finknottle Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 No helmets at all would even be better! Only a few broken noses and chipped teeth when we used to play on weekends. Rugby doesn't have helmets right? Correct. The problems take care of themselves. You learn pretty quickly not to use your head as a weapon and not to spear. In fact, it's one of the reasons why the tackling is 'better.' Proper form and instinctively knowing where to put your head when making a tackle is more important in rugby - when a guy is charging straight at you and you lower your shoulder to stick those pumping thighs, believe me you don't want your head in the wrong place. Anyway, greater discipline and form in tackling translates into both fewer highlights than the NFL (you see fewer people launching themselves for a highlight hit) but also fewer missed tackles. As a footnote, people generally don't realize that it is more dangerous being the tackler than being the tackled. Even in the NFL, with all the padding and equipment, linebackers have a higher rate of collision injury (ie broken bones) than running backs, and defensive backs have the highest rate of injury of all, much higher than receivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Kelso's "extra" helmet wasn't foam, it was a hard-plastic shell. LINK Dr, Back in the late 80's / early 90's there was a player on the Bills whose helmet was covered with what appeared to be exterior padding. His helmet looked HUGE! Who was that and what was the story with this helmet? Hadn't exterior helmet padding already been known to cause neck injury by that time? Thanks, Dear Sir: You are referring to a product called the "Procap Eliminator" and it is manufactured by Protection Sports Equipment which is located in Edinburg, PA. The product is basically a protective cap that attaches over a conventional helmet with six Velcro strips. The cap comes in several team colors and it can also be painted in any color using flexible type paint. It can be further decorated with conventional team decals and stripes. The cap has a center layer of softer padding surrounded by a top and bottom layer of harder, slick surface plastic material (similar to a modern flexible car bumper). The harder slick outer surface helps to deflect a collision similar to a conventional helmet shell and the harder slick inner surface is designed to break free of the helmet shell in the event of an extreme collision while absorbing the force of the collision as it becomes dislodged. This concept is quite different compared to the older style padded helmets form the 1960s and 1970s that had a softer outer surfaces that tended to grab and result in serious neck injuries while the underside of the padding was permanently glued and sewn to the surface of the helmet shell. Mark Kelso (Bills) and Steve Wallace (49ers) were the only two NFL players known to have worn the "Procap Eliminator" during actual league games. When it was suggested that Steve Young try this cap to help reduce the chance of future concussions he remarked that he would first retire before wearing the unusual looking device. Apparently there is less vanity in the high school and college ranks where this product is worn by many players who have suffered previous head injuries while wearing only the conventional protective helmet. This product is not endorsed by Riddell and Schutt has not taken an official position regarding its use. NFL trainers are reluctant to recommend its use without endorsement from the helmet industry. Thanks. I wonder why Riddell doesn't endorse them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zona Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 I have said for a while that the nfl should get rid of the big pads and helmets and go like rugby. It would take care of a lot of the crap we see and complain about. Also let the QB throw the ball away at any time. It is still a win for the defense. No intentional grounding, and no roughing. If he wants to stand in there and take the hit, so be it. If he wants to pansy out, then let him throw it away. That way it is all on the QB. Most of the head and neck injuries we see are because of helmet to helmet hits. how many head to head hits did we have when we played without pads at the local field/ backyard, whatever. Not many. Everybody learned how to tackle, as would the NFL players.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 There wasn't much spearing in the days of leather helmets- fewer head injuries from what I understand as well. As previously stated though, it is all about merchandising. The NFL will do ANYTHING to make a quick buck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 I have said for a while that the nfl should get rid of the big pads and helmets and go like rugby. It would take care of a lot of the crap we see and complain about. Also let the QB throw the ball away at any time. It is still a win for the defense. No intentional grounding, and no roughing. If he wants to stand in there and take the hit, so be it. If he wants to pansy out, then let him throw it away. That way it is all on the QB. Most of the head and neck injuries we see are because of helmet to helmet hits. how many head to head hits did we have when we played without pads at the local field/ backyard, whatever. Not many. Everybody learned how to tackle, as would the NFL players.... I think the whole rule book needs to be simplified and streamlined. To someone not raised in the US, the accumulated baggage of special rules looks retarded, haphazard, and impossible to learn. Special rules about brushing up against the punter? Special rules about forward fumbles inside the two minute warning? Failure to report being pass eligible if you have a linemans number? C'mon, the list goes on and on... One of the big reasons is philosophical - we demand that officiating be perfect and that there be no bad calls. So we fill the field with officials, and now have instant replay... if a situation happens in a game that upsets people (the infamous tuck), the NFL feels it has to address it, usually by adding yet another special rule... Just let them play, with a minimum of officiating. If somebody gets burned by a bad call, the controversy is good for the sport - it gets people talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffaloed in Pa Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 What if you make everyone dip their heads in grease? You could sell that idea to posters on here for real. These kiddies never cease to amaze me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JinWPB Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Totally cool idea. Players could where big foam heads like Packers cheese wedges as an example,sorta like the mascots heads but slightly smaller. I'm sure the players would be less likely to be flagged for helmets hits as they wouldn't want to be called out on national tv by name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 That would lead to the disappearance of pokies and that would be a very bad thing IMO. You have a good point. Depends on the woman. Some need size more than features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWest Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 I play in a flag football league and I always get ragged on for it not being football in pads, let me tell ya, flag football is way more punishing then football with pads. We have full contact downfield and we can lay people out legally near the sidelines.....honestly its back yard football. Its great! Im all for football with ZERO padding! We still play pick-up flag games every Sunday morning. You are right, there are some good hits and blocks even for flag. I've been out for 6 weeks with a broken foot and heel. I didn't think it was that bad when it happened, so I continued to play for a good hour and a half. When I took the cleat off when we were done, I knew it was bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroni Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Let me take a stab at this one ........ Helmets don't have foam padding on the outside because the players head is on the inside. Makes sense to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Let me take a stab at this one ........ Helmets don't have foam padding on the outside because the players head is on the inside. Makes sense to me I don't believe the suggestion is padding on the outside and a hard shell on the inside, but possible padding on both sides of a hard inner shell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macaroni Posted November 15, 2008 Share Posted November 15, 2008 Ooooooohhhhhhhhhhh well then never mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans4e64 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 I guess its just me, but I don't understand how padding on the outside would be any better and eliminate helmet to helmet injuries. Maybe if the helmet was hitting skin, but during a helmet to helmet collision the helmets are hitting each other, not a helmet vs someone's bare head. The densities are still the same, the heaviness of the helmet is still the same (if not more due to the extra padding), and the speed/force of the players colliding is still the same. If two cars are slamming together from opposite directions, are you better off because the outside has a thin layer of padding? I think it might be better for a player landing on the turf to have some padding, but in a helmet to helmet collision, I really don't see much of a difference. Now, if the layer of padding was significant to the point where it would resist some of the blow, then yeah. But any layer of padding on the outside of a helmet wouldn't be significant enough to do anything. Maybe I'm just retarded, so someone please explain this to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Wouldn't that stop spearing? Wouldn't that make helmet to hemet hits irrelevant.. A player would still be protected,but the helmet would no longer be a weapon, right?.. Please help this dumb and bored poster. Thank you! For the same reason there's not padding on the outside of cars, ships, ski helmets, motorcycle helmets, baseball gloves, shoulder pads, knee pads, boat hulls, baseball batter's helmets, and virtually anything else. Because it's bad engineering. The best way to protect something is to have the pads right next to it. A good example is pads which are made to be held by a partner while you strike or kick them. The pads will be on the outside. Why? Because they are made to protect the person on the outside, the kicker or the puncher. They protect the kicking hand or foot. The best way to protect a head is to pad the inside of the helmet. The best way to protect whatever is being hit by the helmet is to put a pad on it with the padding on the inside. Padding on the outside would be bad engineering. It would have little effect. If you doubt it, just look at the pads for other parts of the body or other sports. If you want to protect the players best, force them to use the Riddell Revolution or the Schutt DNA helmets. They are state of the art. And their padding is on the inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 I guess its just me, but I don't understand how padding on the outside would be any better and eliminate helmet to helmet injuries. Maybe if the helmet was hitting skin, but during a helmet to helmet collision the helmets are hitting each other, not a helmet vs someone's bare head. The densities are still the same, the heaviness of the helmet is still the same (if not more due to the extra padding), and the speed/force of the players colliding is still the same. If two cars are slamming together from opposite directions, are you better off because the outside has a thin layer of padding? I think it might be better for a player landing on the turf to have some padding, but in a helmet to helmet collision, I really don't see much of a difference. Now, if the layer of padding was significant to the point where it would resist some of the blow, then yeah. But any layer of padding on the outside of a helmet wouldn't be significant enough to do anything. Maybe I'm just retarded, so someone please explain this to me. The purpose of a helmet - be it for football or for motorcycles, racing vehicles etc. - is to dissipate energy, reduce concentrations of energy transfer, and reduce the rate of deceleration. Here is the Snell Memorial foundation site. Snell has been evaluating vehicle helmets for over 50 years...read the FAQ for some insight. : http://www.smf.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Bill's Fan Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Increasing the size of the helmet either by adding external or internal cushioning systems would probably have the same affect. Kind of like linbacker shoulder pads versus QB pads. Also cars with energy absorbing systems (bumpers and frame crumple zones), do cushion the outside to dissipate energy before the inside cushioning (airbags, etc) come into use. The external helmet shell seems to have a design to further cushion blows of hard surfaces like helmet to helmet, helmet to turf to reduce concussions. Who knows maybe an active system (mini airbags?) could be used, using stored energy to be applied to counteract hard hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts