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

#341

Post by mattm » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 2:46 AM UTC

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.

As a big hockey fan, I completely agree with this. The pads players wore 30+ years ago were pretty much nothing so if you tried to hit someone hard it hurt you as well. My theory is that the NHL would see less concussions if they reduced the padding but such a counter-intuitive process is never going to happen.

I'm curious, did Australian Rules Football go to padding and then remove it? Because I think that once padding is put in place, it's very tough to get people to remove it.

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

#342

Post by ams6110 » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 2:59 AM UTC

flashdance wrote: post #124

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…

Most kids in elementary/middle/high school (at least where I grew up) play non-contact hockey. You're not allowed to fight or bodycheck, but incidental contact is fine. Only the super high (competitive) levels had hitting. Non-contact hockey players are three times less likely to be severely injured and three times less likely to be concussed while playing.[1] That's the direction hockey should be going, IMO. Contact…

Hockey is going that direction. There is increasing emphasis on strict enforcement of penalties for "intimidating infractions." While body checking is still allowed, it is more narrowly defined than in the past. I think within 10 years we will see the elimination of body checking from hockey.

http://assets.ngin.com/attachments/document/0131/9802/Standa...

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

#343

Post by girvo » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:03 AM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #335

logfromblammo wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watching the Canadian national hockey team is one of the highlights of the Winter Olympics. The US team would be better if it had access to all those kids wasting their athletic potential on the worst sport in the world--football--and the second-worst sport in the world--soccer. If it ditched the requirement that the game always be played on ice, the skill level of hockey in the US could be comparable to its basketba…

Lacrosse or field hockey is basically hockey on foot. Floor/Ball hockey played in an arena apparently breaks at very high skills and you need the changes added by the formerly named sports to make it work. Roller hockey never really caught on.

I grew up playing field hockey (as well as rugby union) as a kid in New Zealand. Such a fun sport!

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

#344

Post by firebones » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:07 AM UTC

ChemicalWarfare wrote: post #319

DeBraid wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the NFL 18.8% of injuries occur at or above the shoulders, the area where athletes wear the most protective equipment. In the AFL 11.5% of AFL injuries occur in this area, where they wear virtually no protection. Source: https://medium.com/upstart-magazine/nfl-vs-afl-injury-compar... Helmets enable players to weaponize their heads, like this recent hit (Vontaze Burfict's suspension earning HIT on Anthony Sherman…

With relatively rested players lining up against each other on every down the situation is much different from players chasing each other on the field like they do in AFL. WRs for example have a somewhat similar situation to AFL players since they are mostly being chased by the defense and they don't get nearly as many contact injuries as RBs for example. Not to mention they are protected by (frequently controversial…

There's also suspicion, if I recall correctly, that the routine repetitions of linemen taking knocks to the head in practice does more long term damage than what we see on game day. This may be more pronounced in high schools and to a lesser extent, college, where the coaching can be more suspect.

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

#345

Post by firebones » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:15 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #327

rsync wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I stopped following football after watching League of Denial on PBS." The reason I cannot stop watching football is that the combination of enormous economic incentives and ruthless selection process has produced individuals that are performing at near-superhuman levels. It is arguable that when you watch a quarterback or a cornerback play well in 2017 you are watching someone do something better than anyone has eve…

I think the best sport for that is actually basketball. NBA contracts are far more lucrative, and NBA rosters far smaller, and injuries are far less common, which makes NBA players more athletic and talented than NFL players by far. Consider also the fact that many great NBA players were also standout high school football players who gave it up for basketball. You don't really see that happening the other way. NBA pl…

You make great points. All sports are likely at their peak for performance at the highest levels. The difference may be one of whether you prefer "peak specialization" (football, baseball), or "peak dynamic creativity" (basketball, soccer.) I guess throw in "individual performance" if you want to consider golf, track, etc.

Not to say there isn't creativity in football or baseball, just that those are far more defined by organizational strategy than they are by moment-to-moment creativity by players in the game.

