Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

printable version

Extra Points

Articles from around the Web



08 Feb 2010

Goodell Proposes Ban On Three-Point Stances

Buried in a manipulation-of-economics AP piece on Roger Goodell predicting players' salaries will rise in the future is this on line play:

He didn't rule out the idea of getting linemen out of their three-point stances to reduce the ferocity of collisions at the line of scrimmage.

"As you'll see tonight, you'll see a lot of players that never get down in a three-point stance," Goodell said. "So it's possible that would happen."

Posted by: Bill Barnwell on 08 Feb 2010

123 comments, Last at 17 Feb 2010, 4:40am by Jerry

Comments

1
by Verifiably Unverifiable (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 2:41pm

Bad headline; "it's possible that would happen" does not equal "I am proposing we ban"

44
by pschock (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 7:31pm

let's just outlaw running the football altogether. running is boring! throw throw throw!

this proposal has nothing to do with players safety; that being an outcome is merely incidental to such a policy. Goodell is simply continuing standard league practice for the last decade: instituting rules that discourage offenses from centering around running the football (to which three point stances are absolutely vital). running the ball and playing good defense is a great way to win football games (see 2009 Jets), but is not popular to the football-ignorant layman (the majority of people who watch the games on television and thew main revenue source) because to them it is not entertaining. the NFL is a business, and if they choose to doctor the game to fit their customers desires, that's fine. but don't be disingenuous and pretend that such a rule is implemented for the sole purpose of player safety.

the NFL's position on player's health is quite clear: the players are being paid large sums to play a violent and dangerous game. By engaging in the sport, each player accepts both the benefits and risks of playing, and the health concerns are only the league's problem to the degree to which players need coverage for procedures during play and after retirement. it is in their interest to fine certain exposed players for "cheap hits" for PR points; don't kid yourself that those fines or similar measures are implemented for any purpose other than maintaining the appearance of being safety-minded.

2
by Illmatic74 :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 2:42pm

I am all for player's safety but this idea is ridiculous.

7
by Rogersworthe :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 2:57pm

No offense, but then you're not really "All for players safety". It's a very good idea and would reduce head injuries by quite a bit, I would imagine.

10
by Phil Osopher :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 3:01pm

Not playing football at all would reduce injuries too, but that doesn't make it the proper solution.

Players get paid great, screw super hot women in abundance and die early. Most of us would trade for that life pretty quickly vs. what we have as "healthy" lives.

Personally, I am not for changing the game I love to watch so much so that I don't love to watch it. Football is a violent collision sport that gives some level of civility to the old gladiator rituals that have been around since humans could figure out how to beat each other over the head. I am against a change this severe as it would completely change the defense and offense that we witness.

40
by Biebs (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 6:40pm

The concern is that less and less parents let their kids play football when they are young, because of the stories about youth concussions, adult concussions, and so forth.

As more information about concussions get out, less people are going to want their kids to play football (admittedly, this will be a very slow process) instead of something safer like basketball, soccer, or something else (maybe lacrosse, I don't know).

I'm not saying this will certainly happen. But I'm sure Goodell is aware of the possibility. I don't know if this is the proper conclusion to reach, but the "football is violent collision sport" is not a reason to completely dismiss new ideas for limiting concussions. The goal isn't just to keep football popular now, but keep it as popular for the next 50 years as well.

80
by Kevin from Philly :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 3:08pm

What's the point of screwing super hot women, if you can't remember it?

100
by Jim D (not verified) :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 12:07am

"Players....screw super hot women"

Kurt Warner never got the memo..

15
by Jacob Stevens (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 3:35pm

I'm definitely all for player safety. And I'm strongly, passionately in favor of measures to reduce concussions. And I think responses like Phil Osophy's, above,are despicable and deplorable.

But I also think this may be ridiculous. Will have to consider it more thoroughly, but off the top of my head I doubt it's a very good idea, I doubt that it has been thoroughly thought through, and I doubt that it would reduce head injuries much at all. Not a lot of head injuries come from hand-to-hand combat between linemen, but from head-on collisions with a lot of momentum between ball carriers and tacklers, as well as on pocket QBs.

If DB headhunting still persists, and the stakes of the game and bringing down a ball carrier or converting a first down don't change, I don't think this reduces head injuries much, if at all.

The 3-point stance is about leverage. If this is only implemented on the defensive side, we may come to see the most dominant defenses averaging 28 points allowed a game. Will the 5 offensive lineman also be in a 2-point stance? That would alter the skillset requirements for linemen considerably.

Will have to think it through a little more to be sure about how I feel, but it seems to me this would impact scoring a lot more than it would impact safety, and I'm skeptical that it's about player safety at all, since the league's not been on the forefront of safety advocacy on most other issues and there's not been any groundswell of support from the PA calling for this change.

16
by Botswana Meat Commission FC (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 3:48pm

"Not a lot of head injuries come from hand-to-hand combat between linemen, but from head-on collisions with a lot of momentum between ball carriers and tacklers, as well as on pocket QBs."

Actually, one of the big findings from all the recent studies into concussions was that the biggest long-term risks were caused by the accumulation of lots of small blows to the head rather than the occasional big Sportscenter-worthy collisions.

55
by Jacob Stevens (not verified) :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 1:10am

That may be, I was unaware of that. I've read a half dozen very in depth articles on the subject, I'm kind of passionate about it, and somehow that escaped me. Although honestly I doubt the veracity of "all," especially if you're not citing any. But that may be. Even still, there's not an inordinate amount of head contact with linemen. Not in comparison to the LBs, RBs and safeties.

106
by D Jones :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 4:11pm

Dude, did you read that Gladwell New Yorker piece? It was the whole thesis of the piece...for someone that is "passionate" about the subject, you should do a little reading.

"This is a crucial point. Much of the attention in the football world, in the past few years, has been on concussions—on diagnosing, managing, and preventing them—and on figuring out how many concussions a player can have before he should call it quits. But a football player’s real issue isn’t simply with repetitive concussive trauma. It is, as the concussion specialist Robert Cantu argues, with repetitive subconcussive trauma. It’s not just the handful of big hits that matter. It’s lots of little hits, too."

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell?cur...

117
by Neoplatonist Bolthead (not verified) :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 6:16pm

Wait... if you ban the 3-point stance, and the Center has to have his hand on the ball, and the ball has to be on the ground, does the Center have to lift one leg?

91
by Adam (not verified) :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 9:58pm

I doubt this would drastically reduce concussions. I don't have any data on this, but I am a high school coach and my experience is that concussions happen most often with receivers getting crushed in defenseless positions, quarterbacks being sacked and having their head bang the ground and running backs being tackled by linebackers/safeties when they are both going full speed through the hole. Offensive and defensive lineman just aren't moving fast enough for their brain to be jarred particularly far. I'd love to see some data on this though.

107
by D Jones :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 4:13pm

This is not only about reducing concussions, it is about reducing the long term effect of many small impacts. These cumulative small impacts are why lineman are disproportionately represented among the brain-damaged football players.

3
by Joseph :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 2:43pm

My bet--it will never happen. Don't they do this even in Pop Warner???
Also--isn't the goal of both lines on short-yardage/goal line plays to get lower than the other guy and "get under his pads"? Nice idea--but there is a similar sport where nobody gets in a 3-point stance. I played it. It's pretty popular, too.
It's called "FLAG football."

4
by JoshG (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 2:51pm

I've got no problem with this idea. I mean, it would change the sport some, but in what has become a passing league already it would probably have less impact on pass blocking. Plus, if it means we cut down on the number of lineman dying or having dymensia at 50, that would be fantastic.

Other possible health benefit, I think it would increase the requirement for agility and technique on the lines and decrease the requirement for mass, thereby getting linemen down to slightly healthier body mass indexes.

5
by Ex-Scramble Ian (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 2:51pm

It's easy for us to say that it's a bad idea. Even as an avid fan of the collisions and big hits and whatnot, I'd be in favor of the NFL making that switch. Why not adopt the sport to allow for healthier NFL players, especially as they get older? Heck, how about doing it for all the kids that are getting concussions and still playing due to honor/peer pressure/whatever? If we made that kind of switch, football would look strange for a little while, but then that would be the norm, and the games would continue.

11
by QuietLurkerGuy (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 3:01pm

They know the risks. Nobody makes them play.

30
by MC2 :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:17pm

Bingo.

52
by roguerouge :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:45pm

I take it you'd say the same thing to coal miners too?

66
by MC2 :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 7:15am

Absolutely.

108
by D Jones :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 4:15pm

They don't know the risks. They absolutely do not know the risks, and pretending they do is crazy. Do you really think that Jr. High and High School kids have any idea that playing football through college could leave them punch-drunk for the rest of their lives?

114
by Neoplatonist Bolthead (not verified) :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 5:57pm

See, this is the frustrating bit. The 1% of 1% of kids who actually make it into the pros get something from just compensation for the risk to a tremendous reward that simply saps all sympathy. But for the other 99.99%, it's a largely uncompensated hazard.

What really bugs me is this: if you're talking about any risk that is not immediate, and any person younger than his early-mid twenties, you can say with almost perfect certainty that this person does not understand the risks involved. Kids don't get "long-term risk" as their brains aren't set up to process it yet, and besides they lack practical experience of "long term" and would be unable to evaluate its meaning even if they had the cerebral tools to do so. This, more than anything, is why pro athletes are always getting in trouble: they're kids, and because they're kids, they're stupid. It's not their fault, and it's not permanent, but it's very real.

119
by MC2 :: Fri, 02/12/2010 - 12:13am

NFL players are NOT kids. They are considered to be mature enough to decide whether to drink, smoke, vote, drive, join the military, have sex, get married, have kids, etc. There's no reason why they're not old enough to choose whether they want to play football for a living.

Jesus Christ, the condescending paternalism in this thread is staggering.

123
by Jerry :: Wed, 02/17/2010 - 4:40am

“Here we have a multibillion-dollar industry. Where does their responsibility begin? Say you’re a kid and you sign up to play football. You realize you can blow out your knee, you can even break your neck and become paralyzed. Those are all known risks. But you don’t sign up to become a brain-damaged young adult. The NFL should be leading the world in figuring this out, acknowledging the risk. They should be thanking us for bringing them this research. Where does their responsibility begin?"

-Dr. Julian Bailes, from this excellent article.

118
by MC2 :: Fri, 02/12/2010 - 12:08am

Wow. You mean junior high kids are incapable of making good decisions? Stop the presses!

Seriously, that's why they have these things called "parents".

39
by FourteenDays :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 6:30pm

Why do people keep saying things like "They know the risks" when it's so obviously completely wrong?

After a hundred-plus years of football and 40 or so years of modern football, we're just beginning to understand the science behind concussions and brain injury. No one is even close to having a full picture of the risks involved in playing professional football. Players like Mike Webster or Kyle Turley certainly didn't know the risks, and the player of today may be slightly better informed, but it is ridiculous to claim that they know all the risks, since no one knows. Look, it's even right there in the article: "While science is still trying to determine the long-term effects of concussions".

There is no way for a player to make an informed decision on whether the risks are worth it, because the information is simply not there. We don't know the full extent of the risks involved. I don't, you don't, scientists don't, the NFL doesn't, and players certainly don't.

41
by Runner99 (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 6:42pm

Sure, like it isn't obvious to anyone with half a brain that running head-first into large men isn't detrimental to your long term health. Give me a million dollars a year and I'd do it, too.

45
by MC2 :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 7:35pm

This is ridiculous. Just because something hasn't been scientifically proven to the level of 0.05% doubt, doesn't mean it isn't obvious to anyone with any common sense.

It's like the crazy argument that prior to warning labels, people didn't know that smoking was bad for you. You're inhaling smoke. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that's not good for you.

57
by FourteenDays :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 4:12am

There's a huge difference between knowing that something is dangerous and knowing how dangerous it is.

But hey, don't listen to me, listen to Ted Johnson:

Johnson said he played through concussions because he, like many other NFL athletes, did not understand the consequences. He has publicly criticized the NFL for not protecting players like him.

"They don't want you to know," said Johnson. "It's not like when you get into the NFL there's a handout that says 'These are the effects of multiple concussions so beware.' "

69
by MC2 :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 7:21am

Why is it the NFL's job to educate Ted Johnson? It's not like the NFL distributes handouts downplaying the impact of concussions.

It's also not like the NFL has a rule banning players from going to a library (you know, those things they were supposed to have learned to use in college, if not high school) to research the effects of concussions. Heck, these days you don't even need a library; just go to Google and type in "head trauma" or "concussions" or whatever.

You can be damn sure if I was planning to go into a profession as dangerous as professional football, I wouldn't wait for the league to hold my hand and walk me through the process of educating myself about the risks.

70
by FourteenDays :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 8:32am

So, let me get this straight. Back in 1995, Ted Johnson was supposed to go and look up these studies which didn't even exist yet?

That was my point in my first post -- we're only beginning to understand the full extent of the risks of the head trauma you get in professional football. There's no way a player can make an informed decision about the risks of playing NFL football now, much less 15 years ago.

76
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:34pm

So, let me get this straight. Back in 1995, the NFL was supposed to go and look up these studies which didn't even exist yet?

84
by FourteenDays :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 3:21pm

So, you're agreeing with me -- nobody knows the risks.

92
by MC2 :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 10:50pm

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that there's "no way" someone "can make an informed decision" unless they have perfect knowledge of the risks involved? Is that your position?

If so, wouldn't it be impossible to make an "informed decision" about, say, where to build a house, since you don't have any precise or reliable way to estimate the chances of that location being hit by an earthquake, tornado, asteroid, etc.? Should people be prevented from taking such risks until scientists have had more time to study these things?

Look, people make decisions based on incomplete information all the time. Life doesn't come with guarantees. When you make a decision, it's your responsibility to educate yourself as fully as possible, and then choose on the basis of the knowledge that's available - however incomplete that knowledge may be. If the decision turns out to be a poor one, you have no one to blame but yourself.

93
by FourteenDays :: Wed, 02/10/2010 - 2:10am

Who said anything about perfect knowledge? My position is the same as it was at the beginning -- that saying that football players "knew the risks" when they chose to play is completely false. You can find any number of quotes from ex-players saying "if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have played." Because that knowledge simply wasn't available to them then. It didn't exist.

When you make a decision, it's your responsibility to educate yourself as fully as possible, and then choose on the basis of the knowledge that's available - however incomplete that knowledge may be. If the decision turns out to be a poor one, you have no one to blame but yourself.

So, all those mothers who took thalidomide back in the '50s -- they have no one to blame but themselves? That might be the most ridiculous thing I've read in this subthread yet.

97
by MC2 :: Wed, 02/10/2010 - 10:45pm

OK, you either have very poor reading comprehension or you're just trying to "win" an argument via sophistry. I'll be charitable and assume it's the former. So, one more time, going point by point:

Who said anything about perfect knowledge?

You did. Quoting you from post #70: "... we're only beginning to understand the full extent of the risks of the head trauma you get in professional football. There's no way a player can make an informed decision about the risks of playing NFL football now, much less 15 years ago." You are clearly claiming that one can only make an "informed decision" if one is aware of the "full extent of the risks", which would require perfect knowledge of the subject. You admit as much in post #84 when you say that "... nobody knows the risks", which means that by your criteria, it's only possible to make an informed decision if you are omniscient.

You can find any number of quotes from ex-players saying "if I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have played." Because that knowledge simply wasn't available to them then. It didn't exist.

So you admit that the knowledge didn't exist, yet you still side with Ted Johnson, who ridiculously blames the NFL for not passing this nonexistent information along to the players. It's not his fault for choosing to participate in an activity that he knew was dangerous. Rather, it's the NFL's fault for not informing him of the "full extent" of the danger, even though, as you readily admit, at the time, they themselves were not aware of the full extent of the danger. Are you insane?

So, all those mothers who took thalidomide back in the '50s -- they have no one to blame but themselves?

I'm not an expert on this particular topic, but unless there is evidence that someone (the drug manufacturers, the doctors, or whoever) was aware of the side effects and deliberately kept that information from being made public, then yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Who else could they blame? No one forced them to take the drugs. Caveat emptor.

That might be the most ridiculous thing I've read in this subthread yet.

So you don't read your own comments before you post them?

Actually, that probably explains a lot.

101
by FourteenDays :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 1:19am

Please go back to my first post and read it again. I'm not interested in blaming anyone (or absolving anyone from blame). Things can go wrong without anyone necessarily being at fault, after all. I am saying that saying "They knew the risks" is a foolish statement to make when no one knows the risks. In 1995, neither the players nor the NFL knew very much at all; now, there's a bit more knowledge, but I think we're still just at the tip of the iceberg. (Tangentially, I'm sure the NFL does know more than the players, and they're not exactly rushing to distribute that information to the players, but if you want to argue it's the players' responsibility to educate themselves, go ahead; it's not a point I'm interested in debating.)

Anyway, if you really believe that a mother who took a pill universally believed to be safe at the time and had a baby with terrible birth defects "knew the risks", then, well, I don't think there's much point in continuing here, as that viewpoint is completely incomprehensible to me.

