🏈 Targeting rule good for football, SEC's coordinator of officials says

[TerryP]

Don't assume that concussions don't exist in rugby...bad idea.

They are trying to make helmets absorb more of the energy. Right now, having hard plastic which means they respond quickly and absorb less of the energy, if they could make the helmets softer, it could absorb more energy. Look at the NASCAR wall changes, barrels on the side of freeways, etc. Its all about absorbing the impact slower...

One of the recent lawsuits filed against the NCAA was from a soccer player.

 

[silvermetalflake]

It's an opinion backed with zero logic though. In the 1905 season alone, 18 people died while playing.

If I may clarify.... of those 18 people, 10 were high school players and 11 were under-age. And only 6 of them died via concussion related occurrences, the remaining children, and they were very much children, were killed through bodily injury and otherwise.

It must also be added to this debate that football injuries were prevalent back then because the way the game was played. It was, as everyone knows, significantly more physical than it is played today. The rules were few, and the types of plays allowed actually invited serious injury. Of course, many of those rules & plays were changed the following year as a result of the deaths.

Reeeeeegardless....... any time you have big strong guys colliding into each other like mountain goats, there are going to be injuries, and experts pretty much agree the helmet science is just not going to remedy it anytime soon despite their (the NFL) propaganda claiming advancement. Fine... perhaps leather helmets and friendlier game play is not the answer, and call it stupid or ridiculous if you will. But understand this.... the human body, joints, hips, back, neck, head, organs, etc, was not designed to do or take the kind of continued physicality that exists in football. The human body is an extremely frail piece of hardware; one of the most poorly constructed in all the animal kingdom in fact. So unless you plan on wrapping guys heads and necks in huge puffy marshmallow like head gear sized in ridiculous proportions, don't expect a solution to head trauma anytime soon.

 

[bamafan4ever]

If I may clarify.... of those 18 people, 10 were high school players and 11 were under-age. And only 6 of them died via concussion related occurrences, the remaining children, and they were very much children, were killed through bodily injury and otherwise.

It must also be added to this debate that football injuries were prevalent back then because the way the game was played. It was, as everyone knows, significantly more physical than it is played today. The rules were few, and the types of plays allowed actually invited serious injury. Of course, many of those rules & plays were changed the following year as a result of the deaths.

Reeeeeegardless....... any time you have big strong guys colliding into each other like mountain goats, there are going to be injuries, and experts pretty much agree the helmet science is just not going to remedy it anytime soon despite their (the NFL) propaganda claiming advancement. Fine... perhaps leather helmets and friendlier game play is not the answer, and call it stupid or ridiculous if you will. But understand this.... the human body, joints, hips, back, neck, head, organs, etc, was not designed to do or take the kind of continued physicality that exists in football. The human body is an extremely frail piece of hardware; one of the most poorly constructed in all the animal kingdom in fact. So unless you plan on wrapping guys heads and necks in huge puffy marshmallow like head gear sized in ridiculous proportions, don't expect a solution to head trauma anytime soon.

Hey russ and Birdman,

Do you feel insulted after reading his post? That's called respect ladies. He disagreed with your assertions that he didn't put thought into his previous comment, articulated why and didn't manage to leave you feeling insulted, did he? It's just called respect fellas. I'm done talking about it anyway.

 

[russb8903]

Well I'm sure he's glad that you're here to defend him from our merciless bullying. Though as I said, which you refuse to acknowledge, in each of my posts, I attacked the argument of playing without helmets as stupid and baseless because the numbers don't support it. The fact that helmets even came into being indicates pre-helmet football was unacceptable. After his response that helmets don't work, and won't work, I decided not to respond. I did this even though I disagreed with nearly every claim in it out of respect for the board, and the fact that his mind won't be changed. He will continue to believe that helmets don't and won't work. I'll continue wearing them while cycling, racing, climbing, etc. because I think they are effective. Since you so bravely decided to quit talking about it after getting your last word in, I won't address any more.

 

[silvermetalflake]

He will continue to believe that helmets don't and won't work. I'll continue wearing them while cycling, racing, climbing, etc. because I think they are effective.

I wrote nothing nor insinuated anything about the ineffectiveness of helmets with regard to cycling, racing, climbing, etc. :icon_eek:
We're talking helmets in relation to football, and only football.

 

[russb8903]

An impact is an impact, and something between your head and that hard object is better than nothing is the point.

 

[silvermetalflake]

An impact is an impact, and something between your head and that hard object is better than nothing is the point.

Noooooooo... the POINT is... I never INSINUATED, SAID nor WROTE that cycling helmets or other types of helmets do not work or have a degree of effectiveness!! That is a LIE!!

Hey man... I don't mind debating and having friendly opinion-based scrimmages and taking it on the chin, but when it comes to people saying things about others that are not true, that is crossing the line of debate etiquette. He LITERALLY put words in my mouth to bolster his opinion. That is wrong. And that, sir, is NOT open to opinion nor debate. You just simply do not do it.

 

[russb8903]

You introduced boxing and rugby as sports that don't need helmets, how come I cannot introduce other sports where helmets obviously work as proof that they're effective? And how can you argue that a helmet protects your head when bouncing off a rock or asphalt, but not being hit by another plastic helmet? My point was that doesn't add up. That's all those examples did. It wasn't saying you stated they didn't work explicitly, but it was your argument that helmets don't protect from low speed hard plastic impacts, so the reasonable conclusion from your argument is that they wouldn't work on high speed harder impacts.

