[HN Gopher] Rugby: Head impact study shows cognitive decline aft...
___________________________________________________________________
Rugby: Head impact study shows cognitive decline after just one
season
Author : iechoz6H
Score : 229 points
Date : 2021-08-31 10:04 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
| pixelbreaker wrote:
| I played rugby at school and I'm f-f-f-fine.
| elijaht wrote:
| I played rugby and actively follow it and football but it's
| harder and harder to grapple with the long term consequences of
| these sports as more information about damage especially from
| sub-concussion level impacts comes out. It's hard to imagine but
| I think the NFL will have a serious reckoning over the next 10-20
| years unless they can fix this somehow
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Can they change the rules to any reasonable degree to mitigate
| the risk? Other codes, like Association, are far lower contact
| than the Rugby or American rules.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| You could hypothetically go to something like touch rugby.
| But I don't know how you'd recreate some of the more unique
| features of rugby union, like contested scrums, rucks, and
| mauls. The game would probably look more like touch rugby
| league.
| alichapman wrote:
| I'm not confident that any rule changes will have a
| meaningful impact. It's thought that it isn't just collisions
| to the head that cause a problem, but all tackles. This is
| because your brain gets damaged when it moves around in your
| skull, and this will happen every time your velocity suddenly
| changes e.g. when being tackled to the ground. This is also
| the reason that headguards/scrumcaps aren't effective in
| cutting down on head injuries.
|
| What can be done to protect the players is limiting the
| number of contact training sessions they can attend, and also
| limiting the number of games a season each player is allowed
| to play.
|
| Another option could be to seriously limit the number of
| substitutes each team is allowed to make, as this will mean
| the players will have to be fitter and therefore not as big,
| and hopefully this will reduce the impact each tackle will
| have. However Rugby League is also having to deal with head
| injuries and that game requires a lot more fitness than Rugby
| Union.
| FredPret wrote:
| Or, OR: we put players in control of robots, and have the
| robots smash each other to bits!
| mr_sturd wrote:
| I expect that, like League, Union will lose the contested
| scrum at some point. That will at least lead to a decrease
| in the asymmetry in weight between forward and back. A step
| in the right direction, and nothing really lost in the game
| since scrums aren't _really_ contested any more.
| notahacker wrote:
| I'm not so sure that'll be a good thing for safety
| (collapsed scrums aside).
|
| It'll eliminate a role for stocky, relatively slow moving
| 18 stone players specialising in scrum technique, and
| create more roles for fast, athletic 17 stone players
| specialised in blasting opponents out the way. It'll also
| mean the ball's in play for longer, resulting in more
| impacts overall.
| alichapman wrote:
| I agree. I also can't imagine that World Rugby would
| consider removing one of the two elements of the game
| that differentiate it from Rugby League (the other one
| being contested rucks).
|
| As a League fan I'd love it - I don't care what it's
| called I'd just like more people to play and watch Rugby
| League.
| smcl wrote:
| Yep. They've been tinkering with the scrum ever since I
| was a kid, but to me it feels like they result in a
| collapse, a penalty[0] or one side being totally
| steamrolled 90% of the time. I wish I had stats at hand
| to back this up, but I feel like even though they're
| technically "contested" they're rarely actually
| _contested_.
|
| If it's not enjoyable for spectators, doesn't really do
| much for the game _and_ is dangerous then I can see why
| it could get phased out in the long run.
|
| [0] = or multiple collapses then a penalty
| dmurray wrote:
| I don't think this is accurate. The majority of scrums at
| every level lead either to possession for the team with
| the put-in, or a penalty in their favour. If the weaker
| team has the put-in, they can pretty much roll the ball
| straight back to the number 8 and get it away (possibly
| not in the rules but completely never policed).
|
| It's exciting when either side gets a shove on and that
| there's at least the possibility to win one against the
| head, but I agree the game wouldn't lose that much for
| anyone but the purists and the front row specialists if
| we just moved to uncontested scrums.
| smcl wrote:
| Like I said I don't have the data, so maybe take 90% with
| a grain of salt :-) But some 6 Nations games in recent
| years have been pretty frustrating wrt scrum, and I don't
| see it getting any more interesting or safe
| zerkten wrote:
| There is not a singular risk. In rugby some risks come from
| intentional foul play or accidents (high tackles, disguised
| hits on static players players at rucks and mauls, scrum
| collapses, etc.) Others come from the constant, somewhat
| controlled impacts that exist in normal play. These can
| expose the tackler to the impact versus the individual being
| tackled.
|
| Any discussion on this topic needs to recognise how the game
| of rugby union has changed. It rapidly went from amateur to
| professional, but took some time for the current level of
| power and fitness to develop. You had powerhouses like Lomu
| in the 90s, but from the early-2000s you have legions of Ma'a
| Nonu level players. Safety protocols seem to be pushed down
| to the junior game more readily than the adult professional
| game. Much influence has come from rugby league which
| arguably has popularised particular styles of play that
| hadn't been used in union.
|
| There is much more that could be written about the historical
| changes, but it has made a big difference to safety while
| culturally making it harder to implement changes. Big tackles
| become what many viewers want to see in the game and this
| perpetuates both a style of tackling and bulking up that
| didn't exist before. Line speed is monitored closely and
| everything to improve this results bigger players moving more
| quickly which anecdotally results in more serious impacts.
| Authorities know it, but reducing it makes the game less
| exciting for TV audiences and there is less money to go
| around. It's a vicious cycle.
|
| There are clear and obvious changes which can be tested in
| the game, but pushing these through takes a very long time. A
| concern some have expressed is around impact/tactical
| substitutions (https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/08/14/grossly-
| negligent-lion...). Adding a bunch of fresh players in soccer
| later in the game is common. The thinking carried over to
| rugby. It was attractive because you had chubbies like me at
| the front of the scrum who could perform higher over 40
| minutes than the full 80 minutes. When you are adding huge
| Nonu-types into a game with tiring players then problems can
| occur. I can't imagine that changes will happen here rapidly.
|
| The junior game becomes an easy place to push changes. The
| argument is made that children are being protected, but then
| the changes don't bubble up. Encouraging low tackling under a
| certain age is good, but tactics need to come along with
| these rules. Head-on tackles can go higher head-on because
| you are trying to hold the player up or in place versus
| taking them down and possibly allowing them a few feet past
| you to touch the ball down for a try. It's all interlinked.
|
| In summary: yes, but it's up to the leaders to drive changes
| top down at all levels and accept that they may lose some
| revenue.
|
| (I played rugby all through school from 1992 to 1999 in
| Ireland and have followed local global play since. For all
| the sides of Nonu see
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVpAjSN6Nc and then
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdEKqoOdhM0 - but, many other
| could be substituted in his place.)
| notahacker wrote:
| > Head-on tackles can go higher head-on because you are
| trying to hold the player up or in place versus taking them
| down and possibly allowing them a few feet past you to
| touch the ball down for a try
|
| That's the crux of the problem. Low tackles are very
| efficient at bringing a player down to earth (especially if
| you're as skinny as I was in the kids' game) but they won't
| reverse his momentum if he's trying to get a yard beyond
| you (especially not if he's got the physique and low body
| position of a professional) or prevent him from offloading.
| So a rule change to enforce it and ban chest high tackles
| makes it very easy for a well drilled professional team to
| slowly move their way upfield with a relentless Warrenball-
| style series of impacts. Not necessarily safer overall, as
| well as duller to watch because they're so unlikely to lose
| the ball or even a yard in the tackle, which also
| discourages riskier creative plays. Probably you need more
| of a contest at the ruck to balance things out and give the
| other side a way of winning the ball back, but most of the
| rucking rules are there for safety reasons...
| mprovost wrote:
| The rules of American football were changed in response to
| the 1905 season when 19 college players died. Instead of
| banning the sport completely, they started allowing forward
| passes. Which completely changed the game and made it safer.
| andyjenn wrote:
| There are almost constant rule changes around the tackle
| laws, the breakdown and de-powering the scrum to reduce the
| amount of potential head trauma, but the professional era
| it's like an arms race. Even padding and head-gear, players
| seem to hit with even more force. And, like the article says,
| a lot of the concussions happen during the training sessions
| which is way more than the average amateur player would
| experience. It's still relatively soon to see the longer-term
| effects; the early batch of professionals from the mid/late
| 90s will soon be entering their 60s and I expect there will
| be more research papers..
