Football gonna become unwatchable

[robdog]

The good thing about football is that if the ratings go down, they will meet and change some rules to get the ratings back. The NFL is the most agile sport when it comes to changing rules. (NCAAF is right behind them) However, I doubt football is going to start a downward slide due to player safety rules.

 

[FrankRizzo]

I'm all for reducing the chance of brain damage. What cracks me up is that all the people complaining about the rules would be in the ER for a week if they took a clean hit off of a practice squad player.

Exactly.
You guys wouldn't last one game, one play.

The NFL needs to do whatever they can to cut down on injuries, especially to the ACL.

They banned the horse-collar, for safety. Good call.
They banned chop-blocks. Good call.
They banned hits low into the QB. Good call. Too late for Brady & Carson Palmer, but good call going forward.

They now need to ban the ACL killers, which took out Dustin Keller, and which I have seen Louis Delmas do to 3 people, or attempt. He successfully ended Pro Bowler Ovie Mughelli's season and career. He almost took out Michael Vick.
And he partially got our own Jermichael Finley about 4 years ago in Detroit. He hunts the knees. See his attempt on Vick and his success on Mughelli on Youtube.

I'd like to see players wear old school leather helmets, see if punks like him still lower their heads as missiles, into ACLs or heads.

 

[12theTruth]

If you hit low you have a danger of injuring acls, if you hit high then you have the neck and the head. Lest we forget that the play happens in tenths of a second. You can't micro-legislate hard hits out of the game. You can make the equipment and especially helmets to better enhance safety. Also with the size and speed of todays players by altering the way defenders tackle it will just alter the impact on some other part of the body and then THAT will be an issue.

Watching the NFL may end up be like watching the CFL in another 15-20 years if the trend continues.

 

[PFanCan]

... When it comes to impact on the players' bodies the old law E=MC^2 comes into play, the key being that speed is squared; i.e., it hurts a lot more to get hit by the smaller and faster guy than it does to get hit by the slower but bigger guy.

Einstein's famous equation has nothing to do with players colliding at different speeds. The "C" in the equation is not a variable, as you describe it, rather it is a fixed value equal to the speed of light. In short, this equation calculates the amount of energy that is stored by a mass ("M"). The famous use of this equation is in the design of nuclear power plants and the infamous use of this equation is in the design of nuclear weapons.

To go back to your analysis, a more appropriate equation is that of momentum. Momentum ("P") equals mass ("M") times velocity ("v"). P=Mv. The larger the momentum, the larger the force is required to stop or alter it (which brings to mind Newton's first law of motion, "A body in motion tends to remain in motion", unless it is me headed for the couch with beer in hand at Packer kick off time).

So, in your scenario where it hurts more to get hit by the smaller and faster guy, the laws of momentum and Newton say otherwise. There is no squaring of any of the variables, so they are equally weighted. That is, if the small attacker is half the mass (or half the "weight" here on Earth) of a bigger attacker, he would have to run more than twice the speed in order to "hurt more".

Me? I'd be knocked senseless whether J. Bush hit me during a light jog or Jolly hit me while reaching for his Gatorade. Laws of momentum won't matter much in my case.

 

[PFanCan]

The Manning "roughing the passer" penalty was horrible. That was as clean of a tackle as I have ever seen. Did not use his helmet, did not land on the QB, did not slam him unnecessarily into the turf... he just arm tackled him. Unbelievable.

 

[HyponGrey]

Einstein's famous equation has nothing to do with players colliding at different speeds. The "C" in the equation is not a variable, as you describe it, rather it is a fixed value equal to the speed of light. In short, this equation calculates the amount of energy that is stored by a mass ("M"). The famous use of this equation is in the design of nuclear power plants and the infamous use of this equation is in the design of nuclear weapons.

To go back to your analysis, a more appropriate equation is that of momentum. Momentum ("P") equals mass ("M") times velocity ("v"). P=Mv. The larger the momentum, the larger the force is required to stop or alter it (which brings to mind Newton's first law of motion, "A body in motion tends to remain in motion", unless it is me headed for the couch with beer in hand at Packer kick off time).

So, in your scenario where it hurts more to get hit by the smaller and faster guy, the laws of momentum and Newton say otherwise. There is no squaring of any of the variables, so they are equally weighted. That is, if the small attacker is half the mass (or half the "weight" here on Earth) of a bigger attacker, he would have to run more than twice the speed in order to "hurt more".

Me? I'd be knocked senseless whether J. Bush hit me during a light jog or Jolly hit me while reaching for his Gatorade. Laws of momentum won't matter much in my case.

Surface area comes into play as well.

FF TOPIC FUN FACT: E=MC^2 is used by some string theorists as a conversion between mass and energy (based on light's ability to act as both a wave and a particle). Interesting thought anyway.

 

[jaybadger82]

Football helmets are designed to prevent skull fractures. They seem to do a very good job of it since I can't recall anybody being diagnosed with one.

Fill a plastic cup with partially congealed Jello. Give the cup a whack with a spoon. That's kind of what a brain looks like when the head is sharply impacted. Simply put, a concussion is a brain bruise caused by the brain matter smacking the side of the skull.

Concussions might be minimized if the helmet had some exterior padding to absorb some of the energy from the blow. Some years ago an SF O-Lineman, whose name escapes me, played with a helmet like this with the exterior padding painted like the helmet to disguise it. Many regarded this as odd or wimpy.

Try this...put on a football helment and smack your head on countertop as hard as you can. After you fully recover in some weeks or months, try it again, but this time wrap the helmet in a couple of layers of bubble paper. I think you'll note the difference after a couple of days once the queasiness and dizziness stops.

The NFL wants it both ways...minimize concussions (read: lawsuits) while maintaining the allure of the coliseum.

Helmet technologies have been discussed fairly recently in this thread.

Despite what some claim. The rule changes will fundamentally change the way the game is played. If you take the big "clean" hits out of the NFL you take the SPORT as we know it away. Here is another example of why the game is going down the wrong path.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/220908991.html

There was probably some grumbling over the advent of the forward pass, when it was introduced to make the game safer in 1906 as well.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Einstein's famous equation has nothing to do with players colliding at different speeds. The "C" in the equation is not a variable, as you describe it, rather it is a fixed value equal to the speed of light. In short, this equation calculates the amount of energy that is stored by a mass ("M"). The famous use of this equation is in the design of nuclear power plants and the infamous use of this equation is in the design of nuclear weapons.

To go back to your analysis, a more appropriate equation is that of momentum. Momentum ("P") equals mass ("M") times velocity ("v"). P=Mv. The larger the momentum, the larger the force is required to stop or alter it (which brings to mind Newton's first law of motion, "A body in motion tends to remain in motion", unless it is me headed for the couch with beer in hand at Packer kick off time).

So, in your scenario where it hurts more to get hit by the smaller and faster guy, the laws of momentum and Newton say otherwise. There is no squaring of any of the variables, so they are equally weighted. That is, if the small attacker is half the mass (or half the "weight" here on Earth) of a bigger attacker, he would have to run more than twice the speed in order to "hurt more".

Me? I'd be knocked senseless whether J. Bush hit me during a light jog or Jolly hit me while reaching for his Gatorade. Laws of momentum won't matter much in my case.

Velocity is squared in the equation dealing with the imparting of kinetic energy into another objecct. I was being overly simplistic (and in retrospect it was misleading) and stating an equation that many know about. The actual equation for kinetic energy is KE=0.5(m* v^2). If you double the speed of an object, keeping mass steady, the energy in the objext quadruples.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ke.html#c3

 

[Dan115]

Give me Jack Tatum.

 

[Vladimirr]

Velocity is squared in the equation dealing with the imparting of kinetic energy into another objecct. I was being overly simplistic (and in retrospect it was misleading) and stating an equation that many know about. The actual equation for kinetic energy is KE=0.5(m* v^2). If you double the speed of an object, keeping mass steady, the energy in the objext quadruples.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ke.html#c3

Plus, for example if Clay Matthews was moving at relativistic speeds where E=MC^2 would factor in, some other interesting effects would come into play. When Jay Cutler snapped the ball, Clay would increase in mass and appear to become a blueshifted blur. Clay would see everyone grow older relative to himself, and upon collision both players' atoms would probably undergo nuclear fusion. This would register a moderate earthquake, and wipe out the I-94 and I-43 corridors with an explosion up to 25,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb (assuming players' listed body weights are correct on Wikipedia). World temperatures would drop by a few degrees, and the Great Lakes region would likely be a dead zone for centuries. Inhabitants of New Green Bay (founded by refugees nine years later in northern Montana, upwind of Matthews Crater) would refer to this play as "The Sack".

Edit - corrected errors

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Plus, for example if Clay Matthews was moving at relativistic speeds where E=MC^2 would factor in, some other interesting effects would come into play. From Jay Cutler's perspective (if human perception were detailed enough), when he snapped the ball, Clay would become a redshifted blur, grow older due to time dilation, and then both players' atoms would undergo nuclear fusion. This would register a moderate earthquake, and wipe out the I-94 and I-43 corridors with an explosion up to 25,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb (assuming players' listed body weights are correct on Wikipedia). World temperatures would drop by a few degrees, and the Great Lakes region would likely be a dead zone for centuries. Inhabitants of New Green Bay (founded by refugees nine years later in northern Montana, upwind via jetstream of Matthews Crater) would refer to this play as "The Sack".

 

[JBlood]

Exactly.
You guys wouldn't last one game, one play.

The NFL needs to do whatever they can to cut down on injuries, especially to the ACL.

Agreed. The thing is, a majority of ACL tears are noncontact injuries. Probably have to outlaw spikes if you really wanted to protect the knee.

 

[PFanCan]

Surface area comes into play as well.

FF TOPIC FUN FACT: E=MC^2 is used by some string theorists as a conversion between mass and energy (based on light's ability to act as both a wave and a particle). Interesting thought anyway.

You are correct, Hypon.

If the area of contact is halved during a collision of two masses, the "pressure" is doubled. For example, though stilleto heels sure are **** in the bedroom, beware certain positions. They sure can leave a mark! However, the "force" remains the same. Force = Pressure * Area

The last variable yet unmentioned is "time". If one takes twice as long to bring a moving object to a stop, it takes half the force. However, the "impulse" remains the same. The opposite is if one doubles the contact time two colliding objects with the same force, the impulse is doubled and the momentum transferred is double. This is why one should follow through the swing on a baseball or golf club. If one can keep the ball touching the bat/club longer, there will be more momentum (hence velocity) transferred.

Not a clue of why Sunshine disagreed with you. Was it your string theory comment?

My head hurts.

 

[HyponGrey]

Not a clue of why Sunshine disagreed with you. Was it your string theory comment?

Me neither, I don't even believe string theory.

 

[GoPGo]

Agreed. The thing is, a majority of ACL tears are noncontact injuries. Probably have to outlaw spikes if you really wanted to protect the knee.

True. The ACL is usually injured on freak plays where a guy has his foot stepped on, or he falls at a strange angle causing the leg to be bent to the inside. It's usually a twisting injury, not an impact injury. The knee-hunters cause a lot of MCL injuries when hit from the outside and PCL injuries when hit from the front, although a hit from the front can certainly cause a torn ACL as well.

 

[PFanCan]

Velocity is squared in the equation dealing with the imparting of kinetic energy into another objecct. I was being overly simplistic (and in retrospect it was misleading) and stating an equation that many know about. The actual equation for kinetic energy is KE=0.5(m* v^2). If you double the speed of an object, keeping mass steady, the energy in the objext quadruples.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ke.html#c3

Being "overly simplistic", IMO, is stating a correct fact but leaving out the complicated details. In this case, stating that E=Mc2 has something to do with player collisions is "simply incorrect".

An object moving twice as fast certainly has four times more energy, as you illustrate with the kinetic energy equation. Agreed. Energy is not conserved here, though. This just means that four times more energy is lost when the collision occurs and the system velocity goes to zero. It is largely dissipated through heat and noise. Some is transferred to the tackler in the form of heat and "rebound" velocity during the course of the tackle, but...

The energy equation has nothing to do with calculating how much force (hence "hurt") it takes to stop a moving object in an inelastic collision. The only equations that apply are momentum and impulse.

Momentum = Mass of moving object * velocity of moving object

Impulse = Force applied by tackler * time elapsed during impact​

And... using Hypon's suggestion, we can throw in Pressure as well:

Pressure = Force / Area of contact​

In conclusion, keeping all things equal and calling "force" or "pressure" = "hurt":

1. If one doubles the mass, the hurt is doubled
2. If one doubles the velocity, the hurt is doubled
3. If one halves the elapsed time of the impact, the hurt is doubled
4. If one halves the surface area of contact, the hurt is doubled

Now, my head really hurts.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Put yourself in the NFL's shoes. You are getting your pants sued off by former players claiming you didn't do enough to keep them safe...

It seems to me it's a tobacco industry parallel as anything else. The NFL had concussion studies but misrepresented their conclusions. If the act doesn't get you, the lying about it will.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Helmet technologies have been discussed fairly recently in this thread.

I saw that. I did not agree with the statement that the standard football helmet is designed to prevent concussions.

Besides...so what?

 

[jaybadger82]

Seemed like a better place for you to lecture everyone on helmet technology as opposed to a thread discussing rule changes in the context of a specific play.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Seemed like a better place for you to lecture everyone on helmet technology as opposed to a thread discussing rule changes in the context of a specific play.

LOL. The helmet discussion was in this thread. Besides, you mean to say this thread should be different than all of the others? I see no consistent theme in this thread or nearly any other, as they tend to range far and wide, and that is not a criticism. Or did you just not like my comments? Why don't you go scold the physicists while you're at it.

By the way, Riddell lied about the concussion prevention abilities of their helmets and are being sued over the false claims. Like I said about the NFL, if the act doesn't get you the lying will.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...ons-nfl-helmet-maker-marketed-one-such-anyway

 

[jaybadger82]

LOL. The helmet discussion was in this thread. Besides, you mean to say this thread should be different than all of the others? I see no consistent theme in this thread or nearly any other, as they tend to range far and wide, and that is not a criticism. Or did you just not like my comments? Why don't you go scold the physicists while you're at it.

By the way, Riddell lied about the concussion prevention abilities of their helmets and are being sued over the false claims. Like I said about the NFL, if the act doesn't get you the lying will.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...ons-nfl-helmet-maker-marketed-one-such-anyway

Fair enough. Just surprised to see a conversation about the propriety of Bostic's hit transform into a lecture about helmet technology (where another such conversation had recently occurred), then about the NFL misrepresenting concussion risks.

I don't really disagree with anything you're saying on these subjects. In fact, the only thing I generally dislike about what you have to say is your stubbornness about being right and having the last word. As personality flaws on internet message boards go, this makes you seem like a very small person. Have at it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Fair enough. Just surprised to see a conversation about the propriety of Bostic's hit transform into a discussion about helmet technology (where another such conversation had recently been conducted).

LOL. Like you said, helmet technology was discussed "fairly recently" in this thread, and it was not "concluded" because some of the the opinions there were misguided. Why not tell the string theorists to check into an alternate universe? I wouldn't...I find it amusing if off topic...but we're talking about your odd standards here.

 

[HardRightEdge]

In fact, the only thing I generally dislike about what you have to say is your stubbornness about being right and having the last word. As personality flaws on internet message boards go, this makes you seem like a very small person. Have at it.

You should have said that in the first place. We could have saved some time.

 

[HyponGrey]

LOL. Like you said, helmet technology was discussed "fairly recently" in this thread, and it was not "concluded" because some of the the opinions there were misguided. Why not tell the string theorists to check into an alternate universe? I wouldn't...I find it amusing if off topic...but we're talking about your odd standards here.

What have I started...

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Me neither, I don't even believe string theory.

Didn't realize I had; quoted your post since it was the most recent in the odd physics discussion on tackling but don't know enough about string theory to agree or disagree. I have removed the disagreement and now am officially indifferent.