Hacker News Reader

Comment by streptomycin | Hacker News Reader

I don't buy the argument that the new rules and equipment have made the game more dangerous. Back in the old days, 100 years ago or so, it wasn't uncommon for people to die on the field http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/sports/football/21thorpe.h...

the 1910 rule changes were a reaction to a raft of horrifying deaths on the field. A total of 26 players died in 1909, including 10 at the college level. Thirteen in 1908. Eighteen in 1905.

View on HN

I've always had trouble with the "no pads is a natural limiter to the amount/intensity of the hits" argument.

That said - those hard plastic helmets are weapons. They can hurt a player a lot more than a skull. Not sure what to do with that conclusion.

I love watching NFL football but its obviously a form of killing people slowly for our entertainment. I don't see how it can sustain unless we all look the other way on the brain injuries.

The thing is - the players don't care. It's a badge of honor. It will sustain for as long as people want to play the game.

The active players don't care. Lots of former players have gone on record as wishing they'd never even heard of football.

They would if they weren't wearing head to toe padded protection. It would actually hurt, and pain would limit the needless aggression. Works fine in Rugby (union and league) and Aussie rules, with players every bit as hard and aggressive.

Just look at the size of rugby players vs. NFL players. It is completely ridiculous to assert that taking the pads off players is the solution.

If you put some full backs from the NFL in a rugby game, players would literally die (and I mean literally, literally). They are massive. Seeing these guys in person blows your mind (figuratively).

[added] I don't know how good of a source it really is, but there are some infographics in this form that show a difference.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=137938303&...

They put the NFL player at 25% more weight which is insane when you consider a guy that is 6'2 and 250 lbs.

The rugby players that I know tell me that their pain limits how hard they tackle an opponent. They would not like to see padding introduced because a player would trust their armour overmuch and increase the risk of injury.

That makes sense to me, but then there's that "one guy" (not one guy) that is willing to push it too far and shifts the center of the sport towards the more violent end (e.g., Mike Tyson).

The OP mentions this, for example there are stern rules in the NFL against grabbing a player's facemask and cross blocks, but they still happen frequently. Furthermore, the games rules reward pushing the envelope (15 yards vs chance of serious injury to e.g., the quarterback is unequal).

You can make an effective argument that if you play football in the NFL you will sustain many serious injuries to your brain and body (as the OP does). I'd expand that to include college and high school football as well.

In addition to the force of the impact, a significant difference is the form that you employ in making a tackle. In football a common technique is to put your head in the center of the opponent's body in order to help stop their force. In rugby, not wearing a helmet means you are _likely_ to receive a concussion if you do this (mostly from knees). As such, in rugby a proper tackle technique involves you putting your head to the side of your opponent, and using your shoulder as the primary point of contact with the opponent.

The upshot of this is that your head is involved in significantly less direct contact (though there's still some).

> That said - those hard plastic helmets are weapons. They can hurt a player a lot more than a skull. Not sure what to do with that conclusion.

Sounds like it's time to put padding over the outside of the helmet!

The better comparison would be with rugby, where players rarely wear anything more than a padded cap to protect the ears.

You've coupled rules and equipment, but the deaths caused rule changes, but not equipment changes.

Australian football doesn't use the helmets and has 25% fewer concussions. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870440240457452...

Aside from a similar ball shape, Australian rules football is nothing like American football.

I prefer this comparison to the GP's since it controls for the level of medical technology. There may have been a spate of deaths in the early 20th century, but they may not have happened today.

Not to mention that a single year could be an extreme outlier.

The article isn't about concussions. It's about hits that do not cause one to show visible mental effects, but are in fact a very mild form of concussion (TBI). And it's about players thousands upon thousands of those hits throughout their life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com