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

#346

Post by swang » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:18 AM UTC

addicted wrote: post #31

It's become increasingly difficult for me to watch football as well. I really enjoy the sport, but the research is pretty unforgiving. I can still justify watching the NFL because the players are getting paid very well, and at least at this point are aware of the risks. But it is impossible for me to justify watching college anymore. I was always leary of the billion dollar contracts conferences were signing, while s…

they are getting paid "well" but that's all relative right? nba, mlb players get paid way more for their players in a game that is less punishing than football. plus the lifespan of an average player in the nfl is 3 years[0]

[0]i watched a segment on real sports with bryant gumbel

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

#347

Post by girvo » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:22 AM UTC

Bartweiss wrote: post #233

BearGoesChirp wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I just can't support the NFL. I'm not sure what the NFL does that's wrong. Their players get significant fame, are consenting adults, and get pay checks that many would trade even more of their health for. It is the college level, and especially the high school level, that I see the major problems at. When you have kids, or even people who aren't paid, risking their health it crosses a significant line. If college p…

Beyond the suppressing information part, I think it's still reasonable to decline to watch. Everyone is a consenting adult, I'm not saying "letting people tackle each other" is criminal or unethical. (Though as you say, mandatory football in gym class would be a different story.) The only thing here that ought to be legally actionable is knowingly hiding risks. But we're talking about a spectator sport. I think a lot…

So I'm a New Zealander who lives in Australia: I'm incredibly biased; but the best "hits" that are an absolute spectacle to watch in Rugby Union for me are the perfectly executed tackles, with zero head contact between the players and usually the ball carrier doesn't hit their head on the turf -- now Union still has a lot of the same risks and damage done to players so it's not perfect, but I find the difference between what's considered a "great hit" between the two kind of interesting.

Also, the biggest tackles I experienced playing first-grade union for the Gold Coast dolphins (before I stopped to become a referee) didn't hurt! A perfectly executed powerful tackle stops you in your tracks, looks amazingly impressive, but was reasonably safe.

You're much more likely to get a head injury from either an illegal tackle (that'd result in a red card, removal from the game and a "trial" of sorts before a tribunal) or from being at the bottom of a ruck and being stepped/stomped on

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

#348

Post by slg » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:26 AM UTC

firebones wrote: post #344

ChemicalWarfare wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With relatively rested players lining up against each other on every down the situation is much different from players chasing each other on the field like they do in AFL. WRs for example have a somewhat similar situation to AFL players since they are mostly being chased by the defense and they don't get nearly as many contact injuries as RBs for example. Not to mention they are protected by (frequently controversial…

There's also suspicion, if I recall correctly, that the routine repetitions of linemen taking knocks to the head in practice does more long term damage than what we see on game day. This may be more pronounced in high schools and to a lesser extent, college, where the coaching can be more suspect.

Yes, research has suggested that a number of smaller collisions can cause damage even if a player never suffers an actual concussion. A helmet also only protects you from external trauma. It acts as a second skull. But the problem isn't always from external trauma. If you are moving at speed and you are put to an immediate stop due to a collision with another player, your entire body experiences a lot of force. Your brain will end up colliding with the inside of your skull due to inertia regardless of whether you were hit in the head or not. That is why simply cutting headshots out of the game or removing helmets won't be enough to protect players. It really gets down to the fundamental nature of football and the physics of its collisions.

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

#349

Post by girvo » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:28 AM UTC

forapurpose wrote: post #306

Brendinooo wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a black-and-white kind of area. Plenty of miners felt a lot of pride in their work and wouldn't have given it up if they didn't have to, but mining is inherently more dangerous than sitting at a desk. So, while companies should have workers' comp and provide helmets on the job, it doesn't mean that the risk needs to be zero. Dangerous jobs tend to be well-compensated, so it either comes down to…

> Plenty of miners felt a lot of pride in their work and wouldn't have given it up if they didn't have to, but mining is inherently more dangerous than sitting at a desk. Could you cite some evidence that this is a widespread attitude? My knowledge of miners, which is very little, says something much different. > Dangerous jobs tend to be well-compensated I'm not sure that's true. In the list of high-paying jobs that…

Here in Australia, mining is definitely on the list of "high paying jobs people aspire to", especially for those where education is a limiting factor; and even then, the pay can be excellent, and it can be fascinating work and some of the positions require advanced degrees or training as well.

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

#350

Post by girvo » Fri, Sep 01, 2017, 3:39 AM UTC

amiramir wrote: post #113

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…

Rugby has also included head injury assessments (HIA) into its laws. They sports governing body introduced HIAs in 2012 and they have been getting more stringent over the years. At he elite level a player who is suspected of having taken a significant knock to the head can be substituted off the field for 10 minutes to be assessed by a doctor. The referee, assistant referees, sideline medics or the television match o…

Even at club rugby level all of the players do neck muscle training! Even back in 2008 they were. Rugby is still dangerous, of course, but the governing bodies do take safety pretty seriously and reasonably openly, at least compared to the NFL. Besides, I prefer watching a huge perfectly executed tackle in union than I do watching two people run into each other without even attempting to get arms around them to bring them to the ground (I have issues with Leagues shoulder charges for the same reason)