102
by MC2 :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 3:52am

I'm not interested in blaming anyone ...

When you tell me to "listen to Ted Johnson" and then quote Johnson saying that the NFL is to blame for not educating him properly on the dangers of concussions, it seems reasonable to assume that you agree with him. What other conclusion am I possibly supposed to draw?

I am saying that saying "They knew the risks" is a foolish statement to make when no one knows the risks.

Yet you have repeatedly ignored my argument that saying that someone "knows" something doesn't mean that they have perfect knowledge of the subject. Knowledge is not a "yes or no" proposition. There are degrees of knowledge, from total ignorance to total omniscience. To insist that the latter is necessary to make an "informed decision" is tantamount to saying that an "informed decision" can never be made. There is always the possibility that later discoveries will reveal what at the time appeared to be an "informed decision" to actually have been made on the basis of incorrect beliefs.

The logical extension of your nihilistic philosophy is the conclusion that since there are no "informed decisions", no one is ever responsible for the consequences of their decisions. This is not just a theoretical slippery slope. In fact, your claims that the women who chose to take thalidomide are not to be held responsible for the consequences of their decisions, simply because they lacked a crystal ball (i.e. because they were not omniscient) demonstrates that your view of knowledge leaves no room for the notion of personal responsibility. Lest you think I'm being overly dramatic, I'll ask you again a question that you declined to answer the first time I asked it: If it's "ridiculous" to say that they have no one to blame but themselves, then who should they blame? Who is responsible for it?

In any event, I'm starting to tire of your evasive style. If you decide to answer some of the many questions that I have posed to you, then perhaps we can continue this discussion. Otherwise, this will probably be my last post on this topic, so you can have the last word, if you so choose.

12
by Phil Osopher :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 3:07pm

Pretty shocked at the level of agreement on this.

I disagree completely with this idea and do not want to see the NFL changed into some serious wuss fest. These guys are paid to sacrifice their bodies and die young and get all the benefits of being rich and famous like banging hot ass women in droves and having millions of dollars. I get to watch and a little bit of my ticket and direct ticket money helps them to achieve this.

Almost all of us would make the same decision to have the rewards they get. Game safer, fine, equipment better fine, but at what level do you realize that football is a brutal violent sport that will do serious damamge to a person's body in the short and long range. So what, that is what they signed up for and why they do it and we can't

PS I saw the interview, he certainly did not propose to ban the stnace, but shrugged off the question with a politician style answer

36
by Rax Grissman (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:40pm

Agreed. At a certain point the focus on safety becomes ridiculous. Ask the players themselves and I'm sure they don't want this fundamental a change. You have to accept at some level that football is a full contact sport and that people will get hurt. The players accept that as part of their job, and often have pride in their work. It's similar to the military in terms of brotherhood and acceptance that you will or could get hurt quite badly. The guys want to play the game, and while preventing injuries is important when possible, there's a certain limit to modifying the game to avoid any injuries that you have to respect.

46
by IlluminatusUIUC (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 7:45pm

Phil, this is the second time you've come back to the "banging hot women" and making tons of money rationale, but it doesn't work. The NFL sets the tone for the thousands of college and high school football teams. That's thousands of kids who are receiving the same repeated traumas but not getting the hot women and big bucks that make it all worthwhile by your reasoning.

In any event, change is not always bad. Decades ago, grognards started complaining that football was getting too wussified because they started wearing helmets (Rugby players are still making this claim). Then they became accepted parts of the sport. If both lines are in the same position, it just changes the strategy somewhat. I'd like to see a demo game with these rules, honestly. Toss the UFL a few hundred thousand bucks to have them stage an exhibition with these rules and see how it works.

48
by jebmak :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 8:53pm

The NFL sets the tone for the thousands of college and high school football teams. That's thousands of kids who are receiving the same repeated traumas but not getting the hot women and big bucks that make it all worthwhile by your reasoning.

I'm pretty sure that they are still getting the hot women, and in some cases the big bucks too.

81
by Kevin from Philly :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 3:12pm

Only at USC.

95
by Brendan Scolari :: Wed, 02/10/2010 - 3:20pm

Absolutely agreed. It's not as though football is the only dangerous profession, but it's easily one of the most rewarding. If you don't like the risks, don't play, no one is making you. But changing the sport to the point where it's not entertaining anymore is ludicrous.

110
by D Jones :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 4:21pm

Football is financially rewarding to a tiny, tiny percentage of the people who play it. Basically 0% of those Jr High, High School, and college players go on to play in the pros, but all of them are exposed to cumulative brain damage that could affect them for life.

I like to watch football, and I really like to play football. Will my sons play organized football? Nah. Their dad is too smart for that.

6
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 2:54pm

Also: NASCAR will be safer if we limit the cars to 10 mph. Skydiving will be safer if we put a ban on aeroplanes. Pole vaulting will be safer... you get my point...

8
by drobviousso :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 2:58pm

Pole dancing could be made safer...

38
by MurphyZero :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 6:24pm

I am against anything that limits the chances of the pole dancer flying out into the crowd.

13
by Scott P. (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 3:23pm

Might I point out NASCAR uses restrictor plates on their cars to limit horsepower and thus maximum speeds?

20
by Joe T. :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 4:30pm

The plate is a half-assed approach that many drivers concede makes racing at super-speedways even more dangerous. The best way to reduce speeds is to reduce engine displacement.

Same in football, best way to reduce the force of the collision is to reduce the displacement of the linemen. Institute weight limits for players, nobody over x lbs.

Just trying to think outside the box.

28
by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:05pm

Eliminating the three-point stance would also qualify as thinking outside the box. Why is reducing weight a better way to reduce speed?

35
by Joe T. :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:29pm

F = m x a.

Eliminating the three-point stance, like putting a plate to limit air flow from the carb, is over-thinking the issue.

BTW - engine displacement =/= curb weight in auto mechanics. I'm talking about cylinder volume, but was making a less-than-clever play on words.

42
by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 6:51pm

I get that factually reducing weight reduces speed; I'm just not sure eliminating the three point stance isn't worth considering. I do think a weight limit is very worthy of consideration as well.

60
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 4:23am

I din't major in physics, but i think you would be looking to reduce impulse, which is mass times speed. A truck hitting you with a constant speed of 100 mph has no acceleration thus has no force. Impulse however...

78
by MJK :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:53pm

Folks have it a little backwards.

Force isn't what causes concussions. Neither is impulse, which is force over duration. Acceleration (of the head) causes concussions. Acceleration and rotation.

In a purely linear acceleration scenario (i.e. no head rotation), the automotive industry has come up with a metric for concussion or head injury called the HIC, or "head injury criterion" (I have a citation, but it's a technical paper--just google it and you can probably find a definition). Basically,

HIC = (duration of impact in ms, max of 15) x (average acceleration in G's) ^ 2.5

A value of 1000 is a bad day.

So, for a single event, more acceleration of the head is bad, or a longer duration of impact is bad--a perfectly elastic collision, where the acceleration is huge but is over in a few microseconds, is reasonably harmless. Of course, our heads being as soft as they are, such collisions never happen.

Rotation of the head severely exacerbates the problem, and indeed, most mild to moderate concussions occur because the head rotates rather than because of pure linear acceleration.

Finally, recent studies have shown that the cumulative effect of multiple small traumas, each far lower than the thresholds above say are a problem, can have as big an effect as a single nasty event. For example, it is believed that professional breechers (members of SWAT teams or the like that train regularly using small explosive charges to blow open doors) may be at risk from some concussive effects because they are repeatedly exposed to very small blasts.

The end result of this is that, if you want to reduce head injuries, you need to:
1) Reduce the total acceleration of the head, which you can do by either slowing guys down, or putting better padding between them (and not just around the head). You could also theoretically increase their mass, since a = F/m, but that doesn't work since they hit each other, since momentum is conserved (greater mass for one of them means more acceleration for the other, and greater mass for both cancels out when determining peak acceleration).

2) Do something to reduce the rotation of the head--maybe have some kind of reinforced neck brace? Or change the rules so that hits that induce rotation (i.e. hitting above a certain point on the body) are illegal.

3) Reduce the number of small impacts each player suffers, possibly by putting a cap on the number of snaps a player can play in a given game? (Of course, you'd have to increase roster sizes, then). Or at least required offensive and defensive linemen to rotate in and out regularly.

I don't think making the guys lighter would help appreciably. Two 150 lb guys running into each other at high speed produces just as much acceleration as two 300 lb guys.

88
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 3:55pm

Great job! Very helpfull.

When I saw where your post was going i thought of the collar-thing some linemen and linebackers use (Bryant McKinnie, Justin Tuck, Zach Thomas). Wonder if those help.

111
by D Jones :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 4:23pm

Great, rational post.

63
by deep64blue :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 6:28am

No three-point stance increases the need for more agile & athletic limemen and would probably bring the average weight down on its own.

59
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 4:21am

I have watched aboout 30 minutes of NASCAR, so I'm no expert. I do know a little about cars and other forms of racing, and I can assure you: If they wanted to limit speeds in NASCAR, they would just, you know, limit the speeds.

And absurd nitpickery: If you limit horsepower, acceleration suffers more than top speed. Usually it's the gearbox that limits speed. In streetcars anyway..

49
by Mike O (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 9:31pm

I think they should ban the use of a fastball in MLB. Research has shown that throwing a baseball at extremely high velocities causes a strain on a pitchers shoulder and elbow which can lead serious arm issues in the future. Plus baseball is a hitters game so banning the use of fastballs would increase run production and result in a higher viewing audience.

Football is a game of leverage and the old adage is the low man wins, hence why three point stances are used. If the use of three point stances were ever restricted in the NFL it would be turn it into the AF2. I was annoyed during the Super Bowl when the referees called a late hit out of bounce penalty on a play where the runners foot never touched the ground out of bounce until after the hit. Maybe i am just a purist but I think Vince Lombardi just turned over in his grave.

53
by roguerouge :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:47pm

Actually, the speed of the pitch has absolutely nothing to do with injury rate. It's the motion, the torque, etc.

82
by Kevin from Philly :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 3:17pm

Last year, Jamie Moyer hurt his shoulder, and a lot of Little Leaguers throw faster fastballs than he ever did.

96
by Brendan Scolari :: Wed, 02/10/2010 - 3:23pm

I know you're joking, but I also don't think some people realize that even if you only throw mid-80's that's still harder than probably 90-95% of the population can throw.

112
by D Jones :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 4:27pm

I'll call straw man here. This is about your brain, man, not your arm/knee/ankle. If you can't think straight when you're 50, what's the point? If you can't reach your arm above your shoulder at 50, well you aren't that much different from a lot of non-pro-athlete 50 year olds, but if you get blow your head off with a shotgun because of brain-trauma induced depression at 50...

9
by Nick-qsilvr2531 (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 2:59pm

Because reducing NASCAR car speeds to 10 MPH is exactly the same as preventing linemen from lining up in a 3-point stance. Perhaps you just misread and thought the proposal was to ban the use of footballs during a football game?

47
by jebmak :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 8:48pm

Hah!

58
by Danish Denver-Fan :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 4:14am

I wasn't going for "exactly the same", I was trying to say that I think changing the game while crying Player-Safety! is getting out of hand.

14
by Never Surrender (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 3:24pm

You know, Roger Goodell is just a terrible commissioner. I have never heard him float a good idea, nor has he presided over any significant changes that improved the game. Maybe -- maybe -- one could count ending the wedge on kickoffs.

Now is as good of an excuse as I'll ever get for this rant on FO: I watched a Six Nation's match this weekend (England - Wales). It was amazing: actual flow in the gameplay, no commercials for 40 minutes at a time, smoothly incorporated decisions by the ref. No obnoxious closeups on players as they gloat over a fallen body. Despite little padding the players do not get hurt very often. The game emphasizes well-rounded athleticism and minimizes violence-for-the-sake-of-violence (as much as is possible in a tackling game, anyway).

Given the direction in which the NFL has been steadily moving over the years, I think I will become a rugby union fan first and foremost . . . the moment it becomes regularly available on TV in the US. I sympathize with the powers that be who make decisions for how American football will change. They are stuck on a path that will make the game less interesting and less sportsmanlike as time progresses. There is little they can do to change that outside of some radical reforms.

21
by CoachDave :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 4:32pm

I agree.

Goodell is the Barack Obama of NFL Commissioners.

Looks good, talks a great game, gets credit for shit that he's actually not done yet, but when it comes to actually get things done...he never delivers.

25
by Phil :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 4:58pm

No politics, please.

26
by Eddo :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:00pm

First rule of FO...

29
by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:07pm

How does that comparison even work? What has Goodell promised but failed to deliver? Where does cloture figure into the analogy?

85
by Still Alive (not verified) :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 3:26pm

You could replace Obama in that sentence with any of the last 10 US presidents and it would be pretty accurate. Politicians get elected on promises they cannot deliver, it is the essence of what they do. Obama has been nothing fantastic, name me a recent US (or French, or whereever) president who was?

captcha: lobbying original

43
by foosballs (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 7:25pm

I cannot stand the pace of play in the NFL. Too many ads. Too slow between plays. Too many f'ing unending "official reviews" of calls. In the pre-HD days, football had been my fave TV sport. Now that HD and huge screens have made hockey a legit TV sport, that's now my fave. Meanwhile, if it weren't for my trusty DVR, I think I'd have quit on the NFL by now. The NFL is super entertaining when presented as those NFL-network-game-replay-in-60-minutes things, but the actual 3 hour experience is excruciating.

And don't get me started in the in-stadium experience. I have no idea how anyone can choose to waste a half day of their lives going to a mediocre team's not-very-meaningful regular season game.

/rant

50
by Verifiably Unverifiable (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:10pm

Guess you have not been keeping up on the recent outbreak of eye-gouging in rugby http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0060ckz#p0069sm3 Actually I love Rugby, it is a great sport with flow and athleticism. I wish it was more widely available as a sport when I was in college or high school as I am now too old to start playing.

51
by Never Surrender (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:42pm

I'm not saying the sport is without any problems. Simply that all things considered, it really is the more pure, less corrupted sport, and has a brighter future. Eye-gouging and all. ;)

61
by Jerry :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 4:36am

The moment rugby becomes regularly available on TV in the US will be the moment when they start inserting breaks for commercials.

65
by CandlestickPark :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 7:14am

Like soccer?

77
by Never Surrender (not verified) :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 12:47pm

Exactly. It is possible to keep the purity of a sport intact. Sure, it would never become the commercial success that pro football has become, but who among us fans would really *want* that, anyway? I really wish the NFL had stayed somewhat underground, because I suspect its course of development as a game would have been quite different.

90
by Jerry :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 9:33pm

It's no coincidence that soccer is not regularly available on TV in the US.

64
by deep64blue :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 6:29am

I used to follow and play Rugby Union, it's a terrible game now, really boring. All about kicking for position.

67
by CandlestickPark :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 7:15am

Rugby has always been like that.

Actually, England-Wales on Saturday showed that teams need to keep the ball more, as referees are finally favoring the attacking team instead of the defending team in the ruck.

83
by Kevin from Philly :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 3:21pm

I've met some rugby players. I doubt there's much chance of further brain damage.

17
by Pat Swinnegan (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 3:56pm

Goodell's ultimate plan: First, implement all sorts of gratuitous changes to reduce the rate of player injuries. Next, claim that injuries have been mitigated to the point where a 17 or 18 game season is now reasonable. Finally, increase the number of games per season to 17 or 18, thus restoring the volume of player injuries per season to what it originally was, while generating more revenue.

At least, that's my own little conspiracy theory.

33
by DrewTS (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:24pm

You know, that's not half bad.

34
by Rick A. (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:27pm

I don't think that adding one or two games to the schedule will cause a marked increase in player injuries, especially if they axe the silly preseason "dress rehearsal" games and instead replace them with real games.

I think an 18 game schedule, sans pre-season, would be ideal.

18
by ChrisZ (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 4:02pm

Slippery slope, slippery slope, slippery slope . . .

Also, absurd false analogy

19
by CoachDave :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 4:30pm

Here's a thought Commissioner Goodell.

How about enforcing the rules ALREADY on the books that serve to reduce head and neck injuries before you start creating ones that don't exist?

For example, Ike Taylor's spear job of Pat White in week 17. No foul. No fine. No suspension. Nada. And guess what...Taylor is going to continue hitting people like that next year, cause nothing happens to him.

See what you hit. It's a very basic rule that is enforced in most Pop Warner leagues around the country...until Goodell starts fining and suspending the bejesus out of players like Taylor, Sanders, etc. who routinely spear ball carriers and WRs, then quite frankly his words are empty gestures.

24
by Rich Conley (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 4:57pm

Completely agree.

That, and force players to wear the concussion reducing helmets. As far as I'm concerned, any player who refuses to wear one should be opting out of any future league paid medical care.

68
by CandlestickPark :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 7:18am

Isn't that an argument to reduce the size of helmets?

The Revolution doesn't have much revolution to it; it's just a bigger, more heavily padded helmet. That just sounds like it would encourage headhunters because those guys get a false sense of security from their big helmet.

If these guys had smaller helmets and went in head first and got knocked out, it might encourage them to think twice.

32
by Justin Zeth :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:22pm

Ike Taylor isn't even the most egregious example of his own team. I believe in at least half the games in 2009--that is not an exaggeration--at some point, Ryan Clark lay semiconscious on the field, after leading with his head into the ballcarrier's head, as fast and hard as he possibly can, and concussing himself.

Yes, that Ryan Clark, the one you remember from the McGahee play in the 2008 AFC Championship.

After Clark has been banned from the NFL for life for his incessant, flagrant headhunting, then maybe I'll take Goodell seriously when he says he's concerned about concussions.

If the league were to do something like this, it would have a lot more to do with 'chicks dig passing' than 'we're concerned about player safety'.

62
by hbh_uk :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 6:00am

Agree entirely. Fining a guy 25k for a dirty hit will do nothing: that is probably equivalent to just one evening at a gentlemen's club for these boys. Suspensions are the only real sanction, because then the player AND the team will suffer. How quickly do you think that Mike Tomlin will take action if the league forces his starting CB to sit out a game?

There was a similar issue to this in soccer: tackling players from behind was the biggest cause of injuries, and was also discouraging attacking, flair players. FIFA mandated that tackling from behind would now be a sending-off offence, no exceptions. For a short while there was a spike in the number of players sent off, but things quickly settled down. Before that FIFA did something similar with the 'Professional Foul' (i.e. deliberately fouling a player who was through on goal): it was damaging the game, so they made it a red card offence.

Without genuine disincentives to spear and take cheap shots, why on earth would players stop doing it?

122
by zlionsfan :: Fri, 02/12/2010 - 2:00pm

As pointed out above, the NFL does not care to ban cheap shots. Players are almost completely replaceable, except for certain marquee players who must be protected above and beyond what the rules specify. As you point out correctly, fining most players $25K does not stop them from playing like that. (Ooh, there's another big hit from Ray Lewis, and that was only five seconds after the play ended!)

I suspect that the league takes an approach similar to that which some commenters seem to share, which is that the players know what they are getting into (which is most likely entirely untrue; these are guys who are most firmly in the "Nothing's ever going to happen to me" camp until it is already happening to them) and thus do not need any additional protection (the career-ending injuries, hey, every sport has them!). Otherwise they would work with the NFLPA to establish a strict suspension system for repeat offenders. After all, while all the focus seems to be on the NFLPA member who is being fined, every player injured by a cheap shot is also an NFLPA member, and as in other sports, those players don't seem to have any advocates in the process.

I would prefer to see something like 4 games/16 games/life for leading with the helmet. (Start with a warning if you like; it won't make any difference until someone is kicked out of the league. Some of these guys have likely been tackling with their heads forever, and most players believe they're beyond reproach anyway, right? How would Ray Lewis respond to being suspended for a cheap shot? He'd probably be outraged.)

I would actually rather see some kind of magic helmet that only works for absorbing contact, not for initiating contact, but I don't even know how you'd go about making that happen if the technology were available.

Well, actually I'd rather have players stop killing each other, but clearly there aren't enough players willing to play by the rules for that to be possible. (I don't mean the holding-type rules, I mean the rules devised to protect players.)

I love football, but I'd prefer not to turn thousands of young men into 40-year-olds with 80-year-old brains just so I can enjoy my Saturdays and Sundays with it.

22
by Johnny (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 4:35pm

Goodell is a suit. He's purely a corporate yes man. He's going to be the downfall of the NFL, especially after he sides with the owners in the upcoming lockout. The corporatization of the NFL has only begun.

27
by Eddo :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:01pm

Didn't that already happen? Like, 20-30 years ago?

86
by Still Alive (not verified) :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 3:29pm

No man, the NFL is all underground and counter culture, not corporate at all!

23
by Jay Z (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 4:36pm

Those in favor of this rule change want regular season and post season games to become more like the Pro Bowl.

31
by MC2 :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 5:20pm

It's good to see that I'm not the only one who sees through Goodell's act. He's interested in one thing and one thing only: making himself look good to the media. That's it.

God knows Tags wasn't perfect, but it took less than a month of Goodell to make me start missing him.

37
by AnonymousA (not verified) :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 6:23pm

Actually, this is quite reasonable. The biggest cause of concussions is the 30+g impact of linemen in 3 point stances hitting eachother at the beginning of a play. It would also encourage offense by delaying line play slightly, giving QBs more time, which is one of the league's goal. After the initial flurry, line play would be as it is now.

I'd like to see this, especially if the offensive bonus it provides was counterbalanced by reducing how often defensive pass interference is called.un

56
by DeltaWhiskey :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 3:44am

"30+g impact of linemen"

What does this mean?

71
by Theo :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 9:59am

G-force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

And I think he's wrong because flying defensive backs and blocking fullbacks on linebackers with a 10 yards running start cause the most concussions.
I don't think that linemen cause so many, because they're too close to each other.
Maybe anonymous was sarcastic. Who knows.

72
by MCS :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 10:41am

Citation needed. You too Theo.

Cite your sources guys.

74
by Theo :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 11:52am

I stated it as a thought not as a fact. I played myself and the hardest hits come from linebackers and safeties.
I also played as a defensive tackle and never got hit hard. People are too close.

79
by jfsh :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 2:29pm

Malcolm Gladwell's article was pretty strong on this point: it's not the single big hit (although those are bad, of course), but the dozens of tiny little hits. Definitely well worth reading before you pass judgment on this plan. I'd be all in favor of a three-point stance if it means these guys don't have dementia by 45.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell?cur...

