The fact that Lombardi was a victim of decriminalizing in the NFL because of his ethnicity may have played a role in his thinking.All Packers fans should read "Lombardi's Left Side" written by Herb Adderly and a ghost writer (Royce, I believe). Very interesting tidbits about Lombardi, Bengtson (not a good guy), and Tom Landry (also not a good guy). Lombardi was ahead of his coaching society, and society in general with his thinking.
The NFL suit says that the League knew as early as the 1920's the dangers of concussions and head injuries. Back 35 years ago the players were more apt to take a licking and keep on ticking. They were less likely to bring up that they had a concussion back then. Did Deacon Jones ever talk about the concussions he received?
Won't happen, but I still think the league should take away the helmets or go back to the old soft leather models: play will sober up. You won't see guys leading with the head, launching. The hard-shelled helmet creates a false sense of security for the wearer and a far greater danger for the others on the field.
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
Just take off the face masks.
But then you get this!
You must be logged in to see this image or video!
I used to think going to a rugby style helmet might help, but then spent some time reading about the early 1900s when football was nearly outlawed. There were 80 college football deaths in the 4 seasons from 1905 to 1909--40% of them caused by head and neck injury. The helmet, and improved medical care, have brought down the number of deaths, but rules changes are needed now, no different than the need for rules changes at that time when the game had become too violent.I agree 100%, but the NFL won't do it because ratings would drop significantly. There wouldn't be highlight reels of hits and "bonecrushing" tackles.
I used to think going to a rugby style helmet might help, but then spent some time reading about the early 1900s when football was nearly outlawed. There were 80 college football deaths in the 4 seasons from 1905 to 1909--40% of them caused by head and neck injury. The helmet, and improved medical care, have brought down the number of deaths, but rules changes are needed now, no different than the need for rules changes at that time when the game had become too violent.
( "The 1905 Gridiron Crisis" in the Journal of Sport, vol. 27, no. 2)
Helmet to helmet hits were outlawed by the NCAA in 1976 but concussions and neck injuries continue, so the problem is not going to be solved purely by rules changes. Estimates are that 3.8 million concussions occur yearly in all sports. More occur in biking than in football, but I don't thin it would make sense to outlaw a bike helmet. I crashed on my bike a couple of weeks ago and certainly would have had more risk of a head injury without my helmet, which took the brunt of the fall.
Brain injury occurs more because of rotational forces than direct linear force, so simply adding more padding does not eliminate the risks of rotational force. There is a device out there developed in Sweden called MIPS (Multidirectional Impact Protection System) that does act to decrease rotational forces by putting a thin slippery layer between the head and the padding. It fits in any current helmet. Tests show it can reduce rotational forces in all directions. Would it decrease brain injury? It needs to be tested in game situations.
IMO, the only way eliminating helmets would increase safety in football would be to also outlaw blocking and tackling in the game. Now you've got soccer. Nobody wants that.
Yeah, I don't believe it's reasonable to think that any combination of rule changes/safety equipment can eradicate the risk of injury and concussions. From a practical standpoint, it's more a matter of reducing the risk such that the sport isn't destroyed by its reputation for long-term negative health affects.
I don't think the bike helmet analogy is a good one: I would recommend a helmet to anyone riding a skateboard, bike, or motorcycle. The helmet primarily protects wearers from fracturing their skulls. The NFL's problem right now is concussion from repeated head trauma, not skull fracture. That's an important difference.
Unlike riding or cycling, football is a contact sport involving repeated head trauma and when a player "puts on his armor," there's a psychological impact: when you've got your equipment on and you're jacked up for a game, you start thinking you're invincible and that sense of invincibility begins with the helmet.
Regardless of what the rules might say, I'll tell you from experience that the helmet is often used by offensive and defensive players alike as a tool for applying a force. Smaller tacklers will lead with the helmet when attempting to bring down a larger player, just like smaller ball-carriers often try to give larger defenders a shot before going down. The helmet masks the impact of these hits on the player delivering the shot and it magnifies the force on the player struck because the exterior surface is hard and unforgiving. That's just how it is on the field: hard-shelled helmets invites dangerous play. Players understand this.
Interesting stuff but I don't share your conclusions.
My layman's understanding of concussions is that they are basically the result of one's brain striking the inside of the skull with too much force or velocity. I can imagine how rotational force would contribute to the problem and Physicists seem to think that that the problem is pretty baked into the nature of the sport.
I'm not sure how many folks (outside of Hines Ward- see first link above) would seriously advocate for the elimination of helmets tomorrow. I just question the utility of today's hard-shelled designs. They're swell for preventing skull fractures but if the goal is to prevent force from affecting the brain inside the skull, then the hard exterior surface doesn't seem to accomplish much except to diffuse force across a wider surface area. The problem, as described above, is that players tend to use helmets' hard exteriors aggressively.
In terms of concussion prevention, it seems like the padding within helmets is what actually does the important work of quickly reducing the force of football collisions and protecting the brain from concussion...
...Many of the recent rule changes have been targeted at reducing the number and severity of collisions on the field and these rule changes are probably more important than helmet technologies in fixing the sport's problem. But I believe replacing hard-shelled helmets with soft-exterior models would effectively nip the tendency amongst players to use the helmet as a dangerous implement on the field.
FWIW, the sport of rugby is just as physical as football. Rugby players wear far less padding and headgear is optional, yet the rate of injury is significantly lower than football. This isn't because the sport is less physical. Rather the nature of the contact is different: less about getting a running start in order to smash into one another and more about tackling with proper form. IMO, the absence of padding has a significant impact on the psychology of players in learning and practicing proper form.
(If anyone is still reading at this point) Do you remember those bulbous-looking, over-sized helmets worn by a few players the last couple years? What's the story on those?
"FWIW, the sport of rugby is just as physical as football. Rugby players wear far less padding and headgear is optional, yet the rate of injury is significantly lower than football."
Numerous studies have shown otherwise. Head lacerations, contusions, and concussions are more frequent in rugby than American football.
( http://www.sportsinjurybulletin.com/archive/head-injuries-football.html)
(http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/3/587.full.pdf)