Figster Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 It will be interesting to see if they help. No helmet will stop the brain from crashing into the inside of the skull. hard shelled exterior helmets should have been removed from the markets years ago in my humble opinion. Its been a long time coming... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy10 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 hard shelled exterior helmets should have been removed from the markets years ago in my humble opinion. Its been a long time coming... Yeah, I've heard that argument before, that the worst thing to happen to brain health in football was the hardshell helmet, which effectively weaponizes the head. It's interesting, for sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 They have been trying better helmets for a long time. The players end up being the force against safer helmets because they feel they do something such as restrict head movement that decreases their performance and costs them money. Maybe this helmet or one of the others being worked on will be the one that finally meets the players requirements. You are correct as players many times are shortsighted to long term health effects for short term monetary benefits. This new Zero1 is different though. It increases peripheral vison considerably, virtually to the human limit. I did not spec it all out but I bet it is lighter also which reduces whiplash etc etc....... The big deal is the crumple zones inside and the flexible soft outer shell reducing G's significantly. Add in players that have demo'd it and tested it have all come back with positive recommendations. We all know you can not stop the brain completely from rattling inside skull on hits, but reducing the g forces to head with this helmet will reduce this rattle. Even if this would reduce the onset of CTE symptoms and other negative brain effects for a number of years this would be a big improvement. Many players are going to continue to play for many different reasons. Let's do all we can do for them. Now lets get on with more head protection: no fighting in Hockey, no headers in soccer, head protection in boxing and UFC(or ban both now as they are poster child for brain damage) better head(and face) protection for baseball players, same for hockey/lacrosse/rugby, stiff penalties for anyone taking off helmets and fighting. Maybe every sport should wear this ZERO1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Yeah, I've heard that argument before, that the worst thing to happen to brain health in football was the hardshell helmet, which effectively weaponizes the head. It's interesting, for sure... What year did the headshell enter the game? When are we declaring that the helmet was used routinely as a weapon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Yeah, I've heard that argument before, that the worst thing to happen to brain health in football was the hardshell helmet, which effectively weaponizes the head. It's interesting, for sure... Softer exterior reduces the initial impact. Doing so without creating excessive cohesion has been the biggest obstacle in my humble opinion. You don't want to trade less head injuries for more neck injuries. I'm going to assume they have found a happy medium with this helmet design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 A friend and I were discussed this. We both thought it would be a great idea for the NFL, but I said that since they haven't already done it, they can't do it. An actual written waiver would be good, but players going forward cannot say with any credibility that they didn't know being hit in the head causes problems. I suspect the better option would be to provide all players with written materials about concussions, and make the player sign for it. Either way, the NFL still has an assumption of risk defense to any future lawsuits, especially after the concussion lawsuit settlements and the resulting press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxum Posted May 17, 2017 Author Share Posted May 17, 2017 What they need to do is make rugby tackle training manditory From the NFLPA who believes you should not practice tackling? That is like making spell checking "manditory" on TSW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddo Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 From the NFLPA who believes you should not practice tackling? That is like making spell checking "manditory" on TSW. More like they don't believe you should practice, full stop. The reps/practice thing, needs to have a better balance, imho. There simply must be ways, in this day and age, to practice techniques, especially tackling, without going full blown at it, and it makes too much sense for there not to be more time allowed to do so. Part of the problem is the long standing tradition the NFL has, of turning a blind eye to stuff that contravenes the CBA, when it comes to practicing. If they actually made teams pay, and pay in ways it hurts them, e.g. picks etc. then you can have more 'walk through' type practices, or technique practices, as teams who don't toe the line would be punished. As that hasn't happened in the past, then the NFLPA, is pretty much not going to agree to it, unless there's some sort of nailed down regulation of it, with specific consequences. Back on the OP, these helmets sound like a great improvement. Seems like the softer shell reduces the initial impact, and the 'crumple' part, acts as an additional 'brake', reducing how quickly the goo inside your head, moves towards the skull. If I was a player, I'd be wanting these, badly, to the extent that I'd possibly even be prepared to pay for one myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxum Posted May 17, 2017 Author Share Posted May 17, 2017 Teams should give players choice - use helmets we say to use or pay for it yourself. Not that the cost is prohibitive except for tryout players but players should not be able to choose what safety equipment they use and sue employer when they or their representatives resist (i.e. the thigh pads) especially since salary is paid when they are hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 They had these 30 years ago. They were called the gazoo helmet that Mark Kelso used to wear. ...wonder why the concept was not more pursued back then?.