http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/NFL/2013/03/14/20655776.html?cid=rsssportsnfl
I know safety is the issue, but c'mon man --- this is football, right? They're really softening the game and crossing a line here. I'm afraid to see what football as we knew it, will look like in another decade or so. I'm with some of the safety regulations already enforced, but I think this one isn't necessary and won't change the game for the better.
Like it or not, this is the way of the future. More and more research is showing that even minor concussions can have serious effects later on.
Youth programs are abandoning Oklahoma drills en masse as well.
The postgame show is brought to you by... Christ, I can't find it. The hell with it...
That's sad. We used to do the Oklahoma drill all the time and I'm still Ok. I think that........Wait, what were we talking about again?
My Name Is Earl:
D. Anthony
That's what I'm talkin' about!!
" ... let's beat the shit out of M*chigan." -Urban Meyer-
Earl Campbell can barely walk now.
Help is on the way.
Player leads with helmet for 5 seasons in NFL.
Player retires from NFL.
Player has brain damage from 5 years of leading with helmet.
Player sues NFL.
edit: my point is that this is the NFL's response to the player lawsuits. If players are suing, they clearly don't understand the risk. Something has got to give.
Anyone would make changes if they were getting sued over a particular subject. Its stupid but I cant really blame them for trying
Well, if NFL running backs didn't star using their helmet as a way to try and help run throw defensive players, they wouldn't have to be making this rule. I like the new rule. When I was playing football back in the day we were always told not to use the helmet as a "weapon." Get back to playing fundament and clean football and things will be for the better.
Do boxers sue promoters years later when they're drooling into a bib? No. Why? Because they took the risk when they put on the gloves. Football should be no different. You know exactly what the risks are every snap of the football, and you choose to accept that risk for whatever the reason may be.
Preventing serious injury from a shot to the head to an unsuspecting player is necessary.
Can't wait watch SuperBowl 75 when their pulling those flags.
I agree with you, not all the guys suing are wrong for what they are doing. But for the most part, guys know what they getting themselves into and when it comes to the money making, they dont have a problem with it. Although, I wish there was more of a retirement health package for the former players.
seem to have a downvoting bandit in our midst. I got your back. +1
edit: haha, now I have been slain with the -1
Get's real when you get the power huh!!
I think football will be changing for safety reasons and some of them are necessary (late hits, helmet to helmet hits on defenseless players). However, will those changes, like the one mentioned above make football unwatchable in the future? Unfortunately I say yes...
"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."
"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."
Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987
Officials are going to be tasked in discerning the difference between leading with the helmet and lowering the shoulder.
"Success - it's what you do with what you got" - Woody Hayes
Missed again, NFL. Way to keep up the good work.
I'm so sick of this. They are putting on this facade that they are trying to make a dangerous game safer and once again, the intent is missed. This is the most blatant CYA policy I've ever seen in my life. Every Sunday they trot out those fake "Look how much we try to make the game safer" commercials, and every offseason, rules that fundamentally alter the way the game is played are made and it damages the sanctity of the game because of the NFL's down right refusal to admit the dangers of the sport so many have made BILLIONS off of.
Meanwhile-back in the trenches, offensive and defensive lineman are banging their heads against each other each and every snap of the game....why won't that be changed? I'm not saying it should, but it points to the idea that these safety mesures are a facade. The science is coming out that more damage occurrs in the trenches than anywhere else-A game can (doesn't, but can) go an entire 4 quarters without one of the ever so hated "kill shots" but not a play can go by without 5 guys smacking their heads against 5 others. Its dangerous-the lineplay and the refusal to go anywhere near changing it should tell you that. Quit lying to us with these rule changes for skill players that aren't the root cause of the problem. FOOTBALL IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. Changing this won't change anything-it'll just cheapen the game. Also-anyone ever run the ball at any level of football? You know what happens when you can't lower your head? You run upright. You know what happens when you run upright? You get tatooed by defenders because you present a bigger target. Sooo the heads 'may' be safer but the rest of the upright runner's body is essentially fucked.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
Spot on, brewster. Football is a violent and dangerous game. I find it funny that, after years of using these "kill shots" and violence to market the game, they are now trying to put up this facade of caring about player safety. How many NFL films features have been done on big hits, the most violent hitters and such? I have watched countless numbers of these. Now there's a threat to the one thing the NFL cares about more than anything...the profitability of the game. The lawsuits being filed by former players might cost them some serious money. So they go on this mythical player safety campaign to try and seem proactive in protecting the players. And all it does is just make them look worse in the eyes of anyone who knows anything about the game. Or has played it at any level. They need to sack up, admit that their brand is violent and dangerous, and be done with it. Don't make up new rules that look and sound good. The players know what it is...its lip service and a PR move. Don't insult the intelligence of the players and fans by claiming its about anything other than protecting your nest egg.
