Jeff Jacobs: Bryant Shirreffs Latest Example Why Football Needs A Complete Makeover

[huskymedic]

I’m sure this discussion will end up in a different direction than the other Bryant Shirreffs retirement thread so it’s a separate post...

Jeff Jacobs: Bryant Shirreffs Latest Example Why Football Needs A Complete Makeover

 

[Exit 4]

Based on the title alone - booo!

 

[manbyrd]

He's not wrong, with CTE front and center now, there will be lawsuits or the threat of them. The NFL has taken the flack so far and can absorb a lot of it. But eventually, it will get to the college level and outside the major programs, I can't imagine a university that would stomach the bad press let alone some multimillion-dollar settlement.

 

[BlueMAB]

"You don't see it in rugby and the reason is they don't have helmets. They drag tackle, start at the waist and drag down to the lower legs. There's a purpose in it. We don't have that in football." - John Shirreffs

I'm not an expert, this is just an opinion (that I've had for years) and it's up for debate; but we need to get rid of the face mask entirely, and move to padded helmets that offer protection, but don't inspire the fearlessness that comes with using your head/helmet to try and lay a devastating hit.

Players use their helmets as a weapon (unintentionally or intentionally) they don't fear launching head first to make the tackle whether it's high or low. Fewer and fewer players actually try and wrap up and tackle, preferring instead to try for a vicious hit. And it's not just helmet to helmet contact, many times players get hit in a manner where they fall back and their head hits the ground which can be just as dangerous. The lineman and their repeated helmet to helmet contact is a problem too. The severity of those hits is obviously less intense; but the repeated nature, 50, 60, 70 times in just one game over the length of a career adds up.

I love the game. I want my kid to play one day, but he won't see a football field with a helmet and pads on until he's in high school, if ever. We don't need to get rid of the game, but he's right, the football community needs to consider serious changes to the way we approach the game.

 

[huskymedic]

Based on the title alone - booo!

They changed it just for you - it now reads:
”Jeff Jacobs: Bryant Shirreffs' Father Speaks Powerfully For Change In Football”

 

[uconnphil2016]

He's right, and it's so sad that two awesome UConn QBs got beat up in BS and Cochran. Well, Whitmer too. I was watching Alabama vs Miss State on Saturday and the camera zoomed in on a kid walking to the locker room after a bad concussion. It was terrifying...his eyes were rolling all over the place and clearly had no idea where he was. If we really care about our players as more than just bodies who score touchdowns, we'll work hard to make things safer for them

 

[Exit 4]

I have a harsh POV on this. If you don't like the concussions, don't play. Can we do reasonable things to reduce concussions, sure and yes lets do those (ie concussion protocol, player education on long term risk). However, radical ideas like soft helmets and zany rules further limited tackling styles should be pondered in some experimental league somewhere and not in NCAA and the NFL. And parents who complain that the game is too dangerous, well - gee how is that new news?

Football is like boxing, it comes with a real injury risk. And that risk is a big part of why we watch, its why we respect it and why we all want to be these guys.

Btw, I would love to see a soft helmet league played somewhere. Maybe some sort of eightman football league. However, I think over time inevitably you would see some rather gruesome head shots that would be rather horrifying leading one to quickly conclude that hard helmets are the lesser of two necessary evils.

 

[Redding Husky]

My son plays college football as a punter. I don't know how I'd feel about him playing a more dangerous position where concussions are an issue.

One thing I'd like to see is a player kicked out for a full season for obvious targeting to the head. I'm not talking about situations where the ball carrier moves at the last second and there's unintentional helmet-to-helmet contact. I'm talking about cases where the defender gets the ball carrier in his sights and intentionally rams his head into the head of an opponent. Gone. For 12 months.

 

[BlueMAB]

I have a harsh POV on this. If you don't like the concussions, don't play. Can we do reasonable things to reduce concussions, sure and yes lets do those (ie concussion protocol, player education on long term risk). However, radical ideas like soft helmets and zany rules further limited tackling styles should be pondered in some experimental league somewhere and not in NCAA and the NFL. And parents who complain that the game is too dangerous, well - gee how is that new news?

Football is like boxing, it comes with a real injury risk. And that risk is a big part of why we watch, its why we respect it and why we all want to be these guys.

Btw, I would love to see a soft helmet league played somewhere. Maybe some sort of eightman football league. However, I think over time inevitably you would see some rather gruesome head shots that would be rather horrifying leading one to quickly conclude that hard helmets are the lesser of two necessary evils.

Radical? You've never seen rugby? I'm sure you know football didn't always use hard helmets or facemasks. This isn't radical, it's recognizing the unintended consequences of using helmets.

Yes, boxing is very dangerous. That's why they've moved to softer gloves and banned bare-knuckle boxing. It's why they wear big/soft head gear as amateurs and while training. Football helmets aren't soft.

Concussion protocol is a band-aid on a cut requiring stitches. So you get a concussion and sit 1, 2, 3 weeks. Okay great. If you play 8 years and "only" get one concussion a season, that's still 8 opportunities to cause long-term damage.

It's not just parents complaining the game is too dangerous, it's players too. And if you think the "if you don't like it, don't play" approach is the way to go, then you're going to see the sport die, or you're only going to see it in communities that continue to believe the best (maybe only) opportunity to improve one's life is through sports and scholarships. Because the number of parents complaining is growing, and more parents will not allow their kids to play.

It cannot continue the way it is, just my opinion, but I believe I'm in the majority. The game is over 100 years old and has changed radically. If you want the game to be here over the next 100 years, people will have to take this seriously, not simply write it off with "well you knew the risk when you signed up". That approach will keep people from signing up.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Boxing actually instituted gloves to protect boxer's hands, not their heads. The reason bare-knuckle fights used to last so long is you can only hit a man so hard in the head without breaking your hand. Gloves have actually made boxing more dangerous.

Football was going to be banned if helmets weren't introduced. College kids died or suffer serious injury on a regular basis in the era before helmets.

Football is an inherently violent sport that will eventually cannibalize itself. The end is virtually inevitable. But that end is not happening anytime soon.

 

[Exit 4]

Radical? You've never seen rugby? I'm sure you know football didn't always use hard helmets or facemasks. This isn't radical, it's recognizing the unintended consequences of using helmets.

Yes, boxing is very dangerous. That's why they've moved to softer gloves and banned bare-knuckle boxing. It's why they wear big/soft head gear as amateurs and while training. Football helmets aren't soft.

Concussion protocol is a band-aid on a cut requiring stitches. So you get a concussion and sit 1, 2, 3 weeks. Okay great. If you play 8 years and "only" get one concussion a season, that's still 8 opportunities to cause long-term damage.

It's not just parents complaining the game is too dangerous, it's players too. And if you think the "if you don't like it, don't play" approach is the way to go, then you're going to see the sport die, or you're only going to see it in communities that continue to believe the best (maybe only) opportunity to improve one's life is through sports and scholarships. Because the number of parents complaining is growing, and more parents will not allow their kids to play.

It cannot continue the way it is, just my opinion, but I believe I'm in the majority. The game is over 100 years old and has changed radically. If you want the game to be here over the next 100 years, people will have to take this seriously, not simply write it off with "well you knew the risk when you signed up". That approach will keep people from signing up.

Fewer kids play baseball than 40 years ago and yet baseball at the college and pro level is just fine in terms of finding talent. The predicted decline in participation is way premature in terms of impacting the college and pro talent pools.

The rugby safety factor maybe overrated in that because of the backwards pass, the scrum pile has reduced incentive to kill the ball carrier. Football is not played that way. All people to the ball at all times, no backing off to cover backwards passes.

In the end, players and parents don't have to play. If they want to create a new sport, by all means have at it.

 

[BlueMAB]

Fewer kids play baseball in America than 40 years ago and yet baseball at the college and pro level is just fine in terms of finding talent. The predicted decline in participation is way premature in terms of impacting the college and pro talent pools.

The rugby safety factor maybe overrated in that because of the backwards pass, the scrum pile has reduced incentive to kill the ball carrier. Football is not played that way. All people to the ball at all times, no backing off to cover backwards passes.

In the end, players and parents don't have to play. If they want to create a new sport, by all means have at it.

FIFY.

Central and South American players are taking over baseball. Nearly 30 percent of MLB players were born outside the US. Those countries aren't going to fill the void because they're playing a different football. The most recent data I could find using a quick search on the NFL was from 2011. 96.5% of players come from the US. There are so few foreign players that it's hardly tracked by the national media. Not so for baseball, where it was very easy to find multiple reports.

The actual decline is premature, the discussion of the decline isn't. Because it's the young adults who know what their parents didn't. Many of them don't yet have kids, or have very young kids. The impact won't be in the next 5 years, but in the next 10-20. Flag football leagues for youth programs are growing as a result. Changes implemented at the youth level means players will learn how to play the game differently, and college and the pros can/should change as a result.

You said it yourself, "kill the ball carrier". That's the problem. You can tackle, and you can give less opportunity to "kill" the ball carrier by removing that which makes them feel totally comfortable launching with their head first to knock a player out, without actually trying to "tackle". One doesn't need to create a new sport.

In the end, the more people resist change, the fewer kids that play, and the sport will suffer.

 

[uconnphil2016]

I have a harsh POV on this. If you don't like the concussions, don't play. Can we do reasonable things to reduce concussions, sure and yes lets do those (ie concussion protocol, player education on long term risk). However, radical ideas like soft helmets and zany rules further limited tackling styles should be pondered in some experimental league somewhere and not in NCAA and the NFL. And parents who complain that the game is too dangerous, well - gee how is that new news?

Football is like boxing, it comes with a real injury risk. And that risk is a big part of why we watch, its why we respect it and why we all want to be these guys.

Btw, I would love to see a soft helmet league played somewhere. Maybe some sort of eightman football league. However, I think over time inevitably you would see some rather gruesome head shots that would be rather horrifying leading one to quickly conclude that hard helmets are the lesser of two necessary evils.

It's not that simple. Incredible incentives are offered to kids willing to play football at the college level and obviously at the pro level. On top of that, a large percentage of these guys come from disadvantaged backgrounds, so it's not an entirely free choice to play football or not. Of course, you can always say no, but I think football has a population of people for whom saying no to those kinds of opportunities is much harder than for others because it's the sole avenue to such opportunities. You've got kids who are many times the first in their family to have the chance to go to college because of football, or NFL players who get millions. The players can't afford to walk away, so it's up to admin to be serious about player safety. But they aren't serious about it, because it may not help the bottom line

 

[Exit 4]

It's not that simple. Incredible incentives are offered to kids willing to play football at the college level and obviously at the pro level. On top of that, a large percentage of these guys come from disadvantaged backgrounds, so it's not an entirely free choice to play football or not. Of course, you can always say no, but I think football has a population of people for whom saying no to those kinds of opportunities is much harder than for others because it's the sole avenue to such opportunities. You've got kids who are many times the first in their family to have the chance to go to college because of football, or NFL players who get millions. The players can't afford to walk away, so it's up to admin to be serious about player safety. But they aren't serious about it, because it may not help the bottom line

Stop right there. You lose credibility with this statement: "a large percentage of these guys come from disadvantaged backgrounds, so it's not an entirely free choice to play football or not. " <--if you subscribed to this line of thinking, then you can justify every poor choice that anyone has ever made that had a tough upbringing; every drug deal, every crime, every poor choice. Its a crock to take this position and its a soft bigotry on anyone's potential. No one has to play football. On the list of things people have to do is; finish high school with good grades, complete college in a timely manner in a field of study that employers want or complete a technical school program, respect and support your family, care for self and others, follow the ten commandments (still a pretty good guide even in these times!) etc.

Football is a choice.

 

[Exit 4]

FIFY.

Central and South American players are taking over baseball. Nearly 30 percent of MLB players were born outside the US. Those countries aren't going to fill the void because they're playing a different football. The most recent data I could find using a quick search on the NFL was from 2011. 96.5% of players come from the US. There are so few foreign players that it's hardly tracked by the national media. Not so for baseball, where it was very easy to find multiple reports.

The actual decline is premature, the discussion of the decline isn't. Because it's the young adults who know what their parents didn't. Many of them don't yet have kids, or have very young kids. The impact won't be in the next 5 years, but in the next 10-20. Flag football leagues for youth programs are growing as a result. Changes implemented at the youth level means players will learn how to play the game differently, and college and the pros can/should change as a result.

You said it yourself, "kill the ball carrier". That's the problem. You can tackle, and you can give less opportunity to "kill" the ball carrier by removing that which makes them feel totally comfortable launching with their head first to knock a player out, without actually trying to "tackle". One doesn't need to create a new sport.

In the end, the more people resist change, the fewer kids that play, and the sport will suffer.

This post has no meaning because baseball at the pro level is still being played very well. Why does it matter where the players come from? The point is that it is played. And the american players in the league are doing fine to boot. Football in 2050 maybe played by 25% foreign born players and guess what, in this multi cultural global society it won't matter a lick. Game goes on.

 

[The Viking]

Some questions - are flag football leagues prevelent in most towns for the same age groups as tackle football? Or do towns have youth leagues up until say 7 or 8 and then only tackle is available?

If parents are given equal access to flag and football, I'd have to imagine that if there isn't an increase already, there will be a HUGE increase over the next 5 years as more and more studies come out about football and the brain, particularly for young kids (such as the recent one about youth football and depression). I wonder if the folks who run tackle leagues have tried to suppress flag football after a certain age for fear of low turnout in the tackle leagues. But maybe that's just a crazy conspiracy theory, who knows.

 

[businesslawyer]

I have a harsh POV on this. If you don't like the concussions, don't play. Can we do reasonable things to reduce concussions, sure and yes lets do those (ie concussion protocol, player education on long term risk). However, radical ideas like soft helmets and zany rules further limited tackling styles should be pondered in some experimental league somewhere and not in NCAA and the NFL. And parents who complain that the game is too dangerous, well - gee how is that new news?

Football is like boxing, it comes with a real injury risk. And that risk is a big part of why we watch, its why we respect it and why we all want to be these guys.

Btw, I would love to see a soft helmet league played somewhere. Maybe some sort of eightman football league. However, I think over time inevitably you would see some rather gruesome head shots that would be rather horrifying leading one to quickly conclude that hard helmets are the lesser of two necessary evils.

So if you view it as a big risk -- and it's bigger than you're even conceding -- how do we let anyone under the age of 21 be able to consent to this risk? Because that is what, legally, will drive the inevitable spiral here. At some point a judge is going to say that the consent to playing is so material to a person's life that only the person can consent in a way that waives liability.

 

[Husky25]

Boxing actually instituted gloves to protect boxer's hands, not their heads. The reason bare-knuckle fights used to last so long is you can only hit a man so hard in the head without breaking your hand. Gloves have actually made boxing more dangerous.

Football was going to be banned if helmets weren't introduced. College kids died or suffer serious injury on a regular basis in the era before helmets.

Football is an inherently violent sport that will eventually cannibalize itself. The end is virtually inevitable. But that end is not happening anytime soon.

Helmets and headgear do not prevent concussions. They barely lessen the likelihood. They prevent scratches, cuts, scraps, bruising, and broken skull bones. A concussion is a brain injury typically caused by the sudden deceleration of the brain's inertia. You can get a concussion by a hard hit taken head on to the abdomen just as well.

 

[Exit 4]

So if you view it as a big risk -- and it's bigger than you're even conceding -- how do we let anyone under the age of 21 be able to consent to this risk? Because that is what, legally, will drive the inevitable spiral here. At some point a judge is going to say that the consent to playing is so material to a person's life that only the person can consent in a way that waives liability.

When state legislatures curb/kill public school football it certainly will be a watershed moment. Let me know when we get to that point. I still think we are a ways away. Then again I was wrong about Trump, so....

And btw, lets say liberal areas in the NE pass laws ending public school football, I don't see it happening in the south soon thereafter. We could end up with a long period of cultural / legal divide on this issue. Public HS football in the south and the NE limited to much smaller private HS leagues.

 

[Exit 4]

So if you view it as a big risk -- and it's bigger than you're even conceding -- how do we let anyone under the age of 21 be able to consent to this risk? Because that is what, legally, will drive the inevitable spiral here. At some point a judge is going to say that the consent to playing is so material to a person's life that only the person can consent in a way that waives liability.

Whoops, I think you meant 18 rather than 21, because 18 is voting age and 18 is dying age for military service...

 

[BlueMAB]

Football in 2050 maybe played by 25% foreign born players

There's no data to suggest this will be the case, but go on believing that if you want. No meaning? Okay, sure.

If you don't think football (and sports in general) helps keep many black and brown (and white, but to a much lesser extent) in school AND hitting the books, then you sound naive and ignorant (meant only to mean you may have a lack of knowledge, not bigoted in any way).

Just under half of black males graduate HS nationally. Football, and sports in general, forces some kids to study in order to stay eligible or earn a shot at playing in college. This isn't anecdotal or conjecture, it's a fact.

 

[BlueMAB]

Stop right there. You lose credibility with this statement: "a large percentage of these guys come from disadvantaged backgrounds, so it's not an entirely free choice to play football or not. " <--if you subscribed to this line of thinking, then you can justify every poor choice that anyone has ever made that had a tough upbringing; every drug deal, every crime, every poor choice. Its a crock to take this position and its a soft bigotry on anyone's potential. No one has to play football. On the list of things people have to do is; finish high school with good grades, complete college in a timely manner in a field of study that employers want or complete a technical school program, respect and support your family, care for self and others, follow the ten commandments (still a pretty good guide even in these times!) etc.

Football is a choice.

You're not really in a position to talk about credibility if you don't understand the motives behind playing sports for many kids who are economically disadvantaged. Yes at the end of the day, it's a choice. But a kid from a single parent home, with no immediate family that has ever gone to college, living under the poverty line, is not making the same choices for the same reasons as a kid who grew up with two college-educated parents who earn double the median household income for their town.

Many kids can't go to college without sports. So they choose to play because too often that's the only way for them to get an education and improve their life. If you can't acknowledge that fact, please let's not discuss credibility, or how easy it is to just decide not to play football for some kids.

You've listed supporting your family as one of the things people have to do, while having no qualms about removing the vehicle that the kids he referred to use to do just that if they aren't willing to risk their brain/health.

 

[Exit 4]

There's no data to suggest this will be the case, but go on believing that if you want. No meaning? Okay, sure.

If you don't think football (and sports in general) helps keep many black and brown (and white, but to a much lesser extent) in school AND hitting the books, then you sound naive and ignorant (meant only to mean you may have a lack of knowledge, not bigoted in any way).

Just under half of black males graduate HS nationally. Football, and sports in general, forces some kids to study in order to stay eligible or earn a shot at playing in college. This isn't anecdotal or conjecture, it's a fact.

Yes, but football is still a choice. There is nothing that is preventing them from working hard at HS academically to succeed as a regular student w/o football. They might not get into Michigan, but they certainly would get into alot of colleges and certainly receive plenty of financial aid. Kids are playing football because they love it, its a choice.

 

[Exit 4]

You're not really in a position to talk about credibility if you don't understand the motives behind playing sports for many kids who are economically disadvantaged. Yes at the end of the day, it's a choice. But a kid from a single parent home, with no immediate family that has ever gone to college, living under the poverty line, is not making the same choices for the same reasons as a kid who grew up with two college-educated parents who earn double the median household income for their town.

Many kids can't go to college without sports. So they choose to play because too often that's the only way for them to get an education and improve their life. If you can't acknowledge that fact, please let's not discuss credibility, or how easy it is to just decide not to play football for some kids.

You've listed supporting your family as one of the things people have to do, while having no qualms about removing the vehicle that the kids he referred to use to do just that if they aren't willing to risk their brain/health.

I'm not removing a vehicle. All I am saying is that its a choice. There is no gun barrel here. If you don't want to take the physical risks, choose another sport or do what perhaps 95% of kids on campus did and study to qualify for college w/o an athletic resume.

 

[BlueMAB]

I'm not removing a vehicle. All I am saying is that its a choice. There is no gun barrel here. If you don't want to take the physical risks, choose another sport or do what perhaps 95% of kids on campus did and study to qualify for college w/o an athletic resume.

Specious. There are plenty of obstacles preventing them. Crime, drugs, poverty, lack of family/parental support, bias in the criminal justice system, a lack of direction, poor/inappropriate role models, poor influence from cultural values.

12 year-olds who are thrown on the corner to make more cash selling drugs in a day than their mom makes in a week often don't know better, or more importantly, don't believe they have any other options. because they don't see many around them doing the right things and succeeding at it. Instead they're heavily influenced by cash thrown to them by adults who know those kids will be in and out of processing because they are juveniles.

Through sports (which is just one way, mind you) these kids can be made to believe they have other options.

This topic is far more complex than "they should just go to school and study". We know they have options, and obviously a harder road than most, but if they don't believe it, because they don't see it, none of that matters.

And we're talking about kids. They need to be raised, educated, guided, shown the right way. It's unrealistic to expect the majority of them to figure out the right way on their own, when they've grown up around so much negativity.