Jump to content



Photo

Steelers at Bengals: In-Game Discussion / Tilting


  • Please log in to reply
116 replies to this topic

#81 seafoam1

seafoam1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 04 December 2017 - 11:00 PM

Well that was worth the time watching it.

#82 Patriotsfatboy1

Patriotsfatboy1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 35,268 posts

Posted 04 December 2017 - 11:01 PM

Kevin Everett almost died in surgery after the helmet to helmet on a kick return with no intent to injure by either player. He had a 10% chance to walk again and overcame those odds.

Someone else is going to be paralyzed or worse on the field. Not to mention the CTE these hits cause.


Ok. What is the relevance to this game? It is a violent game? It doesn't have to be stupidly violent
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

#83 stonewall

stonewall

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 5,594 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 12:58 AM

1) I don't desire that any player get hurt, and I am not opposed to certain rules that promote player safety without negating the inherently violent nature of the game. However, I am not so dense as to believe that the injury aspect of NFL football will ever be eliminated, without fundamentally changing and watering down the sport to something akin to flag football. Prayers to Shazier.....but nothing dirty about anything on that play.

 

2) I loved this game tonight. It was real NFL football, the way it was intended to be. Perhaps the best game of the year, from a viewership perspective. With the exception of the ridiculous amount of penalties, it was exactly what originally hooked me on football back in the 70's and 80's. Two teams that don't like each other, laying it all on the line each play.....flying around the field and knocking the crap outta each other, trying to gain or prevent that extra yard. It has become so rare to see that raw and innate gladiator mentality rise to the surface in this age sensationalistic, "I love you man", "let's trade jerseys", kneel for social injustice, politically correct nonsense. I had pleasant flashbacks tonight of Butkus, Singletary, and Lambert.....and loved it. That was football.

 

3) Big Ben perhaps summed it up best when asked by sideline reporter Lisa Salter after the game what he made of the violent nature of the game that was just played, to which he replied: "That's AFC North football".

 

Well said, sir.


I feel my football knowledge is vastly superior to my opponents. I also am just in general, a smarter person. These two things should allow me a huge advantage. But I've yet to be truly dominant.


#84 seafoam1

seafoam1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 07:28 AM

Couldn't have happened to a more burfict guy.

Was juju standing over him only because it was burfict or do you think he would have done that over any player he just leveled?

#85 Patriotsfatboy1

Patriotsfatboy1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 35,268 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 10:02 AM

Couldn't have happened to a more burfict guy.

Was juju standing over him only because it was burfict or do you think he would have done that over any player he just leveled?

 

JuJu said that he did not know it was Burfict originally.  Not sure if that helps or hurts his case.  I still don't think that it is worthy of a suspension.


Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

#86 Brutal Brutus

Brutal Brutus

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 944 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 10:04 AM

1) I don't desire that any player get hurt, and I am not opposed to certain rules that promote player safety without negating the inherently violent nature of the game. However, I am not so dense as to believe that the injury aspect of NFL football will ever be eliminated, without fundamentally changing and watering down the sport to something akin to flag football. Prayers to Shazier.....but nothing dirty about anything on that play.

 

2) I loved this game tonight. It was real NFL football, the way it was intended to be. Perhaps the best game of the year, from a viewership perspective. With the exception of the ridiculous amount of penalties, it was exactly what originally hooked me on football back in the 70's and 80's. Two teams that don't like each other, laying it all on the line each play.....flying around the field and knocking the crap outta each other, trying to gain or prevent that extra yard. It has become so rare to see that raw and innate gladiator mentality rise to the surface in this age sensationalistic, "I love you man", "let's trade jerseys", kneel for social injustice, politically correct nonsense. I had pleasant flashbacks tonight of Butkus, Singletary, and Lambert.....and loved it. That was football.

 

3) Big Ben perhaps summed it up best when asked by sideline reporter Lisa Salter after the game what he made of the violent nature of the game that was just played, to which he replied: "That's AFC North football".

 

Well said, sir.

Have to disagree. Ravens and Steelers play hard hitting old school football. Bengals and Steelers play to injure each other on cheap hits.



#87 jgcrawfish

jgcrawfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 13,687 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 10:58 AM

Some more thoughts:

 

I've watched the replay on the JuJu hit on on Burfict several times now, that's not a dirty play.  It's a hard hit, a damned hard one.  He didn't hit him from the side, he led with the shoulder, and he really didn't launch himself into Burfict. The brunt of the hit was squarely into the chest of Burfict.   that's a 6'2"/215 WR vs 6'1"/255 LB.  A player running isn't defenseless and he didn't ear-hole him like Hines did vs Cincy years ago.  He positioned himself almost directly between Burfict and the running Lev Bell.  The step over him was completely needless and warranted a flag, but that's a taunting penalty.  It was worth the 15 yrds if you ask me.  Antonio Brown was correct when he was yelling "that's Karma" from just out of camera shot as they interviewed JuJu after the game.  To his credit, JuJu apologized.  Burfict never has for dirty plays that have taken out Brown, Bell and Roethlisberger in previous seasons. 

 

The Iloka hit on Brown in the endzone is a penalty.  That was direct helmet-to-helmet contact and it was on a defenseless receiver.  Either way it should be called.  That being said, I don't blame Iloka, his job is to break up that pass play.  This all happens so damned fast.  We the viewers get the benefit of seeing everything slowed down to a fraction of the speed.  Reality is that when Iloka breaks on the ball to try and hit Brown the WR is already on the way down.  Iloka has no way of controlling where in the air AB's body is and what part has gotten closest to him.  I've seen numerous times where defenders are aiming for numbers for a tackle and end up getting flagged for helmet-to-helmet because the RB/WR/TE lowers his head for contact.  That's not the defenders fault and no legislation is going to change the speed these things happen at. 

 

I still don't know the booth looks at on review.  When I watched the Lev Bell screen pass for TD I could see Bell's left foot on the line.  I'm not complaining, I'll take the TD.  But it sure looked to me like he went out.  Hell, he even slowed down afterward and looked over his shoulder thinking the whistle was going to blow. 

 

The game between these two is an old fashioned slug-fest, two teams throwing haymakers trying to knock each other out.  The Steelers were clearly deflated after the Shazier injury but recovered.  the Bengals tapped out after rookie WR destroyed their intimidator.  Every ounce of air went out of them after that. 

 

The reality of this "ugly" football comes back to the same thing...the helmets.  Put a soft shell on the heads of the players that allows them to "feel" the hits and I guarantee it will change the way they hit.  In trying to protect the players that have provided them with a weapon that endangers all of them even more.  Yeah, rugby guys lose more teeth and get more stitches in their face, but they tend to have their faculties later on life much more than NFL players do. 



"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

#88 seafoam1

seafoam1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 11:39 AM

Yeah. I just don't understand what part of the hit on burfict was illegal. What's the rule on that? It looked straight up beautiful. That taunt was extra bad for taunts though cause he was stradling the dude. Probably shouldn't do that to someone who could have been near death.

#89 Antiramie

Antiramie

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 11:40 AM

Some more thoughts:

 

I've watched the replay on the JuJu hit on on Burfict several times now, that's not a dirty play.  It's a hard hit, a damned hard one.  He didn't hit him from the side, he led with the shoulder, and he really didn't launch himself into Burfict. The brunt of the hit was squarely into the chest of Burfict.   that's a 6'2"/215 WR vs 6'1"/255 LB.  A player running isn't defenseless and he didn't ear-hole him like Hines did vs Cincy years ago.  He positioned himself almost directly between Burfict and the running Lev Bell.  The step over him was completely needless and warranted a flag, but that's a taunting penalty.  It was worth the 15 yrds if you ask me.  Antonio Brown was correct when he was yelling "that's Karma" from just out of camera shot as they interviewed JuJu after the game.  To his credit, JuJu apologized.  Burfict never has for dirty plays that have taken out Brown, Bell and Roethlisberger in previous seasons. 

 

The Iloka hit on Brown in the endzone is a penalty.  That was direct helmet-to-helmet contact and it was on a defenseless receiver.  Either way it should be called.  That being said, I don't blame Iloka, his job is to break up that pass play.  This all happens so damned fast.  We the viewers get the benefit of seeing everything slowed down to a fraction of the speed.  Reality is that when Iloka breaks on the ball to try and hit Brown the WR is already on the way down.  Iloka has no way of controlling where in the air AB's body is and what part has gotten closest to him.  I've seen numerous times where defenders are aiming for numbers for a tackle and end up getting flagged for helmet-to-helmet because the RB/WR/TE lowers his head for contact.  That's not the defenders fault and no legislation is going to change the speed these things happen at. 

 

I still don't know the booth looks at on review.  When I watched the Lev Bell screen pass for TD I could see Bell's left foot on the line.  I'm not complaining, I'll take the TD.  But it sure looked to me like he went out.  Hell, he even slowed down afterward and looked over his shoulder thinking the whistle was going to blow. 

 

The game between these two is an old fashioned slug-fest, two teams throwing haymakers trying to knock each other out.  The Steelers were clearly deflated after the Shazier injury but recovered.  the Bengals tapped out after rookie WR destroyed their intimidator.  Every ounce of air went out of them after that. 

 

The reality of this "ugly" football comes back to the same thing...the helmets.  Put a soft shell on the heads of the players that allows them to "feel" the hits and I guarantee it will change the way they hit.  In trying to protect the players that have provided them with a weapon that endangers all of them even more.  Yeah, rugby guys lose more teeth and get more stitches in their face, but they tend to have their faculties later on life much more than NFL players do. 

 

I agree with your assessments on both the Burfict and Brown hits.

 

There's an easier way to curb helmet-to-helmet hits than changing the helmets.  If the NFL would simply integrate a review process for targeting like college has it would drastically reduce these types of hits.  Like you said, NFL players more and more are using their head/helmets as the leading point when tackling.  No one wraps up anymore.  All you see are guys launching head first.  There's probably at least 5 helmet-to-helmet hits per game in the NFL nowadays.  



#90 seafoam1

seafoam1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 11:46 AM

They prabably need to get rid of helmets if they want to remove that type of hitting in the NFL. I wouldn't want to see it but if you don't make the players fear smacking heads into each other, then they will do it.

#91 Antiramie

Antiramie

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 11:55 AM

They prabably need to get rid of helmets if they want to remove that type of hitting in the NFL. I wouldn't want to see it but if you don't make the players fear smacking heads into each other, then they will do it.

 

You can easily do that by hitting them where it counts...their wallets.



#92 jgcrawfish

jgcrawfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 13,687 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 12:03 PM

 

You can easily do that by hitting them where it counts...their wallets.

Some guys won't be able to do it.  Shazier is a good example, he's not a dirty player, but he has a tendency to go waist-high for tackles and lead with the crown.  Other guys James Harrison and Burfict, they're just hitting machines.  They don't care what part they hit you with and what part they hit.  Harrison openly said it, fine me all you want, I'm still going to play the way I play. 



"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

#93 seafoam1

seafoam1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 12:12 PM

Some guys won't be able to do it.  Shazier is a good example, he's not a dirty player, but he has a tendency to go waist-high for tackles and lead with the crown.  Other guys James Harrison and Burfict, they're just hitting machines.  They don't care what part they hit you with and what part they hit.  Harrison openly said it, fine me all you want, I'm still going to play the way I play. 


Exactly. If the defender fears his own safety, then that is the only way to stop it. Current day helmets make some of them feel invincible.

#94 jgcrawfish

jgcrawfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 13,687 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 12:29 PM

Exactly. If the defender fears his own safety, then that is the only way to stop it. Current day helmets make some of them feel invincible.

Bingo.  Hurt they wallet and some will stop.  Hurt the person and all will eventually change their ways.  I haven't solved the problem yet of broken teeth and cuts like hockey and rugby guys get, but that's minor compared to your brain running out of your ears in gooey chunks. 



"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

#95 jgcrawfish

jgcrawfish

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 13,687 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 12:56 PM

JuJu and Iloka both suspended 1 game.  Gronk intentionally hits a guy laying face down on the turf in the back of the head with his forearm AFTER the play is dead and gets 1 game.  JuJu hits throws a hard block and taunts then gets the same penalty.  It's no wonder people are turning off their TV's for Games.  Not an ounce of consistency from the league. 



"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

#96 Antiramie

Antiramie

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 02:01 PM

Some guys won't be able to do it.  Shazier is a good example, he's not a dirty player, but he has a tendency to go waist-high for tackles and lead with the crown.  Other guys James Harrison and Burfict, they're just hitting machines.  They don't care what part they hit you with and what part they hit.  Harrison openly said it, fine me all you want, I'm still going to play the way I play. 

 

I didn't mean money from just fines but also from lost salary due to suspensions.  If the NFL did an escalating suspension system for helmet-to-helmet hits like what baseball does with testing positive for PEDs, I guarantee all players will think twice about leading with their helmet if it means losing multiple games/full seasons worth of salary. 

 

Harrison and Burfict can talk like this when they're only being fined $20-50k at a time (which is a joke), but when your second occurrence in one year becomes a multiple game suspension worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars...that money matters to them more than acting like a tough guy.  And if they can't shape up, then they'll simply personal foul their way out of the league.  It's that simple.

 

 

And again I agree completely that handing out the same punishment for Juju, on what appeared to be a clean/borderline at worst hit, and Gronk, for piledriving his elbow into the back of an unsuspecting player's head after the play is over, is asinine.  I have said and continue to say that if I didn't play fantasy football I would watch close to 0 NFL football because it is being run by a bunch of idiots.  It's gotten so bad that I'm very tempted to stop playing just so I don't need an excuse to watch this ###### product every week.



#97 posty

posty

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 35,556 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 02:21 PM

It's gotten so bad that I'm very tempted to stop playing just so I don't need an excuse to watch this ###### product every week.


Stop playing... It is one of the best feelings in the world...

#98 ROCKFORD

ROCKFORD

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 4,130 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 05:48 PM

Bell is just surreal in his patience sometimes. He basically stopped running behind the line for almost 4 seconds, then picked up 10.

 

 

he is changing the way of the rb position will be played.


my official fan club:  jerryskids, sux, wiff, big guy ...


#99 Patriotsfatboy1

Patriotsfatboy1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 35,268 posts

Posted 05 December 2017 - 08:18 PM

It was a penalty on JuJu. Text book. Still did not warrant a suspension IMO
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

#100 Antiramie

Antiramie

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 02:24 PM

 
 
he is changing the way of the rb position will be played.


Not every RB is on a team that can wait behind the line for 3 seconds for them to open a hole before a defender gets through. I think Bells running style just fits perfectly with being on a team that allows him to be patient. If RBs on teams with crappy O-lines did what he does theyd have negative rushing yards this season lol.

#101 ROCKFORD

ROCKFORD

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 4,130 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 06:52 PM

Not every RB is on a team that can wait behind the line for 3 seconds for them to open a hole before a defender gets through. I think Bells running style just fits perfectly with being on a team that allows him to be patient. If RBs on teams with crappy O-lines did what he does theyd have negative rushing yards this season lol.

 

then they would be crazy to get let him leave the team.  he is worth every penny.


my official fan club:  jerryskids, sux, wiff, big guy ...


#102 brotherbock

brotherbock

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,876 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:02 PM

 Put a soft shell on the heads of the players that allows them to "feel" the hits and I guarantee it will change the way they hit.

 

After a whole bunch of guys get paralyzed and/or die in the time while everyone is adjusting.

 

I agree with most of what you said other than that. The 'go back to leather helmets' argument has been floated around for years, and while it sounds plausible if you only think about what it would be like once everyone has adjusted, it turns out to be completely implausible when you think about how to retrain thousands and thousands of college and NFL players who have played with solid helmets for their whole lives. During the time when everyone is getting used to it, for the exact reasons you gave of 'trained reactions' and 'it all happens so fast', you would assuredly have a slaughterhouse on your hands for several years.



#103 SpenceToons

SpenceToons

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 706 posts

Posted 06 December 2017 - 09:01 PM

 

then they would be crazy to get let him leave the team.  he is worth every penny.

 

Really, all I want for Christmas is for Bell, Brown, and Ben to be back in uniform together for another go-round in 2018



#104 Beyond Chaos

Beyond Chaos

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,966 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 03:44 AM

 

After a whole bunch of guys get paralyzed and/or die in the time while everyone is adjusting.