When I started playing football at the pee wee level, my parents had to sign a waiver. Same in junior high. And high school. Because they wanted it to be clear to my parents that it is a dangerous sport. And injuries could happen. My parents knew it. And so did I...but I loved the game. As does every other kid who plays it. As do the men who suit up on sundays. They understand the risk. They are willing to take it to get paid. The NFL needs to admit it. And put the onus of responsibility on the men who risk their bodies for a paycheck. Rules are made to be broken...its a whole other set of circumstances when the players have to think about their future and their health.
Brewster, every time this topic comes up you make the claim that the small hits are more dangerous than the major concussion blows. I've yet to see any scientific literature that supports this claim. There is some research that has shown the small repeated hits are dangerous as they mount up. However, in no way has any of the literature that I have read ever made such a claim that the small repeated hits are more dangerous than a major blow to the head. I have also never seen any research that shows there is evidence of greater prevalence of negative health outcomes due to repeated sub-conclusive blows compared to negative health outcomes suffered by former players from traumatic concussive blows. If there is some research (by which I mean peer reviewed medical journals) that support this claim you have made several times, I would like to see it for my own curiosity.
I would also add that the NFL has made a step for protecting players from the dangers of sub-concussive hits by limiting the amount of contact and the number of days of full contact allowed for NFL teams. I think this is a major step which limits the amount of hits and number of days of hits, which limits the frequency and allows extra time for healing to prevent long term damage. However, the NFL has also shown there greed and stupidity in this area by trying to extend the season which would be a step in the wrong direction in terms of this issue. That still doesn't change your false claim the NFL has done nothing.
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/12/02/brain.aws307.full.pdf+html?sid=010b634a-f023-430f-8488-2d220d3300f3
As I've stated numerous times, Chris Henry's brain should have changed a lot of people's minds. He was never diagnosed with a single concussion and yet was still found to have CTE.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
That article makes no claims that support your argument that sub-concussive hits are more dangerous/more likely to lead to negative health outcomes. There isn't even any mention of any kind of analysis comparing exposure within their study group or to other studies. The article only mentions years of football played and position played, but does not go any further. There is no possible way to draw conclusions about comparisons from type of head contact exposure based on the information presented in this article. Furthermore, the article only discusses "repetitive mild traumatic brain injury." It should be noted that mTBI can be synonymous with concussion.
I'm fully convinced of the long-term dangers of both concussive and sub-concussive (and for that matter, mild/moderate/severe traumatic brain injury). I even have some understanding of the proposed mechanism for disease resulting from repetitive sub-concussive hits. However, you are taking a giant leap in saying that "more danger occurs in the trenches." This article does not support that claim. Just because science is recently discovering the inherent danger of any trauma to the brain, does not mean that sub-concussive hits are more dangerous than concussive hits, nor that mild TBI is more dangerous than moderate or severe TBI. And there certainly isn't any evidence at all that supports that. Therefore, it is an illogical conclusion that more danger occurs in the trenches and that the NFL shouldn't do anything about "kill shots."
In order to show that more danger occurs in the trenches you would have to have research that compares rates of brain injury and negative health outcomes, such as CTE, in lineman compared to other skill groups. At the least you would need research that compares rates of mild TBI resulting in CTE and negative health outcomes compared to moderate and severe TBI resulting in CTE and negative health outcomes.
In claiming that the NFL doesn't care about the trenches you are again ignoring another rule: lineman can't strike each other in the head. Yes, they do still bang heads, but at least the NFL has done something from keeping players from being clubbed upside the head.
When Chris Henry played the dangers of sub-concussive trauma were not well known. Concussions were also not a point of emphasis in the NFL the way it is more recently. Just because he was never diagnosed with a concussion does not mean he never suffered a concussion. Furthermore, there were no penalties for taking shots at defenseless receivers when he was playing, and he took his fair share of shots. How would his case not add to reasons for trying to reduce the amount of hits to the head for players in the NFL? It is counter to your illogical argument that the NFL should do nothing.
I didn't need Chris Henry to change my mind in 2009. I was suspicious of the dangers of mild hits to the head before that. Learning that mild hits to the head are dangerous has not changed the understanding of the risk of moderate and severe hits to the head, and that's where you've gone off base.
Well perhaps I'm getting hung up on the relationship between sub-concussive hits and repetitive mild TBI. You said "It should be noted that mTBI can be synonymous with concussion.". I would like to know where it is noted because if that is in fact true, I'll concede the article I presented doesn't do much to support my claim because it doesn't link their findings to subconcussive hits as I'm so hell bent on declaring the problem.
I will take offense to the assumption you've made, however. I never once said the NFL shouldn't do anything about 'kill shots'. They aren't good for people. I'm not disputing that. I'm saying that this proposed rule-and the defenseless receiver rules-are fruitless attempts at making a game safer because those types of hits still occur despite 'stiff' penalties. Thus the game is cheapened because penalties are created to stop something that can not be taken out of the game. The speed at which these guys play sometimes makes it impossible to do anything but hit with your head. As for the running back rule-its a cute attempt but as I (and Emmit Smith, he of NFL Running Back Hall of Fame) stated- eliminating (or attempting to eliminate) a running back's ability to lead with his head into a defender creates the possibility of forcing the running back to take more severe hits to a larger portion of his exposed torso. By lowering the head, the runner protects himself from additional exposure to defenders-so I ask, who was made safer?
As for 'ignoring' the head slap rule, I don't really think that was my point either. Again, I'm saying that head to head contact is an inevitable part of football and no one seems to suggest ways to change it because they really can't. So we are fed the rhetoric that the game is being made safer while a quintessential part of football-linemen smacking their heads against each other-is somehow not dangerous because no rule changes are proposed? Why not? That's what I'm asking. Why is the running back being asked to run a different way, why are safeties asked to tackle a different way, and why are receivers protected from hits the NFL made a series of videos about while offensive and defensive linemen aren't being asked to change anything?
I have my theory and its that saying the concussions are the problem gives them something to attack. They can draw the line that big hits to the head cause concussions, concussions cause problems, so if we eliminate big hits to the head, we eliminate problems. I'm saying that over simplistic. I'm saying that football itself is the problem and anytime grown men hit their heads against other grown men, there will be problems-concussive or not. Since that can't be changed, all attempts to make the game safer will always, ultimately be fruitless.
I watched 30 NFL games this year and don't recall seeing these hits occurring less. So again, I ask-who was made safer?
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
http://www.cdc.gov/concussion/
Better source here: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/tbi_toolkit/physicians/mtbi/mtbi.pdf
I think you're getting at a great question here. It's well worth looking to see if the changes have a positive effect, or any effect at all. It's one thing to watch the games, but I think it would be better to collect data and look at the numbers. Unfortunately, I don't if anybody has.
Yeah, Emmitt's reaction sounds great until you actually get into the details of the rule. Jeff Fisher had a better, and more intellectually honest, response:
There is still no reason for the ballcarrier to not lower his head. It will only be a penalty if he leads with the crown of the helmet. I also don't like that Emmitt tries to play the "you must have never played football before" card. Besides, I'm pretty sure he doesn't know much about medicine, law, or related fields.
