Oddly enough, unless I’m way off base, I think these 2 groups have lower concussion incidents than “skill” positions.I think it ought to be required for OL and maybe DL. Other positions it may be optional.
Oddly enough, unless I’m way off base, I think these 2 groups have lower concussion incidents than “skill” positions.I think it ought to be required for OL and maybe DL. Other positions it may be optional.
Oddly enough, unless I’m way off base, I think these 2 groups have lower concussion incidents than “skill” positions.
Make that 4, B1G.Three of us.
I think I remember an OL wearing one -- seems like it might have been a former barn guy.That’s Steve Tasker. Played safety. The Bills were my team as a kid. Seems like there was another player who wore one too. A DL maybe. At any rate, you’re right this isnt new
Agreed. The looks pale in comparison to the legal liability if a preventative is available but not used.Did you forget blue font? If not, those are absolutely terrible reasons with all the legal issues around CTE and the NFL.
In the days before CTE became such a big thing, I'd agree.No, its legitimately why they won't ever make them mandatory. Unless they can ever streamline the look somehow.
If it wasn't for that they'd be wearing them at every level in game.
Interesting point I hadn't considered, though I'm not sure how a guardian pad could be weaponized.The evolution of football padding is a great example of “moral hazard;” reducing the negative consequences of an action or behavior, leading to an increase in the behavior that makes the consequences either more serious, more frequent, or both.
Football padding, combined with what constitutes a legal tackle, allows players, unlike in any other team sport save (to a lesser degree) ice hockey, to use their bodies as weapons. You can't, for example, deliver football style hits in rugby and stay healthy enough to play very long; and the rules forbid it anyway; but in football, well, the padding is itself the root cause of these issues. We’ve traded players’ short-term broken bones for their long-term CTE. Until and unless the rules around what constitutes a legal tackle are changed (e.g., require the tackler to hold the tackle all the way to the ground or else the ball carrier can continue), helmet guardians et al. are lipstick on a pig at best, and at worst I’m willing to bet will incentivize other, perhaps yet more dangerous behavior…
I think weaponized inasmuch as a belief the pad will prevent a concussion so I can lay that hit I might have thought twice about delivering before.Interesting point I hadn't considered, though I'm not sure how a guardian pad could be weaponized.
Regardless, I'm curious -- have there been any studies on the incidence of CTE and other neurological conditions in retired professional rugby players?
I think the other poster was referring to current helmets and facemasks. the facemask keeps you from breaking your nose, but lets you try to use that hard metal and the hardshell as a weapon.Interesting point I hadn't considered, though I'm not sure how a guardian pad could be weaponized.
Regardless, I'm curious -- have there been any studies on the incidence of CTE and other neurological conditions in retired professional rugby players?
I'm so glad I'm not the only one thinking this way! It's been on my mind for years that less padding was probably the way to solve this problem. You can't spear someone with your head -- twice -- if the padding doesn't support it. Tackling in good form is reasonably comfortable without pads, as any backyard tackle football player can attest. Protect the face and groin from direct collisions with heads/feet/etc., maybe give them some shin guards like in soccer, then let them play without any extra padding. Amend as needed to cover other obvious needs.The evolution of football padding is a great example of “moral hazard;” reducing the negative consequences of an action or behavior, leading to an increase in the behavior that makes the consequences either more serious, more frequent, or both...
I think the same thing. I'm almost 70 and I think most people my age played a lot of tackle football without any pads growing up. I don't remember anyone getting seriously hurt because we knew we couldn't go flying around using our heads as a weapon to tackle.I'm so glad I'm not the only one thinking this way! It's been on my mind for years that less padding was probably the way to solve this problem. You can't spear someone with your head -- twice -- if the padding doesn't support it. Tackling in good form is reasonably comfortable without pads, as any backyard tackle football player can attest. Protect the face and groin from direct collisions with heads/feet/etc., maybe give them some shin guards like in soccer, then let them play without any extra padding. Amend as needed to cover other obvious needs.
I’ll admit (even on an Internet forum) that I don’t know, so it’s really an hypothesis. However, we know in real life that what you incentivize (whether or not intentionally) you get more of. Helmets incentivize the kind of behavior that increases head trauma. Ergo (but not Q.E.D.)……I'm curious -- have there been any studies on the incidence of CTE and other neurological conditions in retired professional rugby players?
Hope she's doing well and has a good plan for the summer.I’ll admit (even on an Internet forum) that I don’t know, so it’s really an hypothesis. However, we know in real life that what you incentivize (whether or not intentionally) you get more of. Helmets incentivize the kind of behavior that increases head trauma. Ergo (but not Q.E.D.)…
Speaking of real life. I’m visiting my CU sophomore daughter today in Boulder, or, as Coloradans call it, 50 square miles surrounded by reality…
I should clarify that I'm not saying they should or shouldn't be required just that the reason they aren't is how jarring and goofy they look and the NFL wants to sell the sport to new markets who prefer sports with basically no safety gear.I think I remember an OL wearing one -- seems like it might have been a former barn guy.
Agreed. The looks pale in comparison to the legal liability if a preventative is available but not used.
In the days before CTE became such a big thing, I'd agree.
Today, I just don't see how they can leave them unrequired. Forgetting the humanitarian considerations, the monetary legal liability is monstrous.
Yeah, they look kind of dorky. I'd rather (1) look like a dork today, make 8 figures for a few years, and play with my grandchildren in old age than (2) look cool today, make 8 figures for a few years, then have a destroyed brain starting at 45 or so.
Plus, pretty soon they'd stop seeming dorky and start seeming normal.
There have definitely been studies regarding CTE in Rugby recently. Began around the same time as the NFL studies. In Rugby they keep playing around with the tackle rules to try to address it.Interesting point I hadn't considered, though I'm not sure how a guardian pad could be weaponized.
Regardless, I'm curious -- have there been any studies on the incidence of CTE and other neurological conditions in retired professional rugby players?
Not saying that they may not be a good thing at the LOS (CTE is cumulative, I know), but the most vicious hits to the head that I`ve noticed have been in the open field.I think it ought to be required for OL and maybe DL. Other positions it may be optional.