Return to no face masks to protect against concussions?

[ajcardfan]

When you think about this, it's not as crazy as it sounds.

Count McMahon among those who thinks the NFL should consider having players play without facemasks. "The helmets are so good now, and guys think they can just hit so hard without hurting themselves,'' he said. "What is the solution? I don't know. But the guys in Australian Rules Football are pretty rugged, and they don't wear facemasks. They know they have to protect themselves.''

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/06/18/mmqb/index.html#ixzz1yAY9DbwR

 

[InfiniteRed]

Rugby players are pretty rugged and they don't wear helmets. May as well just lose the whole thing, they also have high tackle penalties where the player has to come off the field and can't be replaced for a few minutes.

EDIT: Actually hard plastic helmets without helmets would be terrible. People would be getting knocked out left and right. Think about it, people in the NFL like to hit others in the mouth; Facemasks protect the mouth (of the offense), helmets protect the head (of the defense). After a tackle, the defense is fine to hit as hard as they like, offense is out cold.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Been saying this for years.

 

[Phrazbit]

Its a nice idea but you'll see a lot of QBs, receivers and RBs with shattered jaws. The style of rugby is very different, its not about high flying and speed, they grind and dink and dunk. The speed of the NFL makes it inevitable that guys are going to get hit in the face.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Its a nice idea but you'll see a lot of QBs, receivers and RBs with shattered jaws. The style of rugby is very different, its not about high flying and speed, they grind and dink and dunk. The speed of the NFL makes it inevitable that guys are going to get hit in the face.

If you don't think you are going to get hit in the face in rugby, then please don't ever step out on to the field. Just sayin'.

You must be registered for see images

Someone should have told this guy not to lead with his head, lol.

But, you are correct. There are very few times in the rugby game where you get guys 20 yards apart going right at each other. It does happen, on cut backs, and kick returns, but not every play like football.

I still think the game of football could be played without helmets tho, and not take away from the game.

Rugby is no less savage then football. When you take the helmet off, it doesn't take to long to figure out, that you have to figure out how to keep your head out of the way, and you do.

 

[Phrazbit]

If you don't think you are going to get hit in the face in rugby, then please don't ever step out on to the field. Just sayin'.

But, you are correct. There are very few times in the rugby game where you get guys 20 yards apart going right at each other. It does happen, on cut backs, and kick returns, but not every play like football.

I still think the game of football could be played without helmets tho, and not take away from the game.

Rugby is no less savage then football. When you take the helmet off, it doesn't take to long to figure out, that you have to figure out how to keep your head out of the way, and you do.

Yes, rugby guys get hit in the face, but as you mentioned, its not at the velocity that happens in the NFL. Football could be played without helmets but I think the changes to tackling and contact rules would alter the game. Less aggressiveness on both sides of the ball.

 

[Mainstreet]

Its a nice idea but you'll see a lot of QBs, receivers and RBs with shattered jaws. The style of rugby is very different, its not about high flying and speed, they grind and dink and dunk. The speed of the NFL makes it inevitable that guys are going to get hit in the face.

It will be hard on the teeth and nose as well not mention the eyes.

Professional boxers do not wear helmets and they do quite well.

 

[InfiniteRed]

It will be hard on the teeth and nose as well not mention the eyes.

Professional boxers do not wear helmets and they do quite well.

All boxers wear mouth pieces though, which isn't compulsory in the NFL.
Also, did you know, it is easier to kill someone in a boxing match with gloves, than without. When bare fisted, you rarely go to the head since you'd break your wrist or hand, comes back to the thing about the attacker/tackler preferring to protect himself, over dishing out pain.


I think NFL players should tackle like rugby players anyway, without question the best tacklers in any sport. I guess in rugby you can't really get them to fumble since it's a knock-on most of the time so they don't go high, plus the rules when it comes down to it are much better.

Anyway yeah, losing just the facemasks would be a step backwards, removing the helmets would be a step forward. Either way I don't see it happening since helmets are quite umm 'glamorous?' I don't know the right word, but it's quite an attractive part of the sport.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Yes, rugby guys get hit in the face, but as you mentioned, its not at the velocity that happens in the NFL. Football could be played without helmets but I think the changes to tackling and contact rules would alter the game. Less aggressiveness on both sides of the ball.

And that is where we are going to disagree.

The perception that taking away head shots from a contact sport is going to cause it to be less aggressive is, in my opinion, simple not true. Taking away the 20 yard run at each other big shot is not going to make football any less pounding, punishing, and take away big hits. It won't I have seen that be the case time and time again.

Goes for Hockey, and Football.

Please note, this might be a matter of symantics and what not, but the difference in agression that we are speaking of is not one that is this huge gap in my experience. You get hit plenty hard, and are involved in nothing (at least a pack player) but aggressive play in rugby. You just don't have anyone throwing high flying shoulder shots, or doing the James Harrison "I am trying to paralyze myself" spear tackles. Not to much different after that, except the lack of pads.

I agree football players would have to adapt, but I do not agree it would take away from the aggressiveness of the game. That being said, football players are already being asked to adapt their games as we speak.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

It will be hard on the teeth and nose as well not mention the eyes.

Professional boxers do not wear helmets and they do quite well.

Are we playing a contact sport, or throwing a tea party. This insane idea that we are going to put grown men who are amazing atheletes on a field, tell them to hit each other, and pay them millions to win the contest, and expect to come up with some magical formula that they will then leave the field without a scratch is insanity in my book.

I bet a boxer's knees look a hell of a lot better than a NFL players at the end of their careers.

 

[Phrazbit]

Are we playing a contact sport, or throwing a tea party. This insane idea that we are going to put grown men who are amazing atheletes on a field, tell them to hit each other, and pay them millions to win the contest, and expect to come up with some magical formula that they will then leave the field without a scratch is insanity in my book.

I bet a boxer's knees look a hell of a lot better than a NFL players at the end of their careers.

I agree with this post. But I disagree that banishing helmets would solve much. It would introduce a whole boat load of other injuries and would alter the style of play on the field. You MIGHT have fewer concussions but you'd probably still see plenty from heads impacting the playing surface and the random kick or knee to the dome. And I think the league would take 10,000 concussions over the slim chance of a player dying at mid-field from a skull fracture.

 

[CardLogic]

Want to know what football would be like without helmets and less additonal protection? It's pretty simple really. Look up the oldest football videos you can find, and you will have it.

But I don't believe there were any less injuries in those days...

 

[RugbyMuffin]

And I think the league would take 10,000 concussions over the slim chance of a player dying at mid-field from a skull fracture.

Good point.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Want to know what football would be like without helmets and less additonal protection? It's pretty simple really. Look up the oldest football videos you can find, and you will have it.

But I don't believe there were any less injuries in those days...

Well, that is not 100% fair.

You were literially allowed to kill the guy back then. Helmets or not, if you clothesline a guy around the neck, you are going to do some damage.

You must be registered for see images attach

As you can see the helmet is really helping this poor guy. LOL.

 

[CardLogic]

Fair enough -so taking the rule changes into account, perhaps there would be less injuries. Of course, the first time someone dies because of a blow to the head, with no helmet, there would be calls to ban the sport.

 

[Mainstreet]

Are we playing a contact sport, or throwing a tea party. This insane idea that we are going to put grown men who are amazing atheletes on a field, tell them to hit each other, and pay them millions to win the contest, and expect to come up with some magical formula that they will then leave the field without a scratch is insanity in my book.

I bet a boxer's knees look a hell of a lot better than a NFL players at the end of their careers.

I was being sarcastic. I thought the "roll eyes" smilie would do it.

Should have used the sarcasm smilie to be sure.

 

[ajcardfan]

Well, that is not 100% fair.

You were literially allowed to kill the guy back then. Helmets or not, if you clothesline a guy around the neck, you are going to do some damage.

You must be registered for see images attach

As you can see the helmet is really helping this poor guy. LOL.

Larry Fitzgerald would've been a lineman in that period of football.

It was incomprehensible when plastic helmets were introduced that it would ever become routine to load the playing field with guys 300 + lbs running sub 5 40s, or guys weighing 250 would could've left the entire NFL of that period in the dust.

Guys like James Harrison and Adrian Wilson could've killed somebody in that era.

 

[RugbyMuffin]

Larry Fitzgerald would've been a lineman in that period of football.

It was incomprehensible when plastic helmets were introduced that it would ever become routine to load the playing field with guys 300 + lbs running sub 5 40s, or guys weighing 250 would could've left the entire NFL of that period in the dust.

Guys like James Harrison and Adrian Wilson could've killed somebody in that era.

Very good point.

"Larry Fitzgerald would've been a lineman" <--- True that.

Wasn't it Chuck Knoll that said something about how he dreams of 260lbs OT's. 260lbs! Imagine what would happen to a 260lb offensive tackle in todays game.

That I and I cannot think of a rugby player that is 300 lbs., they top out at 250lbs mostly. Funny story off of that, played Penn State Delco in college, small little school. We all thought it was going to be a cake walk. LOL. When we showed up no one was on the field, 10 min. later the Penn State Delco team shows up. 6 of there pack (linemen) players were ex-Penn State offensive linemen. It was a long day, of pulling down giants.

To sum the day up, a whole lot of this:

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Darkside]

True but dudes like Adrian Wilson and James Harrison wouldn't have been in the shape they are now if they'd played back then. Back then those were the guys in the best shape. The meanest toughest SOB's. They didn't train from the time they were 5 to play football. No pee-wee, no physical regimen the way they have now. Now they come into the league looking totally ripped and that wasn't true back then. Back then you did it on your own because you didn't make sh*t for cash anyway, and you worked in some meat-packing plant or the docks and played football in your spare time.

It's impossible to mix era's. The way I look at it the guys like Lane were the Adubs of that era and you can't go back. I doubt Lane could come forward either, but there are other guys who could. Like I think Otto Graham could, if trained from beginning to end (mentally) could still play today's QB position even in the physical shape he was in then (which was superb for the time), but I doubt a dude like Favre could play QB back then when they were allowed to kill ****'s.

Adub and Harrison wouldn't necessarily have been badass then. Not even if they were in the best shape for dudes of that time. They certainly wouldn't be beheading dudes and sending dudes to the hospital the way people think. You can't take the shape they're in now and transport it back 60 years.

And as for Rugby, I like watching me some Rugby, but there's no comparison whatsoever to the NFL. Rugby is a grind game. There is no Rugby player on this earth who could potentially compete in the NFL all game long. He'd get too gassed and wouldn't be quick enough or fast enough in the short to medium-game (not to mention the long game). NFL dudes run 100 yards on kickoffs and cover long passes and go laterally at high speed with superb athleticism. That being said, you could take the best lineman in the NFL and put them on a Rugby team, teach them the rules, and they would own Rugby, just own it. They may even like it. NFL lineman aren't afraid of broken noses or aches and pains, let's get real. NFL lineman can move laterally over a short distance much better than any Rugby player. There's no comparison. They can run laterally faster and pursue faster and they're huge and tough. There's no comparison to the training these guys get in the NFL. And if you don't like using lineman, you can use a FB or a RB like Jones Drew. No comparison. Bar none.

 

[Phrazbit]

True but dudes like Adrian Wilson and James Harrison wouldn't have been in the shape they are now if they'd played back then. Back then those were the guys in the best shape. The meanest toughest SOB's. They didn't train from the time they were 5 to play football. No pee-wee, no physical regimen the way they have now. Now they come into the league looking totally ripped and that wasn't true back then. Back then you did it on your own because you didn't make sh*t for cash anyway, and you worked in some meat-packing plant or the docks and played football in your spare time.

It's impossible to mix era's. The way I look at it the guys like Lane were the Adubs of that era and you can't go back. I doubt Lane could come forward either, but there are other guys who could. Like I think Otto Graham could, if trained from beginning to end (mentally) could still play today's QB position even in the physical shape he was in then (which was superb for the time), but I doubt a dude like Favre could play QB back then when they were allowed to kill ****'s.

Adub and Harrison wouldn't necessarily have been badass then. Not even if they were in the best shape for dudes of that time. They certainly wouldn't be beheading dudes and sending dudes to the hospital the way people think. You can't take the shape they're in now and transport it back 60 years.

Exactly. Sometimes people act as though the human race has dramatically evolved and the athletes from decades past would stink now. Its all supplements, training, and better medical staffs that have created the larger faster athlete. If you pulled some of the monsters from decades past and stuck them in the modern game BUT they also have access to modern training, then those guys would still be similar caliber players. There is no reason to think they wouldnt, they dominated their era against guys with the same advantages and disadvantages.

 

[InfiniteRed]

And as for Rugby, I like watching me some Rugby, but there's no comparison whatsoever to the NFL. Rugby is a grind game. There is no Rugby player on this earth who could potentially compete in the NFL all game long. He'd get too gassed and wouldn't be quick enough or fast enough in the short to medium-game (not to mention the long game). NFL dudes run 100 yards on kickoffs and cover long passes and go laterally at high speed with superb athleticism. That being said, you could take the best lineman in the NFL and put them on a Rugby team, teach them the rules, and they would own Rugby, just own it. They may even like it. NFL lineman aren't afraid of broken noses or aches and pains, let's get real. NFL lineman can move laterally over a short distance much better than any Rugby player. There's no comparison. They can run laterally faster and pursue faster and they're huge and tough. There's no comparison to the training these guys get in the NFL. And if you don't like using lineman, you can use a FB or a RB like Jones Drew. No comparison. Bar none.

I don't want to go into the argument of Rugby vs Am. Football since it happens everywhere on the internet and is like the dumbest debate ever, but I think you are a bit biased.
How can Rugby be a grind game where the players have no stamina? NFL players do run lots of yards on SOME plays, but at times move no more than 10 yards. Plus they have a half a minute break in between each time.
Don't forget that Am. Football is really situational, players are rotated all the time. You say they go 100 yards on kickoffs but for most of those players that is their only job. Whereas rugby players play offense, defense and special teams in a sense.
I just think you are giving too little respect to rugby and cherry picking things here and there. NFL is built for explosion Rugby is built for sustained power. I think there are NFL players that would own in Rugby but it does go both ways, there are Rugby players that could be superstars in the NFL too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8Veeft-L7I

 

[CardLogic]

And as for Rugby... There is no Rugby player on this earth who could potentially compete in the NFL all game long. He'd get too gassed and wouldn't be quick enough or fast enough.

All I'm going to say is you don't know what you're talking about...

And then I'll wait for R. Muffin's response.

 

[Darkside]

I like Rugby, so it wasn't intended to offend anyone. I have a preferance for American Football, which I think is totally obvious. I should have left the whole Rugby V NFL alone, since I really don't care at all. I'm just long winded and couldn't help myself.

 

[CardLogic]

I like Rugby, so it wasn't intended to offend anyone. I have a preferance for American Football, which I think is totally obvious. I should have left the whole Rugby V NFL alone, since I really don't care at all. I'm just long winded and couldn't help myself.

We're in the DEAD ZONE. This past weekend I resorted to watching golf!

 

[Darkside]

I watched golf and the NBA finals. When did Jordan retire?