| jabl wrote:
| IIRC there are results around brain damage in association
| football as well, mostly due to players heading the ball.
|
| Guess nobody has dared suggest prohibiting head playing in
| association football. Would be interesting to see how the
| game would change if such a rule would be enacted.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Guess nobody has dared suggest prohibiting head playing
| in association football.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/jul/28/major-
| headi...
| tzs wrote:
| I can see three ways to get rid of heading.
|
| 1. Just ban it, with the same penalties as using your
| hands. I used to think that this was the way to go, but I
| rarely watched soccer. I still don't understand soccer but
| over the last week I've watched a fair bit [1] and see now
| that simply removing headers without replacing them would
| alter the game too much.
|
| 2. Have the players wear something like a tennis racquet
| but with a longer handle attached to their back with the
| head of it extending above the player's head. Players can
| hit the ball with this instead of the head. Hitting with
| their head is treated like using their hands as in #1.
|
| This is one of those things that would probably be seen as
| fine if and only if it has been done that way for a long
| time. Otherwise, it is too ridiculous to seriously propose.
|
| 3. Players can deflect the ball with the part of their arm
| between the elbow and the wrist, but only if the elbow is
| above the ears. "Above" is defined relative to the player's
| orientation, not relative to the ground.
|
| This seems like it could be a close enough replacement for
| heading to not alter things too much.
|
| [1] I have a "free" (it is really a rental with $0/month
| rent) streaming box from my ISP that includes a free
| Peacock Premium subscription. The ISP noticed I rarely use
| it and asked me to return it if I'm not going to use it
| more. Everything I'm interested in on it I can get on my
| Fire TV or on my smart TV, including Peacock. But I'm not
| sure if the free Peacock Premium would continue, so instead
| I'm trying to use the "free" box more. One way I've done
| that is when I'm relaxing on the couch and not otherwise
| using the TV I've streamed replays and highlights from
| soccer, both to keep up usage on the box and to see if by
| watching enough soccer I'll eventually start to see that it
| only looks largely random and there really is a lot of
| skill and strategy and tactics involved.
| jabl wrote:
| I have a another proposal:
|
| 4. Using head is prohibited, just like hands. Instead
| allow using the shoulders, maybe down to the elbow. From
| elbow downwards towards the hand still prohibited.
| nicolas_t wrote:
| I love that second suggestion :)
|
| It's always interesting how games evolve and the fact
| that any rule of any game could seem ridiculous if it
| hadn't been that way for a long time.
| kitd wrote:
| There are guidelines around heading at junior level:
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51614088
|
| But it's one thing to not practise it, and another to
| actually ban it. I can see the latter in <5 years at all
| levels if the current research is followed up correctly.
| tomjohnneill wrote:
| Paywalled, but:
| https://theathletic.com/2755968/2021/08/09/cox-is-heading-
| ab...
|
| The main suggestion is that heading could be banned outside
| the 2 penalty boxes.
| FredPret wrote:
| Ultimately it's a game of large, athletic people smashing
| into one another. Short of playing touch rugby and
| eliminating scrums, it'll never be safe.
|
| But then it's not rugby anymore
| ihaveajob wrote:
| My experience with high school rugby was that head impacts were
| exceedingly rare. Lots of bruises, though. The showers after a
| game were loud, with kids screaming their pain away.
|
| I stopped in college because I didn't have time (or will) for the
| gym, and it suddenly wasn't fun to play against people several
| years older than you. I imagine American football would be much
| worse in terms because of the external protection provided by the
| padding and helmets. It hurts more to hit skin to skin, so you
| don't do it so much, and when you do, it's carefully. But in
| older age, and professional settings, I imagine things are
| different.
| zeku wrote:
| My HS rugby(USA) someone got a concussion pretty much every
| single game.
|
| I decided to quit the sport after HS despite how fun it is,
| it's not worth my future.
| xadhominemx wrote:
| Severe head impacts are rare but I used to play rugby and felt
| like my head was jostled hard several times a day, and I would
| often finish practice or a match with scrapes and bruises on my
| head.
| jackschultz wrote:
| I'm in the US and had sort of a reckoning against out football a
| few years ago after a medical incident of mine. I used to be a
| big watcher of the NFL, mostly because my team was really good,
| but suddenly I had trouble watching week after week guys getting
| drilled in the head and being carted off to have their career
| ends. These league average numbers [1] are horrible to think
| about, with how little tie running backs play when they're able
| to make money (screw the NCAA) and they get hit every play.
|
| One of the arguments on a change that could help is a big
| transition back to old school leather helmets, or no helmets.
| There's been much talk about safety of rugby compared to
| football, especially from armchair thinkers [2]. Some of the
| answers in that Quora thread are agreeing with the result of this
| article, where rugby isn't exactly that much safer regardless of
| lack of helmet or tackling style. Heck even soccer is having to
| come to terms with headers causing head injuries later in life
| [3].
|
| With more "lower" impact sports like rugby (not that much lower,
| but has been considered lower) and soccer coming out with so much
| head injury reports, I wonder how long we'll be stuck with
| popularity of the NFL. Brett Favre, a quarterback from the south,
| came out and said to not have kids play tackle until they're 14.
| But when they turn 14? It's not like that risk goes away.
|
| I'm lucky for myself that I like watching baseball and basketball
| the most so I don't have to think deal with watching head
| injuries that last lifetimes for the players. Or maybe that's why
| I like watching those two team sports the most.
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/240102/average-player-
| ca...
|
| [2] https://www.quora.com/Would-the-NFL-or-football-in-
| general-b...
|
| [3] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-
| shots/2017/02/01/5128481...
|
| [4] https://www.npr.org/2021/08/17/1028547803/brett-favre-
| kids-f...
| alistairSH wrote:
| _Brett Favre, a quarterback from the south, came out and said
| to not have kids play tackle until they 're 14. But when they
| turn 14? It's not like that risk goes away._
|
| IIRC, his statement was based on CTE studies on the brains of
| ex-high school (but not ex-college/NFL) players. Of the sample,
| those with signs of CTE had played youth football as well as
| high school ball. Only one CTE sample did not play youth ball
| (and the rest of the high-school-only samples did not have
| CTE).
|
| Gist of it being that playing youth ball through high school
| puts you at a significantly higher risk of CTE than high school
| only. But, you are correct that any time spent playing has
| risks.
| dr-detroit wrote:
| Pro cyclists sometimes die from crashes where do you draw the
| line in sport safety?
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Somewhere between "this is a threat to every participant in the
| sport and most of them actively deny the threat while
| recruiting children to play" and "it happens upon occasion".
| unclekev wrote:
| > Pro cyclists sometimes die from crashes
|
| The difference here being the cyclists are not purposely
| driving their bikes into cars/objects vs being rugby being an
| actual 'contact sport'
| thinkharderdev wrote:
| I'm not so sure about that. Obviously pro cyclists aren't
| purposely crashing but the nature of the sport is to put
| yourself in extremely dangerous situations on a regular
| basis. Descending at 60+ mph on narrow, wet roads. Sprints
| where they are riding in excess of 35ph in VERY close
| quarters with other riders, etc. Not to mention the long term
| health consequences of maintaining an extremely low body fat
| percentage for long periods of time.
|
| The parent is being downvoted for a "what about X?" response
| but I think it is actually a legitimate question to ask.
| Almost every elite sport carries with it serious health and
| safety risks.
|
| But to counter their concern I would argue that elite sports
| almost always carry health risks, may amateur sports do not
| and are broadly beneficial. Contact sports such as American
| Football, Rugby, etc however are in a different class where
| the amateur athletes are also putting themselves at
| significant risk.
| jtbayly wrote:
| Great question. It's not easy to answer where to draw the line
| with risks.
|
| One difference is that a bicycle accident is an accident,
| whereas contact sports it is part of the game to hit each
| other. So it's less a question of whether a rare event might
| happen to you, and more a question of what is this common event
| doing to me?
