machinegun12 Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/blog/the_dagger/post/Why-an-IPFW-forward-wears-boxing-headgear-during?urn=ncaab-287620 A few weeks ago Joe Paterno suggested that eliminating the facemask from helmets would, in his opinion, sustantially reduce concussions suffered by players. Leather helmets may be a bit outdated, why not boxing headgear? I guarantee you a defender coming at a defenseless player will think twice about delivering a "headgear to headgear" shot that would potentially split his skull open. Anyone got Roger Goodell's cellphone number? This thread has nothing to do with the Bills until now...GO BILLS!!!!
yungmack Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 While Paterno's suggestion might eliminate the intentional helmet-to-helmet hit, you'd most certainly have a major increase in head injuries from all the inadvertent hits.
phypon Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 While Paterno's suggestion might eliminate the intentional helmet-to-helmet hit, you'd most certainly have a major increase in head injuries from all the inadvertent hits. ^this and also, what's to stop a guy that is a back up that thinks he has a hard head (or even does) from trying to prove his worth? You need good helmets in this sport. No way around that.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 what about not wearing helmets? (like rugby) or old school football possibly some type of modified hockey type helmet, or a "softer shell helmet" if helmets were softer (just as padded and protective but softer (like a modern leather variation) And on that note... why not get rid of all the hard rigid padding and go to more "soft" padding like dual density fabrics and foams. i think if a players entire equipment set was changed to have softer pads and a softer helmet they would be less likely to use their equipment as weapons and more likely to actually practice good tackling techniques and fundamentals.. just my incoherant ramblings...
McBeane Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 I think that removing the facemasks would only lead to more players leading with the top of their heads. I don't believe that it would be on purpose, but more of a self-preservation measure.
Thoner7 Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 The answer is pretty clear - mandatory mouth gaurds go to the Kelso Helmet. There was a study about Pee Wee kids wearign the Kelso and it reduced their risk 805 Or something. Mouthgaurds have been used for years and are required in every other level of the sport so they are nothing new. The science beind concusions are sudden impacts. Having a hard exterior shell is not the best way - which is why boxing helemts dont have a hard exterior shell.
buffalohotwings Posted November 22, 2010 Posted November 22, 2010 leather helmets with hard inserts to guard the BACK of the helmet. You cant lead with the BACK of your helmet, I think some sort of pseudo boxing helmet with guards for the sides and the back, with no face protection, would be the best.
The Dean Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 (edited) Cartoonishly big foam helmets! I'm talking HUGE foam helmets. Maybe even inflatable. Protect the head, can't hurt anything. Lead with the head and you'll just bounce off. Maybe the top portion of something like this (without the "tail"). Edited November 23, 2010 by The Dean
DreReed83 Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 (edited) It's IMPOSSIBLE to prevent concussions. As Kurt Warner said, it's part of the game. If they want to prevent concussions, then we'll have to change NFL to flag football or 2 hand touch. It's not the helmet, the facemask or padding or no padding. It's where u get hit and how u get hit and what happens when ur head slams into the ground. You can't prevent that. Do you honestly think there were no concussions when they played with leather helmets? I'm sure there were. It's just a bigger issue in todays game. Edited November 23, 2010 by DreReed83
mary owen Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 The answer is pretty clear - mandatory mouth gaurds go to the Kelso Helmet. There was a study about Pee Wee kids wearign the Kelso and it reduced their risk 805 Or something. Mouthgaurds have been used for years and are required in every other level of the sport so they are nothing new. The science beind concusions are sudden impacts. Having a hard exterior shell is not the best way - which is why boxing helemts dont have a hard exterior shell. This article makes a strong case for the Kelso (Great Gazoo) helmet. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/101026_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl
DreReed83 Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 This article makes a strong case for the Kelso (Great Gazoo) helmet. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/101026_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl They've already changed the helmet a lot. Changed facemasks. Made helmets a ton lighter. More padding. Didnt work.
aristocrat Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 the boxing helmet idea is one that makes a ton of sense. it would take some getting used to for the players but i think that could work.
Steve O Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 Boxing type head gear for the defense, as is for the offense. Helmet to helmet isn't a mistake that would be made twice.
The Dean Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 They've already changed the helmet a lot. Changed facemasks. Made helmets a ton lighter. More padding. Didnt work. No, they have done nothing to make the OUTSIDE softer as far as I know. The Kelso helmet should be mandatory, and they can make improvements on that.
mary owen Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 No, they have done nothing to make the OUTSIDE softer as far as I know. The Kelso helmet should be mandatory, and they can make improvements on that. Correct...DreReed83 probably did not even read the article.
The Dean Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 Here ya go: http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2009/10/06/tim-tebow-returns-with-giant-nerf-helmet-to-practice/
jumbalaya Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 Now that most of you have concluded reducing the padding and eliminating the shell and face mask is appropriate we can get back to rugby and play the game as it was meant to be played. Hard men, hard heads and leather balls.
dayman Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 Are you guys serious about this? In the words of Chris Carter: "C'MON MAN!"
The Dean Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 Now that most of you have concluded reducing the padding and eliminating the shell and face mask is appropriate we can get back to rugby and play the game as it was meant to be played. Hard men, hard heads and leather balls. Spectacularly bad idea, other than getting rid of the hard shell. And rugby is for mooks not talented enough to play football.
stevestojan Posted November 23, 2010 Posted November 23, 2010 My friend here is AZ plays Rugby. I go to a match a week. Never once have a seen a concussion (small sample size, I know). But the WAY they tackle is different. Just as hard, but you have to have a better sense of self preservation so the technique is different. I'm not saying we should remove helmets from the game, not at all. But there are ways to tackle a guy in which no one gets hurt (well, in the head anyway) and helmets seem to do as much damage as they prevent.
Recommended Posts