ATHLETIC ASSHOLES

[Cutz]

The film portrays NFL heads not just as dismissive assholes, but willfully wanton criminals burying evidence of danger.

I don't think it will change football fans minds, but it will make moms think twice about letting their kids play. Will Smith gives the film a "watch-ability" factor it wouldn't get otherwise.

[HairOfTheDog]

Yeah, I bet you're right Cutz.

If the film does a good job of proving Omalu's point and a lot of women see the film, I can see some moms backing away from encouraging their sons to play the game and/or pursue football glory.

I also think the mainstream exposure to the risks might give players even more leverage to negotiate higher salaries and perks.

It's reportedly a very good film (from early critics' reviews). I'm curious to see if Goodell and others have a strategy to denounce the film or attempt to counter its claims, or if they'll instead just avoid comment as much as possible.

[Cutz]

It gets Omalu's message across very well. There's a scene where the doc has something floating in a jar and he says how the human brain is completely suspended in fluid. He then shakes the jar slightly, over and over again, and you see the thing hitting the side of the glass over and over. Each time it doesn't look like the object is damaged, but it makes you think about the aggregate effect of repeated football hits. It's a really simple analogy, and that's what people latch onto well. Of course, the movie also implies that every Pittsburgh Steeler from one generation became a raving lunatic and committed suicide. It goes a little overboard in terms of extrapolating that.

I agree that players should have more leverage in negotiating, but I doubt it changes individual contracts much. Contracts are negotiated at team level, but the salary cap is set by the league. You're giving every player the same bump in leverage, but they're still splitting the same pizza.

Where it could affect things is in the next CBA between the players association and the league. The current one goes through 2020. All they can really do tho is demand higher minimums for rookies and veteran players, which gives teams bigger slices for the low-money guys. That just reduces the amount the big-name guys can make. There's no real way to increase the X% of revenues going into salary because the players association already knows the health risks and uses player safety as a negotiating tool. Popularizing the risks gives them no additional clout the way I see it.

[Blindgreed1]

Yeah, I bet you're right Cutz.

If the film does a good job of proving Omalu's point and a lot of women see the film, I can see some moms backing away from encouraging their sons to play the game and/or pursue football glory.

I also think the mainstream exposure to the risks might give players even more leverage to negotiate higher salaries and perks.

It's reportedly a very good film (from early critics' reviews). I'm curious to see if Goodell and others have a strategy to denounce the film or attempt to counter its claims, or if they'll instead just avoid comment as much as possible.

This.

[HairOfTheDog]

The way the NFL completely changed course/position in response to some its high-profile players' off-field conduct once the public saw evidence (and cried foul) makes me think that the NFL leadership is quite vulnerable and willing to do a complete about-face in order to preserve fan loyalty.

But, you know much more about the game and business of football than I do, Cutz -- I'm just pondering out loud. Thanks for the background info.

My thinking was that popularizing the risks, if it leads to some vocal outrage from the public, could give the players and the union leverage in negotiations. My only real interest in that regard is adequate health-related coverage during and after their careers (even if brain or other field-sustained injuries/effects don't materialize until long after they retire). The superstars make enough money that they probably don't have to worry much about it. But, the lesser-known work horses may not. Maybe the players' union already has that covered though?

Anyway, like with boxing and hockey, I expect most football participants and fans are aware that risk of long-term health issues is inherent to the sport. But, I really didn't know just how common and serious brain-related issues were to NFL players until we started discussing it here a year or more ago.

[Duchess]

I used to think that if I were lucky enough to have boys I would want them to play football, to be involved in sports in general and I was aware of the injury risk too because of my brothers. I guess I would be foolish now to encourage that to anyone.

[Blindgreed1]

The way the NFL completely changed course/position in response to some its high-profile players' off-field conduct once the public saw evidence (and cried foul) makes me think that the NFL leadership is quite vulnerable and willing to do a complete about-face in order to preserve fan loyalty.

But, you know much more about the game and business of football than I do, Cutz -- I'm just pondering out loud. Thanks for the background info.

My thinking was that popularizing the risks, if it leads to some vocal outrage from the public, could give the players and the union leverage in negotiations. My only real interest in that regard is adequate health-related coverage during and after their careers (even if brain or other field-sustained injuries/effects don't materialize until long after they retire). The superstars make enough money that they probably don't have to worry much about it. But, the lesser-known work horses may not. Maybe the players' union already has that covered though?

Anyway, like with boxing and hockey, I expect most football participants and fans are aware that risk of long-term health issues is inherent to the sport. But, I really didn't know just how common and serious brain-related issues were to NFL players until we started discussing it here a year or more ago.

Not gonna happen. They already implemented the concussion protocol and they will blow their own horns about it.

[HairOfTheDog]

My first paragraph was a general observation about the league in response to handling public outcry, not a specific expectation that the NFL will change its protocols in regards to concussion protocols, Gunnar.

I don't know what, if anything, the NFL will do if the Concussion movie stirs up a lot of controversy and there are calls on the NFL to respond. You and Cutz and others here know a lot more about how the league operates than I do. I only know about their handling of public outcry in regards to players' bad, violent, and/or criminal conduct off the field.

Anyway, I won't be surprised if Cutz is right about some parents pulling away from encouraging their kids to play football after seeing the film. And, I won't be surprised if you're right and the NFL says nothing until pushed and then toots its horn about the actions its already taken to help prevent and address concussions.

But, Goodell has kinda surprised me over the last couple of years with some of this statements and actions and policy changes, so I'm interested as to whether he and the leagues's owners and attorneys have a strategy to address the potential backlash from the film.

It may be that people watch it and mostly go, "meh, what's new?" IDK. I read some reviews last night and several of the reviewers didn't think the movie went far enough to have a profound effect on anyone.

We'll see.

[Blindgreed1]

My first paragraph was a general observation about the league in response to handling public outcry, not a specific expectation that the NFL will change its protocols in regards to concussion protocols, Gunnar.

I don't know what, if anything, the NFL will do if the Concussion movie stirs up a lot of controversy and there are calls on the NFL to respond. You and Cutz and others here know a lot more about how the league operates than I do. I only know about their handling of public outcry in regards to players' bad, violent, and/or criminal conduct off the field.

Anyway, I won't be surprised if Cutz is right about some parents pulling away from encouraging their kids to play football after seeing the film. And, I won't be surprised if you're right and the NFL says nothing until pushed and then toots its horn about the actions its already taken to help prevent and address concussions.

But, Goodell has kinda surprised me over the last couple of years with some of this statements and actions and policy changes, so I'm interested as to whether he and the leagues' owners and attorneys have a strategy to address the potential backlash from the film.

It may be that people watch it and mostly go, "meh, what's new?" IDK. I read some reviews last night and several of the reviewers didn't think the movie went far enough to have a profound effect on anyone.

We'll see.

I think most football fans won't see it. We already know how it ends. I agree with Cutz that some moms will not allow their kids to play, but that will be mostly the white middle class kids. Your inner city kids that use sports to get out of the projects will continue to compete because their odds of survival are better on the field then they are up in da hood.

[BigMark]

$10000 helmets with sensors and special energy absorbing materials seem like the way to go. NASA quality shit.


http://www.shockwatch.com.au/shipping_an...cators.htm

[HairOfTheDog]

What kind of helmets do they wear now, Biggie?

I didn't see a helmet at your link.

But, if such a helmet exists or could be manufactured, the NFL could afford to invest in protective gear that provides its players the highest degree of protection possible (provided it doesn't interfere with their ability to play the game).

[BigMark]

It appears they are already using that technology and the helmets only cost $1000. I'm pretty sure for $10,000 they can get better.

[HairOfTheDog]

It's too bad you weren't wearing a helmet all those time you tripped over your tongue and fell flat on your fat face, Biggie.

Now's your chance to put your resulting mental and emotional retardation to good use for a change.

You'd make a good advocate for new NFL helmets. Those "don't let THIS happen to you!" campaigns are often hugely successful.

[HairOfTheDog]

Shit, I misread your last reply and thought you were troll lol lol lol lol...lol, lol, loling, Biggie.

I see now that you were being serious. The NFL is using that technology and several NFL players are suing the Riddell, the manufacturer of the $1,000 helmets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riddell

Seriously, I'm sorry about that uncalled for mock in regards to your mental capacity.

[BigMark]

If it wasn't for the eighties i'd still be a genius, I do pretty damn good for being a fat retard though.

[Cutz]

As long as they have shell helmets, players will use them as battering rams.

Rugby tackling and no helmets would probably be safer.

[HairOfTheDog]

If it wasn't for the eighties i'd still be a genius, I do pretty damn good for being a fat retard though.

The 90s called, Biggie. They want their 80s-blaming back.

Merry Christmas, you fat, retarded, former-genius.

As long as they have shell helmets, players will use them as battering rams.

Rugby tackling and no helmets would probably be safer.

You got me curious. Based on what I just read, there seem to be some credible arguments for helmets causing the play to result in more, not less, injuries.

"It's referred to as risk compensation, or risk homeostasis," Dr. Erik Swartz told Sporting News. "When a player has a body part that's protected, and the contact with somebody else is imminent, you're going to put your protected body part first, just reflexively."

Swartz, a former rugby player, is a kinesiology professor at the University of New Hampshire. It's there he implemented a two-year study to test the effectiveness of what he calls the Helmetless Tackling Training Technique.

That's right ... no helmets. Inspired by a clear difference in tackling habits between football and rugby, Swartz developed the procedure hoping to train football players to "keep their heads out of the game."
Story: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-news/464...ue-lawsuit

However, as the research into CTE develops and gains more exposure, rugby leagues are starting to invest in study and monitoring of their players who've suffered concussions or head injuries. The results of that research may affect rugby regulations/protocols. Story: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...l-scrutiny & http://www.theguardian.com/sport/shortcu...-dangerous

[HairOfTheDog]

For now though, it appears that rugby's biggest long-term injury risk and focus surrounds the "scrum" play, which can lead to neck breaks and spinal paralysis.



A scrum ^ is a means of restarting play after a minor infringement. It involves up to eight players from each team, known as the pack or forward pack, binding together in three rows and interlocking with the free opposing teams forwards.

At this point the ball is fed into the gap between the two forward packs and they both compete for the ball to win possession. Teams can be penalised for intentionally causing the scrum to collapse, and for not putting the ball into the scrum correctly. A scrum is most commonly awarded when the ball is knocked forward, or passed forward, or when a ball becomes trapped in a ruck or maul. Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrum_%28rugby_union%29

Only players trained and experienced with scrum play can be placed in the front row of the scrum, according to what I read.

I think Crash follows both rugby and American football. I wonder if he considers one, as currently played/regulated, more dangerous to its players than the other.

[Donovan]

Rugby is a hardass game. They may not get concussed but injury to other body parts is rampant.

[Maggot]

I look at them as modern day gladiators without swords.