Jump to content


- - - - -

Concussions and coming litigation. The end of football ?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
17 replies to this topic

#1 flyeagles

flyeagles

    Superstar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,724 posts
  • Team:Eagles
  • Fan Since:1964

Posted 10 January 2013 - 11:25 PM

sometimes ESPN comes up with a good read : (warning : not for the casual football fan)

this long article 'bout sums it up ... particularly if you ever played even a little tackle football.


LINK

#2 evilwaldo

evilwaldo

    EMB Fossil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,071 posts
  • Location:Kingston, PA
  • Team:Eagles

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:16 AM

Go to less padding, not more.  Defensive guys feel immune because of all the padding.

Of course now the goofus fans will cry that football needs big hits.

#3 Eaglesdude55

Eaglesdude55

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,210 posts
  • Team:Eagles
  • Fan Since:1992

Posted 11 January 2013 - 02:26 AM

View Postevilwaldo, on 11 January 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

Go to less padding, not more.  Defensive guys feel immune because of all the padding.

Of course now the goofus fans will cry that football needs big hits.

Less padding...that's the answer.

#4 rocketman44

rocketman44

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,268 posts
  • Team:49ers
  • Fan Since:1967

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:29 AM

It basically comes down to our insatiable love for football (demand) vs parents who allow their kids to play (supply). The article lays out some reasons why the supply one day may dry up, but then goes on to show a bunch of reasons why it supposedly will not dry up.

The Junior Seau brain study may be a game-changer because Seau, from what I've read and heard, was never diagnosed with a concussion. So this brain trauma is occurring repeatedly without anyone knowing or perhaps even suspecting, including the player.

Unless the NFL and football institutions at lower levels can find ways to make the game safer, it may come down to parents just directing their kids toward other sports. Once that happens, it could be the nadir of football.

An example might be drawn from pro boxing = it seems that kids and young men are steering or being steered toward safer ways to get out of poverty and make good. Sports like basketball can offer the same financial rewards with little or no monetary means, since a good player can get a scholarship. It's safer than getting your head pounded, and much more appealing to parents.

#5 faceman

faceman

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,584 posts
  • Team:Saints

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:19 AM

View PostEaglesdude55, on 11 January 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

Less padding...that's the answer.

That's not as crazy as it sounds. Boxing would be safer if the participants went at it with bare knuckles. Gloves,and specifically
the larger sparring gloves spread the force of the blow out on a much larger area. The gloves do a good job of preventing cuts
and bleeding,but not so much preventing Brain injury.

http://guyspeed.com/...knuckle-boxing/


Dr. Alan J. Ryan, a bare knuckle boxing proponent…


“However, gloves do not lessen the force applied to the brain as it rattles inside the skull from a heavy blow. In fact, they make matters worse by adding 10oz to the weight of the fist.


A full-force punch to the head is comparable to being hit with a 12lb padded wooden mallet travelling at 20mph.”

He also adds…


“In 100 years of bare-knuckle fighting in the United States, which terminated around 1897 with a John L Sullivan heavyweight championship fight, there wasn’t a single ring fatality. Today, there are three or four every year in the US, and around 15 per cent of professional fighters suffer some form of permanent brain damage during their career.”



#6 cmart102

cmart102

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,280 posts
  • Location:Seoul, KR
  • Team:Eagles
  • Fan Since:ever?

Posted 11 January 2013 - 12:20 PM

View Postrocketman44, on 11 January 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

An example might be drawn from pro boxing = it seems that kids and young men are steering or being steered toward safer ways to get out of poverty and make good. Sports like basketball can offer the same financial rewards with little or no monetary means, since a good player can get a scholarship. It's safer than getting your head pounded, and much more appealing to parents.
Ding ding ding winner winner chicken dinner.

#7 Gregg

Gregg

    EMB Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,330 posts
  • Location:Cherry Hill, NJ
  • Team:Eagles

Posted 11 January 2013 - 01:59 PM

View Postevilwaldo, on 11 January 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

Go to less padding, not more.  Defensive guys feel immune because of all the padding.

Of course now the goofus fans will cry that football needs big hits.

Same thing can be applied to boxing; the gloves help prevent lacerations, but do next to nothing to prevent or protect against brain trama.  In fact, in can be said that training with the gloves on can assist getting your brains battered in.

Same thing applies to football, because of helmet and pads, nobody respects the head.  

In stark contrast, look at rugby, where nothing more than ear protection and mouth guards are in use even at the highest levels.

#8 Happyfoosball

Happyfoosball

    EMB Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,983 posts
  • Team:Giants

Posted 11 January 2013 - 07:43 PM

Football won't end.  There is too much money.  It may lead to an increase in player retirement benefits and a waiver though.  Who knows how it ends up.  There is a storm a brewin.  Also think about this, if in business the owners and employees are 50/50 in a labor agreement or 52/48, etc should the players share increase if they are at serious risk?  This is all stuff that's going to come up.  But football won't end.

#9 cmart102

cmart102

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,280 posts
  • Location:Seoul, KR
  • Team:Eagles
  • Fan Since:ever?

Posted 11 January 2013 - 08:09 PM

View PostHappyfoosball, on 11 January 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

Football won't end.
It will obviously at some point cease to be the most popular sport in the country. The better question is when will it stop, and due to what.

#10 Happyfoosball

Happyfoosball

    EMB Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,983 posts
  • Team:Giants

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:42 PM

View Postcmart102, on 11 January 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

It will obviously at some point cease to be the most popular sport in the country. The better question is when will it stop, and due to what.

Why?  Seriously?  People join the army, become sea divers, work in nuclear power points, they go out on oil rigs, etc.  People in America perform perform jobs that aren't completely safe all the time.  You know why people like you are over reacting to this?  Because it's new.  It will be resolved and it will blow over.  This will affect money and college football more than it will the NFL.  Kids will grow up dreaming about playing in the NBA, or MLB but those guys make more money than NFL players already.  I doubt this makes any huge impact.

#11 Froggy

Froggy

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,923 posts
  • Team:Patriots

Posted 11 January 2013 - 09:53 PM

View Postcmart102, on 11 January 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

It will obviously at some point cease to be the most popular sport in the country. The better question is when will it stop, and due to what.


Yet it continues to grow in popularity both nationally and globally at the moment, which makes what you're saying completely and utterly conjectural.

#12 Iron_Eagle_04

Iron_Eagle_04

    EMB Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,065 posts
  • Team:Eagles

Posted 11 January 2013 - 10:07 PM

View Postcmart102, on 11 January 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

It will obviously at some point cease to be the most popular sport in the country. The better question is when will it stop, and due to what.

Why?

#13 evilwaldo

evilwaldo

    EMB Fossil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 58,071 posts
  • Location:Kingston, PA
  • Team:Eagles

Posted 11 January 2013 - 11:54 PM

My idea comes from an article I read about the new helmets that were implemented to supposedly protect players.  At the demonstration there was a defensive player who made a comment that the new helmets would let him hit opposing players harder and make it easier to get on highlight reels.  Nothing mentioned about safety.  He just cared about hitting guys harder.

That is not the solution, it only makes the problem worse.

The boxing stuff is interesting and makes a lot of sense.  You add 10oz to the hand which translates to a lot of additional force.

As for rugby, they still hit hard but guys are more cognizant of the potential damage because of the lack of protection.

#14 mrfitsaro

mrfitsaro

    Backup

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 960 posts
  • Team:Eagles

Posted 13 January 2013 - 01:14 AM

One big difference in rugby is that you usually don't have as much time to build up a head of steam before collision due to the lack of a forward pass and since there is no blocking.  Its surprising me that helmet technology is not more advanced, maybe a softer helmet that could absorb more impact like a modern car does but it would have to be a plastic that would reform its original shape obviously.

#15 cmart102

cmart102

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,280 posts
  • Location:Seoul, KR
  • Team:Eagles
  • Fan Since:ever?

Posted 13 January 2013 - 01:27 AM

View PostIron_Eagle_04, on 11 January 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

Why?
Time obviously. Culture isn't static. I didn't say it would happen soon, just that it would. If you would have said baseball would lose popularity anytime from 1900-1950 people would have laughed.
The only thing dumber than saying football will be gone in the next 10 years is saying it will always be the most popular sport here

#16 HaroldTheSecond

HaroldTheSecond

    EMB Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,750 posts
  • Team:Eagles
  • Fan Since:1971

Posted 13 January 2013 - 02:51 AM

"Protecting players" is a mere smoke screen for ever more offense and ever less defense - which is why the owners will be perfectly willing to go along with radical "reforms" in the game.

#17 Froggy

Froggy

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,923 posts
  • Team:Patriots

Posted 13 January 2013 - 05:17 AM

View PostHaroldTheSecond, on 13 January 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:

"Protecting players" is a mere smoke screen for ever more offense and ever less defense - which is why the owners will be perfectly willing to go along with radical "reforms" in the game.



Protecting the players is a smoke screen eh? Have you have by any chance read about anything that has to do with Junior Seau the past week?

#18 PolkaDotPants

PolkaDotPants

    Starter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,027 posts
  • Team:Eagles

Posted 13 January 2013 - 05:04 PM

evilwaldo is right. Less pads would lower severe injuries. I doubt there would be anyone in the NFL leading with the crown of their head if there wasn't a helmet there to protect it. Then again, there are alot of morons in the NFL.