DrewDawg said:
This thread is an amalgamation of a bunch of concussion/future of football threads we've had over the years:
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/87050-the-future-of-football/?hl=%2Bthe+%2Bfuture+%2Bof+%2Bfootball
The Future of Football: NYTimes Links Big Tobacco with NFL Concussion Study
- Thread starter soxfan121
- Start date
This thread is an amalgamation of a bunch of concussion/future of football threads we've had over the years:
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/87050-the-future-of-football/?hl=%2Bthe+%2Bfuture+%2Bof+%2Bfootball
So, a couple of things:crystalline said:
1. You're actually talking about scrums, not rucks. The former are set before play starts while the latter arise during open play often with players coming with a pretty good head of steam.
The scrum, until very, very recently (i.e. 2 or 3 years ago) did not start with the players actually engaged with their opponents. Instead, they comprised of eight man formations approximately a meter or so apart. The two front rows of three people were then basically launched into each other by their teammates, engaging with the neck and shoulders.
The amount of force, especially on the cervical spine, was substantial. So substantial that the laws of the game have been adjusted, probably once every 3 years or so for the last 10-15, to reduce impact.
2. As for concussions generally in rugby, I'd be wary of making generalizations without seeing a robust study. But much of rugby's benefit in that regard comes from the rules of tackling, which require an attempt to wrap the opponent and bring them to the ground, and the rules regarding possession, in which there are no first downs and a ball carrier is incentivized, not to launch forward for an extra yard, but to go to the ground under control so he can produce the ball backwards to his team.
The "tweaking the rules to reduce head injuries" phase has passed for youth football. That phase was five years ago. The move to ban full contact football for children under a specified age is already underway here in the northeast, and as the medical data continues to pile up federal intervention in youth football is now a when and not an if.Jimbodandy said:
Funny thing is that people who like rugby think American football is boring. Rugby is continuous action. American football is a five second play followed by 30+ seconds of waiting for the next play. An NFL game that lasts 3.5 hours consists of about 11 minutes of actual play time.
Eh, neither is really boring, but they're different and unless you really know them (from growing up as a fan or from playing) I'd imagine that either or both could be pretty boring. Because of the continuous play instead of dilineated offensive and defensive teams and plays, rugby's stylistic choices and conflicts can be either really exciting or a slog. Football's a bit more homogenized strategically I think. It's therefore more about microexecution.
For all the similarities in physicality and origin between football and rugby, the latter is more like hockey or basketball in terms of the US big four, IMHO.
For all the similarities in physicality and origin between football and rugby, the latter is more like hockey or basketball in terms of the US big four, IMHO.
Buster Olney the Lonely said:
I'm sure that plenty feel that way. But when 114 million people watch a rugby match, then we can have a conversation of its popularity.
Rugby talk??? Thanks a lot Rog. This is what you've brought us to. Keep protectin that shield!
Anyway, Van Everyman, I believe someone noted that McNally was working Revs games but didn't mention where they got the info from.
Anyway, Van Everyman, I believe someone noted that McNally was working Revs games but didn't mention where they got the info from.
For those that think rugby is boring, you need to go to a pub in Dublin during one of the Six Nations matches, preferably against England. Trust me, you will not be bored (although how much you'll remember of the match is a bit hard to predict).
grsharky7 said:
My wife and I were speaking to thee Athletic Director from Wafe Forest a couple months ago. We asked him for his opinion about letting our son play football and he advised against it. Two reasons he gave: 1. helmets often don't fit correctly; 2. coaches often aren't trained well enough to recognize dangerous behavior or concussion symptoms.nighthob said:
Different conversation between my wife and me and our friends who have older (i.e. HS + college age athletes). Their youngest daughter has had 3 or 4 concusisions from playing basketball. In one case, she came off the court and the trainer asked her a couple questions -- but not the right ones -- and OK'ed her to go back in. Fortunately, my friend was the assistant coach and caught it before she could do any more damage.
The concussion discussion is exhausting. Is it really that hard to start a new thread with a reply to someone instead of replying in this one?
Myt1 said:
Thanks. I should have added "It would be great if someone who knows more that me about rugby could weigh in. Myt1?"
One of the greatest and most important plays from the recent Patriots Super Bowl victory involved exactly zero seconds of play. The ball was never in play. No play was actually run.Buster Olney the Lonely said:
But in that 30+ seconds between The Interception and The Offsides was agony, fear, strategy, execution, and gamesmanship.
If you just count the seconds between the snaps and the whistle, your missing most of the game.
(Sorry to have continued this tangent. But it gave me an excuse to sit and think about that play....and the lord did grin...)