 

[silvermetalflake]

You introduced boxing and rugby as sports that don't need helmets, how come I cannot introduce other sports where helmets obviously work as proof that they're effective? And how can you argue that a helmet protects your head when bouncing off a rock or asphalt, but not being hit by another plastic helmet? My point was that doesn't add up. That's all those examples did. It wasn't saying you stated they didn't work explicitly, but it was your argument that helmets don't protect from low speed hard plastic impacts, so the reasonable conclusion from your argument is that they wouldn't work on high speed harder impacts.

Dude, you're doing it again!!!


"You introduced boxing and rugby as sports that don't need helmets"

Say WHAT?
WHERE did I write that? Show me. Find the EXACT TEXT I wrote that says those words directly. Do not give me your ASSUMPTION - I want to see clear, concise words that I wrote to that effect where I stated directly that I think that without any ambiguity.


Also...

" (it was your argument that) helmets don't protect from low speed hard plastic impacts."
WHAT?
And WHERE did I write about low speed anything? Show me. Find the EXACT TEXT I wrote that says those words directly, or even talked about low speed impact.


Finally...

"the reasonable conclusion from your argument.... "

No No No...... you are assuming!!! In fact, even worse... you've drawn the wrong conclusion. You have NO IDEA of my opinion on helmets in cycling nor rock climbing, low impact this, asphalt that. I NEVER used those words, wrote about those subjects, or gave you my thoughts on them.

Listen, I am totally cool and fine with people giving THEIR opinion and coming back at me for mine... but not ASSUMING and DRAWING CONCLUSIONS on what I THINK based on subjects I NEVER DIRECTLY talked about or gave my opinion on. Dude... if you wanna talk about helmets and asphalt that's cool... give me your thoughts, voice your opinions. Cool. But then ask me.... "Hey Cameron, I know what you think about football helmets, but what about cycling and rock climbing? WHat is your view on people wearing helmets in those sports?" Then I can give you my opinion. But Jesus... at least ask me for it; don't assume it. Thats all I ask.

 

[russb8903]

Say WHAT?
WHERE did I write that? Show me. Find the EXACT TEXT I wrote that says those words directly. Do not give me your ASSUMPTION - I want to see clear, concise words that I wrote to that effect where I stated directly that I think that without any ambiguity.

Here:

And while concussions exist in rugby, there are fewer than in football. And who in pro MMA, boxing, etc, who wears a helmet or any head gear? And they routinely take dozens and dozens of blows from foot and fist from guys trained to inflict pain through force.

You are absolutely introducing these as examples of contact sports that do not use helmets and claiming they have lower incidences of concussions than helmet wearing football players. You may have intended it differently, but that's what it says. You asked who in MMA, boxing, etc wears helmets rhetorically because you know that they don't, and offered them as evidence that helmets aren't needed to protect from such injury in football.

" (it was your argument that) helmets don't protect from low speed hard plastic impacts."
WHAT?
And WHERE did I write about low speed anything? Show me. Find the EXACT TEXT I wrote that says those words directly, or even talked about low speed impact.

I don't have to, your whole argument is that helmets do not offer protection in football. That is the same as saying they do not protect against low speed hard plastic on hard plastic impacts (the hits seen in football). A 15mph human sprint is a much lower speed in comparison to a flying baseball, or an auto racing accident, or a cycling accident, all places where helmets protect against impacts far more severe than those in football. When you make an argument, you make it based on reasons, I attacked the basis for that argument by breaking it down into its components.

No No No...... you are assuming!!! In fact, even worse... you've drawn the wrong conclusion. You have NO IDEA of my opinion on helmets in cycling nor rock climbing, low impact this, asphalt that. I NEVER used those words, wrote about those subjects, or gave you my thoughts on them.

Listen, I am totally cool and fine with people giving THEIR opinion and coming back at me for mine... but not ASSUMING and DRAWING CONCLUSIONS on what I THINK based on subjects I NEVER DIRECTLY talked about or gave my opinion on. Dude... if you wanna talk about helmets and asphalt that's cool... give me your thoughts, voice your opinions. Cool. But then ask me.... "Hey Cameron, I know what you think about football helmets, but what about cycling and rock climbing? WHat is your view on people wearing helmets in those sports?" Then I can give you my opinion. But Jesus... at least ask me for it; don't assume it. Thats all I ask.

Your argument is that helmets are ineffective at preventing concussions and other TBI. If they aren't effective at the football level, they simply cannot be effective against even more severe impacts. That is not an assumption, it is a logical conclusion. Since it is well known that they are effective in racing and cycling, I am simply highlighting your disconnect.

I don't want to bicker, but I haven't been disingenuous in any of my arguments.

 

[silvermetalflake]

I'm not even going to bother to cut & paste in response to your cut & paste cuz it's getting boring. All I can say is that you have a great career in politics awaiting you. You extrapolate and twist around whatever you want from what people say or write to come up with what you call "logical conclusions". Seeking clarification instead of drumming up such conclusions would lessen the length of these threads, and more importantly reveal what people really think or have an opinion on. But if it never occurs to you that your logical conclusions could be wrong... then I guess I'm just watering a desert. It's time to move on and lay this thread to rest. Kicking a dead horse is pointless.

 

[bamaraider]

Wow, I missed a party.