DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL testing helmets, mulling changes

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4792868

NFL testing helmets, mulling changes


As the NFL moves into the playoffs, the league is searching for a safer helmet and considering offseason rule changes to provide more protection from concussions.

Congress is still on the NFL's case, too, and will examine head injuries in football again Monday, a day after the regular season ended and Miami Dolphins quarterback Pat White was carted off the field because of a helmet-to-helmet collision in a game.

One researcher who recently conducted crash-dummy tests on five manufacturers' helmets for the NFL worries about what good will come of efforts to measure how much safer players are than they were a decade ago and understand where improvements could be made.

"There's some really frightening potential for how this data is used," David Halstead of the Southern Impact Research Center said in a telephone interview. "In other words -- and the NFL, I'm sure, wouldn't like me saying this -- my concern is that somebody makes a direct comparison and says, 'This helmet performed 40 percent better, so you're 40 percent less likely to be injured.' That's absolutely incorrect."

Halstead is particularly concerned the study will be construed by high schools or youth leagues as recommending a particular helmet, even if the NFL insists that's not its intention.

Instead, NFL officials say the goal is to do basic scientific research that will give players and equipment managers more information about helmets and will help manufacturers know where they could improve equipment.

"The majority of players are still wearing helmets designed in the '90s," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "That's a key reason we wanted to initiate more research on helmets."

The NFL and Riddell have had a licensing/sponsorship arrangement since 1990 -- the current deal is set to expire after the 2013 season -- and teams are eligible for price breaks from that company. Each player can choose what helmet he wears; most go with Riddell, whose Web site notes it's the "Official Helmet of the NFL."

Another possible result of testing: The league could use the data to "see if there are potential rules changes that should be made," said Jeff Pash, NFL executive VP and chief counsel. "This study can be used by our competition committee and others to find, for example, that there are certain impacts that are particularly difficult to attenuate the forces. Maybe that can go into consideration of how you set up the rules of the game and how you enforce those rules."

The first round of the NFL's helmet testing, done from October to December at Halstead's lab and a lab in Canada, looked at how two helmet models made 10 years ago and present-day models responded to blows at various angles and speeds, up to about 22 mph.

Specific data won't be released before March, but Halstead did offer this summary: "Some of the new helmets, not surprisingly, tested significantly better in certain locations than the 10-year-old helmets. Some of the new helmets didn't perform any better than a 10-year-old helmet, which is a little surprising."

The league also is paying attention to tests being done on mouth guards to see whether they could play a role in helping prevent concussions. The NFL's Aiello said the league has not ruled out making use of mouth guards mandatory.

Halstead is scheduled to testify at a congressional hearing at Detroit's Wayne State University School of Medicine on Monday, the House Judiciary Committee's second recent look at football head injuries.

Other witnesses slated to appear include former NFL players Kyle Turley and Ted Johnson, as well as Ira Casson, a doctor who resigned as co-chairman of the NFL's concussion committee amid accusations of bias. The House panel had hoped Casson would testify at its Oct. 28 hearing; he did not attend and later said he was not formally invited.

"That was the voice that was missing, the dog that didn't bark," NFL Players Association medical director Thom Mayer said.

At that session, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was grilled by some lawmakers about his league's concussion policies and connections between head injuries and brain disease. Since then the league has instituted stricter return-to-play guidelines for players showing concussion symptoms, and required each team to enlist an independent neurologist as an advisor. Goodell will not appear Monday.

"There's been good progress," Mayer said. "Our intention is to keep the pedal to the metal and make sure we continue to move forward."

Mayer said the NFL is close to agreeing that reports team doctors and trainers deliver to the league about individual players' concussions will be simultaneously given to the NFLPA.

"After all," Mayer said, "they're our players."

Casson's resignation was announced in November, and the league aims to select a replacement before the Super Bowl. There are five finalists, according to Mayer, who said he will help the NFL's medical advisor recommend a new leader of the concussion committee.

Lawmakers also plan to ask an NCAA representative about Texas Tech coach Mike Leach, who was fired after allegations surfaced that he mistreated a player diagnosed with a concussion.

"If true, this suggests there needs to be a culture change, where coaches and players understand and abide by concussion diagnoses and recommendations," committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., planned to say in his opening remarks.

In Turley's written testimony, obtained in advance by the AP, he speaks candidly about having multiple concussions, saying his "faculties continue [to] degenerate and my life continues to change."

Turley, who played for the Saints, Rams and Chiefs from 1998-2007, also writes that "the egregious negligence of NFL team medical staff is fairly universal, that its effects are perpetuated and magnified by the NFL disability committees, comprised of the owners and the players union representatives, which continually deny retired players' disability claims wrongfully, and that active players continue to be put into the game after suffering concussions."

here is the hit on pat white...

ouch

An interesting take here by Troy Aikman:

the new issue of Sporting News, Hall of Fame quarterback Troy Aikman addresses the NFL's new sensitivity to head injuries.

And Aikman speaks from a position of authority; he admits that he suffered seven or eight concussions during 12 NFL seasons.

But he's concerned that the league's sudden interest in the issue could have unintended consequences. "My belief is that when you decide to play football -- just like those who choose to be firemen or policemen -- you are also accepting the inherent risks involved with the profession," Aikman writes. "You may break some bones. You may tear up your knee. And you may suffer head injuries."

We've often taken it a step farther. In America, 18-year-old men and women may choose to join the military. And they do so accepting the risk that they may die.

So why it is OK for kids barely out of high school to put their lives on the line and, suddenly, it's not OK for grown men making in some instances more than $10 million per year to suffer concussions?

We're not suggesting that the league should be reckless with the health of its players. But we agree with Aikman's concern that, at some point, the game could change -- both in the NFL and at lower levels of the sport.

So Aikman has suggested a radical possibility. Dump the helmets.

"For years," he writes, "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."

Though we're not prepared to agree with him on that point, we definitely believe that removing the risk from football is roughly as nearly as unrealistic as removing the bullets from war.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/22/aikman-suggests-getting-rid-of-helmets/

j/c...

If the league would actually start enforcing penalties and steep fines for helmet to helmet hits, I have a feeling we wouldn't see quite so many of them. That, and if many of these guys learned that the proper way to tackle someone isn't to try to blow them up with their helmets. Show them the video of David Pollack trying to tackle Reuben Droughns with his helmet and how that wound up for him.

It's very simple...

Ban the old style helmet and require the new generation Revolution helmets (or its competing manufacturer equivalent.)

Then make technologically advanced mouthguards the norm and required for every play. I can't believe that hasn't been done already. That alone would significantly reduce the risk of a concussion.

The helmet issue is one that needs to look back in time and apply what we learned then to what we know now.

The material that helmets are made of must be changed. I'm talking about the outside of the helmet, not the inside.

Back in the early 60s, our HS still had some helmets that had a leather outside that was layered with some padding in the side. That outside layer, being a material that actual absorbed some of the shock of helmet to helmet contact, needs to be applied to today's helmets.

All the focus has been on the padding on the inside of the helmet which is good, but if they really want to reduce the amount energy transferred through the helmet to the brain, they must look at making the outside of today's helmets with an energy absorbing material rather than a rock hard material.

I remember when Willie Lanier, MLB for the Chiefs had a special helmet that had a wide strip of energy absorbing material on the outside of his helmet. You can read about it here...web page

The concept worked back for Lanier then and it would work today.

Now the question becomes WHY?...Why hasn't the NFL used this type of helmet since Willie Lanier's time?

It worked then...it would work today...

BTW, No, I did not have a leather helmet when I played...

I can remember as a kid how odd that helmet looked of Laniers!
Good post, interesting.

Maybe NERF has the answers!

I thought the same thing as Mac above. A padding on the outside would absorb and give and distribute the impact.

A bit off the topic of helmets . . . If the energy of the NFL is being directed to protect players than why don't they enforce the wearing of padding on the legs and over the knees?

You are going to have helmet to helmet hits--though not intentional. With guys flying around at full speed I can't see how that can be avoided and levying fines doesn't protect, it's after the fact anyway.

The future of the NFL

There were a few players in the 80's and 90's who wore a protective padded shell over there existing helmets to prevent them from further damage from impact on the helmet.
The one that really stands out was from Buffalo. I believe it was Steve Tasker, but I might be wrong.
I always thought he looked like Gazoo from the Flintstones.

I've often thought of using a ballistic gel in some form inside the helmet or the same technology that is used in recoil pads for firearms. The technology is there it just needs to be implemented into the helmets.

Yup, Steve Tasker of the Bills had that rubber layer over his helmet. It looked goofy but provided more protection.

David Wright of the Mets had to wear an extra large helmet for a while after his concussion this past year. He thought about wearing it all the time until other players were cracking jokes about the helmet and how he looked.

Troy has a good thought, but the league would NEVER do that. And it's for marketing reasons, not safety. Still, something needs to be done to protect the players even though they know it's a risk.

Quote:

---

But he's concerned that the league's sudden interest in the issue could have unintended consequences. "My belief is that when you decide to play football -- just like those who choose to be firemen or policemen -- you are also accepting the inherent risks involved with the profession," Aikman writes. "You may break some bones. You may tear up your knee. And you may suffer head injuries."

---

I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water. Police and fire departments are geared to minimize the amount bodily damage if the worst case scenario occurs. Look at the SWAT teams. It's not normal clothed officers storming a building to take on heavily armed individuals, it's the guys with full body kevlar and automatic rifles. Yes, when one goes into any profession where bodily harm can occur, they should recognize it. However, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the best protection possible.

On a side note, Boston University is actually doing quite a bit with the NFL in studying the long term effects of concussions on players. You can see a video featured on 60 minutes here. Pretty interesting stuff Admittedly though, I'm biased!

When I hear that argument, I always assumed it was aimed at the rule changes governing how you play the game (how you can/can't tackle, etc.) rather than the equipment. I don't think anyone would argue against putting players in the best/safest equipment.

The problem comes when you start messing with rules that affect HOW the players play the game (The "Tom Brady Rule", for example).

I honestly think if you went to leather helmets, you would see fewer head injuries.

People wouldn't lead with the head.

I have to agree here,...and I bring forth tackling and blocking as an example. If you saw Furrey take out the Jags WR on a tackle he had but little choice to make, that would have been a penalty and a fine if it was, instead, a block.

If you ain't allowed to block that way, why are you allowed to tackle in that fashion ?

Nobody ever gets called for a helmet-to-helmet block at the line of scrimmage,...I am NOT advocating h-t-h tackling here,...I despise it. I am apalled at not being able to roll block though, when I'm allowed to employ it as a tackling device.

Goose,...Gander,...etc.

For the most part, yes, but he wasn't talking about rule changes. Aikman was talking about removing the helmets altogether, which is probably the worst idea out there in regards to preventing concussions. By that same argument we should remove seat belts from motor vehicles because, "If people knew they didn't have anything holding them back, they would be much more careful."

Remove the helmets and put on the flag belts,....

I was more talking about the argument against/for all these new rules regarding tackling/roughing the passer/whatever, etc in general. I guess I wasn't directly replying to you.

That Aikman comment is different. I understand the point he's making, but it's a ridiculous argument, IMO. The real solution is actually enforcing penalties/fines on current rules with some sort of consistency.

I don't think this problem is as bad as in other leagues (NHL comes to mind). They have got to have the worst track record at punishing dirty plays with consistency.

Quote:

---

They have the gear to protect themselves, much more than most of us wore as kids playing sandlot football.

---

I see a big difference between two to three hundred pound men that workout five times a week running full steam into one another than a couple of neighborhood kids running into one another. Just because we did it in the past, doesn't make it ok for others to do now. Especially considering we have the possibility of making the football helmet overall better, and could be built upon ideas like better vision, etc. on top of making them concussion resistant. Injuries will always occur, I don't think anyone will argue with that. However, if this can prevent injury that will affect someone later on in life, it should be looked into, regardless of how much they get paid.