 

I agree with most of what you said other than that. The 'go back to leather helmets' argument has been floated around for years, and while it sounds plausible if you only think about what it would be like once everyone has adjusted, it turns out to be completely implausible when you think about how to retrain thousands and thousands of college and NFL players who have played with solid helmets for their whole lives. During the time when everyone is getting used to it, for the exact reasons you gave of 'trained reactions' and 'it all happens so fast', you would assuredly have a slaughterhouse on your hands for several years.

Paralysis is a spinal injury.  A football helmet doesn't offer much (if any) protection of the spinal column.  Concussions would be the main concern.



#105 brotherbock

brotherbock

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,876 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 04:01 AM

Paralysis is a spinal injury.  A football helmet doesn't offer much (if any) protection of the spinal column.  Concussions would be the main concern.

 

Those helmets absorb a lot of kinetic energy that would otherwise be traveling down the spinal column--the helmets aren't just 'hard shells', they are shock absorbers as well. You're right that there definitely would be a ton more concussions, perhaps even immediately fatal ones. But guys hitting like they do now without those helmets would also result in spinal injuries. Players get spinal injuries with helmets from top of the head shots as it is. Take away the helmets, much worse.



#106 seafoam1

seafoam1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 07:21 AM

 
After a whole bunch of guys get paralyzed and/or die in the time while everyone is adjusting.
 
I agree with most of what you said other than that. The 'go back to leather helmets' argument has been floated around for years, and while it sounds plausible if you only think about what it would be like once everyone has adjusted, it turns out to be completely implausible when you think about how to retrain thousands and thousands of college and NFL players who have played with solid helmets for their whole lives. During the time when everyone is getting used to it, for the exact reasons you gave of 'trained reactions' and 'it all happens so fast', you would assuredly have a slaughterhouse on your hands for several years.

Then introduce leather helmets over a longer period of time. Start them in grade school for the next 2-3 years. Then apply them to freshmen and sophmore teams in high school for 2 years then junior ans senior for 2. Then apply them to college for 4 years. All the time with the nfl players knowing that it is coming. Then switch it to the nfl. A bunch of guys would plan retirement for when that happens or just prep for it while being able to observe the game in college for quite a while. At that time you start flooding the game with guys who grew up with it.

And as far as guys being trained all their lives with current day helmets, I think they know the level of protection those helmets provide and would probably even be more tentative in their tackling actually. It would be like a driver switching from a massive 4x4 pick up truck that they have been driving for years to a smart car. They change their driving habits immediately.

#107 seafoam1

seafoam1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 08:26 AM

Then introduce leather helmets over a longer period of time. Start them in grade school for the next 2-3 years. Then apply them to freshmen and sophmore teams in high school for 2 years then junior ans senior for 2. Then apply them to college for 4 years. All the time with the nfl players knowing that it is coming. Then switch it to the nfl. A bunch of guys would plan retirement for when that happens or just prep for it while being able to observe the game in college for quite a while. At that time you start flooding the game with guys who grew up with it.

And as far as guys being trained all their lives with current day helmets, I think they know the level of protection those helmets provide and would probably even be more tentative in their tackling actually. It would be like a driver switching from a massive 4x4 pick up truck that they have been driving for years to a smart car. They change their driving habits immediately.


All that being said, I don't think I would enjoy the game as much at all if they wore leather helmets. Plus noone is forcing these guys to play the game. And the game compensates liberally for their time.

I wonder what the following groups of workers get paid?

10 most dangerous jobs in the US as of earlier this year:
 
10. Landscaping Supervisor. 18 fatal injuries per 100,000
9.   Electric power line worker 21 fatal injuries per 100,000
8.   Farmers ranchers, agricultural managers. 22 per 100,000
7.   Truck drivers. 24 per 100,000
6.   Structural iron and steel workers. 30 per 100,000
5.   Refuse and Recyclable materials collectors. 39 per 100,000
4.   Roofers. 40 per 100,000
3.   Aircraft pilots and Flight Engineers. 40 per 100,000
2.   Fishers and Fishing Workers. 55 per 100,000
1.   Logging Workers. 132 per 100,000
 
And remember, the numbers above only reflect fatal injuries. Think of the number of broken limbs, illnesses, head injuries, etc. that must take place daily and are possibly career ending. Try telling a logger that the NFL is dangerous. And I don't know for sure, but I wonder how many deep sea fishing boats have a full, etremely skilled, medical staff on their boats at all times and at the ready? Now I'm wondering if they have concussion tents on deck.



