ESPN Football Analyst Walks Away, Disturbed by Brain Trauma on Field • Hacker News Board

Re: ESPN Football Analyst Walks Away, Disturbed by Brain Trauma on Field

#251

Post by jnordwick » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 9:13 PM UTC

thesehands wrote: post #219

mfringel wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In rugby, except for a couple of lines on the field, one inch doesn't strictly matter more than another, within the bounds of the rules. In american football, one inch anywhere on the field can make the difference between four more downs or having to kick the ball away.

Rugby also has the method of tackling baked into the rules. If you tried to tackle in rugby in the same way as a block in NFL you'd immediately be penalised and could see yourself off the field. A typical rugby tackle almost by its definition in the rules will cede a metre or so to the attacking player as they are brought down to set up the ruck. IIRC Pete Carroll of the seahawks has taken advice from rugby professio…

Reference? I always like to see these cross pollination stories, but I need a source on this one. The rugby way of tackling is the same as the way you are taught in Pop Warner and the way you do angle tackle drills, I thought.

Re: ESPN Football Analyst Walks Away, Disturbed by Brain Trauma on Field

#252

Post by Already__Taken » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 9:16 PM UTC

hota_mazi wrote: post #225

Pxtl wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hockey has the advantage that the sport could we reworked into something less violent. Hockey could survive a change to the rules that would reduce blows to the head. Football is such an intrinsically contact sport that I don't think a safer game would even be recognizable. Actually, that might be worse... If hockey turns out to have as bad a concussion problem, the leadership of the sport is likely even more culpabl…

> Football is such an intrinsically contact sport that I don't think a safer game would even be recognizable. And yet, rubgy and Australian football have just as much contact and do not suffer from an endemic injury problem. Maybe something related to the padding?

Rubgy has much less contact than american football. You can't just tackle people without the ball.

Re: ESPN Football Analyst Walks Away, Disturbed by Brain Trauma on Field

#253

Post by mricordeau » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 9:18 PM UTC

dsacco wrote: post #186

kpwags wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My main issues with the NFL and why I can't support them are 1) NFL knew about the risks and hid them and in some cases deliberately deceived the players about said risks. I seem to recall that only a couple years ago the NFL told the players that with adequate rest, there will be no long-lasting effects from a concussion -- something that has been shown to not be the case. 2) The NFL will go after anyone who release…

Can you provide a few examples of the NFL going after doctors and scientists, and clarify what that means?

See Dr Omalu research about CTE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennet_Omalu

There is a movie (biopic not totally accurate) : Concussion

Re: ESPN Football Analyst Walks Away, Disturbed by Brain Trauma on Field

#254

Post by freehunter » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 9:18 PM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #226

brm wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing for me is, I never watched it for the contact. Its always been a rooting interest type of sport and if I wanted contact I'd go watch boxing or MMA. The thing they don't seem to get(The NFL) is that most people don't care about the hits and they could eliminate them. I'd watch highly skilled athletes from my university or city play FLAG FOOTBALL at the highest levels of skill and athleticism as often or more…

Plenty of people like the hitting in football, both people who play and and those who watch. Lots of people have complan about how quarterbacks are protected nowadays. In fact, I've never heard a football fan say they would like to get rid of the hitting. Not once.

It's similar in hockey, take away the contact and people complain. They still watch, though. People complain about a lot of stuff they don't actually care about.

Re: ESPN Football Analyst Walks Away, Disturbed by Brain Trauma on Field

#255

Post by jnordwick » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 9:19 PM UTC

Pxtl wrote: post #163

ovulator wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rugby has the same problem with big hits and concussions occurring during them as American Football, but you are right in that it is illegal to block players without the ball in rugby and that is a pivotal part of American Football. In fact the disease most discussed and studied has been Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE. The position most likely (nearly 50%) to be affected are the linemen[1], not the guys leve…

> In fact the disease most discussed and studied has been Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy or CTE. The position most likely (nearly 50%) to be affected are the linemen[1], not the guys leveling or receiving the bone crushing hits, but the guys doing the hum drum blocking on every play. This actually means there might be hope. The game could be modified to reduce the impact on the linemen. Reduce the distance the defe…

Getting rid of the neural zone would be interesting. Other rules would have to be changed, and line strategy would also have do change. I wonder if it would favor quickness over size since you are closer together or if size would be even more important. I think it is at least worth experimenting with.

Re: ESPN Football Analyst Walks Away, Disturbed by Brain Trauma on Field

#256

Post by jMyles » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 9:20 PM UTC

beachy wrote: post #17

Speaking as someone from a rugby-playing nation, where mostly players wear no protection except mouthguards and shin pads, American Football is spectacular but insane. Wearing protective helmets just ups the ante as players launch into each other with full force. In rugby, you don't tackle someone like that as you'll hurt yourself, and fail to stop the opponent. Rugby is a plenty violent sport, and has its own health…

The same is true of MMA and hand-wraps. Ostensibly introduced to protect fighters' hands, they are actually just a threat to their heads.

Re: ESPN Football Analyst Walks Away, Disturbed by Brain Trauma on Field

#257

Post by mattmanser » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 9:22 PM UTC

Pxtl wrote: post #50

kpwags wrote: post #24

Good for him. I stopped following football after watching League of Denial on PBS. If I'm at the bar or something and it happens to be on, I might passively watch it, but I haven't sought it out since. I just can't support the NFL. I do feel torn though because I love hockey. I know they're dealing with similar controversies. My justification, however flimsy it might be is that I don't like the fighting (I might be i…

Hockey has the advantage that the sport could we reworked into something less violent. Hockey could survive a change to the rules that would reduce blows to the head. Football is such an intrinsically contact sport that I don't think a safer game would even be recognizable. Actually, that might be worse... If hockey turns out to have as bad a concussion problem, the leadership of the sport is likely even more culpabl…

In the UK we have rugby, a similar sport without all the armour.

While there is a problem with concussions[1], it's nowhere near the scale of American Handball.

[1]https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25182-rugby-players-w...

Re: ESPN Football Analyst Walks Away, Disturbed by Brain Trauma on Field

#258

Post by freehunter » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 9:24 PM UTC

jjuel wrote: post #213

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #180

I recently caught up with an old acquaintance. We interned together many years ago. He was on the college football team then, and quite proud of it. It hasn't been that long; he isn't that old. Yet at the end of a lunch (at which we had nothing to drink) he forgot four times in a row that we had already paid the cheque. He complained of a recent lay-off. He believes he was targeted for forgetting appointments and mis…

For every one of those there are others who are still functioning at a very high level. I played in Junior High, High School, and a couple years in college. I have yet to see any ill effects. The problem with the science behind it is they never take other factors into account. Who knows if someone had some genetic cause that may have exacerbated the effects of hits in football.

>The problem with the science behind it is they never take other factors into account.

Yeah you know science, never controlling for other factors.

Re: ESPN Football Analyst Walks Away, Disturbed by Brain Trauma on Field

#259

Post by jaggederest » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 9:27 PM UTC

stevenwoo wrote: post #245

athenot wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, that's for classic boxing. I train muay thai and you're also liable to get a shin/knee/ankle/elbow from your opponent, and there's zero padding there. However, as someone else commented, there are some crucial differences with football: - there's no injury unless it's an actual fight. Sparring is intentionally toned down, because the sport is not about the power but agility and speed. Those can be practice…

I could be mistaken but I thought a few concussions was enough to cause brain damage, once you get to three there's a marked increase in permanent, measureable damage in most people, if one is under 25, it doesn't take as much.

Any concussion is by definition a brain injury. Any brain injury is, by definition, damage to the brain. And we know that brain damage has an uncertain prognosis - it may or may not ever heal in any meaningful way, and might even get worse over time.

People handwaving around how much worse it gets under x or y circumstance just don't like the way the math adds up: brain injury is cumulative and progressive regardless of severity, age, repetition, or any other factor.

Re: ESPN Football Analyst Walks Away, Disturbed by Brain Trauma on Field

#260

Post by mattmanser » Thu, Aug 31, 2017, 9:27 PM UTC

phillc73 wrote: post #201

perfectstorm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

field hockey is not as violent as ice hockey and they could implement the same rules over. I believe Rugby too is not as violent as American Football but I guess less exciting ? (I don't watch either so don't know).

I think Rugby Union is more interesting than American Football (in my biased opinion), because the ball is in play for a lot longer and the game has better momentum. Then again, many Rugby Union vs Rugby League debates involve the criticism of Union that it is too stop-start. There is certainly a growing awareness of head injuries in Union and League at all levels. Players which show any sign of head trauma are (shou…

Rugby has gone through periods of being a boring game and has had constant rule changes to try and make it more interesting, some of which significantly changed the nature of the game.

The period of constant scrums was an especially dull period, as was the rolling mauls period. I vaguely remember a period of constant punts from each side down the field. I haven't kept up to date with Rugby, but google seems to suggest boring rolling mauls are back.

As an Englishman, I still have to say cricket is one of the most boring sports to play, with only 3 players in a team of 22 doing anything even vaguely interesting at any one time (batter, bowler, wicket keeper, 9 other players are literally sitting doing nothing and 9 others are standing around).

It's less a sport and more an excuse to lounge around.

For all it's faults with prima-donnas, football is one of the most engaging team sports with much less risk of injury than rugby or ball-in-the-face field hockey.