| marttt wrote:
| Reminds me of John Urschel, MIT mathematician who quit his NFL
| career because he was afraid of possible brain damage. Looks like
| he finished his PhD in 2021 [0]. Congrats!
|
| Apparently, Urschel had suffered a concussion a few years before
| his decision [1, 2]. There was also an interesting, semi-related
| HN thread about football and brain trauma earlier [3].
|
| 0: https://math.mit.edu/~urschel/
|
| 1: https://archive.is/RG9tg
|
| 2: https://news.mit.edu/2019/student-john-urschel-math-
| football...
|
| 4: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16291827
| reedf1 wrote:
| He has written a book as well! Now if he can play an instrument
| and embroider he'd be my choice for the human general talent
| gauntlet.
| gumby wrote:
| He put in the time to qualify for a league pension, then quit
| then quit the NFL. Somehow this overlapped with his time as a
| masters student (source, iirc, alumni section of technology
| review).
| antasvara wrote:
| He's got a solid book [1] with some insight into his decisions.
| He's an interesting guy- definitely worth a read.
|
| [1] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/557242/mind-and-
| mat...
| notjustanymike wrote:
| Watching or playing?
| nayuki wrote:
| You can get head impact from watching?
| [deleted]
| ren_engineer wrote:
| Football and Rugby get a lot of attention but soccer also has
| major issues with heading the ball for low impact and major head
| injuries when people accidentally hit heads. In America girl's
| soccer is actually a close 2nd place finisher to boys football
| when it comes to diagnosed concussions
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I played rugby for a few seasons, and I had several concussions.
| I never blacked out, but I temporarily lost my ability to speak
| (several minutes), as well as got emotional. I cried though I
| wasn't upset, then I would get enraged even though I wasn't mad
| at anything (except maybe getting a concussion).
|
| I'm in my 30s now, and I can't remember things like I used to. I
| can be thinking of something, and it "just disappears". I feel
| like my mind behaves like a 65 year old, not a 30-something. I
| used to have a lot more focus, more dedication to certain things,
| and it's harder now.
|
| I don't know what combination of growing older, drinking, or
| concussions have caused my issues. And it's hard to say I regret
| playing, because it was fun and a part of who I am. However,
| concussions are not a joke, and I wish more players had the sense
| to step away from the game after getting a small number, rather
| than thinking "it's normal" and playing for 20-30 years.
| noname_jabroni wrote:
| This is very close to my experience. I played rugby for 10
| years and had multiple concussions (2 that knocked me out).
|
| After one concussion I went through a period where I would get
| emotional and angry, especially when drinking (i.e. have 2
| beers, black out, and then black-in crying).
|
| I quit drinking about 2 years ago (I'm in my early 30s) and the
| mental clarity has been incredible. I had a tendency to drink
| heavily when I drank (about weekly) and so if you're struggling
| with memory issues I'd suggest giving sobriety a chance for a
| month or two to see if it makes a difference.
| make3 wrote:
| I don't know why it's not more of a mainstream opinion to try to
| make these sports as unpopular as possible or to straight up make
| them illegal to play in how ever many official settings as you
| can manage, including highschools at the very least.
|
| It's very fucking bad, everyone knows this. I don't know how long
| it will take for people to get it.
| nayuki wrote:
| > players saw a decline in blood flow to the brain and cognitive
| function - the ability to ... perform mental gymnastics.
|
| Avoiding mental gymnastics can't be a bad thing, right?
| nostromo wrote:
| _Professional_ rugby. This isn 't going to be a typical outcome
| for you or me.
|
| I play rec league rugby and find that it's a great way to stay in
| shape and meet new people. More people would be healthy if we
| encouraged people to continue to play sports throughout life,
| including contact sports.
| Permit wrote:
| > This isn't going to be a typical outcome for you or me.
|
| Can you elaborate? What makes you say that with such
| confidence? Is amateur rugby non-contact?
|
| Edit: Digging into it a little bit there does appear to be some
| anecdotal evidence of CTE among amateur rugby players:
| https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/13/rugby-dementia...
|
| > "I've seen quite a number of rugby players in the last five
| to 10 years with CTE pathology in the brain, and none of them
| has been professional - they all come from the amateur era."
|
| I don't think we can say definitively that CTE will be an issue
| for amateur rugby players but I think that's only because of a
| lack of studies not because any study has suggested amateur
| players don't suffer from CTE.
| catchmilk wrote:
| It's interesting to see that this issue is rather controversial
| within the Rugby/NFL world, whereas other sports it's almost a
| given?
|
| Boxing, for example, has pretty damaging long-term side-effects
| with notable legends dying prematurely. But nobody is really
| making Hollywood movies about it (like Concussions starring Will
| Smith). I wonder whether Rugby/NFL is just headed towards the
| direction of these sort of consequences becoming accepted as
| being 'part of the sport'.
| sp332 wrote:
| I think no one made a movie about it because we already know.
| The Will Smith movie was all about people resisting and denying
| the idea in football.
| Igelau wrote:
| _Requiem for a Heavyweight (1962)_ takes a pretty good look at
| that. It has a neat POV segment at the beginning that shows a
| fight with Cassius Clay through the eyes of the main character.
|
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056406/
|
| And well... there's also Rocky V...
| wil421 wrote:
| Years go UFC advocates would state it was much safer than
| boxing because you'd get knocked out easier and wouldn't go
| round after round getting repeatedly knocked in the head. Not
| sure if the argument was valid but time will tell.
| nradov wrote:
| UFC/MMA fights often involve a lot of grappling and kicks to
| the lower body, which aren't allowed in boxing. All else
| being equal a boxing match tends to contain a lot more head
| strikes. But obviously neither sport is particularly "safe".
| diehunde wrote:
| There were similar arguments in boxing regarding the use of
| headgear[1].
|
| [1] https://www.wired.com/2016/08/olympic-boxers-arent-
| wearing-h...
| pessimizer wrote:
| And in cigarette smoking regarding the use of filters.
| dyingkneepad wrote:
| The early Vale Tudo/MMA/UFC legends are just now starting to
| get at the age they can show the symptoms. I guess the next
| decade will be interesting in terms of showing the results.
|
| You already have people like Wanderlei Silva openly talking
| about their symptoms, and it's clearly this guy has got
| something (he admits so!). On the other hand, the type of
| crazy stuff Wand did is not what people do these days. Wand
| believed being knocked out would make you more resistant to
| knockouts! If you have a few spare years to learn Portuguese
| I highly recommend watching the many interviews he has on
| Youtube where he talks about this.
| Igelau wrote:
| > you'd get knocked out easier
|
| A knockout in MMA includes a much wider category of ways to
| lose, e.g. tapping out from an arm-bar and conceding to your
| opponent counts as a knockout.
|
| Also, boxing has the big gloves that let you all but punch
| someone's head off, and "below the belt" is set _way_ too
| high, effectively eliminating body punches from the sport.
| blunte wrote:
| What did they say about being kicked in the head multiple
| times?
|
| Being hit by a car is not so bad as being hit by a bus. You
| still want neither.
| mastazi wrote:
| The difference between boxing and MMA is not just punches
| vs kicks.
|
| For example, the two rulesets are different with regards to
| how a fight ends. In MMA there is no count if you get
| knocked down, you either show that you can defend yourself
| immediately after being dropped, or the referee will end
| the fight declaring a TKO. In boxing this doesn't normally
| happen, after a knock down the referee starts counting so
| you have a few seconds to "recover", and often you have to
| be knocked down more than once before the referee declares
| a TKO.
|
| There is also a difference with regards to punches
| specifically, due to 4oz gloves being used in MMA (they
| allow grappling but they have less padding than the gloves
| used in boxing). Is it more damaging being punched once
| with little padding, or a few times with more padding? I've
| seen arguments one way or the other and since I'm not a
| doctor I don't know which ones are correct.
|
| Anecdotally, Olympic boxing removed head protection gear a
| few years ago because they conducted a study where they
| observed that not wearing headgear, counter intuitively,
| resulted in fewer injuries[1].
|
| I know nothing about medical topics but I'm curious and
| would like to read more studies about brain damage in
| combat sports.
|
| [1] https://www.wired.com/2016/08/olympic-boxers-arent-
| wearing-h...