A slice of the article:

"Much of the attention in the football world, in the past few years, has been on concussions—on diagnosing, managing, and preventing them—and on figuring out how many concussions a player can have before he should call it quits. But a football player’s real issue isn’t simply with repetitive concussive trauma. It is, as the concussion specialist Robert Cantu argues, with repetitive subconcussive trauma. It’s not just the handful of big hits that matter. It’s lots of little hits, too.

That’s why, Cantu says, so many of the ex-players who have been given a diagnosis of C.T.E. were linemen: line play lends itself to lots of little hits. The HITS data suggest that, in an average football season, a lineman could get struck in the head a thousand times, which means that a ten-year N.F.L. veteran, when you bring in his college and high-school playing days, could well have been hit in the head eighteen thousand times: that’s thousands of jarring blows that shake the brain from front to back and side to side, stretching and weakening and tearing the connections among nerve cells, and making the brain increasingly vulnerable to long-term damage."

87
by Still Alive (not verified) :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 3:32pm

Malcolm Gladwell, while an occasionally entertaining and skilled writer, is not exactly a source to be trusted. He comprises truth for sensationalism about as much as Roger Godell.

I find I really like Gladwell's stuff when it is outside my area expertise, when it is in it I find simplistic misinterpreted crap. Which makes me very suspicious of all of it.

94
by MJK :: Wed, 02/10/2010 - 12:45pm

There are other, scientifically credible, sources that say similar things, and it's certainly a topic of interest. For example, the government has ongoing studies looking at breechers--folks who are trained to blow open doors with small explosive charges--to see if repeated exposure to a lot of small concussive events (in this case, small explosive blast waves) can lead to traumatic brain injury. The data is just starting to come in, and I can't comment on the results, but this effect is at least on the radar as something plausible.

And if this is the case, there is an easy solution that would improve player safety without changing the game too much--limit player snaps.

Expand the roster size and say that, in any given game, a player is only allowed to play X snaps, and no more than Y consecutive snaps. This improves player health and safety, offers more jobs to fringe players, gives a team more injury insurance, and introduces new elements of strategy and decision making to the game. Yes, it decreases star power, but how many OL's are really considered "stars" by the average public, anyway? The only other disadvantage I can see is that megabucks super-talented players won't like it, since it would diminish their value to their team (and hence the salaries that they demand).

54
by roguerouge :: Mon, 02/08/2010 - 11:55pm

If only they had some sort of minor league where they could test out rule changes like this one before implementing them...

75
by Theo :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 11:53am

The sport has growth potential in Europe...

73
by MCS :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 10:42am

I have long been an advocate of percentage fines rather than fixed dollar amounts. If the players were fines 20-50% of a game check, for example, it may sting a bit more.

98
by Brendan Scolari :: Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:04pm

But then highly-paid players get punished more for the same infractions than players who don't make very much money. That doesn't seem very fair at all.

103
by tuluse :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 3:52am

I doubt they would care that much, as a lot of their money comes from bonuses not game checks.

109
by MCS :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 4:21pm

The current system punishes the players that make less money more than the players that make more money. How is that fair?

If I make $1M a game, do you think I care if I get fined $50k? The problem becomes how to create a system of punishment that will convince me to be more careful. You can't increase the monetary amount to a value where I feel it (say 200k). That would punish the guy who makes half as much money as me more than it would punish me (sorry for poor sentence).

However, if the fine were 10 or 20%, we would both feel it.

89
by Anonymous11 (not verified) :: Tue, 02/09/2010 - 8:49pm

I can't believe the (mostly) low-brow discussion wrt this topic. It amazes me how many people will instantly cut down this idea (did you ever think you're biased because humans tend to reject change, especially when it's something they're close to?) without even knowing the facts. Heck, Time just had a front page article on this subject. That's probably where the initial question proposed to Goodell even came from...

99
by MC2 :: Wed, 02/10/2010 - 11:45pm

Time is your idea of high-brow analysis?

113
by D Jones :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 4:31pm

Compared to most of the "G is a pussy" "damn pansies want to destroy football" discussion of this thread, Time is frickin' high art.

120
by MC2 :: Fri, 02/12/2010 - 12:16am

Time is a worthless rag which, like all print magazines, will soon be out of business, and not a moment too soon, as far as I'm concerned.

104
by Jeff Feagles is God (not verified) :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 6:04am

Without the three-point stance, it's not fucking football.

/thread

105
by DeltaWhiskey :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 7:17am

So currently, it is fucking football?

I therefore support banning the three-point stance so that my children can watch the game and I hope they have not been scarred or disturbed by watching this fucking football.

115
by Geronimo (not verified) :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 5:58pm

Does it seem like the padding and helmets actually harm the players, because it makes them more likely to get low and lead with their heads?

Seems to me that if you were wearing a leather helmet, you'd spend a lot of your time tackling with your chest and arms, and lowering your shoulder only carefully.

Maybe not.

Then again, I also think that if the NFL had kept roster sizes low so that each player had to play multiple positions, you'd have fewer 345-pounders out there. A 10- or 12-game regular season would be good too.

116
by Geronimo (not verified) :: Thu, 02/11/2010 - 6:00pm

Conversely, what if the NFL considered this:

-- Rosters are extended to 65 or 70 players

-- The season can be 18 games (though I prefer 16 or fewer)

-- But EACH Player may only appear in 12 games.

There would be health benefits with players having significant time off during the season, which could be spent resting and healing and not getting hit.

Inexperienced players would play.

Coaches would have some tough, compelling choices to make throughout the season, which would add a little drama.

121
by capt. Anonymous (not verified) :: Fri, 02/12/2010 - 7:51am

Living is not safe. Why don't we all stay in the house under a desk with a helmet and a can of mace? Sometimes people take ideas too far.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
To skip this, please log in.