it like it's a matter of national security and I even saw a sports writer say this could cause the demise of the NFL. Talk about overreaction!

Last time I checked, no one is forcing these players to play in the NFL. If they are worried about concussions and not being able to walk, then retire like Matt Light and Jacob Bell and then STFU.

I think what everyone is up in arms about is around the issue of if the NFL is doing enough to avoid these and prevent further damage after a player gets a concussion. Take Colt McCoy last year as an example, anyone watching that play knew the guy shouldnt have gone back in the game, but even with the new process and procedures he was back in just a few plays later. Yes the players sign up for it, but I think that could 'ruin' football is if somehow a concussion or CTE lawsuit is filed and the players can prove the NFL knew more than it was leading on, and/or they did not have proper procedures and processes in place based on this information the punitive damages could be very significant considering how much money the NFL makes in profit each year.

There are hundreds of thousands of folks who work in as dangerous, if not more dangerous jobs and they get paid a hell of a lot less than your typical NFL player. What about the police, firefighters, electrical workers, factory workers and coal miners out there who are making $40k-$60k annually? How come no one is outraged at the job-related risks that they face?

I think the outrage here goes back to the profits, because the NFL certainly had significant funds to provide better funding to the retired players, but they didnt do so as a negotiation tactic, which I would say is just not ethical. Its not much different than Walmarts old tactic of not allowing workers to be 'full-time' so they wouldnt be eligible for medical benefits, there was outrage there considering the massive profits that Walmart makes. Whereas local governments and electrical companies and factories arent the polarizing profit centers that a place like the NFL or Walmart is.

[Lack_of_Imagination]

As the 2012 season dawns, another interesting article on the subject (it profiles the Mass neuropathologist who has has been doing so much work in the area) was posted today in Grantland

http://www.grantland...sport-only-hope

[singaporesoxfan]

As the 2012 season dawns, another interesting article on the subject (it profiles the Mass neuropathologist who has has been doing so much work in the area) was posted today in Grantland

http://www.grantland...sport-only-hope

Thanks for this link. Man, Jane Leavy is an incredible writer.

[TomTerrific]

As the 2012 season dawns, another interesting article on the subject (it profiles the Mass neuropathologist who has has been doing so much work in the area) was posted today in Grantland

http://www.grantland...sport-only-hope

Thanks for this link. Man, Jane Leavy is an incredible writer.

Yes, the article is quite compelling, and nowhere more so than in the final passages about Kevin Turner, former Patriot.

Some random tidbits about Ann McKee and local football:

1) A chance conversation with her about 4 years ago (we live in the same town, and I'm good friends with one of her co-workers) was what convinced me to forbid my son from doing Pop Warner. In retrospect, a blessing, really.

2) Our town has one of the more progressive football coaching staffs I've encountered (admittedly, my experience is limited to my HS, my college, and my son's current HS)--to all appearances they are incredibly sensitive to the issue of concussions, not to mention a whole host of other areas that I've seen them deal with (sexual identity issues, gender issues, etc, etc.)

3) There is no one in the world that they hate, fear, and despise more than Ann McKee, convinced as they are that she is going to kill HS football.

I'm not sure what all this means, except that I'm just as big a hypocrite on this topic as anyone. I still show up on Friday nights in the fall and scream my fool head off, cheer for a big hit, banter with the other dads about whose kid did what and how good they'll be next year. All the while, safe in the knowledge my son isn't getting his head bounced around on a daily basis, unlike their kids.

Who knows where all this ends up. Probably the coaches' fears are spot on, and football as we know it is (rightfully) doomed.

[Awesome Fossum]

Has anyone smarter than me read the Grantland piece on mortality rates of football players and baseball players from the the 60s, 70s, and 80s?

That's correct: Baseball players who accrued at least five qualifying seasons from 1959 through 1988 died at a higher rate than similarly experienced football players from the same time frame. The difference between the two is statistically significant and allows us to reject the null hypothesis; there is a meaningful difference between the mortality rates of baseball players and football players with careers that emulated the NIOSH criteria.

The difference is even more staggering when we specifically focus on football players who shared the most similar body types to the majority of the baseball players we examined. Referring again to the Body Mass Index included in the heights and weights table above, the average BMI for the qualifying baseball player in our study during his career was 24.6, and the standard deviation was 1.6. Players within two standard deviations of the average had a BMI within a range of 21.4 to 27.7. Of the baseball players in our study whose BMI was in that range, 16 percent have died.

On the football side of our work, 1,182 of the 3,088 players fit into that BMI range. Of those 1,182 players, 115 have passed away — just 9.7 percent. That's stunning: Football players from 1959 to 1988 who had similar body types to the vast majority of baseball players from the same era are living longer than their contemporaries — despite the relatively brutal nature of their sport.

That's ... encouraging? I don't know what to think.

[bosox188]

Has anyone smarter than me read the Grantland piece on mortality rates of football players and baseball players from the the 60s, 70s, and 80s?



That's ... encouraging? I don't know what to think.

My initial reaction to that would be that the death rate doesn't tell you anything about the number of players who had brain-related problems during their life after retiring (or even while still playing).

[finnVT]

That's a very interesting result, but there's two questions that come to mind:

(1) lots of pros were multi-sport athletes in HS and even college.. if CTE is caused/triggered/enhanced/accelerated by damage accrued early in life (e.g., in one's teens), they'd really have to control for what sports these guys played earlier on.

(2) it's not the wear-and-tear roughness of football that people worry about, but rather the relatively small number (compared to the total number of injuries sustained) of discrete head-injury events. And while concussions seem rarer in MLB than the NFL, it's not like they're non-existent (the estimates i've seen actually report more baseball concussions than hockey, though i don't know how this works out on a per-capita basis), and I would guess they were more common in the 60's-80's, although that could be wrong. And MLB concussions can certainly be severe and long-lasting. None of which would explain why MLB seems to have a *higher* mortality rate, but it at least raises the question of why they'd use MLB as the baseline, and not something like track or golf.

It's also not clear that they've controlled for age in that study... if MLB players play to a later age than NFLers (not unreasonable, though I can't say for sure), then the MLBers who played during the studied time frame would be subject to all sorts of other age-related conditions than NFLers from the same time range. While they mention collecting DoB info, it's not clear that it was included in any of the stat tests. Apologies if they did control for this and I missed it..

Edited by finnVT, 27 August 2012 - 01:42 PM.

[Cuzittt]

One should remember that Batting Helmets were not mandated for all players until 1971... and older players were grandfathered in. Bob Montgomery was the last player not to where a helmet when he retired in 1979.

In 1983, it became mandatory for players to where a helmet with an ear flap. Again, players were grandfathered. The last flapless helmet was worn by Tim Raines in 2002.

Not that there would not be head injuries due to collisions (walls and players) that the helmet would not protect against... but getting beaned surely became less risky with batting helmets.

Both these events happened within the time period looked at.

[riboflav]

Weren't many MLBers of that era on cocaine, speed, and other amphetamines?