The American Spectator : Take the Helmets Off

Text Size

Take the Helmets Off

By Daniel Allott on 2.4.13 @ 6:07AM

Less protection may mean fewer concussions.

(Page 2 of 2)

The 49ers’ veteran starting quarterback Alex Smith had led his team to the top of its division and was second in the league in QB rating when he suffered a concussion in mid-season. During his league-mandated sit down, back-up Colin Kaepernick took over the starting role, and Smith rode the bench for the rest of the season as Kaepernick catapulted to stardom.

When it was revealed that New York Jets Quarterback Greg McElroy had hid a concussion suffered in a game late in the season, nobody was surprised, least of all his teammates. As the New York Daily News reported, “Every Jets player the Daily News spoke with and chose to comment said he would consider hiding his concussion.”

The NFL stands for “National Football League” but it also stands for “Not For Long” because any player unwilling to play through pain and risk long-term injury for a chance at short-term success won’t remain in the league for very long.

There is little evidence that today’s helmets prevent concussions. In a 2011 review of the academic literature on helmets and concussions titled “Helmets and Mouth Guards: The Role of Personal Equipment in Preventing Sports-Related Concussions,” researchers found that “the hard-shelled helmet… may not be best suited for protecting against the lower forces that also include a component of rotational acceleration, which are believed to cause the majority of concussions.”

The authors concluded: “At this point, there is little evidence supporting the use of specific helmets or mouth guards to prevent concussions outside of specific sports such as cycling, skiing, and snowboarding.”

A better solution may be for players not to wear helmets at all. A study found that the Australian Football League, whose players don’t wear helmets or any other padding but do nearly as much hitting, reported 25% fewer head injuries than NFL players.

Another idea would be for players to wear leather helmets, as players did in the first half of the last century.

The hard-shelled helmets (made mostly of hard plastic with some metal and rubber) in current usage are great for preventing skull fractures and brain bleeds, but they don’t do much to prevent concussions.

A 2011 study published in the journal Neurosurgery simulated on-field collisions for both kinds of helmets and found that the century-old leather helmets were at least as good as the newfangled kind in protecting against concussion from routine football hits.

Over time, getting rid of helmets or using leather helmets would change players’ behavior. Because helmets are the hardest things on a player’s body, they make for convenient weapons, and players routinely turn themselves into human missiles by launching themselves helmet-first into ball carriers.

The hard-shelled helmets give players a false sense of security. They make them think they are protected from injury, which encourages them to play recklessly. As Troy Aikman, who retired after suffering eight concussions, has written:

I’ve said the best way to eliminate head injuries is to take away helmets. Players would be a lot less willing to jump in and stick their heads in if their noggins weren’t protected. I used to say that tongue-in-cheek. But I’m starting to believe that’s a pretty good idea.

It’s similar to the logic that explains why more access to birth control sometimes leads to more unintended pregnancies. In both cases, the “protection” gives people an illusion of invulnerability, which often leads to more and more reckless behavior. Just as there is no such thing as safe sex, there is no such thing as safe headfirst tackling.

Without modern helmets, players would be forced to tackle properly, with their knees bent, chests up, and, most importantly, heads up, and generally to be more careful on the field.

As a bonus, without those big bulky helmets, players would become more recognizable to fans. They’d be more marketable for the league and more attractive as endorsers. Given the sway that money has in football, it is this last byproduct of ditching helmets that gives me hope that the idea will at least be considered.

Photo: UPI

Page: < 12

About the Author

Daniel Allott is a writer in Washington, D.C.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (68) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Appleby| 2.4.13 @ 7:08AM

Same thing happened in hockey, when the Marching Mommies demanded that everybody wear a helmet, suddenly the huge, armor-plated entities who replaced the small, quick, high scoring players of auld lang syne deemed themselves invincible and began to smash repeatedly into other behemoths and upping the number of concussions. And I am told by race car drivers I know that the more bulletproof they make race cars, the more dangerous the nut behind the wheel has become.

Stuart Koehl| 2.4.13 @ 11:30AM

Except that auto racing fatalities have been declining for decades. Granted, the development of the 5-point seat belt probably did more than anything else to reduce fatalities by keeping the driver in the car, instead of becoming a human cannon ball. But a host of other inventions, including better helmets, neck restraints, nomex suits, crash-resistant fuel bladders, and encapsulated cockpits, to say nothing of better suspensions, brakes and aerodynamics, have all made cars safer even while speeds have increased.

Stormzeye| 2.4.13 @ 4:46PM

The skating and stick-handling was a lot better before helmets not to mention the fact that you could relate to each team member's distinctive appearance rather than when they all started looking the same, like Starship Troopers.

OP4| 2.4.13 @ 7:22AM

I played Rugby in college and for several years after. I saw lots of sprains and dislocated shoulders, some cuts that needed stitches, and a few broken bones. But I never did see a concussion in rugby.

When a former football player joined a team, the first thing we had to do was teach how to tackle. They would still lead with their heads out of habit until some sense was knocked into them.

Softer helmets would have to start with the kids, then work up through college. Shoulder pads would also have to be redesigned - they are also too hard. And some of the artificial turf fields would have to be replaced with much softer turf or natural grass.

Harry the Horrible| 2.4.13 @ 8:48AM

I think we should replace football with rugby.

"Give blood, play rugby!"

irish19| 2.4.13 @ 12:40PM

Second that. Or maybe Aussie rules.

7-08| 2.4.13 @ 6:01PM

In my twenties (I had played football in high school) I was working as a bouncer at several of the local clubs and was ask by one of my friends if I wanted to play in a Rugby League. I went to one of the practices..................
I am not enough of a man to do that for fun.

Moe Blotz| 2.5.13 @ 2:11AM

7-08, you admit not being enough of a man to do what? The elephant walk?

Stormzeye| 2.4.13 @ 4:48PM

Any solution to the broken necks caused by the "scrums". I know two people that ended up in wheel chairs from playing rugby. Both were injured in the scrum.

OP4| 2.4.13 @ 9:24PM

Lots of military presses and knowing what you are doing. I played Hooker and while I wrecked my shoulders, ribs, and ankles, I never had a back or neck injury.

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 7:53AM

The author has it right when he states the football helmet provides a false sense of security to the players BUT the NFL will not do away with it because it is too much of a recognizable part of the game. It defines the game. It's the sport's icon.

Take away the helmet and you have rugby and Americans will not watch rugby.

I'm no expert but it seems the football helmet is designed ass-backwards. The soft part of the helmet needs to be on the outside instead of the inside. Would this not be more effective in absorbing and mitigating brain-rattling blows to the head?

Football is at a crossroads and will not be the same after the lawyers and the Federal Government are finished with it.

And by the way, what will they do with those empty billion dollar football-only stadiums in each NFL city and college town across the country?...Will monster truck shows replace football? Will I learn to like eating turkey legs and wearing ear plugs as I watch El Toro Loco take out another used cop car? ...

OP4| 2.4.13 @ 8:37AM

Have you seen the prophetic movie "Idiocracy"? We will use the stadiums for "Rehabilitation" night.

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 10:04AM

I saw it and ,yes, it IS prophetic.

Actually, I think Obama has plans for those empty stadiums. I'll refer you to what stadiums were used for in Germany circa '30's, or Iraq circa Saddam regime, or what Saudi Arabia currently uses them for.

Alot of nasty things occur at stadiums under dictatorships.

BShep| 2.4.13 @ 12:39PM

Thunder Dome. Two men enter, one man leaves!

PCC| 2.4.13 @ 9:02AM

The author offers some good food for thought. However, if the Australian experience offers only a 25% reduction in head injuries without compensating for the fractured skulls and brain bleeds against which the helmuts offer effective protection, the argument is much less compelling, especially given the admittedly barbaric but nevertheless magnetic allure of the crushing hit to an opposing player.

Needs more work.

Stormzeye| 2.4.13 @ 4:54PM

The best solution, in my opinion, is to simply eliminate the face mask (we had one fiberglass bar across the nose area) and use tough leather helmets. In fact, that's exactly the way I played the sport in junior high school during the late fifties. No face masks, more careful tackling.

cuban pete| 2.4.13 @ 8:15PM

George Connor,Notre Dame HOF player and Chicago Bear great said the face mask was the worst thing introduced in football because it encouraged players to put their head where it had no business going.
Chicago high schools required face masks in the early sixties. I was able to play with a single bar which satisfied the rule.

TLP| 2.4.13 @ 9:12AM

Like everything else in life: Everything anyone needs to know about the Proper Way to do things, they learned in Kindergarten. At least they used to.

First of all.........who decided that LEADING WITH YOUR HEAD was a good thing, in any sport? Ever hear of "Chin Music"? Does the Trainer ever tell the Boxer to go out there and Stick his Chin out when the Bell rings? So why would we teach our Football Players to Launch themselves through the air, Head First, and don't worry about your Neck and Spine?

When I was growing up ( My wife would tell you that has yet to happen) we were taught to Lead with our Shoulder, and Obama was taught to lead with his behind, but that's another Story, for another time.

Sounds pretty simple, right? Well, try this one: When playing TACKLE FOOTBALL, one would be advised to find a Soft, Grassy Field to play on, and avoid the Concrete Parking Lots.

Who thought that it would be a good idea to have Football played on CEMENT, as long as it had a thin Carpeting over the top of it?

Hello?

Like I've said here, many times: This isn't Bio Molecular Quantum String Theory.

It's Kindergarten, and Nap Time is over.

Frank Drackman| 2.4.13 @ 9:39AM

OK, I reached my highest level in football when I got cut in 11th grade.
OK, I got cut in May, in Alabama there's not really a place for 140lb slow white defensive backs.
Yeah, Alabama, home of the last 4 BCS titles BTW.
And we were taught, no, encouraged, no, friggin ORDERED to lead with our noggins, and don't wanta Stereo-Type, but the cure for Cancer ain't comin out of Ozark, Alabama,
Not sayin they were dumb, but they couldn't spell "CAT", if you spotted em the "C" and the "A"...

Frank "Huh?" Drackman

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 9:53AM

Frank,

This explains a lot of your previous posts.

Frank Drackman| 2.4.13 @ 9:59AM

What?

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 10:31AM

Too many hits to the head as a youngin'.

Frank Drackman| 2.4.13 @ 10:56AM

Who?

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 11:22AM

Now, if it could just wipe out your memory of all things Alabama Football we would be spared your insufferable comments on the subject.

Frank Drackman| 2.4.13 @ 11:52AM

Where? (Vinny Barbarino accent)

CJW| 2.4.13 @ 5:39PM

Frank
What are the policy limits on your med mal insurance?

Kingofthenet| 2.4.13 @ 9:08PM

Frank has an excellent point thou, if you change the rules on valid tackles you can cut down on injuries by 95% right away, only problem is it's going to allow for a lot more scoring.

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 9:51AM

Nice rantage. Spot on!

I used to work at Texas Stadium in the early 90's and have walked the field many, many times, and indeed, it was nothing but a concrete surface over which laid the thinnest of carpeting.

So now the state-of-the-art CARPETING has little rubber pellets that are supposed to soften the blow. I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop in football in the form of a study that states those little pellets are carcinogenic.

Football is so screwed!

AllAmericanAmerican| 2.4.13 @ 10:07AM

Yeah but when's the last time you saw a text-book tackle, complete with the defender wrapping up the ballcarrier, make the highlight shows?

Last night on SF's 1st TD the Baltimore defenders tried the (what I call) gangsta tackle, which is simply launching at the runner and hoping the impact results in him falling down. Instead they both bounced off the receiver, who instead of being down at the 15 ran the rest of the way into the endzone for a TD.

Besides, most of the thugs and felons playing in the NFL probably consider tackling the proper way is "playing White."

Butch| 2.4.13 @ 3:23PM

You're probably right about that, AAA. I think Instant Replay was probably the original cause--TV in other words; Jack Tatum/Darryl Stingely, all of that. If we'd have tried tackling without wrapping up back in the day, we'd have been yanked out of the game and bawled out immediately. The coach would have called it hot-dogging, seeking individual glory instead of what's best for the team. And yes, it's a White thing. How many times have we seen the runner/receiver bounce of of those no-arm hits, keep his feet, and go in to score, with the would-be "tackler" now out of the play? Personal glory on the player's part, show for the fans from the NFL view. It all comes down to money, really.

SUBVET| 2.4.13 @ 11:36AM

Anyone notice that the game was played on CARPET. More major injuries occur on this playing surface.

Ask any pro player what they like to play on.......it is called real turf.

These carpet salesmen have sold the NFL a bill of goods under the "no maintenance" clause. I see it everyday it's part of my business [the turf] part. You have MRSA, high temps in the day time 190 and respiratory problems because of the infill used.

I will make a prediction that in 10-15 yrs. we will be playing on real turf again.

SUBVET| 2.4.13 @ 11:43AM

Oh did I forget to tell you the carpet only lasts 4-6 years.......all you have to do is pull it up and lay some more. The only problem is the infill [ground up car tires] is toxic along with the plastic carpet. Maybe that's why at Chicago Field the old carpet is piled-up in the parking lot.

The dumps won't take it......enviromentally safe ?

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 2:25PM

Are you talking about Soldier Field in Chicago? The last time it was carpeted was when the Bears won the Super Bowl.

It's been piled up for that long?

SUBVET| 2.4.13 @ 3:43PM

Bob.....Yes .......they pulled it up because of the MRSA issue. Some players have lost limbs that have been infected. It has gotten so bad that if you want to use a spa after the game it has to drained and disinfected before it is used again. Also eveyrone has their own towels with the players #.

The primary cause is rug burn that gets infected. At the HS level here in CA the fields have to be disinfected every 90 days. Just think about it blood, spit, snot, bird crap and anything else that may come along.

Of course the carpet peddlers say it still costs less that a real turf field.

New Pro FB Field - 2M
Infill change out every 2 yrs. - 35K
Replace Carpet 4-6 yrs. 800 K [not including the cost to find a dump that will take it.]
Disinfect field every 90 days - 5K

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 4:33PM

Interesting. So, are you saying the carpet that the Bears won the NFC Championship game on back in 1985 is piled up in the parking lot because they cannot find a place to dispose it?

And,

If you have the numbers, what is the cost to install and maintain a natural turf?

SUBVET| 2.4.13 @ 9:21PM

Bob......to provide sports turf maintenance for a profield by an outside contractor here are the general costs.

1. Strip existing turf and install new sod - 65 K
2. Maintain field 1 yr. - [labor man hours/equpment] - 60K
3. Chemicals/fertilizers 1 yr. - 25 K
4. Overseeding 1yr. - 30K
5. Misc. repairs/irrigation 1 yr. - 20K

As you can see for about 200K a year you can maintain a division 1 field. Yes we forgot the water bill, but here in CA using tear 2 or 3 the cost would be around 40-60 K a year. What play's into the fact that the fields use carpet is politics/tax incentives.

See .....all thoes chemicals end up in the ground water, but the carpet peddlers don't tell you that to keep the green color in the plastic they use a "lead" based color.

The lead and toxic rubber is ingested by the player everytime it is used. The ground water can be carried of and treated and then reused.

Take for example Dodger Stadium has an irrigation system that recovers the irrigation water in tanks. Then pumped/reused when needed. They also fertagate [fertilizer in water].

fun stuff..............

Frank Drackman| 2.4.13 @ 2:07PM

umm might wanta check the calendar...
except for the domes, most teams got rid of the Astroturf, ummm about the last time the Cowboys won a playoff game...

Frank

capatolistmom| 2.4.13 @ 12:45PM

TLP once again you are so right. I can speak from experience that they are taught young to lead with their shoulders!!! However, some coaches want the big hit in the gut!! If they really want to help these players they would get rid of the turf fields. They are not as forgiving as grass, they run 20 degrees hotter in the summer (they have melted by sons cleats) and burned their hands, the "rug burns" are much worse than grass and they hold bacteria to the point that several cases of mersa have been traced directly to the bacteria on the turf. It looks nice but it needs to go!!!

rjh| 2.4.13 @ 9:22AM

It has become apparent to me over the years watching college and pro football that basic tackling is not taught or practiced any more. The defensive player generally attempts to tear the runner in two with a massive collision, and, most times, either misses or glances off ineffectively. Also, for some reason, there seem to be more and more helmets rolling around on the field following a play. Just my observations.

Stick| 2.4.13 @ 2:53PM

Wearing a loose helmet may actually prevent concussions. A tightly fitted helmet will transfer G-force to the skull. A loosely fitting helmet will twist off thus deflecting the energy. I noticed RG III always wears his helmet loose. He may have the right answer. One of the new helmets being considered is a helmet within a helmet, allowing shocks to the outter shell to twist, thus dissipating the energy. Just thinkin out loud here, not an engineer.

Frank Drackman| 2.4.13 @ 9:35AM

Another option would be for the Quarterback to wear a dress(HT Jack Lambert), Runing Backs in Capris, Recievers in Mumus, and the Linemen can wear Thongs, like Sumo Wrestlers...
Of course it'll have to be flag football, cause some players "Touch" harder than others, and no blocking, just a 5 second count before any pass rush.
Seriously, you'll see more hard hitting in a womens lacrosse game...

Frank "Con-cussion, Con-schmussion" Drackman

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 12:09PM

Frank,

Option or a fantasy of yours?

irish19| 2.4.13 @ 12:45PM

That was troubling, wasn't it?

Frank Drackman| 2.4.13 @ 2:06PM

Women's Lacrosse???("LAX" to those in the Cool Kids Club)It's like Women's Field Hockey(is it really "Hockey" without Ice)without the Hilary Clinton-esque Calves and chin hair...
Frank

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 2:33PM

The thong-only policy for offensive linemen would take the quarterback/center relationship to a whole new level.

A fantasy to some, a hygienic nightmare to others.

N8tivTxn| 2.4.13 @ 10:02AM

I don't believe depression is diagnosable using mere former player anecdotal recollection as evidence.

Given a set of "symptoms" asked to evaluate our own emotional well being in hindsight up to a couple of decades back, how many of us could resist finding ourselves possessing symptoms?

Real football was over with the birth of orgs like "Concussion Watch". If only the gladiators had known... that medieval jousting was a bitch...

Simulating "on-field" collisions, no doubt using computer modeling... well, we know where that took us in the field of climate evaluation and prediction.

Buy stock in companies that own the reruns of all the great games of the past 30 years... if only the Romans had vid equipment...

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 10:51AM

Football "jumped the shark" with the decision to have players wear pink throughout the month of October.

I do, however, find it very interesting that some players choose to go the Full On Pink route, while others wear the minimum in order to "get along", while others choose not to wear any pink at all. An interesting study in personalities.

While I fully endorse Breast Cancer Awareness Month and the NFL should promote the cause in some fashion, having players, coaches, and officials wear pink the entire month is absurd, a pathetic attempt at pandering to females, and smacks of collectivism.

And speaking of collectivism, how did we get to the point where the new SuperBowl tradition is to interview Mr. Collectivism before the game now?

Like my previous post, football has jumped the shark and is so screwed.

TLP| 2.4.13 @ 2:01PM

Exactly, Bob Grant.

More Men Die every year from Prostate Cancer, than Women do from Breast Cancer, and by a Wide Margin.

Where's our Ribbons?

Moe Blotz| 2.5.13 @ 2:17AM

Whaddya wanna do, tie a ribbon to your colostomy bag?

Anthony| 2.4.13 @ 10:43AM

"Symtoms include dizziness, blurred vision and loss of consciousness. Long term effects include impaired judgment, memory loss, poor impulse control and dementia".
Who knew long term exposure to Washington as a member of congress had these effects?
Clearly, the case for term limits has a humanitarian component.
The carnage from being a "public servant" is too risky for extended periods of time.

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 11:18AM

""Symtoms include dizziness, blurred vision and loss of consciousness. Long term effects include impaired judgment, memory loss, poor impulse control and dementia".

Aren't those also side effects for Viagra? ...and Propecia?....and Ambien....and....

Frank Drackman| 2.4.13 @ 11:54AM

I don't know because I'm not impotent, bald, or have difficulty sleeping.
OK, I'm Bald.

Frank "Whats that stain?"Drackman

Anthony| 2.4.13 @ 12:38PM

When?

John Navratil| 2.4.13 @ 11:54AM

Bob Grant,

... and vodka ...

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 5:02PM

...and date rape drugs...

Mike Daly | 2.4.13 @ 11:04AM

Those studies alleging fewer concussions by not wearing helmets are laughable given the mostly-unreported surge of head injuries in soccer, and the study of concussions has made them to be more prevalent than they actually are. What's happened is not that concussions are increasing, it's that people are overreacting more to them.

Who Knows?| 2.4.13 @ 12:04PM

It’s not just the helmets.

The real problem is that the NFL, and I’m sure the SEC, especially, as well as the other “major” conferences, is peopled by players who are artificially bulked up. Fran Tarkenton spoke truth to power in the WSJ the other day. The money quote was from a workout gym specialist, who noted that lifting weights can only go so far, and that therefore all those 300 pounders must be using human growth hormones.

And, look at even the “small” running backs---hey, we all have our DNA, which limits the “natural” high weight we should be able to attain.

Controversy alert---

I think what you have with the NFL is a twofer. Primal is the Narcissus “scream”. It’s all about ME! See the players slap their OWN chests, after they make a play. Read the comments of fans, whose OWN team either won or lost.

And, let’s get basic. The NFL is simply a space-time oh so very human event. It has rules. There are always 11 humans on each side, and one ball, and all the other rules.

But, essentially, 22 guys run around, smacking the other team’s players, with the goal to score points, and, of course, win the game. That’s no problem.

Who Knows?| 2.4.13 @ 12:05PM

However, with human growth hormones and other methods of bulking up, we have here a blatant experiment, on the lines of the euthanasia movement.

In short, driven by money and fame, eager humans fight to be guinea pigs. Society has chosen to conduct this experiment ON TELEVISION!

Let’s see what will happen when 22 massive men run around in an enclosed place for a limited time, trying to knock over each other, faster and faster, with greater and greater force.

Prediction---we are now processing the exposure of Lance Armstrong’s illegal use of drugs. Years AFTER he got to glory in winning many races.

How many years in the future will it be, before we’re “processing” the NFL, as we are now biking? Maybe Junior Seau was just the tip of the iceberg.

In any case, football is defined by trying to hit the other guy as hard as LEGALLY possible.

In around 1964, or so, I happened to be watching the Oregon Ducks at a practice. I’ll never forget this one play, when one guy ran as fast as he could and flattened another guy. The sound was so loud! And, this was when players rarely were over 225 pounds!

Yes---the NFL: an experiment in the use of drugs, to enhance size, and---there will be consequences.

Frank Drackman| 2.4.13 @ 12:29PM

Forget the stupid concussions,
how's Ray Lewis going to chanel all that pent up hostility?
Guy's liable to kill somebody(s)(again)

Frank

Moe Blotz| 2.5.13 @ 2:18AM

Lewis retired yesterday.

Anthony| 2.4.13 @ 12:44PM

If Obozo had a son named Travon, he said yesterday he'd have to conider if he would allow him to play football.
That's of course, after young Travon gets out of Juvenile Detention, and the Chom Gang Drug Rehabilitation Center.

Butch| 2.4.13 @ 3:32PM

I can vouch that back in the day we just kept on playing with concussions. It wasn't because we were scared of being taken out; it was because we didn't know we had one. You just played the game in a daze. I've done it, and seen it in the huddle with teammates. If the coaches knew you'd been knocked loopy, they'd take you out, make you sniff smelling salts, ask you a few stupid questions, and then send you back in. What the hell.

Kingofthenet| 2.4.13 @ 9:01PM

Troy Aikman also wanted to go into a game with a leather helmet like the old days, AFTER he got his bell rung...

Kingofthenet| 2.4.13 @ 9:14PM

Simple fact is 'getting your bell rung' is Brain Damage, and your brain doesn't heal like other organs. Now if you restrict tackles to be safer, (Easy to Do) your going to allow a lot of good players to squirm away or not even be touched at all. People chop block, and launch themselves like fools, because it's the only thing they can do in a situation to slow the ball carrier down, but I guess if the rules are enforced fairly it will just mean higher scoring games in general, might actually be a good thing.

Bob Grant| 2.4.13 @ 10:03PM

Go to YouTube and watch a clip of a football game, say pre 1992. You'll notice more traditional tackling using arms and shoulders, and not helmets.

Coaching to use one's entire body to bring down an opposing player is a phenomenon that began about 20 years ago to offset the increased size and speed of players. The bigger and faster a player gets, the more difficult it is to bring him down by a factor of about ten. It doesn't matter how big a player's forearms are or how great they are at tackling.

So, I don't know how teaching better tackling techniques will improve overall tackling when players continue to get bigger and stronger.

Football is at a major crossroad and anyone who's not taking it seriously is in major denial.

Kingofthenet| 2.4.13 @ 10:53PM

I agree 100%, I wasn't suggesting that you could teach people to tackle better, like you said, due to the size and strength of the receivers, that's going to be impossible, but you could make rules that while don't take down as many receivers, do protect everyones heads more.

redrockrider| 2.4.13 @ 11:41PM

Put impact detectors inside the helmets. Any impact exceeding a certain level will alert the refs and eject the player from the game. A doctor's clearance will be needed to practice or play in the next game.

Bob Grant| 2.5.13 @ 12:02AM

Can you imagine refs trying to analyze impact detector data?

Geesh, they have a hard enough time with instant replays.

That would lead to yet more unnecessary delays.

Football's in big trouble folks. If you're interested in game theory, just game out all the possible scenarios.

It's all bad for the NFL, college and high school football. It wont end well for any of them.

But please don't hate me. I'm just the messenger.

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|51 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|45 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|56 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|105 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|33 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|48 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|24 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth