Robert Smith - Clemson

[dressedcheeseside]

Lets try it this way. If you play football you may injure your brain. Unless helmets are totally removed this is inevitable. When you have something floating in liquid moving one way. And it comes to an abrupt stop its going to keep going and hit your skull no matter what gear you wear. THATS physics. Short of coming up with and inner skellar brain holder there is nothing on this gods green earth that can prevent these physics. The only way to stop this is end the abrupt impact. The only way to stop that is remove helmets and pads. Or go to 2 hand touch.

Even if u use soft helmets. Abrupt stops to the brain will still exist. The brain wont stop and it will hit the skull. There is no equipment solution. You can get a concussion from a voilent hit to the chest if your head and neck snaps back. Its again....physics.

So basically here it is.

If you play football you are now aware of this danger. You also acknowledge the risks. You sign a court approved legal waiver and play the game and move on.

Or dont play the game. Its not a right. Its not a guarantee. Everything has its risks. Its up to each person or their parents to determine what is acceptable to them or not. Its called choice. We have forgotten choice and moved to right and blame.

If football is now becoming to voilent for this PC world then move to 2 hand touch. Its getting lame. Just dont play the game if u r fearful.

I think what the poster meant was that if you remove or lesson the hardness of the helmet, guys are less likely to ram into each other at full speed, thus lessening the force of impact. Face it, the collision aspect of the sport has been glorified. Just think of the "Jacked Up!" segments on ESPN for proof. Also, why do we see all the knock-down tackles now a days instead of the wrap-up variety? Until we take the glory of impact out of the game, we're going to have this debate.

 

[Animal02]

Hate to say it, but bubble-wrap ball is here to stay, and we can probably thank one of our own for pushing the concussion lawsuits. What you are seeing is like when they took all the diving boards out of public and hotel pools years ago because of the lawsuits. It is not about what is right or wrong or really safe or dangerous or who is really liable. It is about the NCAA being able to go into court one day and say to a judge, "Well, we did this and this and that, and we tightened down on the rules and kicked people out of games. We were responsible. DON'T TAKE OUR MONEY AWAY." This rule enforcement is the NCAA's 'Caution: Wet Floor' sign.

Well, I do not know about elsewhere.....but here in Michigan.....the state passed a law requiring lifeguards at all public access pools with diving boards.......they didn't want to pay for life guards.....not the threat of lawsuits. But getting back to football.......the pendulum has swung to far on several penalties. and not far enough on others.........helmet to helmet contact is a penalty regardless of intent, yet you can pick someone up and body slam him to the ground with no consequences.

 

[GlennW]

Fwiw, he was called for targeting in the second half last night vs Wake...this means he is suspended the first half vs us next week.

He is the starting S for Clemson.

Saw it horrible call. Worse call than the one we got with corey griffin.

Can watson be signaled for targeting during practice. Lol. We need him to sit.

I saw it, too, and it was a proper call. He left his feet (launched) and hit the defensless wide receiver helmet-to-helmet. That is the definition of the personal foul "targeting" penalty.

 

[GTJason]

I do not follow this at all. Are you saying that doctors are the problem? Hmmm. I know that not everyone in a given profession practices absolute integrity and competence but I would hardly think blaming a profession that presumably knows more about concussions than any of the rest of us is a little suspect. Maybe I misunderstood.

Frontline had an excellent investigative piece that documented research showing that you do not even have to have a concussion to suffer long term and potentially dangerous damage to the brain. It is the repeated blows over a lifetime of playing the sport that can be catastrophic. Teaching players not to tackle with their heads was a good first step but there is much more that could be done to help with this.

As for woodpeckers, really? That seems like a total throw away point to me. Their skulls are not just shaped differently, they are different in every conceivable way from a human skull, including the honeycombed shock absorbers built into the layers of their skull.

I'm not saying Doctors are the problem. I'm saying in the field of trauma they are more problem solvers than forensic scientists. That is to say they are not experts on how the injuries occur, just how to fix them. This is in large part because their job has nothing to do with preventing the problem when it starts because it's irrelevant how the problem occurred. They get the end result. I would be very surprised if an MD PhD was saying it's like a tennis ball in a box.

And yes, woodpeckers. The shock absorbing layers of their skull and the lower amount of fluid in their cranial cavity helps out a lot which is why we don't advocate for human skull to skull impacts. By design though, the shape of their skulls does a great deal at deflecting impact which is why we are using that as the basis for next gen helmet design. I work on extremity injury for the Army, heard the woodpecker stuff at a DARPA meeting. They are building a program around that concept... I'll let them know it's a bad idea

My initial point was people oversimplifying complex problems especially by people who are considered to have a valid opinion makes engineers lives hell.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I'm not saying Doctors are the problem. I'm saying in the field of trauma they are more problem solvers than forensic scientists. That is to say they are not experts on how the injuries occur, just how to fix them. This is in large part because their job has nothing to do with preventing the problem when it starts because it's irrelevant how the problem occurred. They get the end result. I would be very surprised if an MD PhD was saying it's like a tennis ball in a box.

And yes, woodpeckers. The shock absorbing layers of their skull and the lower amount of fluid in their cranial cavity helps out a lot which is why we don't advocate for human skull to skull impacts. By design though, the shape of their skulls does a great deal at deflecting impact which is why we are using that as the basis for next gen helmet design. I work on extremity injury for the Army, heard the woodpecker stuff at a DARPA meeting. They are building a program around that concept... I'll let them know it's a bad idea

My initial point was people oversimplifying complex problems especially by people who are considered to have a valid opinion makes engineers lives hell.

I think the oversimplification comes from the need to explain it to simple folk.

 

[jeffgt14]

Lets try it this way. If you play football you may injure your brain. Unless helmets are totally removed this is inevitable. When you have something floating in liquid moving one way. And it comes to an abrupt stop its going to keep going and hit your skull no matter what gear you wear. THATS physics. Short of coming up with and inner skellar brain holder there is nothing on this gods green earth that can prevent these physics. The only way to stop this is end the abrupt impact. The only way to stop that is remove helmets and pads. Or go to 2 hand touch.

Even if u use soft helmets. Abrupt stops to the brain will still exist. The brain wont stop and it will hit the skull. There is no equipment solution. You can get a concussion from a voilent hit to the chest if your head and neck snaps back. Its again....physics.

So basically here it is.

If you play football you are now aware of this danger. You also acknowledge the risks. You sign a court approved legal waiver and play the game and move on.

Or dont play the game. Its not a right. Its not a guarantee. Everything has its risks. Its up to each person or their parents to determine what is acceptable to them or not. Its called choice. We have forgotten choice and moved to right and blame.

If football is now becoming to voilent for this PC world then move to 2 hand touch. Its getting lame. Just dont play the game if u r fearful.

Why should we reward players for improper tackling? For years we’ve had terrible defensive players look good because they don’t know how to properly wrap up and take a guy down. Football should be a form of art and if the only way you know how to play defense is to launch yourself into a player for a big hit and possibly injure the other player for the game then that’s just BS.

Think about the horsecollar penalty. Roy Williams was an All-Pro safety who didn’t know how to properly tackle or cover anybody. He got beat on a play and made up for it by dragging players down by the collar and tearing their ACL’s. The NFL realized that’s BS so they banned horsecollar tackles. This is the same thing to me. It’s great for player safety but it’s also great for keeping good fundamentals in football.

 

[AE 87]

On woodpeckers and helmets:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130115-woodpecker-inspires-bike-helmet

 

[bravejason]

While I don't think the player intended to target, I think his actions, in real time, looked like targeting and thus merited the flag. To me, the replay did not show indisputable evidence that it was not targeting. So, I think the officials were correct in both the initial call and the review.

 

[Squints]

So basically here it is.

If you play football you are now aware of this danger. You also acknowledge the risks. You sign a court approved legal waiver and play the game and move on.

Or dont play the game. Its not a right. Its not a guarantee. Everything has its risks. Its up to each person or their parents to determine what is acceptable to them or not. Its called choice. We have forgotten choice and moved to right and blame.

It's nowhere near that simple. How many of those people are going to refuse to sign that waiver looking at all football can do for you?

"Hey come play college football for us! We'll give you a full scholarship and access to a whole bunch of stuff you'd ever never have without it. You just have to sign a piece of paper that says it's your fault if anything happens to you because you decided to accept our offer."

I mean are you kidding me? Nobody is thinking past the next four years in that situation. How many of those people who signed the waiver will regret that decision 5o years down the road, if they even make it that long, after playing?

Yea of course there's always a risk of it happening. But brain damage shouldn't be a risk that simply accepted as the price you pay. Why is there this gnashing of the teeth over attempts to mitigate that risk? Its presence doesn't require you to accept or embrace it. Honestly I find it really strange for a bunch of fans from a school that produces great engineers (for the record I am not one) to just go: "Well that's the way it is. Deal with it." Sounds idiotic to me. Seems like nobody can look past their football fandom on this one.

If football is now becoming to voilent for this PC world then move to 2 hand touch. Its getting lame. Just dont play the game if u r fearful.

Ah got it. It's all about machismo and "ruining" the precious American game of football. That's what's really important here.

 

[GTpdm]

I agree with all that, but I'm not sure what you disagree with in my post.... Oh, almost forgot..... urgh.

Sorry, I wasn't disagreeing, at all—just posting in a rush. (That "fail" was directed at myself, for not being able resist doing physics.) I wanted expand on what you posted by pointing out the "distance for time" tradeoff.

The reason why targeting rules are a necessity is that there is no space to trade in a head-to-head collision. At the moment of impact the two players' skulls are mere inches apart, and it will be impossible to reduce the stopping forces to "safe" levels. It's a hard physics limitation, and something that can't be engineered away unless you put foot-thick foamy nerf helmets on everyone. (Wouldn't that be a sight, though!)

 

[Madison Grant]

Sounds good to me.

Big Tobacco knew there was a link between smoking and cancer and chose to hide that information from the public. They got to deal with that choice.

NFL knew there was a link between playing football and longterm debilitating brain injuries and chose to hide that information from the players. Now they get to be responsible for that choice.

The "be responsible for your own choices" line doesn't get to play when one party is deliberately keeping information from the other.

I wasn't around in the 50s when all those "Tobacco is good for you" adds were going on, but I have a feeling even back then, most lucid people probably had a good laugh at that. I can tell you that in my life time, which spans from 1969 onward, I can't think of any case where people didn't know tobacco was BAD for you. Most of the folks I knew who smoked would tell you, "This is a bad habit. Don't start it. I wish I could quit." When folks are dropping like flies from lung cancer and emphysema around you, how much of a level of common sense is your responsibility.

Sorry, but you and I will have to part ways on my love of personal freedom vs. your love of the great and intervening state.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

So, how good is Robert smiths replacement? Can we take advantage?

 

[daBuzz]

Man, you guys can obfuscate the issue.

Here's what I know: I saw the play last night. Dude hit the receiver in the middle of his chest as he caught the ball. He hit the receiver with his shoulder pads. It was pretty much a textbook example of how you hit someone and do it hard but safely. Horrible call. Works in our favor but it is sad that referees are now affecting not only the current game but a following game based on what is a really good hit.

 

[potatohead]

So, how good is Robert smiths replacement? Can we take advantage?

Not sure who the replacements is, but Robert Smith is a good safety. Big guy, big hitter, and I imagine would be pretty important to Clemson in the run support against us. All in all, good for us, but tough call for the tigers.

 

[AE 87]

Man, you guys can obfuscate the issue.

Here's what I know: I saw the play last night. Dude hit the receiver in the middle of his chest as he caught the ball. He hit the receiver with his shoulder pads. It was pretty much a textbook example of how you hit someone and do it hard but safely. Horrible call. Works in our favor but it is sad that referees are now affecting not only the current game but a following game based on what is a really good hit.

Interesting, since these calls are reviewed.

 

[jeffgt14]

Man, you guys can obfuscate the issue.

Here's what I know: I saw the play last night. Dude hit the receiver in the middle of his chest as he caught the ball. He hit the receiver with his shoulder pads. It was pretty much a textbook example of how you hit someone and do it hard but safely. Horrible call. Works in our favor but it is sad that referees are now affecting not only the current game but a following game based on what is a really good hit.

Well, you madam, are a festizzio. See? I can make up words too.

 

[RamblinCharger]

For everybody complaining about the rules, how bout some suggestions for lowering concussions? If not, then I don't want to hear it.

There have been helmet improvements that have been suggested and none have been implemented. You would think they'd just stick a bunch of breathable memory foam in the inside of the helmet.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The average lifespan of a football player is 10-15 years shorter than the usual American male (when adjusted for demographic factors)
Hundreds, if not thousands of former players have already been diagnosed with serious post-concussion syndromes and CTE
There are multiple murders and suicides that have been connected to these brain injuries.

And you're upset that football might not be as fun to watch because people won't get hurt as often. That's a little selfish, no?

None of what you are trying to suggest here is actually true. Check out the work of Daniel J. Flynn that demonstrates what is true and what is propaganda on all these issues.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Speaking of the rules again, the no targeting of defenseless players is a good rule, imo. It protects both players. The defender could easily suffer a very bad spinal injury leading with the crown of the helmet. The real issue is in the "execution" of the rule. Any rule can be used wrongly by officials, this one is not immune to that. This just happens to be one of those subjective rules where the official has to make a quick judgement call. What really miffs me is when the booth guys screw it up.

That just points out again why calls by officials should be reviewable, at least major ones like targeting. Officials make mistakes, some of them unfortunately probably deliberately, but some definitely because they only see so much. Reviewing a call should remove any reasonable doubt or result in a reversal of the call. IMHO

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Well, I do not know about elsewhere.....but here in Michigan.....the state passed a law requiring lifeguards at all public access pools with diving boards.......they didn't want to pay for life guards.....not the threat of lawsuits. But getting back to football.......the pendulum has swung to far on several penalties. and not far enough on others.........helmet to helmet contact is a penalty regardless of intent, yet you can pick someone up and body slam him to the ground with no consequences.

Body slamming should definitely be banned. That is a broken back or neck just waiting to happen. I guess that will have to happen though before the NCAA addresses it. It will be too late then.