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxum Posted May 17, 2017 Author Share Posted May 17, 2017 ...wonder why the concept was not more pursued back then?.......... Read the article: http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140430/BLOGS06/140439971/mark-kelso-mocked-and-shunned-for-his-padded-helmet-in-the-1990s-is (1) Equipment manage made decision - NFLPA "partner" would have started a lawsuit (2) Attitude - players just thought it was being tough (3) Attitude - players (and their wives) laughed at players wearing extra equipment And stupidity “With football players, aesthetics wins out over safety every time,” Kelso said Tuesday night. Kelso said only two other players wore the ProCap in those days — former 49ers left tackle Steve Wallace, an All-Pro selection in 1992, and Randy Dixon, a guard who started 110 games for the Colts in a nine-year career that concluded in 1995. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Read the article: http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20140430/BLOGS06/140439971/mark-kelso-mocked-and-shunned-for-his-padded-helmet-in-the-1990s-is (1) Equipment manage made decision - NFLPA "partner" would have started a lawsuit (2) Attitude - players just thought it was being tough (3) Attitude - players (and their wives) laughed at players wearing extra equipment And stupidity ....superb find.....pretty telling comments by Kelso....unconscionable to figure out how many sufferers today could have been helped back then because it wasn't "the look"..... “We haven't allowed new technology into the market that will help our kids,” he said. Kelso is optimistic he can play a part in changing that. But the battle seems every bit as daunting as some of the matchups Kelso faced as a 180-pound defensive back who was mocked by many of his peers for his extra-large headgear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Doug Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) It will be interesting to see if they help. No helmet will stop the brain from crashing into the inside of the skull.I'm sure the helmet will help. This is physics. The potential and kinetic energy of a helmet or the ground (or whatever) hitting another helmet has to go somewhere. With conventional helmets, the energy is not transferred to the receiving helmet, due to its stiffness, and travels to the skull instead. These new helmets are designed to adsorb as much as that oncoming energy they can. They may even break in some cases, but this would be a good thing. Evolutionary, the fluid around our brain does a similar thing. It absorbs the energy of trauma so the brain isn't hitting up the inside of the skull. Same thing with the fluid in our automobile shocks. This isn't about eliminating brain injuries, but about decreasing their risk. Edited May 17, 2017 by Saint Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 I wonder how these helmets, with their intentional-potential to break, will work with the 1 fitted helmet-per-season rule that the NFL implemented a few seasons back (which is why the Cheatriots, Falcons, Cowgirls, etc. do not do throwbacks anymore.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saxum Posted May 18, 2017 Author Share Posted May 18, 2017 Any equipment broken can be replaced in NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KHAN Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 (edited) Lessens the crashing against the outside of your head, yes. There's a second crash that takes place inside your skull when your head stops but your brain keeps going. I'm not sure any helmet will really help with that. But I am also not a scientist, and hope that they have figured something out here. You can't stop what happens inside the skull. But the "crumple zone" is designed to slow the speed of the impact thus lessening the concussive force. Kind of like dropping a bowling ball on concrete vs. dropping it on a pillow. Here's another example. Air-bags in motor vehiclesAir bags are used in motor vehicles because they are able to reduce the effect of the force experienced by a person during an accident. Air bags extend the time required to stop the momentum of the driver and passenger. During a collision, the motion of the driver and passenger carries them towards the windshield. If they are stopped by a collision with the windshield, it would result in a large force exerted over a short time in order to bring them to a stop. If instead of hitting the windshield, the driver and passenger hit an air bag, then the time of the impact is increased. Increasing the time of the impact results in a decrease in the force. Therefore if t is increased, for a constant change in momentum, the force on the body is reduced. Edited May 18, 2017 by KHAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts