Dhani Jones Pens Op-ed about removing helmets from Football
Very interesting piece on the Washington Post today in an artice titled "10 things to toss." Dhani argues that football helmets should be removed in order to increase player safety in regards to head injuries. Entire article found here, but this is a snippet:
Football players are taught to block with "hat and hands" technique. You make contact with your head and your hands simultaneously, then shed your opponent to the left or right. As an NFL linebacker, I hit my head roughly 100 times per game, often facing up with guards, then a fullback and then a tailbackall on a single play. I thrive on that intensity and physicality. But as studies have shown, it's because of the high-impact nature of the sport that concussions have done so much damage to so many players.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:12 AM ^
But when there is a fumble or a pile up guys will die.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:17 AM ^
work in the trenches. With all the hands to face calls a lot of guys would get their faces gouged or beat up. I'm guessing there would still be a headgear of sorts with face protection. I just cant see lineman firing off the line as hard as they do and not colliding bare heads still.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:18 AM ^
Keep the helmets, get rid of the facemasks. Not saying I at all agree with this idea, but I can certainly understand the logic behind it.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:39 AM ^
April 15th, 2015 at 10:42 AM ^
But the reason helmets were introduced in the first place is that too many people were dying.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:35 AM ^
I certainly understand that, but rugby has managed to be an incredibly physical sport without sustaining massive life-threatening injuries. Football's going to have to learn from rugby whether they like it or not. There will need to be a lot more "take down" style rugby tackles vs. ESPN Top 10 Hitz
April 15th, 2015 at 11:57 AM ^
having played a little rugby, but lots of football. rugby is a great physical game, but when you are in a scrum, you are already in contact with the other side. not saying there aren't hard hits in rugby, of course there are, but they are less frequent and rarely are of the 'de-cleating' nature that happens on a regular basis as a football game.
April 15th, 2015 at 12:25 PM ^
enough so i'll try again. the very nature of how a rugby play unfolds and a tackle is made is much different (usually) than a football play. it's not the lack of a helmet that makes it different, it's the way the ball swings out, long line of defenders, people moving in the same direction, or at least not completely opposite at the time of collision, and most always there are no 'blind side' shots in rugby which of course can be brutal in football. further, as d. jones notes in a football play you are likely to be hitting and shedding multiple people per play, and some of them far larger than all but a handful of rugby players on the planet.
i would add that most rugby players are at least a step slower than their football counter-parts, a bit lighter too. i don't want to denigrate some excellent athletes that are ruggers, but on the whole the reason many of them got their start in rugby is because they were no longer good enough to find time at their comparable level of football.
people dying was not the reason for helmets, there were some im sure. but the more protected you are the more reckless you become. i played rugby and american football both and i played like iwas invincable with all the gear on, never lead with my head playing rugby but with pads and helmet on you just approach the games different.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:57 AM ^
One big difference to my understanding:
In rugby, you can give up an extra yard or two without any major consequences. As such, players are much less likely to go for the head-first "big hit" that stops the ballcarrier in his tracks. In football, an extra yard or two can make all the difference, and players are taught to tackle as such.
Not to mention that rugby has its own major concussion issue going on right now. I wouldn't exactly look to that sport to model after.
April 15th, 2015 at 12:04 PM ^
This is my first year playing rugby and I can tell you that while you can give up an extra yard or two, most teams are coached to drive the ballcarrier backwards so poaching the ball is easier. Also, I've seen 2 concussions in 2 semesters of rugby. Last year in football I saw 4 in one semester. That's not really a "major concussion issue".
April 15th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^
That's not really a "major sample size."
Rugby is well behind football in terms of awareness and reporting of concussions. They are going to quickly catch up in that regard, though. The Premiership saw concussions rise by over 50% last year. That's obviously not because there were actually 50%+ more concussions. They are simply now beginning to take the issue more seriously.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:35 AM ^
April 15th, 2015 at 10:12 AM ^
I was under the impression that you remained engaged if you are blocking. I guess Funk had it right all along!