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| I suspect being kicked in the head once is going to do a
| lot more damage than being punched 20 times personally.
| yonaguska wrote:
| It's also a lot less likely that you'll get kicked in the
| head though. Successfully getting a head kick off on
| someone is _hard_ , especially when they are allowed to
| tackle and grapple.
|
| Doubly so since you can't do various strikes against
| someone's head once they have three points of contact
| with the ground. No knees or kicks to the head when down
| like the early UFC days.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I think the ratio of kicks to the head in the mean MMA
| bout and punches to the head in the mean boxing match is
| a _lot_ more than 1:20; probably closer to 1:500.
| mastazi wrote:
| My intuition is that many less powerful strikes are worse
| for your health than one very powerful one. But I'm not a
| doctor and that's just a wild guess. I would like to see
| some studies about this.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| Yes, the perceived risk profiles regarding head injury are
| different between the two sports of "grab the ball and run" and
| "punch him in the head".
| antasvara wrote:
| My theory is that boxing's effects are clear and obvious,
| whereas football and rugby have portrayed themselves as more
| safe in the past. The NFL spent years keeping CTE research down
| to prevent people seeing their concussion issues, where boxing
| literally has people getting knocked out in the ring.
|
| People tend to be more accepting of sports when they own their
| issues and cater to their specific viewers. People who have a
| problem with concussions and violence just don't watch boxing,
| so boxing doesn't have to pretend that head injuries aren't an
| issue. They may not publicize the CTE aspect of the sport, but
| I don't think they're hiding from it to the same extent as
| rugby and the NFL.
|
| As an aside, I will point out that MMA has mandatory medical
| suspensions in place after fights that are usually longer than
| the average football player's stay in the concussion protocol.
| That's not to say that MMA is better for your head (because it
| most likely isn't), just that the sport recognizes that
| concussions are an issue, and that the only thing that fixes
| them is time.
| rapsey wrote:
| Because boxing is a minor sport in comparison. Way to many
| billions at stake in football and rugby.
| dmurray wrote:
| Boxing is one of the biggest sports in the world. Rugby is
| pretty niche.
| phaemon wrote:
| That's completely wrong I'm afraid. In terms of popularity
| (number of fans) Rugby is about as popular as American
| Football, at around 9th most popular sport.
|
| The top two are 1. Association Football (aka soccer), 2.
| Cricket
|
| Boxing doesn't make the top 10.
| pessimizer wrote:
| The rise of MMA severely damaged the popularity of
| boxing.
| Retric wrote:
| Boxing is somewhat popular to watch, but we don't have high
| school boxing with large numbers of participants at most
| schools. I am fine with adults taking such risks with their own
| bodies knowing the risks, but it's another thing when public
| school teams enter the equation.
|
| Replacing full contact high school football with say flag
| football or soccer would be unpopular, but continuing is an
| ethically dubious proposition.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Hopefully, more ex-NFLers will follow in Favre's steps and
| come out against youth tackle football...
|
| https://www.npr.org/2021/08/17/1028547803/brett-favre-
| kids-f...
| mcbuilder wrote:
| That's great that Favre came out to say that; he's
| considered one of the toughest players to ever play the
| game.
| catchmilk wrote:
| Boxing training starts at a very young age, especially
| because parents/kids know the kind of money and fame a
| professional boxer can achieve. That being said, I take your
| point on it being part of the high school programs. Begs the
| question on whether parents should be allowed to put their
| children into sports with long-term effects at all. As other
| threads mention, this would be hugely unpopular.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| > especially because parents/kids know the kind of money
| and fame a professional boxer can achieve.
|
| Oh come on. Even among professional sports boxing seems
| incredibly unlikely to pay off as a career move.
| pessimizer wrote:
| But since probably 100x times as many kids play
| basketball or football than box, your odds are probably
| similar.
|
| Also, I'd counter-intuitively bet that careers in boxing
| (when found) are longer lasting than in pro football. Pro
| football players get very moderate money for what tends
| to be extremely short careers that leave a lot of damage.
| My grandfather couldn't walk for the last 10 years of his
| life from football damage to his knees he picked up 60
| years before.
| diehunde wrote:
| True. Olympic medallist Tony Jeffries made a video about
| this a couple of days ago[1]. Even if you become pro,
| chances are you won't be making any significant money.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiqJh0oG9dM
| FredPret wrote:
| There are a lot of dreamers out there
| navbaker wrote:
| Saying it would be "unpopular" is an understatement. If
| someone has never spent time around football fans or lived in
| an area of the country where football is king, it's hard to
| explain exactly how ingrained it is in American culture.
| Trying to offramp a large amount of the population into a
| less violent sport would likely immediately be highly
| politicized and, I would assume, an almost impossible task
| without a significant, voluntary change in peoples'
| willingness to sacrifice their thrilling weekend of violence
| for the good of all these kids that grow up trying to be the
| next NFL pro.
| richk449 wrote:
| Solution: require a surgical mask to be worn under football
| helmet.
|
| You would have football boycotts in no time.
| joelbluminator wrote:
| I used Ruby for years without apparent decline
| pawelduda wrote:
| I developed GIL. Don't do Ruby.
| robmccoll wrote:
| I also read it "Ruby" and then laughed at myself.
| dboreham wrote:
| I was required to take Rugby in school, but I engaged at the
| minimum level possible: I was sent off once by the coach for
| failing to make physical contact with other players. Sounds like
| I dodged a bullet.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| >I engaged at the minimum level possible
|
| That was my approach to all sport at school.
| eggy wrote:
| I played rugby in high school, and I was surprised at how much
| you don't hit your head intentionally like you do in American
| football. You use your shoulders, torso, and arms, or at least
| that is how we were trained. Sure, you hit your head
| occasionally, but sometimes in a maul you find yourself clasping
| your hands behind your head in a maul to guard the ball against
| the opposition, while your team tries to hook the ball out of
| your stomach side, while you are laying down in a fetal position
| on the pitch!
|
| I still think American football players maximize power off the
| line, feel protected by helmets and shoulder pads, and basically
| create a more powerful jolt when they hit heads instead of
| shoulder pads. When you're not wearing a helmet, you tend to
| become better at protecting your head against intentional hits.
|
| Then again Garryownens can result in being hit like a freight
| train if you decide to catch it!
| snapetom wrote:
| About three or four years ago, college football formally
| implemented a targeting (helmet to helmet contact) rule that
| had immediate impact on the way tackling is taught in college
| and high school. Players are now taught to tackle shoulder
| first in certain situations or go for the legs in others. Pros
| have a looser, inconsistently applied, personal foul rule, but
| we're starting to see the techniques taught at lower levels in
| the pros.
|
| Mind you, it's still an incredibly violent game, who knows if
| the new measures will make a difference, and we'll probably see
| shorter careers due to leg injuries.
| smcl wrote:
| For non-rugby types, here's a Garryowen:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmdqLiEvYw4
| engineer_22 wrote:
| I don't know what I'm looking for, there's several stages of
| play in that clip, is a garyowen where they collide in
| midair?
| Jenk wrote:
| A "Garryowen" is very high, but not that long, kick. It's a
| kick where the intent is to have your own team catch it.
| Let's say you are the fullback and you are facing a wall of
| approaching opposition, charging at you. All of your team
| are ahead of you, too, so they are of no use. Blocking is
| illegal. The opposition are not allowed to tackle you if
| you don't have the ball, so you kick it up high, over their
| heads, and run past them, catch it, and carry on running.
| The opposition's inertia will keep them going past the ball
| (and you) so when you regain the ball, you'll have a clear
| field ahead of you.
|
| That's the dream.
|
| The reality is you now have a field of fast, heavy, people
| running toward the same spot on the field, all looking
| straight-up at the ball that is now 50ft in the air,
| unaware they are about to collide in a wind-taking, bone-
| crunching crash.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| My team called that the eagle, but yeah - I've seen
| people knock themselves out making that play.
| smcl wrote:
| Thanks, a better explanation
| maccard wrote:
| It's the high kick.
