As a rugby "fan", I think they need to remove the helmets or change them. It allows the players to take way too much risk and probably makes concussions worse by allowing them to go into tackles and situations they should not be able to get into.
But I've watched very little American football, so don't take this too seriously.
I've heard former american football players say the same thing. With the amount of padding the players wear, they feel more confident and go for hits they wouldnt if they were less armored
I get the padding, because without it the sport would probably become rugby 2.0. But the helmets and high tackles involving heads, that needs to go from my little knowledge of the sport.
I think you are correct but the NFL and college football at this point are huge profit machines. Making drastic changes presents too big of a risk to the bottom line, so of course nothing will happen. Even if this player dies the NFL will get sued and probably settle with the family, making some token changes, and they won't lose a fan.
Difference being that it's rare in rugby, in my limited experience, to have two players running at full tilt in opposite directions, and it's even rarer that one of those players is defenseless (i.e., in mid-air, focused on a ball not yet in their possession). It seems that rugby players are, more often than not, all traveling in the same direction, so the relative velocity between them at any point of contact is much lower.
Yeah the NFL knows that people running full power into one another is a major driver of injuries, it's why most non-professional leagues now don't do kickoffs and even the pros almost always signal a fair catch (meaning you can tackle them) since those are the plays most likely to hurt someone.
But frankly the big hits are what fans want. It's like crashing in NASCAR - although NFL hits are far more likely to injure you than a modern NASCAR crash lmao.
that one of those players is defenseless (i.e., in mid-air, focused on a ball not yet in their possession
If you make a challenge on someone in this position in rugby it's a red card and a couple game ban afterwards. I remember one of the Springboks pulling a challenge like this and he got a red card even though he was unconscious and being removed from the field.
The crazy thing is that the helmets are probably more advanced than modern military helmets at this point.
I have done a little research on some helmets from the recent round of testing in an academic-adjacent setting, and some of the best scoring ones are using bleeding-edge design, additive manufacturing techniques, and materials -- while being customized for each individual player (and they are over $1000 each).
I'm honestly not sure how much more can be done in the helmet/mechanical realm to protect players. The technology to get accelerometers into the helmets to to generate meaningful and useful data is still problematic, too. They are pouring in millions to this problem as concern continues to grow, and for good reason.
I think you are right that the sport itself would have to change.
I think that the more advanced the helmets will get, the worse the problem becomes. Player will have even more false confidence or security, and attempt more foolish plays.
In this case in particular, it was helmet contact to the chest that seemingly caused the injury. There's really no way they're going to be safe short of 22 Michelin men on the field.
I think the reason we have the helmets we have now is because, historically, people were attempting that tackle helmetless and there were tons of injuries. Football players aren't known for caring too much about head injuries and that's only just starting to change.
As a rugby "fan", I think they need to remove the helmets or change them. It allows the players to take way too much risk and probably makes concussions worse by allowing them to go into tackles and situations they should not be able to get into.
But I've watched very little American football, so don't take this too seriously.
I've heard former american football players say the same thing. With the amount of padding the players wear, they feel more confident and go for hits they wouldnt if they were less armored
Makes sense.
I get the padding, because without it the sport would probably become rugby 2.0. But the helmets and high tackles involving heads, that needs to go from my little knowledge of the sport.
Yeah i think the quote was "if you want to reduce injuries you've got to go back to leather helmets" or something like that
same thing with boxing injuries and ditching the gloves
Those look like old school scrum caps, from what I can see.
I think you are correct but the NFL and college football at this point are huge profit machines. Making drastic changes presents too big of a risk to the bottom line, so of course nothing will happen. Even if this player dies the NFL will get sued and probably settle with the family, making some token changes, and they won't lose a fan.
In fact I think viewers will increase if this guy dies. Americans love bloodsport
Difference being that it's rare in rugby, in my limited experience, to have two players running at full tilt in opposite directions, and it's even rarer that one of those players is defenseless (i.e., in mid-air, focused on a ball not yet in their possession). It seems that rugby players are, more often than not, all traveling in the same direction, so the relative velocity between them at any point of contact is much lower.
Yeah the NFL knows that people running full power into one another is a major driver of injuries, it's why most non-professional leagues now don't do kickoffs and even the pros almost always signal a fair catch (meaning you can tackle them) since those are the plays most likely to hurt someone.
But frankly the big hits are what fans want. It's like crashing in NASCAR - although NFL hits are far more likely to injure you than a modern NASCAR crash lmao.
If you make a challenge on someone in this position in rugby it's a red card and a couple game ban afterwards. I remember one of the Springboks pulling a challenge like this and he got a red card even though he was unconscious and being removed from the field.
The crazy thing is that the helmets are probably more advanced than modern military helmets at this point.
I have done a little research on some helmets from the recent round of testing in an academic-adjacent setting, and some of the best scoring ones are using bleeding-edge design, additive manufacturing techniques, and materials -- while being customized for each individual player (and they are over $1000 each).
I'm honestly not sure how much more can be done in the helmet/mechanical realm to protect players. The technology to get accelerometers into the helmets to to generate meaningful and useful data is still problematic, too. They are pouring in millions to this problem as concern continues to grow, and for good reason.
I think you are right that the sport itself would have to change.
I think that the more advanced the helmets will get, the worse the problem becomes. Player will have even more false confidence or security, and attempt more foolish plays.
In this case in particular, it was helmet contact to the chest that seemingly caused the injury. There's really no way they're going to be safe short of 22 Michelin men on the field.
Yeah, but without helmets I don't think that tackle would ever be attempted. But I don't watch American football so I could be wrong
I think the reason we have the helmets we have now is because, historically, people were attempting that tackle helmetless and there were tons of injuries. Football players aren't known for caring too much about head injuries and that's only just starting to change.