My product will be typed out proposals/plans that relates to every field of study that I have been looking into.
It's one thing to say "this needs to be implemented" and another to say "this is how the NFL should go about implementing said practices." So I have a lot of work to do in regards to being able to explain a plausible and realistic way of implementing the plethora of changes I want to bring to the NFL and football in general in order to make the game safer.
I want to talk about some evidence and data that I found that supports the "outlandish" idea of playing the game of football without one of the modern day helmets. Note how I said the "modern day helmets", I believe in MIPS helmets or bringing it back to the old school leather helmet days.
The data pertains to the sport of rugby. Extrapolation of data is very risky, but there are some points that just make so much sense where I believe it can be sustained scientifically.
First off here is the short abstract from the experiment in order to give you an idea of what it is about:
- "In this study, the incidence of head, neck and facial injuries in youth rugby was determined, and the associated risk factors were assessed."
Here are the things I've taken away from the experiment:
There was a total of 1841 injuries experienced by 1159 players during the two season the experiment took place. That's definitely a large enough sample size.
Out of 1841 injuries, only 2 were deemed to be resulting in catastrophic consequences. That is a .1% chance of a catastrophic injury. Those against removing helmets entirely from the game of football bring up the fact that rugby players suffer more catastrophic injuries than football players. Of course playing without a helmet leaves the neck and head defenseless, but as seen by the data, it is extremely rare. Out of the 1841 injuries there were 199 that suffered a concussion. If you were to say that only 2.5% of those that suffered a concussion would end up with a debilitating mental illness than you would have 5 cases, which is 3 more than the extremely small number of 2 in regards to catastrophic injury. But remember that in the NFL, 3 out of 10 football players are said to face cognitive woes in there future. 30%. So 30% vs. .1%. Remember that isn't 1% that is one tenth of a percent, .1%. I think it's a no brainer when it comes to the overall safety of the game. No helmets FORCES player to tackle around the waist and use proper techniques, thus reducing the risk of concussions, and thus saving a plethora of lives.
Scrum. First off, what is a scrum in rugby?
Scrum definition:
an ordered formation of players, used to restart play, in which the forwards of a team form up with arms interlocked and heads down, and push forward against a similar group from the opposing side. The ball is thrown into the scrum and the players try to gain possession of it by kicking it backward toward their own side.
The scrum is the most dangerous part of the game of rugby and it is said that this is where most catastrophic injuries take place.
The scrum, it's a part of the game, it's unavoidable.
Oh wait. We're talking about football. Football has no scrum. Catastrophic injuries in rugby occur at a .1% rate. Football referees give out much more penalties and enforce rules more stringently.
Is it safe to say that something as simple as removing helmets or replacing the big bulky helmets of today with a new modern, sleek and slim helmet could be all that it takes to reduce and even eradicate the concussion crisis of today? Who knows, but it's definitely a proposal that I'm supporting.
No comments:
Post a Comment