You could have watched the last day of this past Six Nations in an isolation booth and not have been bored. I've never seen anything like it.lexrageorge said:
djhb20 said:
Super Nomario said:
Gents -
This is sourced from a brand new study (done annually) by the SFIA - Sports and Fitness Industry Association. Until recently, it was known as the SGMA - the Sporting Goods Mfg Association, which should tell you a little something about where the industry thinks growth is coming from in terms of physical activity going forward. I'm in the sports industry so I saw it in the main industry rag - Sports Business Journal - so not sure if it's available/summarized elsewhere that isn't behind a paywall.
Jimbodandy said:
Sure, the the Super Bowl does huge numbers, but there are many more fans of rugby globally than there are of American football. It's just that the rugby landscape is incredibly fragmented whereas there's really only one platform for professional American football, and it happens to be really well run from a business perspective whereas rugby has been run by a bunch of buffoons.
Ha!crystalline said:
The lack of downs and fluidity of possession and maintaining it really is the huge difference in head trauma. The scrum itself is basically a clusterf@ck of epic proportions, an utterly sublime combination of gamesmanship, technique, brute force, and teamwork, and a guaranteed instance of poor officiating at the hands of a skinny former fly half who has about as much idea of what he's looking at as an audience of non-players
Often simultaneously.
It's such a mess that a bunch of people basically did away with it so SydneySox and the like would have more time to devote to their never ending spider war. Somebody shoot this tangent before it breeds.
I'm confused. Is this the #DFG threat or a concussion thread or a rugby thread? If one of the latter, is there a place here to vent about DFG? And if it's the former, with respect, can the (important) concussion discussion and the (kind of cool) rugby discussion please move into their own venues?
mwonow said:
I think that Rev is babysitting the unbelievably awesome legal thread. You should go ask him if you can borrow his paddle.
SoSH is an amazing place. I was working on a piece about concussions, told Rev, who contacted Eric Fezcko - who's brilliant - and this is the result: http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/long-form-editorial/opinion-long-form-editorial/2015/08/20/mission-accomplished-nfl-hides-its-concussion-problem-successfully/
Huge thanks to Eric for explaining the neuroscience in awesome detail. Also thanks are due to There is no Rev, ScubaSteveAvery, Mark Schofield and Darnell's Son, all of whom made this piece much better than I could have done on my own.
Huge thanks to Eric for explaining the neuroscience in awesome detail. Also thanks are due to There is no Rev, ScubaSteveAvery, Mark Schofield and Darnell's Son, all of whom made this piece much better than I could have done on my own.
The New York Times @nytimes 27m27 minutes ago
Sony cut scenes from the movie “Concussion” over concern they would antagonize the N.F.L., emails show http://nyti.ms/1N8ygnf
Sony cut scenes from the movie “Concussion” over concern they would antagonize the N.F.L., emails show http://nyti.ms/1N8ygnf
This seems like the best place to put it. Highschool football player dies after getting hit on a punt return.
I think it's a matter of when, not if, it happens on live TV in the NFL or college. I'm sick to my stomach after reading that.
The video in this link has the Wisconsin safety after a tackle lining up in the wrong backfield and having to be taken out. Not a good look.
http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/wisconsin-player-leaves-game-with-head-injury-after-lin-1728977696
http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/wisconsin-player-leaves-game-with-head-injury-after-lin-1728977696
P.s. Rugby is awesome. It's not mutually exclusive they are so different. Players have to tackle and attack, it's constant instead of stop start. Americans get upset when people say their sports are boring, rightfully so, but it's because they don't understand the game. Rugby is the exact same for you. So every time you say it's boring remember that this means you have to shut up when someone says football is boring. Can't have it both ways without looking like an asshole.
The even crazier video is the popular now one up in the corner of that article.LondonSox said:
http://deadspin.com/high-school-football-players-target-light-up-poor-offi-1728999161
At first, I thought Deadspin hyperbole, but then I watched the video.
It's strange that social media accounts for my daughter's high school have been discussing since yesterday a story about a recent graduate who now plays for Georgetown and apparently broke his neck in their game yesterday, but I haven't found a word of it from any regular media outlet.lostjumper said:
Edit: It looks like Sports Illustrated picked up the story about 15 minutes ago: http://www.si.com/college-football/2015/09/06/georgetown-hoyas-ty-williams-broken-neck
This might be the right place for this: Adrian Coxson, rookie WR for the Packers, retires after suffering a grade 3 concussion. In practice.
Coxson:
It's one thing for someone who has been in the league a few years and made a good amount of money, but according to Over the Cap, Coxson only received a $5,000 signing bonus and had ~a 545K salary this year (so I'm not sure how much of that salary he gets to keep, if any). Granted, this seems like he didn't really have a choice, as this appears to be a pretty severe health problem for him already, but how many more times do we need to see these young guys walking away from something they spent most of their teenage years and early 20's striving for, before it starts being a trend?