| smcl wrote:
| edit: just read Jenk's comment :)
| avnigo wrote:
| What you wrote reminded me of an article on the bike helmet
| paradox:
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/03/the-bike-...
| ehnto wrote:
| It's definitely a weird kind of embarrassment, I won't
| pretend it doesn't exist. But it's one of those hurdles that
| are so small in retrospect, you wonder how you ever let it
| stop you from experiencing all the benefits of a cycling rich
| life. I think it's because until you've experienced it, you
| don't realize how much is on offer on the other side of the
| fence.
|
| In my own city I wouldn't ride without one, but in a more
| shared space friendly city, like famously in many cities in
| Japan, I wouldn't be as inclined to wear one. If I'm riding
| at 30kmph right next to traffic, you bet I want a helmet. But
| < 20kmph in and out of foot traffic, or properly shared
| slower roads, then I wouldn't worry about it.
| abraae wrote:
| I used to feel the same. Then I was with my 8 year old son,
| me running alongside him cycling on a path in a green be
| grassy park. He lost his balance and slowly rolled over and
| banged his head on the only damn rock in the entire path.
| Fortunately he had his helmet on.
| ihaveajob wrote:
| I am somewhat similar. The irony is that when you're riding
| next to traffic, a helmet offers little protection against
| being hit by a car. The biggest gains are solo crashes
| against the asphalt, with no cars involved. So if I'm
| riding a city bike for fun or chores, I may not wear a
| helmet (especially a shared bike). But if I'm riding the
| hills for sport, helmet on every time.
| cortesoft wrote:
| > a helmet offers little protection against being hit by
| a car
|
| This doesn't seem true? A lot of people who get hit by a
| car end up falling to the ground, where they can hit
| their head on the concrete.
| teachrdan wrote:
| Anecdote incoming: I was hit by a car while bicycling
| home one night about ten years ago. I was knocked over
| and broke my collarbone in two places. I remember
| thinking at the hospital, "It's amazing I didn't hit my
| head. A broken clavicle really isn't that bad." (it's
| basically nature's crumple zone)
|
| Only a couple days later did I think to check my helmet.
| It had a huge crack on the outside and two smaller ones
| on the inside. I absolutely smashed my head on the
| pavement. That helmet saved me from serious head trauma,
| if not worse.
|
| From a random stranger on the internet: Please wear your
| helmet while bicycling. There are many ways to end up
| hitting your head after a bike crash, and all of them are
| bad.
| frereubu wrote:
| I second this. A car pulled out in front of me once - I
| went over the handlebars, landed on my hip and my head
| whiplashed onto the tarmac. If I hadn't had my helmet on
| it's very likely that I would have fractured my skull,
| including all of the attendant risks of serious brain
| injury.
| privong wrote:
| > The irony is that when you're riding next to traffic, a
| helmet offers little protection against being hit by a
| car.
|
| It may save you from head trauma as a result of a car
| hitting you, either from your head hitting the pavement
| or the car.
| Tarsul wrote:
| on a tangent: the effect described there that a helmet
| hinders taking up biking certainly applies to me. A friend
| gifted me a bike helmet (i always cycle 20km to him) and when
| I tried it out, it sucked all my joy out of biking and I
| thought: huh, taking the train would be more fun. I realized
| that it doesn't make sense to take the train just because I
| don't like the helmet and went on biking without it. However,
| I also don't like headsets with noise-cancelling and there
| must be something with my head/ears or something that's
| different from most (?) people so my suggestion for everyone
| else: at least try a helmet. But if you don't like it, don't
| stop biking just because (unless your city has no respect for
| bikers, then don't bike at all).
| cortesoft wrote:
| Can you elaborate on how the bike helmet sucked all the joy
| out of biking?
| frereubu wrote:
| You get used to it. Only have tried it once doesn't seem
| like giving it a fair go - if you spent the whole ride
| concentrating on the helmet I'm sure it felt annoying, but
| if you wear it for every ride for a month you'd likely
| forget it was there. It may also have been the wrong size,
| and there's a wide variety of weights / styles out there to
| choose from. It took me a while to find one that I actually
| felt comfortable in.
| GordonS wrote:
| Reminds me playing rugby at high school... one time I dived to
| catch the ball, and went head-first into an (unpadded) goal
| post, knocking myself out cold :( What an absolute eejit!
|
| I played casually off an on for a few years, and that was the
| only head injury I ever received.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| The whiplash from getting tackled in the shoulder is enough to
| cause a concussion itself.
| jl6 wrote:
| The idea that armor _increases_ injury risk is a fascinating
| case study of unintended consequences.
|
| Similar "safety irony" claims I've heard include:
|
| * Mandatory bike helmet laws increase total risk to life
| because having to wear a helmet deters people from cycling so
| they drive instead, and thus miss out on the increased cardio
| health they would have got from cycling.
|
| * Trains are too safe, meaning they have to meet such stringent
| safety criteria that the costs are raised to the point that
| people drive instead, and driving is much more dangerous.
|
| And my favorite personal anecdote: a ruined castle in Portugal
| which had a staircase leading up to a high ledge with no
| barrier. It was so obviously dangerous that everyone was taking
| a lot of care up there...
| dfsegoat wrote:
| Played rugby (college and usa d1 mens club) and American
| football in highschool.
|
| I've never felt like I got my bell rung (severe impact) as much
| as I did in American football.
|
| That said, I do feel like between the drinking culture of
| rugby, and the small impacts of tackling and going to ground, I
| certainly did some damage.
| switchbak wrote:
| I played a bunch of football myself. While others may deny it,
| there really exists an intentional tactic of crashing into
| opponents with your helmet. Especially on the line. I did it a
| lot myself.
|
| The additional protection from armor very much does lead to an
| increase in the velocity of hits. This results in very high
| forces, and while you might not see broken bones, there's often
| injuries still happening.
|
| I had about three months of foggy brain after I stopped
| playing. Now there's just no way I'd let a child of mine play
| that sport. I had a great time and learned a lot, but it's just
| not worth it, even just at the high school level.
| zwaps wrote:
| Football helmets also used to be really heavy and hard.
|
| In my time, we were unaware of the negative effects, so we
| used our helmets as a weapon. This was normal. It worked.
|
| For example, if you are a running back with sufficient mass,
| come in low with high speed and manage to place your helmet
| on the helmet of the defender (who is often moving laterally)
| you could literally knock them out.
|
| During kick off, you could have two players running into each
| other full speed from 50 yards out. Of course the person who
| is willing to go fully into contact will win. The person
| going for a Rugby style tackle might land on his behind.
|
| The force of such impacts was immense. I have had my metal
| face shield broken out of the helmet. I have seen broken jaws
| from the impact, people getting knocked out, having
| concussions.
|
| I am horrified about the things they let us do in the 90's.
| Even in practice, these contact drills that were designed to
| take away your fear of contact, teach you to use your body as
| a weapon.
|
| I just hope it is different today, but if I have kids, they
| will not play Football
| FredPret wrote:
| I grew up playing rugby, but that ends with me. My kids
| aren't playing either
| dougmwne wrote:
| In the 00's we may not have had the scientific backing yet,
| but the common knowledge was that football was scrambling
| the players' brains. As we were still in the last stages of
| the transition away from a manufacturing economy into a
| knowledge economy, there was still a popular perception
| that intellectual capacity was not really needed in men who
| would be much better off learning self-sacrifice, physical
| endurance, pain tolerance and willingness to abuse their
| bodies for the good of the group, all great skills for blue
| collar workers but not much needed in white collar jobs.
| toss1 wrote:
| Yup, knew a guy who played in the Rose Bowl, had a bunch of
| NFL offers.
|
| He passed and went to a corporate job.
|
| While his concern was constant knee injuries, his key
| statement was "I want to be able to walk when I'm 45".
|
| Wise choice.
| toss1 wrote:
| Edit: This was before the knowledge about TBI became
| widespread, so in some ways, his ability to look forward to
| the results of his older peers was even more prescient.
| collsni wrote:
| dude i dont remember my junior and senior year of highschool
| due to football. I turned down college scolarships due to how
| dangerous it is. sophomore year i fractured my distal femur.
