Chair of NFL Health and Safety Commission: league may ban helmets some day

[Hagios]

The chairman of the National Football League's health and safety advisory commission believes American football could ban helmets in the future.
The NFL has tried to reduce the risk of head injuries over the last five years and recently reached an almost $1bn legal settlement with ex-players suffering with head trauma.
But some experts think helmets give the players a false sense of security.
"Can I see a time without helmets? Yes," said Dr John York.
"It's not around the corner, but I can see it."

 
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/american-football/33167457
Banning helmets is an idea that gets bandied about from time to time, but I've never seen it discussed by a high ranking member of the NFL, even if only in speculative terms. I do think they shouldn't ban all headgear, but go back to leather helmets, or else they'd risk causing a lot of skull fractures.
 
A side benefit is that it would make the players more marketable since we'd be able to see their faces better.

 

[Cellar-Door]

 
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/american-football/33167457
Banning helmets is an idea that gets bandied about from time to time, but I've never seen it discussed by a high ranking member of the NFL, even if only in speculative terms. I do think they shouldn't ban all headgear, but go back to leather helmets, or else they'd risk causing a lot of skull fractures.
 
A side benefit is that it would make the players more marketable since we'd be able to see their faces better.

I'm not sure that is true, Aussie rules and rugby don't have a problem with skull fractures that I'm aware of.
The real thing is that it eliminates the big hit, which is a big part of how they sell the game.

 

[75cent bleacher seat]

Can't happen soon enough in my opinion.  It certainly will change the game but it's a long time coming and the responsible thing to do.
 
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/75487104/football-concussions-traumatic-brain-injuries-nfl

 

[ivanvamp]

Playing without a helmet will probably force players to stop using themselves as human battering rams or projectiles.  Defenders will *tackle*, not *hit*.  
 
However, there are plenty of situations I can see where a serious head injury could occur in the normal flow of play that probably would have been prevented by a helmet.  The first time that happens, the league probably faces a humongous lawsuit for knowingly putting players in danger.

 

[Tony C]

Long time advocate of this, or some close variation. Might even say it's a no-brainer... ....the problem that would remain or even be exacerbated is when a full body shot leads to a guy's head bouncing off the ground.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Long time advocate of this, or some close variation. Might even say it's a no-brainer... ....the problem that would remain or even be exacerbated is when a full body shot leads to a guy's head bouncing off the ground.

It would be exacerbated big time when a head hits the ground, a knee, a shoulder, etc.
 
The helmet does a remarkably good job of protecting players' heads.  If something drastic like this ever happens--which I highly doubt it ever will--people will become painfully aware of this.
 
Tackling techniques and real head injury monitoring/management is what this game needs as opposed to less protection.

 

[TSC]

So maybe a helmet with no face guard? Like an old time hockey helmet? Enough to protect the head from most trauma - but not something you're comfortable using as a weapon.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

So maybe a helmet with no face guard? Like an old time hockey helmet? Enough to protect the head from most trauma - but not something you're comfortable using as a weapon.

I don't know, I think the only way to stop using helmets as weapons is teaching technique from youth level and penalize/eject at all levels.

 

[Seels]

Aside from not having helmets used as weapons how would this improve player safety?

 

[TheYaz67]

It would be exacerbated big time when a head hits the ground, a knee, a shoulder, etc.
 
The helmet does a remarkably good job of protecting players' heads.  If something drastic like this ever happens--which I highly doubt it ever will--people will become painfully aware of this.
 
Tackling techniques and real head injury monitoring/management is what this game needs as opposed to less protection.

 
But it does almost nothing to protect their brains.  I get that you don't want skull fractures, but most of the time the injury from a head hitting the "ground, knee, shoulder etc" is a brain injury related to sudden deceleration, not an actual injury to "the head"....

 

[simplyeric]

The only way to stop 'head as weapon' without eliminating helmets is suspensions. Lots of them, and progressive. 1 game, then 3 games, then 6 games, etc. That's both a financial burden on the playerand a 'chance to win' burden on the team. If the NFL can make the penalties very serious (in conjunction with the NCAA and high schools) they'd be able to really reduce it while still offering the protection against incidental impact that's inherent in the game (knees, ground, glancing blows in a pile).

 

[Stevie1der]

 
But it does almost nothing to protect their brains.  I get that you don't want skull fractures, but most of the time the injury from a head hitting the "ground, knee, shoulder etc" is a brain injury related to sudden deceleration, not an actual injury to "the head"....

 
The analogy someone once gave me is that trying to design a helmet that prevents brain injuries is like trying to figure out how to keep a pickle in brine from hitting the side of a jar when you drop it.

 

[Beomoose]

Anyone think there would be benefits to going back to the leatherhead look? Would still seem to discourage the false sense of invulnerability that leads to head-first hits but would protect from things like the edges of pads or errant cleats which could go some damage to an exposed scalp.

 

[amarshal2]

Sounds like a tough sell politically. Without helmets the fundamental nature of the types of injuries we see may change. There may be fewer common concussions as a result of removing the moral hazzard-y type of situation from the equation. However I'd bet that helmets do a better job at preventing other types of injuries and potentially ones that are more catastrophic than what we typically see - which is closer to death by a thousand cuts. So even if overall welfare goes up you may have a situation where someone dies or is paralyzed on live TV that makes it politically untenable.

 

[m0ckduck]

Is the rugby analogy so accurate? I know very little about the sport, but I gather that players aren't splaying themselves out in awkward positions running across the field trying to catch a 40 yard forward pass, colliding with players who are trying to prevent that pass from being caught. I suspect that if football becomes 'safer' along the lines of rugby, it will because football increasingly comes to resemble rugby as a consequence of banning the helmet. 