Coxson:
It's one thing for someone who has been in the league a few years and made a good amount of money, but according to Over the Cap, Coxson only received a $5,000 signing bonus and had ~a 545K salary this year (so I'm not sure how much of that salary he gets to keep, if any). Granted, this seems like he didn't really have a choice, as this appears to be a pretty severe health problem for him already, but how many more times do we need to see these young guys walking away from something they spent most of their teenage years and early 20's striving for, before it starts being a trend?
I would think maybe easier to walk away from 500k and risking death, than it is 5+ million. He'd have to risk the worst for a while to get a payoff.
But yeah doctors saying one more of those and you'll die is going to get the attention of a most anyone, let alone an early 20s kid.
But yeah doctors saying one more of those and you'll die is going to get the attention of a most anyone, let alone an early 20s kid.
Coxson was waived by Green Bay with the designation "Failed to disclose physical condition," so he's not not making the $545 K. Apparently his agent worked out some sort of injury settlement with the Packers though.LogansDad said:
One always hesitates to compare to personal experience, but I'm on a boring conference call, so what the hell:
I have had one concussion. I don't know the grade, but it was serious enough to make me miss work for several days. I spent a few days horribly depressed, with a headache, vomiting and/or bursting into tears at random, unpredictable intervals, and sitting in the dark because bright lights or loud sounds made my head hurt.
Mine came about when the plastic grid over a recessed ceiling light fixture fell out, and the corner hit me in the head. It was bad, but the piece of plastic only weighed ~10 lbs. and it only fell a couple of feet. Big difference between that and getting hit by 200+ lb. guy(s) running at speed. I assume Coxson's concussion was orders of magnitude worse than mine.
I didn't suffer any known long term effects, but for the week or so after my concussion, I was completely miserable, and would have given up being the first stockholder at Google if I could make it stop.
I'm still struggling with that Wisconsin guy.
I have had one concussion. I don't know the grade, but it was serious enough to make me miss work for several days. I spent a few days horribly depressed, with a headache, vomiting and/or bursting into tears at random, unpredictable intervals, and sitting in the dark because bright lights or loud sounds made my head hurt.
Mine came about when the plastic grid over a recessed ceiling light fixture fell out, and the corner hit me in the head. It was bad, but the piece of plastic only weighed ~10 lbs. and it only fell a couple of feet. Big difference between that and getting hit by 200+ lb. guy(s) running at speed. I assume Coxson's concussion was orders of magnitude worse than mine.
I didn't suffer any known long term effects, but for the week or so after my concussion, I was completely miserable, and would have given up being the first stockholder at Google if I could make it stop.
I'm still struggling with that Wisconsin guy.
And we don't know what this is yet but it doesn't look good.
Tyler Sash who won Super Bowl with Giants dead at 27. Thanks to Toucher and Rich for tweet link.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000524224/article/tyler-sash-who-won-super-bowl-with-giants-dead-at-27
Tyler Sash who won Super Bowl with Giants dead at 27. Thanks to Toucher and Rich for tweet link.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000524224/article/tyler-sash-who-won-super-bowl-with-giants-dead-at-27
It is a shame that player contracts aren't guaranteed in the NFL.Super Nomario said:
To be honest we really don't know. It is difficult to equate head injuries between people. The problem here is that there are likely genetic factors at play as well. Some people can get hit in the head repeatedley throughout life and appear to suffer no problems whatsoever; I've seen someone get a concussion from a frisbee.OilCanShotTupac said:
EricFeczko said:
Now that the NFL has frittered away the discipline issue and won't be using it in 2020's negotiation, expect the NFLPA to make this their proverbial hill to die on. Whether they are successful or not is uncertain, but I'm nearly positive that the work stoppage - lockout, most likely - will cost games and maybe even a season.
There is no reason for the union to accept an agreement without guaranteed contracts, and they should stay off the field if they don't get them.
I can see why instinctively the owners would hate the idea of guaranteed contracts, but in the end given that this is a salary-capped and -floored league that tends to spend near the cap, would it really change how much they end up spending?
My first assumption goes right to suicide, and I'm probably not alone. That's not good for the future of football.thehitcat said:
Maybe not, but without a lot of other changes it would make a pretty big mess of things. Every team cut ~37 players in the last week, so that's well into the teens of millions of dollars even assuming all of them would make the minimum salary. Owners might not mind spending to the cap but would probably prefer it be for players who are actually on the team.singaporesoxfan said:
The players claim that the ref used racial slurs earlier in the game AND that a coach urged them to take him out. The coach has been suspended and the ref is denying the claim.edmunddantes said:
It feels like the ref claim could be a fabrication. Who knows about the coach, but it's possible that no one comes out looking good in this story.
http://uproxx.com/sports/2015/09/high-school-football-ref-attacked-video-punishments/
Super Nomario said:
I don't think it's very messy. One year contracts - like those for UDFAs and "street" free agents - are only guaranteed once you make the Week 1 roster (basically, the veteran rule expanded). Any multi-year contract is guaranteed; entry level contracts go up 1 year (5 -> 6 for first rounders, 4 --> 5 for other rounds) and have a "cut" clause after three years where the club can get out of the final years if they so choose. Elimination of the franchise and transition tags.
They'd need to re-jigger the cap calculations, but the obstacles are very surmountable and easy to make.
UDFAs typically get three-year contracts (hence Butler still being on the team at present). And obviously this wouldn't do anything for a guy like Coxson, who suffered a career-ending (and potentially quality-of-life-altering) injury before ever making the team.soxfan121 said:
I like the meritocracy created by non-guaranteed contracts, where a guy like Butler can make a team over more established players. That would be harder if teams were facing negative financial consequences to cutting a vet over keeping a youngster, as we see in baseball all the time (and in football, alas, there's no developmental league). I do think there need to be better financial protections for players like Coxson who suffer serious injuries, and I think the asymmetry between clubs (who can terminate contracts at any time) and players (who can't get out of their contracts) is unfair and morally bankrupt.
I think calling it a "meritocracy" now is overstating it to a large extent.Super Nomario said:
It isn't. A lot of it is based on salary cap constraints, contract, injury status, what's going on in other positions, etc.
So it's not like it would be slipping from some "ideal" or "close to ideal" state to a less ideal (as you even acknowledge with your caveats.
It would just be different. With different levers being pushed and selected based upon the new incentives within the new system.
Super Nomario said:
I think guaranteed contracts help a lot with players who suffer injuries as well as get rid of some of that asymmetry, and I think that outweighs the downside of perhaps being more closed to new talent. The distinction between the current situation and what would evolve isn't going to be that un-meritocratic - teams often already face negative financial consequences to cutting a vet due to dead money eating into the cap etc. I also think there could be a different sort of meritocratic element to guaranteed contracts in that it rewards GMs and teams who make good decisions about long-term consequences. If owners don't like that they are paying too much money to people who aren't playing, they should hire GMs and personnel who can make better decisions about contracts.
I agree guaranteed contracts can help these items - for some players, at least, depending on how things are structured - but I'm wondering if there are other solutions that might offer this upside with less downside. I really like RetractableRoof's suggestion of a special Concussion Roster Exemption from another thread, for instance.singaporesoxfan said:
Teams currently face positive, not negative, financial consequences when cutting a vet, because they get to write off the non-guaranteed part of the contract. The Pats saved money cutting Reggie Wayne and keeping Chris Harper. If we adopt SF121's plan above, it would cost more money to cut Wayne and keep Harper (because then Harper's contract would be guaranteed). This is why stuff like the Veteran Minimum Salary Benefit exists.singaporesoxfan said:
GMs are already pretty accountable for bad contracts and bad decisions. You're right that there would be more long-term consequences to bad long-term contracts, but it seems to me that that punishes the fans of those teams moreso than the incompetent decision-makers.singaporesoxfan said:
In constructing any cap / financial / contract system, there are a variety of tensions that the league has to resolve, like:
1) How do we want to divide revenue between the players and owners? Should this be strict or more prone to market forces?
2) Should big-market teams have an economic advantage, or should there be a level playing field?
3) How do we divide money between superstar players and non-superstars? Do we want to cap how much one individual can make?
4) How do we divide money between veterans and rookies / those on rookie contracts? How fair do we want competitions between them to be? What about the competition between undrafted rookies and drafted (especially highly-drafted) ones?
5) How easy do we want to make it for teams to get out of bad contracts? How easy do we want to make it for players?
6) How much should we protect players who decline or retire due to injuries sustained during games? What if they decline for non-game-related reasons?
7) How easy do want to make it for teams to stay together / superstars to spend their careers in one place? How much should we encourage turnover so bad teams can get better and parity can increase?
Every sport (well, I only really know about MLB, the NFL, and the NBA) has different resolutions to these tensions / answers to these questions. Guaranteed contracts are a potential solution for some of these items (like #5 and #6), but I think it's important to acknowledge that there are ripple effects through the items that they don't address specifically. My gut reaction is that guaranteed contracts are impractical with a hard cap, and the NFL will either need to move to no cap (as baseball does) or implement a bunch of exceptions (as basketball does). I don't necessarily have anything against either of those solutions, but they, of course, have their own ripple effects and plusses and minuses. I don't think the NFL system is fair or right or perfect as-is, but just because the other leagues have guaranteed contracts doesn't mean it's right for football, or that it will make the game better on the whole.
GeorgeCostanza said:
Reports out today that it was a concussion that led to his eventual release of Sash in 2013 by the Giants....