Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 396 posts

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

#201

Post by phillc73 »

perfectstorm wrote: post #95
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…

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 (should be) immediately removed from the field for a 10 minute evaluation. However, having played Union for nearly 20 years (from the age of 14), I can attest to the fact that there are many occasions where a head clash occurs which doesn't result in concussion, but still can't be very healthy.

Besides head injuries, I've required an ACL operation due to Rugby injury. My shoulders and back are also in pretty bad shape. I now have a young son and am really trying to steer him towards cricket rather than Rugby.

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

#202

Post by jamesblonde »

Jeremy1026 wrote: post #147
nervousvarun wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you're saying here...are you equating blocking and tackling? In American football you also may only tackle the ball carrier. You can initiate contact other guys (usually in the form of blocking), and that can be very violent at times...but I don't think there's a scenario where you can tackle someone without the ball (and it not be called for a penalty).

In rugby there is no blocking. The only time non-ball carriers come into contact with the opposing team is during a scrum or accidental collision (which are quite rare).

Or a ruck - clearing out the ruck, it's allowed there. Or a catch and drive in the lineout. But yes, the contact in these situations is more pushing than collisions.

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

#203

Post by lojack »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #84
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…

I think the rules could get reworked to make it less dangerous for brain injury. Take a cue from Australian Rules Football: remove all padding and make high tackles that endanger the head illegal.

The rules could get reworked, but I seriously doubt if they ever will. Maybe its possible to slowly change the game over time, but completely changing the rules overnight would be too dramatic and risky for any league to really get behind. The best chance is probably for the NFL to come up with a long term plan to fix things, but that'd require them to admit the problem, which I don't think will ever happen.

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

#204

Post by phillc73 »

Jeremy1026 wrote: post #147
nervousvarun wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you're saying here...are you equating blocking and tackling? In American football you also may only tackle the ball carrier. You can initiate contact other guys (usually in the form of blocking), and that can be very violent at times...but I don't think there's a scenario where you can tackle someone without the ball (and it not be called for a penalty).

In rugby there is no blocking. The only time non-ball carriers come into contact with the opposing team is during a scrum or accidental collision (which are quite rare).

Or in Rugby Union, during a ruck or maul.

The main difference in tackling technique between American Football and both codes of Rugby is use of the arms. In Rugby the arms must be used to tackle the opposing player. A shoulder charge, with no arms used, is illegal and may result in expulsion from the game. In a recent New Zealand vs British and Irish Lions game, NZ player Sonny Bill Williams was given a red card and sent from the pitch for this exact offence.

The other main points to note are that the opposing player can only be tackled below shoulder level and, as you've pointed out, in open play only the ball carrying may be tackled (or blocked).

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

#205

Post by _puk »

Jeremy1026 wrote: post #147
nervousvarun wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you're saying here...are you equating blocking and tackling? In American football you also may only tackle the ball carrier. You can initiate contact other guys (usually in the form of blocking), and that can be very violent at times...but I don't think there's a scenario where you can tackle someone without the ball (and it not be called for a penalty).

In rugby there is no blocking. The only time non-ball carriers come into contact with the opposing team is during a scrum or accidental collision (which are quite rare).

And even the scrums have reduced contact nowadays; arguably this has resulted in them becoming rather difficult to execute well, and they're becoming a bane to the modern game. Tweaking these things does have knock on effects.

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

#206

Post by [deleted] »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #84
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…

I think the rules could get reworked to make it less dangerous for brain injury. Take a cue from Australian Rules Football: remove all padding and make high tackles that endanger the head illegal.

[deleted]

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

#207

Post by pwthornton »

ksenzee wrote: post #193
pwthornton wrote: post #166

Football's core problem is still denial that this is an issue. Until that happens, real, concrete steps won't be taken to address it. Here are a few suggestions: 1) No tackle football before a certain age (to be determined by scientists based on brain development and how damaging a concussion would be). You can learn a ton about football, running routes, learning plays, getting in shape, etc. without hitting people.…

> 15-year penalties are not nearly enough A 15-year penalty seems like it would be plenty... oh, you meant 15-yard. Yes. Agreed.

15-year might be more fitting!

Fixed.

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

#208

Post by darrenf »

dsacco wrote: post #192
yequalsx wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be OK allowing two consenting adults to fight to the death for pay? Most people would not be for allowing this. A lot of people are willing to work in very risky environments because they feel they have no alternative. Should companies be allowed to have dangerous work environments because there are people desperate enough to be willing to work in them?

> Would you be OK allowing two consenting adults to fight to the death for pay? Given that scenario as stated? Sure, I'm all for it. Take away the gloves in boxing and we're pretty close to that. I'd be concerned about the negative incentives that could potentially exploit lower income people, but on its own I don't have a problem with it. I personally wouldn't do it, and I don't think I'd enjoy watching it, but I'm…

AIUI bare knuckle boxing is less dangerous than the big time stuff. Gloves protect the boxer doing the punching from breaking their fingers/hands, enabling them to do more damage to their opponents. You ain't punching a skull with your bare knuckles and hurting the other party much.

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

#209

Post by hansthehorse »

Jeremy1026 wrote: post #147
nervousvarun wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you're saying here...are you equating blocking and tackling? In American football you also may only tackle the ball carrier. You can initiate contact other guys (usually in the form of blocking), and that can be very violent at times...but I don't think there's a scenario where you can tackle someone without the ball (and it not be called for a penalty).

In rugby there is no blocking. The only time non-ball carriers come into contact with the opposing team is during a scrum or accidental collision (which are quite rare).

Tackling in American football is almost gone from the game. The object now seems to be to smash into the ball carrier as hard as humanly possible and hope he falls down. You rarely see a receiver or quarterback tackled, you see the defender simply run into him as fast and hard as he can. Watch some film from the 50's and 60's and you will immediately see the difference.

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

#210

Post by _wp3r »

I am patiently waiting for the first bellwether Ivy league school to drop football with brain injury being the reason. I think the demise of college and then professional football would cascade after that, still a decade or two but it would be inevitable and possibly faster than people expect.
Post reply on HN