 

[epraz]

m0ckduck, you're absolutely right.  It's implied in the solution that the game would have to change to make it safer for the players.  This isn't limited to how you tackle, lots of football moves and strategy would evolve and it would look more like rugby.   But watch a rugby match?  It's not slow.

 

[Devizier]

Rugby is nowhere near the commercial-friendly bonanza that football is. And that's why you won't see that degree of change.

 

[Scoops Bolling]

Is the rugby analogy so accurate? I know very little about the sport, but I gather that players aren't splaying themselves out in awkward positions running across the field trying to catch a 40 yard forward pass, colliding with players who are trying to prevent that pass from being caught. I suspect that if football becomes 'safer' along the lines of rugby, it will because football increasingly comes to resemble rugby as a consequence of banning the helmet. 

Rugby doesn't have quite the same frequency of "crossing route" vulnerability, but it does happen, typically on a bad pass (we used to call it a "death pass" when someone lobbed up a weak pass or a pass you had to stop for...because the moment you catch it you're going to get killed). Still, rugby has less frequent injuries, particularly head injuries, because of the tackling rules. Every tackle has to be a wrap tackle, and high hits (basically anything in the upper half the chest or above) are illegal. It basically demands proper tackling form, which protects your head and protects the person being hit. If football had the same tackling rules, concussion rates would plummet.
 
EDIT: And you don't need to adopt rugby's stoppage rules for football. That has nothing to do with why it's safer.

 

[Reverend]

Most of this discussion seems to concern tackling and big open field hits. But I think dealing with line-play might be more complicated still.

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Most of this discussion seems to concern tackling and big open field hits. But I think dealing with line-play might be more complicated still.

 
York sort of addresses this
 

 
For the game to be played without helmets, York says the league would have "to do away with" the three-point stance and start each play in a more upright position.

Such a fundamental change that I just don't ever see it happening.   The NFL isn't going to turn into a high level flag football league.

 

[crystalline]

 
York sort of addresses this
 
Such a fundamental change that I just don't ever see it happening.   The NFL isn't going to turn into a high level flag football league.

If the head of the NFL safety committee is discussing it, it's a possibility, however remote. This isn't some a random reporter or author throwing out ideas.

My guess is the NFL is going to float trial balloons like this, and will try to move gradually to rules with less head contact. They will assess the effect on viewership and profits at each step and decide whether to move further. Probably will take 15 or 20 years, but it could well become a high level flag football league - with scrum-like blocking.


If I had to guess, I would think one change coming soon is a rule prohibiting hard hits. The NFL will put accelerometers in every helmet. I bet they first make that available to refs in replay, and make illegal hits to defenseless receivers reviewable. As long as the accelerometer readings are not too embarrassing (e.g. showing lineman regularly take brain-scrambling hits), I can see an automated system that enforces no head-to-head via helmet measurements. This stuff is already being tested in college.

 

[Gdiguy]

Wasn't the discussion a couple of years ago (not by the NFL, obviously) about padding the OUTSIDE of the helmet instead of (or in addition to) the inside? That seemed to be the medical side's consensus as the best balance - you keep the benefit to preventing the neck/spine injuries, but you make it useless as a tool to launch into other players
 
This was being discussed years ago, I don't know why it never got any traction (other than it being 'not manly') - e.g. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/101026_tuesday_morning_quarterback 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Wonder if a sacrificial helmet design could work. 
 
With a big enough hit, the helmet protects the cranium (and maybe somehow the neck), but that protection makes the helmet useless going forward. I'm thinking of a sort of design that absorbs even more force by splintering or crushing...I have no idea.
 
Players whose helmet destructs due to natural events (for example, falling to the ground or being hit by another helmet) get to play on with new gear. A player who uses his helmet as a tool (which will be clear once it destructs), is penalized.
 
Alternatively, they could employ the Swedish Hovding. But they'd need a laugh track.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=104&v=VlS7_y0oVd0

 

[Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat]

Wasn't the discussion a couple of years ago (not by the NFL, obviously) about padding the OUTSIDE of the helmet instead of (or in addition to) the inside? That seemed to be the medical side's consensus as the best balance - you keep the benefit to preventing the neck/spine injuries, but you make it useless as a tool to launch into other players
 
This was being discussed years ago, I don't know why it never got any traction (other than it being 'not manly') - e.g. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/101026_tuesday_morning_quarterback

There is a concern that this could increase neck injuries. 

 

[crystalline]

Wasn't the discussion a couple of years ago (not by the NFL, obviously) about padding the OUTSIDE of the helmet instead of (or in addition to) the inside? That seemed to be the medical side's consensus as the best balance - you keep the benefit to preventing the neck/spine injuries, but you make it useless as a tool to launch into other players
 
This was being discussed years ago, I don't know why it never got any traction (other than it being 'not manly') - e.g. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/101026_tuesday_morning_quarterback 

The outside of the helmet must be hard.

A soft shell sticks to other helmets instead of sliding off. The stickiness can cause neck and spine injuries as heads are wrenched around on contact.

 

[Gdiguy]

Huh, makes sense... guess that's why it disappeared. Thanks!

 

[Comfortably Lomb]

The outside of the helmet must be hard.

A soft shell sticks to other helmets instead of sliding off. The stickiness can cause neck and spine injuries as heads are wrenched around on contact.

Sounds like it needs to be slick, not hard.

 

[BigJimEd]

The outside of the helmet must be hard.

A soft shell sticks to other helmets instead of sliding off. The stickiness can cause neck and spine injuries as heads are wrenched around on contact.

I know that is one of the concerns with these soft shells.

I can't access that link but the guardian caps haven't disappeared if that article is discussing similar.
Some high schools (and youth leagues) are using them all the time and many colleges use them in practice only. I don't know of any colleges using them in games though.