As for reducing the health risks, again I don't see why you are creating this false dichotomy wherein the NFL has to either reduce all hits (concussive and sub-concussive) or do nothing at all. [I do understand you having issue and questioning the methodology.] The danger of sub-concussive hits is recently becoming more realized. That doesn't change the known risk of concussive hits (or hits that create a greater risk for concussion). Trying to make a change to minimize the risk of concussive hits, a known risk, doesn't mean that other risks don't matter.
As the science of sub-concussive hits progresses and more is known about the cause and effect, perhaps that will reveal ways that the risk can be managed. Or, at the least, maybe it will be a better known risk. To me, a lot of this research seems to be in the early stages. When I was playing football 10 years ago we signed waivers because we knew there was a risk for paralysis mainly. We knew concussions were possible, but in addition to them seeming to be infrequent, we had no idea there could be lingering issues from concussions. The true risks, especially with sub-concussive hits, is not fully known. There may be new discoveries on how to treat or prevent long-term effects from sub-concussive hits. As for the risk mitigation, I was hoping to not get into that...from my experience it's not in an employer's best interest to ignore the established science for a health risk. It's far better to try to do what is possible/practicable.
It'd be tough to compile data though, you know? Prior to the defenseless receiver rule, those plays were just plays and not marked by anything substantial like a penalty flag like they are today. I guess that the number of Personal Fouls would have increased since the rule was put into effect but thats because those hits are getting flagged, not that they are happening more or less.
CDC.Gov is a pretty solid source. But I still find the wording of my article to be interesting-"repetitive Mild TBI". It is interesting that they don't specify concussions or not, but sadly, that may be an impossible study. You made a point earlier about Chris Henry-he was never diagnosed with a concussion, it doesn't mean he never had one-I would be dollars to donuts it would be impossible to find a study group large enough and filled with brains who have never actually suffered concussions because even guys that were diagnosed with them probably never had all of them diagnosed. I will admit, its probably impossible to test my theory %100 accuratley because of a failure to find non-concussed brains.
Fisher isn't saying anything to alleviate my concern that this rule will negatively impact the game. At what point can a ref be expected to know the difference? I get the idea-players goes through the hole, linebacker approaches player, player lowers head and leans shoulder into linebacker-but contact with the head will be made and mark my words-it will be called on the running back whether he loads up or not. We have all seen hits where the helmet was used to make a tackle-not even leading with the crown-and a flag has been thrown. This is going to be impossible to enforce an differentiate between a shoulder where the head was used and 'lowering the boom'.
I probably signed the same boiler plate waiver you did but you do make an excellent point about the evolution of the theories on concussions. I played from 5th grade to my senior year and as weird as it sounds-concussions were sometimes treated as a badge of honor. In a weird way it meant you were playing the game hard-which is as caveman as it sounds. I know....Paralysis really was the most troublesome concern and I don't know if it ever happened to anyone I played with or against-concussions on the other hand are rampant.
As for your last sentance-I agree, but possible and practicable is the part that worries me. There is a fine line between making the game 'safer' and ruining it as we know it and this running back rule, more than any other, will do just that. It will cross the line between safety and practicality and take away something players have been using for years.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
Pretty soon the NFL is just going to be a glorified 7 on 7..
Or a backyard game of tag.....
"Success - it's what you do with what you got" - Woody Hayes
I have a dumb conspiracy theory, they are watering down the game so females can play in the NFL and college football, lol!
MT - Nothing would surprise me at this point. I can envision some form of federally-mandated, taxpayer-funded BS that would dictate the game in the future.
"You win with people." - Woody Hayes
A vision of what football will be in 10 years.........
If I might add, this guy would get flagged for lowering his head and the defender would get flagged for an illegal two-handed grabbing.
Hahaha...And the flags aren't pink/there's not enough pink in the uniforms. There's a possible future Goodell fine.