#108 Beyond Chaos

Beyond Chaos

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,966 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 09:16 AM

 

Those helmets absorb a lot of kinetic energy that would otherwise be traveling down the spinal column--the helmets aren't just 'hard shells', they are shock absorbers as well. You're right that there definitely would be a ton more concussions, perhaps even immediately fatal ones. But guys hitting like they do now without those helmets would also result in spinal injuries. Players get spinal injuries with helmets from top of the head shots as it is. Take away the helmets, much worse.

 

 

https://health.cleve...never-heard-of/

 

 

From the article:

 

Interestingly, the risk of CCN can be traced to an unlikely source: the modern football helmet. Before the modern helmet emerged in the 1960s, bleeding within the brain from head trauma was the leading head and neck injury in football, explains Gordon Bell, MD, Director of the Center for Spine Health at Cleveland Clinic. After the modern helmet appeared, he adds, bleeding rates fell sharply while rates of CCN, spine fracture/dislocation and quadriplegia soared.

 

Also:

http://theemtspot.co...e-helmet-issue/

 

1) Helmets protect the head. They do not protect the neck.

If anything, that big helmet may have increased your patients risk for a neck injury. Don’t fall into a false sense of security when you see a helmeted patient walking around on scene. They’re still going to need a thorough evaluation of their neck and neurological status.



#109 brotherbock

brotherbock

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,876 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 11:55 AM

 

 

https://health.cleve...never-heard-of/

 

 

From the article:

 

Interestingly, the risk of CCN can be traced to an unlikely source: the modern football helmet. Before the modern helmet emerged in the 1960s, bleeding within the brain from head trauma was the leading head and neck injury in football, explains Gordon Bell, MD, Director of the Center for Spine Health at Cleveland Clinic. After the modern helmet appeared, he adds, bleeding rates fell sharply while rates of CCN, spine fracture/dislocation and quadriplegia soared.

 

Also:

http://theemtspot.co...e-helmet-issue/

 

1) Helmets protect the head. They do not protect the neck.

If anything, that big helmet may have increased your patients risk for a neck injury. Don’t fall into a false sense of security when you see a helmeted patient walking around on scene. They’re still going to need a thorough evaluation of their neck and neurological status.

 

None of that does anything to make my claim false.

 

If you take the helmets off, and the people still keep playing like they do with the helmets on, there will be more spinal cord injuries.

 

Here's another quote from your first link: “Paradoxically, the modern helmet’s superior protection of the head and brain promoted playing techniques that put the neck at risk for injury,” says Dr. Bell.

 

 

It's not the wearing of the helmet itself that is causing more spinal injuries. It's the type of play the wearing of the helmet has caused. And my argument is that after getting rid of the helmets, before people can change their playing behavior, you will see more spinal injuries.

 

The helmet is a shock-absorber. The reason people ramped up their hitting and changed their techniques with helmets is because helmets do protect your head and neck better than not wearing one from the same impact. So people put on helmets and found they could hit harder and in different ways without getting hurt. And then it went too far for a variety of reasons, the style of play out-stripped the safety. So there are spinal injuries now, more than before.

 

Now what would happen if people kept playing that way, and you took away the helmet? Even more injuries.

 

 

Your claim is that if we take away the helmet, there will be fewer spinal injuries. And that's true if playing styles also changed. And that would take time. And my argument is that, in the meantime, there will be more injuries.



#110 Beyond Chaos

Beyond Chaos

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,966 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 12:07 PM


 

Your claim is that if we take away the helmet, there will be fewer spinal injuries. And that's true if playing styles also changed. And that would take time. And my argument is that, in the meantime, there will be more injuries.

I never made this claim, and I disagree with your assertions.  I believe their behavior will change.



#111 brotherbock

brotherbock

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,876 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 02:17 PM

I never made this claim, and I disagree with your assertions.  I believe their behavior will change.

