Robert Smith - Clemson

[33jacket]

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.



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

Sounds like u r in the business of protecting people from themselves and their choices (provide those choices are legal and the consequences/risks are known); i am not. If its legal, and the risks are spelled out then each has to make their own decisions and live with the risks and mitigating factors.

There is no solution on the globe today to prevent the brain from hitting the skull at high potential events like football or boxing. So either eliminate the impact that causes it or live with the risk.

Its really that simple. If the sport is ruined by eliminating the impact because concussions are so much more important and protecting adults from themselves is so much more important than so be it. I am not in that business. If money is more important than your health then live with the risks.

Going to college is not a right. If you path is football and you think the risk is too high then i suggest studying to make it the old school way. For most including me, the risk was lower than the fun. Everyone knows the risks. And there is no way to solve it with a hard helmet.

Until someone can find a way to suspend the brain this wont be solved. Only reduced by eliminating aspects of the game. Or eliminating the game.

 

[GTJackets]

The sad part is that they actually did review the play for the ejection part of the call. The replay official upheld the call and enforced the ejection.

Didn't agree with the call but the on-field officials have a split second to make a call. I understand calls getting missed like that. But for a replay official to go back and review it and decide he should have been ejected for that hit was unexplainable.

 

[slugboy]

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

It was reviewed, automatically. The call stood.

Robert Smith launched himself at an airborne receiver. Helmets hit. Even though the call could have been overturned, Smith did look like he was headhunting.

 

[danny daniel]

It doesn't matter what helmet design there is. If you take a human traveling x mph and stop him, the brain keeps going within the skull (for lack of a better description).

I recall one doctor explain it by putting a tennis ball in a cardboard box and shaking it around. Doesn't matter what you wrap the outside of the box with. That ball's still bouncing around.

The object of the "softer shell helmet" would be to slow down the stop, just like the NASCAR wall absorbs some moving energy (compared to the old concrete block wall). I would bet the harder the shell the quicker the stop in a helmet to helmet hit..

 

[nod]

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

There was a time when the QB's would not throw the ball over the middle knowing the big hit was on him, change the rule and make it a penalty on the QB when a receiver gets laid out.

 

[Madison Grant]

The bottom line is you are calling a penalty that does not and cannot take into account intent. For Robert Smith of Clemson or Corey Griffin of Georgia Tech, running at a guy full blast, timing your hit on him, timing the arrival of the ball, trying to make sure you don't touch his helmet with your helmet, trying to make the tackle so the coach doesn't bench you, trying to break up the pass to help your team, trying to not get yourself hurt, trying to take into account whether he's going to duck his head at a split second and destroy the angle you're taking to try not to make an illegal hit, is too much to hold a player responsible for. You are punishing a player when there is no real intention to break rules and be irresponsible. But, somebody has to be punished so I pick you. That's why I say this is all a bunch of a** covering nonsense. Like seatbelt laws. My children have to be forced to sit in a d*** astronaut ejection seat on long trips instead of enjoying a nice lounge in the back seat like I did my whole childhood. Got in multiple wrecks as a kid, and I'm alive and well and was never injured, as I'm sure the overwhelming 99% of unseatbelted passengers were before insurance companies figured out they could lobby the government to put in a law that would save them X amount of $$$ in life insurance payoffs and promote it to the public as 'saving lives'.

 

[potatohead]

Got in multiple wrecks as a kid, and I'm alive and well and was never injured, as I'm sure the overwhelming 99% of unseatbelted passengers were before insurance companies figured out they could lobby the government to put in a law that would save them X amount of $$$ in life insurance payoffs and promote it to the public as 'saving lives'.

This, this is a joke right?

 

[IEEEWreck]

That's why I say this is all a bunch of a** covering nonsense. Like seatbelt laws. My children have to be forced to sit in a d*** astronaut ejection seat on long trips instead of enjoying a nice lounge in the back seat like I did my whole childhood. Got in multiple wrecks as a kid, and I'm alive and well and was never injured, as I'm sure the overwhelming 99% of unseatbelted passengers were before insurance companies figured out they could lobby the government to put in a law that would save them X amount of $$$ in life insurance payoffs and promote it to the public as 'saving lives'.

I... wow.

This has to be a joke, right? It's like the opposite of engineering ethics. It rejects the responsibility of the designer for the design along with empirical study of reality. That has to be there to get GT engineers riled up, right?

Also, I'm not sure how life insurance companies can reduce payoffs in this context without 'saving lives'.

Just a question about this subject and personal freedom: how is it that it's only taking responsibility for your actions when the weaker, less informed party gets screwed? How come the parties that actually have the information and material means to make nearly fully considered choices aren't responsible for choices that cause people harm?

Anyhow, to contribute meaningfully, there already exists a sort of 'nerf' cover for helmets that's being sold as practice gear to highschool squads. A couple of teams are even wearing them at games. They look pretty silly, but the early evidence on their use is positive.

The point of the impulse = force * time thing is that you can come up with ways to shield the brain. Current helmets aren't great at that. Putting some goofy foam covers on them makes it work better. I suspect that engineering some mixture of structure, padding, and crumpling can do a whole lot better. It will probably look goofy. That doesn't matter.

 

[Madison Grant]

I... wow.

This has to be a joke, right? It's like the opposite of engineering ethics. It rejects the responsibility of the designer for the design along with empirical study of reality. That has to be there to get GT engineers riled up, right?

Also, I'm not sure how life insurance companies can reduce payoffs in this context without 'saving lives'.

Just a question about this subject and personal freedom: how is it that it's only taking responsibility for your actions when the weaker, less informed party gets screwed? How come the parties that actually have the information and material means to make nearly fully considered choices aren't responsible for choices that cause people harm?

Anyhow, to contribute meaningfully, there already exists a sort of 'nerf' cover for helmets that's being sold as practice gear to highschool squads. A couple of teams are even wearing them at games. They look pretty silly, but the early evidence on their use is positive.

The point of the impulse = force * time thing is that you can come up with ways to shield the brain. Current helmets aren't great at that. Putting some goofy foam covers on them makes it work better. I suspect that engineering some mixture of structure, padding, and crumpling can do a whole lot better. It will probably look goofy. That doesn't matter.

This is the problem in America now. Everyone is SO DEDICATED TO THEIR IDEOLOGY that they don't even pay attention to what the other person's argument is. For the last time to all of you who feel like responding with your 'helmet engineering' arguments, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING I'M SAYING! I have nothing against engineering a better helmet. I believe I made it pretty clear that I was arguing the penalty is requiring an impossible and unfair level of responsibility out of the defensive player and punishing him for what he can not control. Think of it in terms of another sports analogy. In basketball, it is your goal as a defender to draw a charge when an offensive player is coming full speed at you, potentially about to attempt evasive movements, in an attempt to score. Sometimes you get to the spot in time, and sometimes the ref says "No" and you get a blocking foul called on you. Imagine if a basketball defender got thrown out of the game every time he didn't move his feet fast enough to draw a charge. Ridiculous. Nobody would hold him to that standard. This is comparable to what the rules are requiring of a defender now, or at least how it is being interpreted by the officials on the field and in the booth. Which demonstrates it has nothing to do with properly policing the game, and everything to do with covering your butt from a concussion lawsuit 30 years down the line.

What does the seatbelt law analogy have to do with it? Money matters more than placing the proper level of responsibility on individuals. And believe me, you will always have a rush of many more folks trying to hit the 'lawsuit lottery' than those with legitimate grievances.

 

[Animal02]

I... wow.

This has to be a joke, right? It's like the opposite of engineering ethics. It rejects the responsibility of the designer for the design along with empirical study of reality. That has to be there to get GT engineers riled up, right?

Also, I'm not sure how life insurance companies can reduce payoffs in this context without 'saving lives'.

Just a question about this subject and personal freedom: how is it that it's only taking responsibility for your actions when the weaker, less informed party gets screwed? How come the parties that actually have the information and material means to make nearly fully considered choices aren't responsible for choices that cause people harm?

Anyhow, to contribute meaningfully, there already exists a sort of 'nerf' cover for helmets that's being sold as practice gear to highschool squads. A couple of teams are even wearing them at games. They look pretty silly, but the early evidence on their use is positive.

I have read where some youth leagues were starting to require them. They look a little silly because it is essentially a sock over the helmet........I bet with some good engineering, it could get incorporated into the actual helmet construction and not look so bad.

The point of the impulse = force * time thing is that you can come up with ways to shield the brain. Current helmets aren't great at that. Putting some goofy foam covers on them makes it work better. I suspect that engineering some mixture of structure, padding, and crumpling can do a whole lot better. It will probably look goofy. That doesn't matter.

Speed does not cause the injury.....it is the deceleration as you suggested. You can have all the protection in the world, but to players running at each other at 20 mph at stopping instantly will always result in the brain bouncing off the skull unless something is done to slow the impact. Helmets have definitely got better over the years......those of us that used the rope suspension helmets certainly know......(or Mack with the leather shell ) I always found the smart car ad funny because they showed how the frame stayed intact at high speed impacts........it would do nothing to save the occupants. The big cars with their designed crumpling will save lives long before the intact frame.

 

[IEEEWreck]

This is the problem in America now. Everyone is SO DEDICATED TO THEIR IDEOLOGY that they don't even pay attention to what the other person's argument is. For the last time to all of you who feel like responding with your 'helmet engineering' arguments, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING I'M SAYING! I have nothing against engineering a better helmet. I believe I made it pretty clear that I was arguing the penalty is requiring an impossible and unfair level of responsibility out of the defensive player and punishing him for what he can not control. Think of it in terms of another sports analogy. In basketball, it is your goal as a defender to draw a charge when an offensive player is coming full speed at you, potentially about to attempt evasive movements, in an attempt to score. Sometimes you get to the spot in time, and sometimes the ref says "No" and you get a blocking foul called on you. Imagine if a basketball defender got thrown out of the game every time he didn't move his feet fast enough to draw a charge. Ridiculous. Nobody would hold him to that standard. This is comparable to what the rules are requiring of a defender now, or at least how it is being interpreted by the officials on the field and in the booth. Which demonstrates it has nothing to do with properly policing the game, and everything to do with covering your butt from a concussion lawsuit 30 years down the line.

Yeah, that seems fair. I don't think a lot of the plays we've seen that resulted in ejections were at all intentional. At the same time, I'm not sure you can construct a rule in a way that works and rules out good intent. Maybe the sport will just have to adapt the technique in ways that don't break rules. You see that kind of rule in fairly high injury risk sports like wrestling. They don't care how you ended up there, doing certain things gets you DQ'd. You learn to wrestle without getting yourself disqualified. I suspect that this situation, for example, would just be a matter of training players to control where their head is. Maybe that's something that you need to teach from middle school up to be really effective, but one way or another you have to see that the way the rule works puts a strong incentive precisely on not generating h to h contact.

 

[Animal02]

This is the problem in America now. Everyone is SO DEDICATED TO THEIR IDEOLOGY that they don't even pay attention to what the other person's argument is. For the last time to all of you who feel like responding with your 'helmet engineering' arguments, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING I'M SAYING! I have nothing against engineering a better helmet. I believe I made it pretty clear that I was arguing the penalty is requiring an impossible and unfair level of responsibility out of the defensive player and punishing him for what he can not control. Think of it in terms of another sports analogy. In basketball, it is your goal as a defender to draw a charge when an offensive player is coming full speed at you, potentially about to attempt evasive movements, in an attempt to score. Sometimes you get to the spot in time, and sometimes the ref says "No" and you get a blocking foul called on you. Imagine if a basketball defender got thrown out of the game every time he didn't move his feet fast enough to draw a charge. Ridiculous. Nobody would hold him to that standard. This is comparable to what the rules are requiring of a defender now, or at least how it is being interpreted by the officials on the field and in the booth. Which demonstrates it has nothing to do with properly policing the game, and everything to do with covering your butt from a concussion lawsuit 30 years down the line.

What does the seatbelt law analogy have to do with it? Money matters more than placing the proper level of responsibility on individuals. And believe me, you will always have a rush of many more folks trying to hit the 'lawsuit lottery' than those with legitimate grievances.

I agree in part......I think the intent needs to be looked at more the the result of the hit.......If a D player leads with his shoulder and aims for the body, and the O player changes direction resulting in helmet to helmet contact.....it should not be a penalty and ejection. Leaving one's feet at leading with the head should be an ejection...and a separate penalty for aiming at the head or body slamming.

 

[Squints]

EDIT: Post turned out longer than I thought it would. The point of this novel is in the last paragraph. Feel free to skip if you're not interested in reading the whole thing.

Sounds like u r in the business of protecting people from themselves and their choices (provide those choices are legal and the consequences/risks are known); i am not. If its legal, and the risks are spelled out then each has to make their own decisions and live with the risks and mitigating factors.

I'm not talking legality. What you're saying is fine if you're a lawyer. But you're creating a false dichotomy. Play the game or don't. Like I said, it's more complicated than that. I'm also a firm believer that generally people are generally stupid and don't always realize what's in their best interests in the long term. Protecting yourself legally doesn't mean you're making it right.

There is no solution on the globe today to prevent the brain from hitting the skull at high potential events like football or boxing. So either eliminate the impact that causes it or live with the risk.

No solution yet anyway. But like I said just because it exists doesn't mean you should just accept it. Are you against measures that attempt to mitigate that risk? Because you appear that way. Why? You must wonder why they wear helmets at all.

Its really that simple. If the sport is ruined by eliminating the impact because concussions are so much more important and protecting adults from themselves is so much more important than so be it. I am not in that business. If money is more important than your health then live with the risks.

I agree with you here IF the person playing truly has that choice. Which I don't always think they do if you live in a world that isn't black and white all the time. And sometimes adults need to be protected from themselves. It's not an unusual thing.

Going to college is not a right. If you path is football and you think the risk is too high then i suggest studying to make it the old school way. For most including me, the risk was lower than the fun. Everyone knows the risks. And there is no way to solve it with a hard helmet.

Yea ok. Try telling that to the poor kid from the ghetto who doesn't have the money, support, or connections to get it any other way. He wants to go to college he has no choice. Just because everyone know the risks doesn't mean they're ok to ignore.

Until someone can find a way to suspend the brain this wont be solved. Only reduced by eliminating aspects of the game. Or eliminating the game.

I agree it won't be solved but that's not what I'm talking about. Basically what this conversation boils down to is as follows. I don't like the rule at all. I don't like how it's been enforced or implemented. However, I have no problem with the spirit of the rule. I'm assuming you disagree with me on that part based on what you're posting. Yay or nay?

 

[GTNavyNuke]

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.

I don't know that it was the "proper" call, but he not only left his feet but launched his body upwards about a foot. If he had left his feet and stayed horizontal, I don't think it would have been called and upheld like it was.

That said, I don't think Smith was trying to do a helmet to helmet but simply knock the ball free. Also most of the force appeared to transmitted through the shoulder and very little through the head.

I think if we want football to remain a sport that is condoned by colleges, we are going to have to reduce the risk of head injuries. Legs, knees, ribs, shoulders are a lot less important than the brain.

 

[potatohead]

This is the problem in America now. Everyone is SO DEDICATED TO THEIR IDEOLOGY that they don't even pay attention to what the other person's argument is. For the last time to all of you who feel like responding with your 'helmet engineering' arguments, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING I'M SAYING! I have nothing against engineering a better helmet. I believe I made it pretty clear that I was arguing the penalty is requiring an impossible and unfair level of responsibility out of the defensive player and punishing him for what he can not control. Think of it in terms of another sports analogy. In basketball, it is your goal as a defender to draw a charge when an offensive player is coming full speed at you, potentially about to attempt evasive movements, in an attempt to score. Sometimes you get to the spot in time, and sometimes the ref says "No" and you get a blocking foul called on you. Imagine if a basketball defender got thrown out of the game every time he didn't move his feet fast enough to draw a charge. Ridiculous. Nobody would hold him to that standard. This is comparable to what the rules are requiring of a defender now, or at least how it is being interpreted by the officials on the field and in the booth. Which demonstrates it has nothing to do with properly policing the game, and everything to do with covering your butt from a concussion lawsuit 30 years down the line.

What does the seatbelt law analogy have to do with it? Money matters more than placing the proper level of responsibility on individuals. And believe me, you will always have a rush of many more folks trying to hit the 'lawsuit lottery' than those with legitimate grievances.

I see your point on the first part, but the second? Your analogy of a seat belt law is horribly misinformed and dangerous. I mean, I'm blown away...is this real life? I've heard people like you exist, but I never thought to actually read this actual position by someone who is entirely serious..its like seeing a unicorn. A very misinformed, dangerous unicorn.

 

[GaTech4ever]

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

If it's Korrin Wiggins (Vad's high school teammate) I don't think they'll be missing much unfortunately.

 

[jeffgt14]

Does anyone think Paul Johnson should be fired?

 

[jeffgt14]

Also, I really think Laskey should be starting over Days.

 

[GlennW]

I don't know that it was the "proper" call, but he not only left his feet but launched his body upwards about a foot. If he had left his feet and stayed horizontal, I don't think it would have been called and upheld like it was.

That said, I don't think Smith was trying to do a helmet to helmet but simply knock the ball free. Also most of the force appeared to transmitted through the shoulder and very little through the head.

I think if we want football to remain a sport that is condoned by colleges, we are going to have to reduce the risk of head injuries. Legs, knees, ribs, shoulders are a lot less important than the brain.

If he would have tried to tackle "through" a defensless receiver, he still could have, potentially been called for targeting, even if he doesn't "launch," or go for a head shot, if I read the rule correctly.

 

[IEEEWreck]

Also, I really think Laskey should be starting over Days.

No no no. Clearly, Laskey and Days need to combine into their final form, B-B ZERO.

And you're damn right Paul Johnson ought to be fired up as hell for gameday.

But folks, real talk here for a moment. We should probably acknowledge that there's a racial component to the unequal bargaining table between potential players and the NCAA.