"You win with people." - Woody Hayes
I hate this arguement. It's impossible not to lead with your head, it rests on top of most peoples shoulders. As for the NFL and high hits, it's been made known by many players that they prefer a hit to the head over a knee. It's a business decision. Concussion(a few games) or knee(career killer). IMO if the NFL wants to truly elimate head to head collisions, they need to bring back leather open faced helmets or remove them completely. No one would lead or hit with their head if it weren't exposed. The hard shell helmet is a weapon and provides a false sense of security.
At the end of the day it's football. It's a violent game where injuries are frequent. No one forces anyone to play. It's a choice. You know the risks at a young age. The NFL needs to get off their moral high horse and realize the reason they are so popular is because people want to watch a violent competition between elite athletes. The lawsuits could esily be resolved be making a waiver for players to sign before employment. I work in a nasty dirty steel mill. I know the risks. The air quality sucks and we know it. The company is progressive in regulating the problem as best it can, but as employees we know and understand the risk when we take the job.
Dustin Fox was our leading tackler as a corner.... because his guy always caught the ball.
Everyone but the league admits the dangers too. The players aren't stupid. Listen to them talk. Eric Winston went on his rant this year admitting he knows his life will be cut short because of the game he chooses to play. Jay Cutler has said he knows he is risking his long term health for a few years in the NFL. Guys know it. So the NFL needs to admit it. Again, I'm not advocating that the game be made less safe-the point is, at a certain point it can't be made safe either. Its just bull shit. Its dog and pony show, look at how good we are bull shit.
4-6 seconds from point A to point B and when you get to point B, be pissed off
Exactly.
If I'm a power running back, with 90% of my carries between the tackles, I'm going to concern myself with fines and hit holes standing straight up?
There are no finites within the game of football. Play smart and safe, but there's a moment where playing with restraint can become reckless as well.
Very interested to see how often this is applied come fall.
"Success - it's what you do with what you got" - Woody Hayes
You would think that getting paid millions of dollars a year to play football as your living is enough to risk the dangers of the game. I'll tell you right now, if I had the ability to make that much money in 10-15 years rather than working for 40+ as an Accountant, I'd suck it up.
I'm not trying to downplay the injuries that come from the NFL because they are serious. However, I feel like the players get compensated very fairly for the job that the participate in.
P.S. I know the NFL is the one making these restrictions, but as said before, it's mostly so that the NFL can cover their ass against any former players suing them.
Don't give up... Don't ever give up.
This is a joke! Emmit Smith said in an interview: "If I’m a running back and I’m running into a linebacker, you’re telling me I have to keep my head up so he can take my chin off?’’ Smith said Thursday in an exclusive interview with Dallas radio station 105.3 The Fan. “You’ve absolutely lost your mind.’’
“As a running back, it’s almost impossible (to not lower your head),’’ said the Dallas Cowboys legend. “The first thing you do is get behind your shoulder pads. That means you’re leaning forward and the first part of contact that’s going to take place is your head, regardless."
Exactly Emmitt, exactly.
" ... let's beat the shit out of M*chigan." -Urban Meyer-
Wow.
He could have stayed on at ESPiN had he analyzed like that....
Spot on with that.
"Success - it's what you do with what you got" - Woody Hayes
Start blood testing for testosterone and steroids.
I will quit football if this rule is applied.
While I certainly understand the consternation this is causing among fans, it was inevitable that we would return to this at some point. I say return because as the game was originally played no player in his right mind would lower his head and lead with it, whether he was a ball carrier or the tackler. Helmets came into existence to protect the head from the certain cranium collisions that would occur during play. The first helmets were just leather hats that offered little protection. They eventually evolved into hard shells with no facemasks. Indeed, the first facemasks were as primitive as the first leather helmets, but as we all know, this has all evolved into the modern day helmet.
My point is that helmets evolved to protect the head. They were never intended to be used as battering rams or tools to inflict hurt on one's opponent. However, as we all know, modern day techniques involve much more use of the helmet in ways it was never intended to be used.