 

Fair point--your claim was that helmets don't offer much (if any) protection for the spine. Your links however did nothing to show that. 

 

I don't disagree that their behavior will change. I've in fact agreed that it will. My point, again, is that during the time when they are adjusting while wearing less protective headgear, there would be mountains of significant head and neck injuries. That's been my claim from the start. The cost of getting to a place where guys in leather helmets get hurt less (if possible to begin with) is a duration of time when football fields are littered with significantly injured players.

 

It's simple. They will not make the change in behavior instantly. And they will not make the change while wearing current helmets. Thus, they will only start to make the change while wearing the 'new' leather helmets. Because that change will not occur instantly, there will be a time during which guys are playing with 'new' leather helmets and 'old' more dangerous playing styles.

 

The whole idea is analogous to saying NASCAR drivers would drive more carefully if they didn't have harnesses, so we should take the harnesses away so that they begin to change their driving behavior.



#112 Antiramie

Antiramie

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,759 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 02:44 PM

Heavy fines/suspensions are the solution. Players have already shown they will put their bodies at risk and play with reckless abandon. Hit their bank accounts and theyll stop.

#113 seafoam1

seafoam1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 02:56 PM

You know, nearly everyone on this site complains about Goodell and his decisions for doling out punishments. Yet, there are polar opposite solutions offered up from those who think he is making poor decisions. And, many disagree with what others want who also disagree with so called disagreeable decisions by Goodell.

Just think of all the weirdo extreme football fans and what they would think of you if you held Goodells job and made the decisions that you would make. It's a lose-lose job.

#114 brotherbock

brotherbock

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,876 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 03:50 PM

You know, nearly everyone on this site complains about Goodell and his decisions for doling out punishments. Yet, there are polar opposite solutions offered up from those who think he is making poor decisions. And, many disagree with what others want who also disagree with so called disagreeable decisions by Goodell.

Just think of all the weirdo extreme football fans and what they would think of you if you held Goodells job and made the decisions that you would make. It's a lose-lose job.

 

Truer words have rarely been spoken. I was about to say 'no way in he!! I'd want Goodell's job", but then I thought about 200 million dollars. So I'll say "You'd have to pay me 200 million dollars to do his job" :)

 

I don't mind the suspensions for these dangerous hits. In fact I completely understand the business sense of them--suspensions show, if anyone questions it (maybe legally, as in a suit), that you are taking things seriously. What I hear mostly is complaints about the inconsistency of the punishments. Someone thinks such and such a hit was suspension-worthy and such and such a hit wasn't, and Goodell suspended them both, or didn't suspend someone else who was worthy, etc. But as you say, someone else then disagrees with each of those evaluations. And someone else disagrees with half of them.

 

And any time you put in very specific rules that would do away with these inconsistencies, people complain about the 'ticky tacky rules' that the game is filled with. :D

 

The catch rules are a great example. Person A says "they should just go back to the old catch rules--if the ref thinks it looked like a catch at full speed in the moment, then it's a catch." But then the other guy makes a catch, and Person A is furious because the ref 'didn't see that his feet weren't both in!' and demands replay. Then his favorite player isn't given a catch when he thinks he should, and so "it can't just be the ref's opinion, there should be some kind of RULE, he had possession!" And so they put in a rule. And then Person A complains "There are too many rules, and replay, having to have the ball in your hand all the way through your falling motion, it's aggravating, they should just go back to the old catch rules!" ;)



#115 Beyond Chaos

Beyond Chaos

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,966 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 04:19 PM

 

Fair point--your claim was that helmets don't offer much (if any) protection for the spine. Your links however did nothing to show that. 

After the modern helmet appeared, he adds, bleeding rates fell sharply while rates of CCN, spine fracture/dislocation and quadriplegia soared.

 

Disagree, if this statement is true then it supports my claim. 

 

 

 

Here's another quote from your first link: “Paradoxically, the modern helmet’s superior protection of the head and brain promoted playing techniques that put the neck at risk for injury,” says Dr. Bell.

 

This was your defense which refutes your claim that players behavior won't change quickly.  So if rates fell sharply (as stated in the first quote) this implies behavior was changed quickly (rate implies incidents/time) which refutes your claim that there will be an adjustment period in which injuries will spike (having any meaningful impact).

 

In all fairness you have provided no evidence of your claims only your own speculation and a Nascar analogy that is far from equivalent.  Your statements may hold some truth, but again you have not provided a shred of evidence beyond your own conjectures.   



#116 seafoam1

seafoam1

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 1,485 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 04:34 PM

 
Truer words have rarely been spoken. I was about to say 'no way in he!! I'd want Goodell's job", but then I thought about 200 million dollars. So I'll say "You'd have to pay me 200 million dollars to do his job" :)
 
I don't mind the suspensions for these dangerous hits. In fact I completely understand the business sense of them--suspensions show, if anyone questions it (maybe legally, as in a suit), that you are taking things seriously. What I hear mostly is complaints about the inconsistency of the punishments. Someone thinks such and such a hit was suspension-worthy and such and such a hit wasn't, and Goodell suspended them both, or didn't suspend someone else who was worthy, etc. But as you say, someone else then disagrees with each of those evaluations. And someone else disagrees with half of them.
 
And any time you put in very specific rules that would do away with these inconsistencies, people complain about the 'ticky tacky rules' that the game is filled with. :D
 
The catch rules are a great example. Person A says "they should just go back to the old catch rules--if the ref thinks it looked like a catch at full speed in the moment, then it's a catch." But then the other guy makes a catch, and Person A is furious because the ref 'didn't see that his feet weren't both in!' and demands replay. Then his favorite player isn't given a catch when he thinks he should, and so "it can't just be the ref's opinion, there should be some kind of RULE, he had possession!" And so they put in a rule. And then Person A complains "There are too many rules, and replay, having to have the ball in your hand all the way through your falling motion, it's aggravating, they should just go back to the old catch rules!" ;)

You are right. This is it man. It's the fans needy nature to get what they want without empathizing or even understanding, and if they don't get what they want, then there is now an outlet called social media, which it's greatest contribution to society is it's ability to immediately polarize groups of people around any topic. Oh, and they get to be anonymous.

Why do all people boo Goodell at the draft? It makes no sense other than they all just think it's fun to be part of a mob.

#117 brotherbock

brotherbock

    FF Geek

  • Members
  • 3,876 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:19 PM

After the modern helmet appeared, he adds, bleeding rates fell sharply while rates of CCN, spine fracture/dislocation and quadriplegia soared.

 

Disagree, if this statement is true then it supports my claim. 

 

 

No, it doesn't. Those injury rates to the spine increased because the style of play changed. He says as much. Here's the quote again: Paradoxically, the modern helmet’s superior protection of the head and brain promoted playing techniques that put the neck at risk for injury,” says Dr. Bell.

 

He does not link playing style to head trauma. He links it to neck trauma. So the head trauma (the brain bleeding) 'sharply' (i.e. quickly) going down is attributable to the helmet just being worn. Playing style is not linked to the head trauma, thus we can make no conjecture about how fast they changed playing style. 

 

Spine trauma 'soared', but there is no indicate of how quickly it soared. 'Soared' indicates that it went up a lot, which is a given. It does not indicate how quickly it went up (as 'sharply' does for the head trauma). 

 

As for why I make my claim, I make it simply because hits to the top of the head can easily cause cervical spinal cord damage, and helmets are proven to mitigate the force from various hits, including hits to the top of the head. So while I guess I probably should have said "you'll see a ton more severe if not fatal TBIs and paralyzed players", I think it's true that you will in fact see more paralyzed players. Because, again--hit the top of the head hard, you can easily fracture the spine and damage the spinal cord. Helmets help mitigate that impact--lessen the force that's transmitted through the head and into the neck. 

 

If you want data to support my basic claim that hits to the top of the head can cause cervical spinal cord damage, you are free to go look that up. It's not hard to find. I've met two wheelchair-bound individuals myself who got there by falling on top of their heads, and another friend from high school with a lifelong limp from landing square on top of his head. And I know a bunch of research is out there to be found, I've read some myself and I know a few people who work in that exact area. So that's my proof. If it's not good enough for you, I apologize for not going to find you more. But I'm not going to :) Peace.