| grogenaut wrote:
| We had that (leading with the head) in the 90s as an old
| school training for o-line in Missouri. However at the time
| they had switched the good players on the line to just using
| their hands as they had started allowing grabbing "inside the
| numbers". Still took a while for the transition to trickle
| down.
|
| All of the higher end camps and college camps taught using
| hands. Then I played in college, the people who hit with
| their heads on the line were hopelessly outclassed. We had a
| senior who was a physical monster but just loved using his
| shoulder/head to block, he never was put on the field (dude
| got a PHD in high energy lasers at the same time). It
| massively limits visibility and frankly, you can't HOLD with
| your head, which is, again, legal. Your hands are massively
| better. And the right amount of work in the weight-room you
| get your chest and triceps as big as most people's arms, you
| end up being able to double hit people. First hit is coming
| in with the arms and stopping their momentum by bending your
| arms. Second hit is that you can literally bench press them
| so you then shove them very quickly off balance or to the
| ground.
|
| Even when we did less than savory tactics, often out of
| desperation, like a leg whip
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHdPcaRAkeg watch the
| running back in the first 5 seconds come in from the left)
| they taught us to have our heads up looking for the next
| person to block.
|
| The coaches we had in high school were not very smart and
| were doing it as a part time job based on what they
| remembered from high school. The coaches in college were
| professionals and did constant training and improvement.
| marianov wrote:
| I played rugby and there is no way I'll let my children play.
| Spinal injuries from scrum collapses are way too common, and
| there is a view of scrum being a fundamental part of the
| sport so they only mitigate it by not pushing in scrum until
| a certain age, doing 3 against 3 scrums and so on. By the
| time the boys are 15 they like the game and start playing
| hard and getting hurt. I'd rather have them row, run, play
| soccer, surf, and so many other options
| amenghra wrote:
| _I 'd rather have them row, run, play soccer, surf, and so
| many other options_
|
| This. While all sports can lead to injuries, there are so
| many enjoyable sports with lower injury risks out there.
| I'd rather teach my kids activities they can enjoy their
| entire lives -- well past their youth vs something high
| impact.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| To be clear, there are unspoken concussion issues with many
| sports. It was only recently that soccer began to take
| concussions seriously from headers by banning them from some
| youth leagues.
|
| That said, I would also never allow my children to play
| gridiron football. Even if concussions weren't a thing,
| people leave that sports with lifelong injuries.
| svrtknst wrote:
| This is an increasingly common sentiment among hockey players
| too, that softer shoulder pads could be a way to decrease
| head trauma
| lc9er wrote:
| I can't find it now, but there's a Bobby Clarke quote about
| modern protective equipment being like armor. This gives
| players a false sense of invulnerability and the tools to
| hit other players harder with less damage to themselves.
| dyingkneepad wrote:
| Well, olympic boxing concluded that not wearing helmets
| is safer for the athletes.
| Someone wrote:
| In boxing, it is argued that not wearing gloves would
| decrease head trauma, too.
|
| Hitting a skull with your bare fist is more likely to break
| your hand than to knock out your opponent, so bare-knuckle
| fighters won't go for head punches as much as boxers do.
| oogali wrote:
| Perhaps it varies from area to area?
|
| Where I grew up, the pee wee football league (9 and up),
| there was an unwritten rule of "no head hunting" (purposeful
| helmet to helmet contact).
|
| If you suspected the other team of doing so, or vice versa
| there would certainly be a fight amongst the teams: either
| after the game or even mid-game.
|
| Now I'm speculating here but maybe it had to do with inner
| city culture where sports was seen as a way out rather than
| simply as an extracurricular so cheap shots and other
| intentional injuries were very much frowned upon.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| There's similar research that shows padded gloves have lead to
| more injuries in boxing.
| marttt wrote:
| Tangentially related: I do odd jobs in forestry, in the
| former Soviet Union. An experienced forester once told me how
| during the old times, all workers were using regular boots or
| wellingtons -- that is, boots with no steel toe or other
| safety elements.
|
| By the early 90s, Husqvarna chainsaws and pro-level
| protective logger boots had gradually become the norm in our
| country. And guess what -- now, by the end of the day, the
| old forester would occasionally receive workers' boots with
| obvious chainsaw tracks across the toes.
|
| So, as long as the men were using regular, layman's boots,
| something like this had, obviously, never happened. No logger
| had ever cut in his toe. Pro-level safety gear, however, made
| many of them inattentive or careless.
|
| I wonder if this is also true to a degree when it comes to
| bike helmets. I often seem to ride faster and with more
| bravado when I'm wearing a helmet. I would, however, never
| let a 5yo child bike on a sidewalk without protection these
| days -- even though this is exactly how I grew up myself.
| gnu8 wrote:
| I'm reminded of the story about improving the armor on
| airplanes in World War 2. They were looking at where the
| fighters had been hit by enemy fire and improving the armor
| in those areas, until someone realized they should be
| armoring the areas where there were no bullet holes -
| because the planes hit in those areas didn't come back at
| all.
|
| Likely the same principle applies to the logging boots.
| Logging boots without steel toes were probably damaged to
| the point of. being unusable (to say nothing of the
| logger's foot) and they were discarded.
|
| I don't claim to know anything about sports but in the
| industrial environment, I am not going to be convinced that
| less PPE to make people work more carefully is a good idea.
| The idea is attractive as a paradox but it is beyond absurd
| to consider in practice - in fact it is barbaric.
| amenghra wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
| gnu8 wrote:
| Thank you, I could remember the story but not the word
| for it.
| dyingkneepad wrote:
| Not only research, but you can also see differences because
| there are events without gloves (bareknuckle boxing), events
| with small gloves (MMA) and events wtih big gloves (Boxing,
| but also Sparring which generally uses even bigger gloves).
|
| For olympic boxing they removed the _helmets_ because they
| think it 's safer. Also, the gloves are extremely useful to
| protect the hands. Bareknuckle boxing exists (and you can
| watch it on youtube!), and the gameplan for these guys is
| _very_ different. You can 't go 100% since you risk breaking
| your hand. There's no closing your eye and throwing a
| haymaker here. Defending a punch with your forehead suddenly
| becomes a viable strategy since it's likely the damage to
| their hand will be bigger than the damage to your forehead.
| Knuckle conditioning, wrist adjustments, etc. So many
| changes! I find it extremely fascinating.
|
| Extrapolating even further you can see how Jiu Jitsu becomes
| a whole different thing if you allow headbutts (just watch
| the 90's Brazilian Vale Tudo fights if you wanna see this,
| but I warn you that's it's much more violent than today's MMA
| fight). But that doesn't make it any safer so I may be
| diverging :)
| blix wrote:
| There's some evidence that increased padding leads to
| increased impact force in a wide range of sports, from boxing
| to running, that have a padded person initiating impact.
| Anecdotally, this is well known among hockey players and
| there's a social stigma against wearing more protective gear
| than average. I've even seen it implicated in pedestrian
| deaths as a result of driving.
| linguistbreaker wrote:
| More head injuries. The gloves are to protect the hands.
| matwood wrote:
| I've seen some of that research. MMA for example looks worse
| b/c of the potential for cuts and blood, but a single good
| punch typically ends a fight (and if a fighter does get to a
| position to really tee off, the ref stops the fight). Whereas
| in boxing, the boxer takes repeated punches over many rounds,
| and that doesn't count the training they do.
| [deleted]
| slg wrote:
| This is certainly true, but it isn't the only aspect of the
| games that causes more head injuries in football.
|
| In rugby tackles are often made in pursuit or with a defender
| moving perpendicular to each other. It is much rarer for two
| people to be moving in opposite directions to collide. This is
| much more common in American football in which the opposing
| sides are reset to be facing each other after every play. This
| causes the collisions to be much more violent because there is
| more momentum involved than a tackle in pursuit. This will lead
| to increased brain injuries because it isn't just external
| trauma to the head that damages the brain. There is also
| internal trauma caused by these collisions as the brain crashes
| into the inside of the skull when there is a sudden
| acceleration/deceleration of the head/body.
|
| Think of an egg inside a glass jar. You can add external
| cushioning to ensure that the glass doesn't break and to help
| slow down the jar more gradually, but there isn't much you can
| do to stop the egg from rattling around in there.
| ben-gy wrote:
| I've been following concussions in sports for while as part of a
| company I'm launching soon (https://ocula.ai) - it's seriously
| scary stuff now that longer term, validated studies are beginning
| to be published - it's worth noting NFL powered through its
| allocated funds for concussion payouts of $0.5B almost a decade
| ahead of schedule
| (https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/10056...)
| and there's many more on the way...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| What's the end game for American football when, inherently,
| everyone ends up with brain damage? I assume the NFL will end
| up bankrupt from civil claims?
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Early on in American footballs life there was a problem with
| excessive deaths. The President stepped in and effectively
| demanded rule changes to make the sport less deadly.
|
| I doubt that will happen again but you can imagine a similar
| set of rule changes to help with brain health. I suspect the
| NFL will need to drive that as I don't see a Teddy Roosevelt
| line public figure these days.
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| What rule changes can you make to football to eliminate
| head hits, without making the game unrecognizable? I think
| if that were a possible solution, they would have done it
| already. As is they're just tinkering on the margins with
| things like kickoff rules (encouraging more touchbacks to
| eliminate contact on one of the most dangerous plays of the
| game).
| LgWoodenBadger wrote:
| Targeting (leading with the crown of the helmet) is a
| penalty that can get a college player ejected from the
| game, and if in the second half will carry over to the
| first half of the next game.
|
| A blow to the QBs head is a 15 yard penalty and automatic
| 1st down.
|
| Spearing is a personal foul, 15 yard penalty, automatic
| 1st down IIRC.
|
| I'm sure there are others...
| Goronmon wrote:
| I think that would fall under "tinkering on the margins"
| as the person you replied to phrased it.
|
| An example of a more systemic change would be elimination
| of any head-to-head impacts that might occur between
| defense and offensive linemen on any given play.
|
| How do you work to eliminate those without changing the
| game into something unrecognizable?
| kasey_junk wrote:
| If you look at the rule changes the previous safety
| crisis brought on, the game became fundamentally
| different so I don't think that's actually a show
| stopper.
|
| I actually worry much more about line play than most
| given the evidence that suggests constant low level head
| collisions are as dangerous as limited high impact hits
| for things like cte.
|
| You could imagine mandating standing positions at the
| line, a wider scrimmage line and mandatory shotgun snaps
| as rule changes that would limit the constant head
| collisions linemen take. Just as a for instance.
|
| For a dramatic change you could imagine weight limits
| like in sprint football.
| toast0 wrote:
| I don't know that eliminating the risk is a feasible
| goal. Reducing the highest risk parts of the game is
| feasible.
|
| But things like reducing the number of players on the
| field, making periods shorter, increasing time between
| games (or reducing games per season), and putting
| playtime caps (at least at lower levels) would
| statistically reduce risk without making things
| unrecognizable.
|
| Alternatively, Atari predicted robot football by next
| 2022 [1], with additional updates in 2072.
|
| [1] https://www.arcade-
| museum.com/game_detail.php?game_id=7469
| adventured wrote:
| > What's the end game for American football when, inherently,
| everyone ends up with brain damage?
|
| Everyone doesn't end up with brain damage.
|
| Most NFL players only play for a few seasons. The average
| career is only three seasons; the median is even lower. An
| exceptionally small number of players are going to suffer
| brain damage in two or three seasons.
|
| Today's NFL players are paid far beyond extraordinarily well,
| they don't need the money. The bulk of the claims are coming
| from players in the past that were not paid so well and do
| need the money. Guys that used to play for $100,000 /yr
| across a ten year career, and played at a time when the NFL
| was far more violent and head protection was even worse.
|
| A player that lasts 10-15 years in the NFL today will
| typically earn $100 million or more. They'll have a lot of
| money and some will have lasting brain damage. A very small
| fraction of those players will ever consider suing the NFL.
|
| > I assume the NFL will end up bankrupt from civil claims?
|
| That's an incorrect assumption. The legal cost will barely be
| a drop in the bucket of the NFL's financial machinery.
|
| Someone else mentioned the $500m concussion fund was burned
| through sooner than expected. $50m-$100m per year is an easy
| problem for the NFL these days. The commissioner gets paid
| $40 million per year. League revenue was $16 billion in 2019.
| One team, the Dallas Cowboys, alone has $280 million in
| operating income. If you cycle out ten more years, the NFL
| could afford $500 million every single year in liability
| costs related to head injuries, and it would still be fine
| (and that number isn't going to happen).
| alistairSH wrote:
| _Most NFL players only play for a few seasons._
|
| A large portion of collegiate players will end up with CTE.
| Enough high school players end up with CTE that we should
| be concerned.
|
| https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2017/evidence-of-cte-
| fo...
| microtherion wrote:
| Last year, there was a horrific Sports Illustrated
| article about the linebackers on the 1989 USC team:
| https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/07/usc-and-its-dying-
| line...
|
| Of the 12 linebackers on the depth chart of that team
| that year, 5 were dead by 2020, all before the age of 50,
| with diagnosed or suspected CTE (and only one of them had
| gone on to play in the NFL).
| watwut wrote:
| Most players don't ever get to high league. They play in
| schools, colleges and clubs.
|
| They don't earn money and they do suffer injuries all the
| time.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Why can't they just add "this causes brain damage and we are
| not liable" to their contract?
| syops wrote:
| In a properly functioning society the government tends to
| look out for the best interests of its citizens. People are
| local optimization machines and they tend to make bad long
| term decisions. In order to prevent exploitation of labor
| it is necessary for government to intervene from time to
| time. It's why we don't let mining companies say to the
| prospective employees: "This is dangerous and we aren't
| liable." Instead we require mining companies to take
| prudent steps to ensure the safety of workers. People
| desperate for a paycheck often times will do things they
| ordinarily wouldn't.
| thinkharderdev wrote:
| In general that is true, but I don't think NFL players
| fall into the category of "desperate for a paycheck."
| That said, the vast majority of football players never
| make a dime and if the NFL DOES go bankrupt it will
| because the pipeline of players dries up because many
| fewer people want to play at the HS/College level given
| the obvious health risks and very low adds of becoming a
| successful professional.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| NFL players are absolutely desperate for a paycheck. For
| many, it's their way out of poverty. They have to go
| through 8+ years of brain damage for their only chance of
| not ending up poor like everyone else in their family.
| And the avg tenure in the NFL is only 3 years.
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| Professional football relies on the infrastructure of
| child/school football producing new players, so there's
| going to be a trickle down effect from whatever happens
| with the NFL. Even if over 18 year olds signing contracts
| can waive their liability, high schoolers can't. And
| mounting scientific evidence about the risk of concussions
| is going to cause it's own liability issues for the schools
| hosting the sports.
|
| Anecdotally, I remember a couple of my high school
| classmates seemed perceptibly affected by their repeated
| concussions in varsity football, and would discuss at the
| lunch table how to throw the "impact" test at the start of
| the year so they would still be allowed to play after a
| serious hit. The test compared your score after injury to
| your score at the start of the year, so theoretically if
| you do badly enough on round 1 you can still pass with a
| "mild" concussion.
| quantumBerry wrote:
| Professional software development relies on the
| infrastructure of childhood STEM producing new
| scientists, so there's going to be a trickle down effect
| from whatever happens with the startup sector. Even if
| over 18 year olds signing contracts can waive their
| liability, high schoolers can't. And mounting scientific
| evidence about the risk of pressure to succeed in the
| sciences is going to cause it's own liability issues for
| the schools hosting the subjects, such as the many
| suicides of engineering students who are overwhelmed with
| pressure to succeed.
|
| Anecdotally, more than 1 engineering student has killed
| themself, affected by their repeated challenges in
| engineering school, and has discussed their challenges at
| the lunch table about how to throw back a "drink" at the
| start of the night so they could still allow themselves
| to continue after a serious reprimand by their PI.
|
| --------------
|
| NFL primarily sources from collegiate football, not high
| school. In fact, there is a strict rule a player must be
| 3 year out of high school before being drafted. If you
| have a problem with the way collegiate football recruits
| children, perhaps it is best to start there.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| The most American of answers.
| quantumBerry wrote:
| Person A consents voluntarily to Person B to take large
| sum of money in exchange for concussion/negative health
| effects on their own body (which I presume we agree they
| own their own body including the ability to risk it).
|
| What business is it to anyone else, least of all the
| government?
| alistairSH wrote:
| You're only thinking about the NFL.
|
| High school and youth players are neither paid nor are
| they old enough to consent.
|
| Collegiate players are old enough to consent, but aren't
| paid (excluding tuition/room/board).
|
| Regardless of the sums of money, do we as a society,
| really want to allow people to allow themselves to become
| brain damaged in exchange for money? If not, we need to
| decide where we draw the line.
| quantumBerry wrote:
| Yes, we really should allow people who consent to risk
| becoming brain damaged to do it in exchange for money. We
| already allow people to do it for free, like allowing
| people to ride dirt bikes.
|
| >You're only thinking about the NFL.
|
| The article was literally about professional rugby
| players. Yes I realize most of those guys are not making
| millions.
|
| >High school and youth players are neither paid nor are
| they old enough to consent.
|
| Which is why I said those who consent, who are you
| arguing against? My statement was "Person A consents." If
| you believe a minor cannot consent then by definition we
| haven't spoken about high school and youth.
|
| As an aside, do you believe all sex amongst 17 year olds
| is rape as well, since you are not attributing them the
| ability to consent?
| 0134340 wrote:
| It becomes the government's and everyone else's business
| because who's going to look after you if you get disabled
| and can't work? You'll then have to proceed to beg, steal
| or live on government benefits and then you become
| everyone else's problem. As long as we live in a society
| we are our brother's keeper whether we like it or not.
| The only escape is to move away from society so you have
| no interaction with it so then you can't complain about
| society interacting with you. Which in today's world is
| impossible as society will still at least affect your
| natural environment, unfortunately.
| quantumBerry wrote:
| If you don't like the fact that the disabled may have to
| be looked out for on your dime or taxpayer's dime, that
| sounds more like an argument for government not "looking
| out" for someone who voluntarily risked their body.
|
| Being your brother's keeper doesn't mean getting an IRS
| agent and some agent with a gun to force someone who
| didn't consent to someone else playing football/rugby to
| pay for their injury. Being brother's keeper doesn't mean
| removing consent.
|
| I think what you should really be arguing for is the
| rugby association to properly compensate anyone with
| medical disability as a result of their employment.
| _jal wrote:
| Aside from being appalling, this would also serve as an
| admission.
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| You're probably aware of this, but this study and many others
| indicate that repeated sub-concussive hits can be just as
| dangerous to the brain. Indeed, some would argue that the NFL's
| focus on concussions is a way of looking like they're doing
| something while ignoring the fact that there is no way to play
| NFL football without causing brain damage.
| pessimizer wrote:
| The emergent research about CTE in what are upper-middle class
| sports in the US like soccer and rugby are ironically going to be
| an effective shield for the NFL, because there's no way American
| suburbanites are going to allow a little brain damage to force
| them to limit their European affectations.
| [deleted]
| rory wrote:
| I played rugby for years and had a constant, mild headache the
| entire time. Went abroad for five months so I took a break, and I
| couldn't believe how good I felt. I had forgotten what it felt
| like for my brain not to hurt.
|
| Needless to say, I never played again.
| necrotic_comp wrote:
| I had a similar thing with jiu-jitsu in my 30s. It's fairly
| low-impact as combat sports go (which is great!), but I had
| been playing other sports (judo and wrestling) for the majority
| of my life and those have periodic non-concussive impacts.
|
| After 20 years of practice, I felt just a touch foggy, and I
| took a few months off to see if anything changed and if my
| brain cleared up. It definitely did, and I therefore had to
| quit so I could continue to do programming work at a high
| level.
|
| Absolute bummer, but that's life, I guess.
| cnity wrote:
| Have you considered doing BJJ instead?
| necrotic_comp wrote:
| That's what I meant, sorry. Japanese Jiu Jitsu isn't really
| full contact.
|
| You get ancillary knocks and bumps in BJJ (catching a knee
| in side mount, or screwing up a takedown and bonking
| yourself), and while they're not that bad, after a lifetime
| of playing for fun, it was time to stop.
| matwood wrote:
| Interesting. BJJ for fun (not competition - so start in
| position and do less full speed take downs) is probably
| one of the least impact inducing sports I've ever done.
| Of course getting bumped in the head can happen, but it's
| usually with newer people. I mostly stick to higher belts
| and people I know, and I can't think of the last time I
| got hit in the head.
|
| Running and basketball I had to quit because of impact on
| my body overall, though not so much my head. Wakeboarding
| I quit b/c of a torn ACL and minor concussions in my 20s.
| Skateboarding is obvious lol. Surfing doesn't have very
| much impact, but in big waves there is a whole other set
| of risks.
|
| Anyway, I was just a bit surprised by your comment b/c
| out of all the sports I've done, BJJ seemed like the one
| I could do for a very long time just by sticking with
| people I know and trust.
| necrotic_comp wrote:
| yeah, I started because my body was getting creaky after
| years of judo and I wanted something lower impact - it's
| definitely significantly less stress on your body than
| either wrestling or judo, but you still get jostled
| around and in more competitive situations (i.e. in my
| last tournament I gave myself a concussion and nearly got
| choked unconscious bc I was out of it) the chance for
| injury is higher.
|
| It's definitely safe if it's the first thing you've ever
| done, as the lower levels of bumps are new, but if you've
| done similar things for a long time, you definitely feel
| the accumulation in your brain and joints. It's super
| dumb because it's literally my favorite thing in the
| world, but I want to be a sharp tack when I'm old and I
| couldn't sustain it.
| matwood wrote:
| Definitely gotta do what works for you. I've taken to it
| the past few years _because_ my body was getting creaky
| from years of all the other sports. I 'm definitely not
| doing anymore competitions though. They were fun and
| submitting someone you don't know is a rush, but I could
| tell that's where I was likely to get hurt.
|
| At this point in my 40s I've got nothing to prove. If
| someone comes at me spastic, I tap and move on. The
| algorithmic/thinking side is really a big draw for me
| (and it seems others). Over half the people in one of my
| typical classes are programmers. Time will tell if I can
| do it in a way that allows for longevity - I certainly
| hope so. Good luck to you!
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| The study covered one season and did not cover long term
| impacts. It's entirely possible that, like the parent comment,
| the whole team finished the season, tested poorly on cognitive
| performance, took a few months break and were then back close
| to baseline. The comments about long-term impact are generally
| not about one season of ordinary contact in any sport.
| ncallaway wrote:
| I would be really curious to see a long term study.
|
| Based on the short term immediate decline they observed, it
| does seem like there must be _some_ recovery after the
| season. Just the compounding effects after a handful of
| seasons seem like they would be very noticeable.
|
| But I'd also be surprised if any recovery were totally
| complete, either.
|
| I loved playing rugby, and would be sad to see results
| similar to football, but I'm trying to be open-minded about
| the long term results.
| blunte wrote:
| How many times of being hit in the head is ok? Obviously one
| wrong hit in the head can lead to death. Is there any
| acceptable level of being hit in the head?
|
| Why this is even a debate is boggling to me.
| unyttigfjelltol wrote:
| One wrong step, sneeze, or meal can lead to death. People
| compete in sport not to get hit in the head, but for other
| benefits which are legion, just as people become sedentary
| doing desk jobs not in hopes of suffering ill health from
| doing no physical activity, but again because their focus
| is elsewhere.
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| There are lots of sports that don't involve being hit in
| the head, people can do those instead.
| rory wrote:
| I actually don't think it was primarily caused by hits to
| the head. Every collision (including tackles and scrums)
| "rattles" the head in a way that causes pain, and
| presumably damage, over time.
| blunte wrote:
| Ok, forgive me for being imprecise in my language :).
|
| Any willful activity that harms the brain should be
| considered carefully before undertaking. This would
| include drinking alcohol as well (something which many of
| us willfully choose).
| swader999 wrote:
| I wonder if you even have to hit your head, perhaps just a hard
| tackle to the ground would be enough for a minor concussion.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-31 23:01 UTC)