I like to point this out because I was a HS football coach in Washington State. Around 1988 the State was sued by a young man who had been severely injured in a HS game because he had lowered his head to make contact while playing the game. His suit was successful, and one of the conditions of the settlement was to have all HS's in the state teach the proper use of the helmet and to make sure any player knew to keep his head up during contact (a head being thrown backward during contact has so much less risk of a severe spinal cord injury than a head being pushed downward into the chest). This has been and remains a teaching point that is mandated by the State in all HS's. We actually video taped our presentations to have on file so we could prove we were instructing it correctly.
However, even with all the emphasis on teaching the correct technique as mandated by the State - kids, fans, and officials learned from what they saw on TV in college and pro games. We, as coaches, had to be very vigilant and repeat training drills weekly to teach this simple principle.
Now I know that many of you feel this "new" rule will ruin football as we know it. Well, football as we know it is a very different game than what it was originally. (Thank goodness for that!). The game will continue to evolve and change along the way. This new rule will not destroy the sport, but it will make the job of teaching mandated Washington State HS "heads up" technique quite a bit easier. (I know many other States have similar policies in this regard.)
Thank you, that was well written and provided good insight from an historical and experienced perspective.
I completely agree that this rule won't ruin football as we know it. But what about 30 or 40 rule changes from now? In my opinion, this is a bad direction for the sport of football and all this is just a way for the NFL to attempt to limit liability.
If this keeps up we will be watching "tag football" soon. These people need to pull there head out of their ass and live in the real world.
Wherever you are, there you be!
If you are running a huge business and find out that you have to change or find yourself being legally liable for potential lawsuits and other issues then you change. Every business out there has to adjust and change as needed and this is no different. I don't blame the NFL. If it was our business none of us would ignore the advice of our lawyers. We'd spin it to us doing the right thing and use it to promote our product because "we care." This was inevitable and NW is correct in his assessment. Does it suck? I can see that argument, but the game will adapt and live on - at least I hope it will. Without football I'd have to do stuff with my wife ALL weekend and that would be bull.......
NTHTFL = National Two Hand Touch Football League. You have to wear boxing gloves so you don't sprain your fingers or break a nail tho!
I just threw up a lot. The rule changes are for show. If the NFL really cared about player safety they wouldn't be lobbying for 18 game seasons and wouldn't have Thursday night games telecast on their network.
I am approaching my strongly worded letter/boycott stage.
Edit: is it also bad that I don't care about CTE or serious brain trauma to players if they are making informed decisions regarding the risks? I never wish any injuries on someone, but if these are risks inherent to the game of football, then so be it. I vehemently disagree with fundamentally altering everything about the game that I feel has so much value over simply just entertainment and believe that the violence plays a part in that.
Sarcastaball coming to an NFL near you
Rumor is that the ball carrier will actually have to run backwards, so that they are leading with their butt. Reports are that the NFL doesn't know how to handle players from tsun, because their heads and their butts are the same thing. In a related story, Denard Robinson says he can run backwards faster than Usain Bolt as well.
Well...it looks like this rule is in play now. I'm with you, Brewster, on the phoniness of the NFL. The MAIN reason for this rule is NOT to protect the players from injury, but rather: protect the OWNERS from the LAWYERS!
"You win with people." - Woody Hayes
New NCAA rule for 2013 calls for EJECTION + 15 yards when a D player targets a defensive player / leads with head. The coaches put these rules in. Incredibly hard to call at the speed it happens. A lot of ejections are going to come after shoulder hits on crossing routes. I always felt that the guy is not defenseless because he or his coach chose to run a crossing route.
JLP36
I know it's been a long standing rule that penalties are not reviewable, but similar to college basketball with flagrant fouls I believe that launching/helmet to helmet hits should be reviewed. Too many times you see a guy put his shoulder into a guys chest and get called for it. With ejection now being a possibility, I think you have to take a look at these plays in slow motion before you can make that big of a decision
Sorry Urban, Woody is still my favorite
As the rule is written, it does require a video review to eject a player. I think the penalty of 15 yards will stand with or without ejection.