April 15th, 2015 at 10:23 AM ^
On run plays they do if their blocking assignment requires them to eventually or primarily get to the second level. A lot of good role playing defensive lineman are quite talented at simply keeping olineman in their gap from shedding them and getting to that second level so the linebackers are able to roam free.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^
Thats called defensive holding. And I'm well aware of combo blocks, double team come offs, ect. Generally speaking though, you don't shed a defensive player, you "pass him off" in pass protection, or allow your double team teammate to bring his hips around and square off once you relase to the second level. You always stay engaged when you are blocking.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:03 AM ^
You always stay engaged...until you need to move on to your next assignment, just like in that example of the slip block you just described. Though I agree that "shedding" isn't really the appropriately terminology used on the offensive side, there certainly are plenty of blocks meant to stall the defender before moving on. Even if it's not designed as such, the first week a lineman learns his position, he's taught that on a run or pass play, once you've made your block and the carrier has safely gotten past the point where your block assignment is relavent, move on and try to get to that next level. It's doubtful the defender will try to stop you at that point, but the concept is still the same where you need to "shed" him to move on.
As for the "defensive holding" comment, it's actually more commonly seen as a simple stalemate when that happens and rarely gets called. Just like a very good o-lineman knows how to hold when necessary without getting caught, a good DL knows how to position a OL in their gap to either close the hole and/or keep the linebacker untouched.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:07 AM ^
you are splitting hairs now. I just wanted to make a joke about Funk.....
you're talking to a former O-lineman and O-Line coach...I get it...
April 15th, 2015 at 11:29 AM ^
Sorry for ruining your joke.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:37 AM ^
you?
8 years would imply college, where did you play?
April 15th, 2015 at 11:47 AM ^
Wish I could say college, but 4 years of little league football, and 4 years high school. Got walk-on "offers" from 2 MAC Schools to jump to the defensive side, but my stupid pride not wanting to tough it out as a practice squad player led me to call it quits there.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:58 AM ^
I was a prefered walk on at GVSU and Saginaw Valley, along with a few others. Same thing though, I had heard so much about walk-ons being practice dummies, on top of politics with scholarsip players and how you are viewed on the team. I don't regret it though, I loved being the typical college kid who didn't have to stay in top end shape.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:14 AM ^
It's called flag football.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^
You're right. And that is what will be left of the NFL if it does not make any concessions for player safety. Either we make the current game safer, or eventually we will get football banned and only have flag football.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:48 AM ^
The theory is the extra protection gives players a false perception of safety. Reduce the padding and armor and the athletes play with a degree less intensity and a degree more caution.
This only succeeds if there are corresponding rules changes. We can't just take helmets away and play the same game as today. Certainly not with the athletes we have today, who are so much bigger and faster than in the old days of no helmets or leather helmets. Certainly not with the incentives to win and get to the NFL we have today.
The rules will need to change to reduce or eliminate a great deal of the contact.
The end result will be something resembling touch or flag football. Some contact, but not the kind of contact we see today.
I'm not arguing against player safety. I'm simply saying if player safety is truly the objective, then do what's necessary to achieve that objective.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:02 AM ^
I don't understand why they don't make soft padding on the outside of helmets? If there are too many concussions, make it thicker. The crack of helmets hitting would be gone, but I imagine that it would be much safer.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^
From what I understand, the concussions are mostly from rapid deceleration of the head. The brain continues to move inside the skull. Brain meets bone.
Would soft padding on the outside of the helmets eliminate the rapid deceleration of the head and thus reduce the movement of the brain? Maybe? I think it depends on the padding. I would imagine someone has looked at this. I don't know the results.
April 15th, 2015 at 12:02 PM ^
April 15th, 2015 at 12:13 PM ^
but would they stick?
April 15th, 2015 at 12:48 PM ^
External padding would soften the impact of collisions, which should (in theory) reduce the whiplash effect on the brain.
April 15th, 2015 at 11:01 AM ^
It's called the Pro-Bowl. People hate it. Everyone screams "IT'S NOT REAL FOOTBALL."
Do you think if every game was played like the Pro-Bowl TV viewership would go up or down?
Revenue?
Ticket Sales?
League wide interest?
The common person loves football because it's a gladiator style of sport. Without that concept, football loses some of its appeal. And if push comes to shove, do you think aspiring players would stay with the current risks for the salaries that are available now or play "safe" football for potenially millions less?
April 15th, 2015 at 11:44 AM ^
My idea has always been limit he amount of time guys can play pro football to 5 years. Maybe change that for different position groups, but I like 5 years. All contracts guaranteed, but 5 years after you've entered the league, you're out. Since the NFL would save money on big time contracts (far more players on rookie contracts, even if those contracts were larger) they could set up a more lucrative retirement fund for all players who play the full 5 years. Sure, you're retired at 27, but you get $250k per year for life, or something like that.
This would limit head injuries (and other injuries) by decreasing the amount of time a player spends playing high-level football and it would also entice players to stay in school and get an education because they know they only have 5 years to earn NFL money.
It would me a huge change and would make the record book (outside of season or game records) obsolete. But it would get a lot of players out before more damage happens to them and it would increase the quality of life of NFL players after retirement.
April 15th, 2015 at 12:35 PM ^
Would the NFL's antitrust exemption extend to this?
I don't know anything about that stuff. I just think it would be a good way to protect the players from themselves while maintaining a lot of the aspects of the sport we love. There's no doubt you can still have brain injuries with a 5 year NFL career, but you're reducing the likelihood.
The NFLPA will never agree to this. The player reps that would vote for this (and I assume all of them are 5+ year veterans) would literally be voting themselves out of a job.
Our society acknowledges and accepts that we are willing to watch people brutalize each other for entertainment. Trade glory and wealth for health. Pro sports owners/profiteers stop pretending they aren't just exploiting the poor for the profit of the rich and so on...
Not saying right/wrong, just that there are other options to ban or make safe.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^
I know, right. Dhani Jones is such a pussy...
April 15th, 2015 at 10:17 AM ^
I understand the concept, but without some form of protection you're going to get broken noses/torn ears/busted mouths on every play, just from incidental contact.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:18 AM ^
It was not uncommon in the early 1900's for people to die during a game. "The Way We Played The Game" is a great book that talks about how rough those times were for players.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^
And football players are so much bigger, stronger, and faster than they were back then. You can build muscle and improve your speed, but you can't make your skin or the cartilage in your nose more resistant to damage.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:18 AM ^
I always wondered why we got rid of leather helmets for hard plastic and that stiff "padding"
April 15th, 2015 at 10:18 AM ^
Without helmets, it is a different game. What is not part of the discussion is that CTE can occur without head to head contact due to decelerative forces that produce whiplash, and removing helmets won't solve this part of the problem.
CTE is a huge problem which in the long term has the potential to slowly kill the game we all love from within. Both my sons played Pop Warner football and then played in HS. That would not happen if I knew then what I know now.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:21 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
April 15th, 2015 at 10:27 AM ^
I share your concerns. I played football through HS and also played hockey. I did martial arts for years and was nailed in the head on several occasions where I had to have incurred minor concussions. I'm older and OK so far, although some might question my sanity. Both of my sons are MD's (doing residencies at Michigan) and neither will allow their kids to play football when they reach the requisite age.
April 15th, 2015 at 10:19 AM ^
Get rid of the facemask and I guarantee that people will stop leading with their heads...
April 15th, 2015 at 10:25 AM ^
concussion dialogue/narrative is getting out of control right now. At the end of the day the people playing the sport know the risks and the (substantial) rewards that come along with playing the game. A lot of people play in the NFL, a portion of them get concussions, a portion of them do not. An overwhelming majority of the players don't suffer any permanent damage, a fraction do. Of that fraction, a very small fraction of them have done things to themselves or others that may or may not have to do with any damage sustained in the NFL. Many more of them are speaking very insightfully and coherently on play-by-play and various sports talk shows nationally.
That is the story - that's it. The Borland story seemst to have elevated this discussion to new heights when I just don't think Borland liked football that much(he had never had a diagnosed concussion) and decided it wasn't for him.