The end of football?

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux

User avatar

Pinky
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7100
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:09 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Pinky »

Gorbachev wrote:
Pinky wrote:
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Pinky wrote:These players should form a union so that they can demand better working conditions.
You're turning into a caricature. Players suffer horrible injuries and die, and the League lied about it for money.
Then the league can be sued and the players can negotiate for better working conditions (or extra compensation for the newly revealed risk). In any case, I sound like a caricature because this really is a something that's between the players and league. Maybe the players would prefer fewer pads and changes to the game that will make it safer (but lower paying) in the long run, maybe they'd like a fund set aside to help with long term disability, or maybe they'd rather just have a little extra money now. It's not for you to say what's best. It's a question of player preferences, union negotiations, and (if there was fraud) court decisions.
Textbook adolescent "free market" response. Ayn Rand shit. Abandon hope all ye who enter here.
No, it's response of someone who's educated enough to know that you wincing, paternalistic busy-bodies might actually make the players worse off by imposing your own preferences on them.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."


Thatcher II
Top
Posts: 1706
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:02 am

Re: The end of football?

Post by Thatcher II »

Pinky wrote:
Gorbachev wrote:
Pinky wrote:
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Pinky wrote:These players should form a union so that they can demand better working conditions.
You're turning into a caricature. Players suffer horrible injuries and die, and the League lied about it for money.
Then the league can be sued and the players can negotiate for better working conditions (or extra compensation for the newly revealed risk). In any case, I sound like a caricature because this really is a something that's between the players and league. Maybe the players would prefer fewer pads and changes to the game that will make it safer (but lower paying) in the long run, maybe they'd like a fund set aside to help with long term disability, or maybe they'd rather just have a little extra money now. It's not for you to say what's best. It's a question of player preferences, union negotiations, and (if there was fraud) court decisions.
Textbook adolescent "free market" response. Ayn Rand shit. Abandon hope all ye who enter here.
No, it's response of someone who's educated enough to know that you wincing, paternalistic busy-bodies might actually make the players worse off by imposing your own preferences on them.
"Might"? That's what you got? Trumpeting your education, with a mistake in your one sentence and an argument based on name-calling and "might".

Forgive him, Jesus. He knows not what he does.
It's great to be first at last


Yorkie
Corporal
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:06 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Yorkie »

From what I've seen of the nfl, which to be fair is mostly highlight shows.

How much bigger are the hits in a game compared to rugby league ?
( union players are all fat and slow) or even ozzie rules football.
Are the greater number of injuries due to the fact you can just smack your head / helmet into an opposing player ? Or is it the high tackles etc that cause these injuries ?

User avatar

Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11367
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Grandpa's Spells »

Pinky wrote:
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Pinky wrote:These players should form a union so that they can demand better working conditions.
You're turning into a caricature. Players suffer horrible injuries and die, and the League lied about it for money.
Then the league can be sued and the players can negotiate for better working conditions (or extra compensation for the newly revealed risk). In any case, I sound like a caricature because this really is a something that's between the players and league. Maybe the players would prefer fewer pads and changes to the game that will make it safer (but lower paying) in the long run, maybe they'd like a fund set aside to help with long term disability, or maybe they'd rather just have a little extra money now. It's not for you to say what's best. It's a question of player preferences, union negotiations, and (if there was fraud) court decisions.
Ivory tower Randian nonsense. Players may find a safer version of the game puts enough of them out of a job to resist changes that would make future players safer. "Optimal weight at my position in the new game could 70 pounds lighter than I am. I've got a four year career to get paid and no other skills. Some guys may get hurt, but I bet I won't be. Better resist changing anything." Then future players become similarly incentivized to maintain the status quo.

Lobster divers in 3rd world countries don't obey dive tables, because they make less money working more safely. Then they get crippled and can't work at all, becoming burdens on the state.

People are not good at assessing their own personal safety risk, and other people will exploit this for money, if allowed. This is exactly where government is supposed to step in.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.


Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19098
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Blaidd Drwg »

Yorkie wrote:From what I've seen of the nfl, which to be fair is mostly highlight shows.

How much bigger are the hits in a game compared to rugby league ?
( union players are all fat and slow) or even ozzie rules football.
Are the greater number of injuries due to the fact you can just smack your head / helmet into an opposing player ? Or is it the high tackles etc that cause these injuries ?

The fact you have to ask makes me wonder if you have seen any of these sports. Rugby is a brutally hard game, impressive conditioning needed, tremendous grit. It is a tickle fight compared to the hits in the NFL.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSy9XpKr21U[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDEqdutpT8s[/youtube]
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill


Yorkie
Corporal
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:06 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Yorkie »

Thanks for the clips mate. As I've said I've seen very little American football, I don't have cable / sky so I might catch a couple of highlight shows a year.

I did choose league over union as the hits tend to be bigger, as well as the size and speed of the players, that rugby clip is all Union.


Yorkie
Corporal
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:06 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Yorkie »

These are league hits bigger than union

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Au-_DU2mp0 ... u-_DU2mp0E


TerryB
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9697
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:17 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by TerryB »

Spells and Gorbs, what should good people do to improve boxing's safety?
"Know that! & Know it deep you fucking loser!"

Image


Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19098
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Blaidd Drwg »

Yorkie wrote:These are league hits bigger than union

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Au-_DU2mp0 ... u-_DU2mp0E

Nice. Thanks for that.

As much respect as I have for Rugby in general, I will just say this now: the Haka is the most faggotty-assed display if cuntery EVAH.

It makes me physically ill to watch.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar

Herv100
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3783
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:12 am

Re: The end of football?

Post by Herv100 »

I think it's clear that ham and eggers who watch sportscenter, like Spells and Rant, should decide what happens with football.
Image


The Ginger Beard Man
Sgt. Major
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:27 pm
Location: 4th largest city in America

Re: The end of football?

Post by The Ginger Beard Man »

nafod wrote:I watched the show on-line. Definitely worth the time.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/

Our good friends and neighbor's kid played travel hockey, and had two concussions in the same year with resulting lingering memory loss. No more hockey for him.
Yeah hockey is almost as bad as football, without (hopefully) the cover up by the league.
I don't watch much football these days, partly because of my schedule, also because of the injuries. Not just the concussions.
Blaidd Drwg wrote:Disengage from the outcome and do work.
Jezzy Bell wrote:Use a fucking barbell, pansy.


Yorkie
Corporal
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:06 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Yorkie »

Blaidd drwg.
I did realise after my post that you guys might not be aware of league.

It's looks similar to union but it's very different, if you like a bit of rugby find the nrl (oz rugby league) state of origin games. They are epic battles.

As for the haka, yep you just look like a twat, try doing that on a muddy field in Leeds on a Sunday morning, my money is on you not making it to kick off ;-)

From rewatching that clip of the nfl, I didn't realise you could just smash your helmet into seome else's head ! Getting nutted for 80 mins a game is bad enough. But after a high school, college then 4 year pro career, I'm not surprised ex pros are so fucked up !

I'd trade those injuries for the money and chance to snort coke of a birds ass every night though !


Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19098
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Blaidd Drwg »

Yorkie wrote:Blaidd drwg.
I did realise after my post that you guys might not be aware of league.

It's looks similar to union but it's very different, if you like a bit of rugby find the nrl (oz rugby league) state of origin games. They are epic battles.

As for the haka, yep you just look like a twat, try doing that on a muddy field in Leeds on a Sunday morning, my money is on you not making it to kick off ;-)

From rewatching that clip of the nfl, I didn't realise you could just smash your helmet into seome else's head ! Getting nutted for 80 mins a game is bad enough. But after a high school, college then 4 year pro career, I'm not surprised ex pros are so fucked up !

I'd trade those injuries for the money and chance to snort coke of a birds ass every night though !

Is there a quick summary of the rules differences? I admit to not fully understanding the game.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill


Thatcher II
Top
Posts: 1706
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:02 am

Re: The end of football?

Post by Thatcher II »

protobuilder wrote:Spells and Gorbs, what should good people do to improve boxing's safety?
This is a stupid question.

In rugby union and in American football, it is now becoming very clear that successive concussions are causin long term illness and suffering amongst retired players.

If your attitude is "they all know this" that's wrong. This is all beig uncovered with scientific rigor only now.

If you attitude is, "let them at it cos it's up to them", then I disagree. Maybe the Congolese knew that the Belgians were going to beat and practice amputation of limbs before those same Congolese signed up to the rubber plantations. Extreme example to make a point. Apparent free will and informed decision making at an individual level is often chimeral. A society can agree to mot put ANYONE in unreasonable risk of crippling injury. like societies where wearimg a motorcycle helmet is compulsory.

It can get juvenile quickly around here and I get that some people will argue about the application of these principles but don't pretend it's some form of fascist intervention to legislate to minimise extreme danger and harm for individual. Doing so is pretty unrealistic and immature.
It's great to be first at last


Yorkie
Corporal
Posts: 99
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:06 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Yorkie »

Basically union is for posh lads who like to touch others bollocks.

League is played by big scary northerners, as well as the ozzies and all the islands in the Southern Hemisphere

Quick summery here though

http://superskyrockets.hubpages.com/hub ... ugby-Union


ccrow
Gunny
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:19 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by ccrow »

I skeptical about this idea that helmets make for less head injuries, I think rugby is at least as concussion prone as football. It's not like the idea that boxing gloves cause more brain damage than there would be with bare knuckles. Gloves make hands a more effective brain beating tool. Helmets absorb at least some of the impact. I have taken knocks with a helmet that were no big deal that would have been show stoppers or worse without. If it's helmet versus helmet, it's protecting the receiver in exact proportion as it emboldens the giver. So I am skeptical you can make football brain safe by taking off the helmets. And don't forget, some of the lumps the head takes are from the ground, and gravity doesn't give a fuck, so the helmet can only help.
But when I stand in front of the mirror and really look, I wonder: What the fuck happened here? Jesus Christ. What a beating!


Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19098
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Blaidd Drwg »

Yorkie wrote:Basically union is for posh lads who like to touch others bollocks.

League is played by big scary northerners, as well as the ozzies and all the islands in the Southern Hemisphere

Quick summery here though

http://superskyrockets.hubpages.com/hub ... ugby-Union

Thanks! Very interesting.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar

Pinky
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7100
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:09 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Pinky »

Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Pinky wrote:
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Pinky wrote:These players should form a union so that they can demand better working conditions.
You're turning into a caricature. Players suffer horrible injuries and die, and the League lied about it for money.
Then the league can be sued and the players can negotiate for better working conditions (or extra compensation for the newly revealed risk). In any case, I sound like a caricature because this really is a something that's between the players and league. Maybe the players would prefer fewer pads and changes to the game that will make it safer (but lower paying) in the long run, maybe they'd like a fund set aside to help with long term disability, or maybe they'd rather just have a little extra money now. It's not for you to say what's best. It's a question of player preferences, union negotiations, and (if there was fraud) court decisions.
Ivory tower Randian nonsense. Players may find a safer version of the game puts enough of them out of a job to resist changes that would make future players safer. "Optimal weight at my position in the new game could 70 pounds lighter than I am. I've got a four year career to get paid and no other skills. Some guys may get hurt, but I bet I won't be. Better resist changing anything." Then future players become similarly incentivized to maintain the status quo.

Lobster divers in 3rd world countries don't obey dive tables, because they make less money working more safely. Then they get crippled and can't work at all, becoming burdens on the state.

People are not good at assessing their own personal safety risk, and other people will exploit this for money, if allowed. This is exactly where government is supposed to step in.
LOL at "Randian". Go pick up a text on labor economics. You'll see plenty of talk about people having different risk preferences, and no mentions of Ayn Rand.

Your most relevant point is that players might persistently underestimate risks involved, despite the availability of new information. Although people seem to be good at assessing relative risks (climbing transmission towers is more dangerous than scrubbing toilets), they are especially bad at assigning probabilities to rare events. The problem for the paternalistic argument is that people very often overestimate the probability of rare events. (E.g., even smokers have been found to dramatically overestimate the dangers of smoking.) In the absence of evidence that players persistently underestimate risk, it would be wrong to conclude that decisions to do dangerous work in exchange for piles of money is the result of an inability to assess risk.

You also touch on the idea of disabled players becoming a burden on others. If that is a problem, telling the league and players how they have to play the game would still not be an efficient solution. A better approach would be placing a price on any externality created by how they decide to play, which could be done through insurance covering long term care.
"The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all."

User avatar

buckethead
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6638
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 6:25 pm
Location: The Rockies

Re: The end of football?

Post by buckethead »

ccrow wrote: It's not like the idea that boxing gloves cause more brain damage than there would be with bare knuckles.

Actually that is a very plausible idea. It follows very logically but I've seen no studies either way. The point is the brain is "floating" in a fluid inside the skull. The only thing that matters is the acceleration imparted to the brain which then impacts the skull.

That acceleration either comes from an initially non-moving skull and an outside force, or a moving skull impacting a immobile object, or a combination of the two.

Without boxing gloves, a certain amount of force is able to be imparted. With 16 oz gloves, much more can be imparted because it doesn't hurt the puncher's hand. It's not a question of "no concussions" vs "concussions", it's a matter of scale.

Same goes with a football helmet - very little protection from brain-skull impact but allows the defender to haul ass. Those rugby players "big hits" rarely involved direct head deceleration - except of course when it was due to the ground which will always cause concussions.

Girl's soccer is number two sport in the states for concussions. I imagine it is the stupid "heading" technique which imparts a quick decel to the skull.


ccrow
Gunny
Posts: 823
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:19 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by ccrow »

BucketHead wrote:
ccrow wrote: It's not like the idea that boxing gloves cause more brain damage than there would be with bare knuckles.
Actually that is a very plausible idea. It follows very logically but I've seen no studies either way. The point is the brain is "floating" in a fluid inside the skull. The only thing that matters is the acceleration imparted to the brain which then impacts the skull.
No I meant I can buy it with boxing gloves, at least a maybe, but I am very skeptical with football. I don't think the helmet changes the game in such a way that it outweighs the protection of the helmet.
But when I stand in front of the mirror and really look, I wonder: What the fuck happened here? Jesus Christ. What a beating!

User avatar

Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11367
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by Grandpa's Spells »

BucketHead wrote:
ccrow wrote: It's not like the idea that boxing gloves cause more brain damage than there would be with bare knuckles.

Actually that is a very plausible idea. It follows very logically but I've seen no studies either way. The point is the brain is "floating" in a fluid inside the skull. The only thing that matters is the acceleration imparted to the brain which then impacts the skull.
It is likely that the bigger pads in boxing trade short term benefit for long term punchiness.
Girl's soccer is number two sport in the states for concussions. I imagine it is the stupid "heading" technique which imparts a quick decel to the skull.
I thought it's the falling. There's not enough neck strength to prevent noggin bounces.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.


dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: The end of football?

Post by dead man walking »

ccrow wrote: I don't think the helmet changes the game in such a way that it outweighs the protection of the helmet.
were concussions as prevalent among players back when they wore leather helmets with no masks?

i would guess not

yes today players are bigger and faster/the turf makes them faster still compared to playing on grass/but the padded plastic shell and almost impenetrable mask has made the helmet as much a weapon as a protective device

hence the helmet is one likely cause of the increase in head injuries
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar

nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 12781
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: The end of football?

Post by nafod »

If you were to design helmets for concussions, you would to be able to apply the maximum force possible without hurting the skin or skull. This would allow the head to see the maximum acceleration.

That is pretty much what we have now.
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar

Topic author
Mickey O'neil
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:49 pm
Location: The Pale Blue Dot

Re: The end of football?

Post by Mickey O'neil »

This wasn't the first I had heard of the concussion issue but after seeing the report I really don't believe I will be letting my son play football. I have been bored with it for a few years now anyway. I have been getting him into soccer and will try tennis, basketball and baseball. There is a local rugby league I would like to check out for him as well. I am hoping to get him into bmx racing and eventually mtb racing with hopes he can go pro in that so I can live vicariously through him. :)

So, for those of you with young boys, has this changed your view on letting your kid(s) play football?

EDIT: Forgot to mention having him try BJJ and/or judo.
Last edited by Mickey O'neil on Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:46 am, edited 1 time in total.


The Ginger Beard Man
Sgt. Major
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:27 pm
Location: 4th largest city in America

Re: The end of football?

Post by The Ginger Beard Man »

Mickey, I don't have boys but if I ever do they won't be playing football.
My oldest nephew had to give it up when he entered a powerhouse high school. He's too small.
I'm hoping his brother gives it up too.
Both play rugby.

Post Reply