WRAL Sports Fan

Will the whole head injury debate kill football completely or just as we know it?

Whether you know or not there is a major lawsuit working its way through the courts. It is a class action suit which means that it is for all current and former NFL players. As yet, the NCAA and college football have not been included yet.

The basis of the suit is that NFL officials knew that players that sustained head injuries would likely still retain some damage even after they were done with football. While this uit is really all about money, the impact on football could be immense. Anything that the NFL adopts to show that they are trying to prevent injury will most certainly have to be taken up by the NCAA also. As this lawsuit progressed we have seen the NFL take on all kinds of rules against hitting to the head. Actually, flags have pretty much flown on every hard hit this season whether it was clean or not. Meanwhile, concussions sustained have not gone down. Part of this probably comes from the increased likelihood that the concussion will be diagnosed. In light of this it is likely that people(sort of people, lawyers)will claim that the NFL has not done enough. It could come to where tackling as we know it will be removed from football. They could flag any tackle that includes the shoulder and try to teach arm tackling. Yes, the arm tackling that your coach would take you out of the game for.

Whatever pro football does NCAA football will have to do also to avoid suit. The only reason that they were not sued first is that college football would be very hard to sue because you could (a) sue the NCAA which would then have all the schools abandon it and the NCAA declare bankruptcy, or (b) sue the individual schools all at once. This would be a nightmare because some schools do not really have any money to have taken from them, many others (Harvard)would dump hundreds of pro bono alumni lawyers on the people filing the suit and bury the suit for years while the lawyers filing the suit foot the bill.

No matter what this lawsuit will change football greatly.

RE: Will the whole head injury debate kill football completely or just as we know it?

It sure will....the NFL is already looking into eliminating kick offs, I think you are right ..there will be a lot of changes.

RE: Will the whole head injury debate kill football completely or just as we know it?

I love a hard hit.

I hate to see hits to the head, and injuries. I don't ever watch injuries on replay.

I wish the NFL and NCAA teams would take the initiative to proactively STOP the hits to the head. I mean, the intentional ones. Stop leading with the helmet like it's a weapon. And they could make some rules that have teeth, like TANGIBLE fines for NFL players that continue to lay these kinds of hits. And in college, they could suspend players for 3-6 games for doing it. Or make it a 50 yard penalty. Something that would "encourage" coaches to make sure their players stop this type of hit.

RE: Will the whole head injury debate kill football completely or just as we know it?

I love a hard hit.

I hate to see hits to the head, and injuries. I don't ever watch injuries on replay.

I wish the NFL and NCAA teams would take the initiative to proactively STOP the hits to the head. I mean, the intentional ones. Stop leading with the helmet like it's a weapon. And they could make some rules that have teeth, like TANGIBLE fines for NFL players that continue to lay these kinds of hits. And in college, they could suspend players for 3-6 games for doing it. Or make it a 50 yard penalty. Something that would "encourage" coaches to make sure their players stop this type of hit. 

- Posted by TruthBKnown Returned

I also do not like the head to head hits. I also agree that there could and should be some substantial penalties for the flagrant ones.

However the truth is that some of these hits will occur unintentionally no matter what rules are made. Right now defensive coordinators are throwing clipboards on the field about twice a game because the defensive player went into the tackle in the way that they are now told to and then the player with the ball drops his head or slides creating head to head contact which draws a flag. Safety commits to a tackle and the QB slides, putting his head in the path of the tackle. I guess what I am saying is that some amount of head trama will be sustained because this is football. The lawsuit will determine what if any amount of head contact is acceptable. If the answer is none then we will have to start hanging flags out of our back pockets. No school will make themselves liable to the financial exposure that not doing so would cause.

Somebody please bring up why boxing has not been sued.

RE: Will the whole head injury debate kill football completely or just as we know it?

If defenders would "wrap up" the ball carrier, rather than diving at them helmet-first, there would be far fewer hits to the head. But football is a game of inches, and defenders do whatever it takes to stop a guy in his tracks. One more inch might be a first down. But the way I see it, if you have to dive at him helmet-first in order to stop him in his tracks, you were already beaten on the play and had to resort to that kind of tackle to stop him right there.

RE: Will the whole head injury debate kill football completely or just as we know it?

I don't disagree with you. The core of the discussion is that there is no way to coach or fine out more than 35% of these hits. Probably not even that many. Will that be enough to stop the dismantling of the sport? I doubt it.

Do you watch boxing or MMA? Do you cringe and swear that they should take hits to the head out of those sports when you see those head hits?

Or do you consider them part of the sport because no one has said otherwise? Are SOME hits not just the cost of playing football?

Why are ex boxers not being paraded in front of us with ridiculous claims of every stupid thing that they have ever done is somehow tied to concussions? Because boxing does not have enough money for those claims to be profitable to lawyers, therefore they do not exist.

RE: Will the whole head injury debate kill football completely or just as we know it?

I don't disagree with you. The core of the discussion is that there is no way to coach or fine out more than 35% of these hits. Probably not even that many. Will that be enough to stop the dismantling of the sport? I doubt it.

Do you watch boxing or MMA? Do you cringe and swear that they should take hits to the head out of those sports when you see those head hits?

Or do you consider them part of the sport because no one has said otherwise? Are SOME hits not just the cost of playing football?

Why are ex boxers not being paraded in front of us with ridiculous claims of every stupid thing that they have ever done is somehow tied to concussions? Because boxing does not have enough money for those claims to be profitable to lawyers, therefore they do not exist. 

- Posted by hovis

You're probably right. But if these leagues do "enough" to prevent losing future lawsuits on this topic, then they can continue. They don't have to stop the head hits altogether (although I wish they would). They just need to make enough effort to satisfy a judge or jury that they did all they could. And more importantly, they need to be able to prove they didn't knowingly withhold medical information from the participants.

It's kind of like cigarette companies. They are having so many legal problems because not only did they know of the addictive power of their product, they knowingly added addictive ingredients to them. And they kept it all a big secret. But there is no problem if they are open and honest about everything, with warning labels, etc. If a smoker still wants to smoke them, at least they have been educated. The poor judgment is on them, not on being uninformed.

As for boxing and MMA, I don't really watch those sports much. I do watch the big championship bouts sometimes. But I see that differently. When a boxer steps into the ring, he knows your opponent is trying to bash his brains in!

I guess the same can be said for a football player. But he can theoretically play without taking a hit to the head. But I think the main problem is the league knew there was a long-term risk to their health, and kept that info hidden. Maybe it will become like boxing, and the head hits will become acceptable, as long as everyone knows the risks involved. Like in boxing, if you don't accept the risks, don't participate.

RE: Will the whole head injury debate kill football completely or just as we know it?

This is an interesting topic. People assume that since we can't stop the head hits, then football as we know it is doomed.

But is it?

If football is actively promoted with WARNINGS that head trauma can have long-lasting negative affects on the health of players, then can juries really rule against the leagues? Players know going in that there are risks. And if lawsuit fears are squashed, can't football just continue?

Going back to the cigarette example, there were lawsuits against "Big Tobacco". But now there are all kinds of warnings on cigarette labels. And they continue to sell them. There is no more fear of a lawsuit.

I think that can and will happen with football. They may lose the initial lawsuits, but they will figure out how to continue (with warning labels like cigarettes!) and it will continue.

After thinking this through, I now feel better about the chances of football surviving this.

RE: Will the whole head injury debate kill football completely or just as we know it?

This is an interesting topic. People assume that since we can't stop the head hits, then football as we know it is doomed.

But is it?

If football is actively promoted with WARNINGS that head trauma can have long-lasting negative affects on the health of players, then can juries really rule against the leagues? Players know going in that there are risks. And if lawsuit fears are squashed, can't football just continue?

Going back to the cigarette example, there were lawsuits against "Big Tobacco". But now there are all kinds of warnings on cigarette labels. And they continue to sell them. There is no more fear of a lawsuit.

I think that can and will happen with football. They may lose the initial lawsuits, but they will figure out how to continue (with warning labels like cigarettes!) and it will continue.

After thinking this through, I now feel better about the chances of football surviving this. 

- Posted by TruthBKnown Returned

You have come to the point that I have come to also. I just wish that we would go ahead and put the "potentially dangerous violent sport" tag on it now. Because what I do know is that if they do take away the kick off or any other safety attached bs that they are pushing for you cannot go back.

If you later do something that it perceived as putting players at greater risk then you are liable. Again.

RE: Will the whole head injury debate kill football completely or just as we know it?

Get rid of the helmets and go back to the leather helmets and the hits using the hits leading with the head will go away. The helmet is the weapon. I'd also do away with all the pads. There are less injuries in rugby.

RE: Will the whole head injury debate kill football completely or just as we know it?

Get rid of the helmets and go back to the leather helmets and the hits using the hits leading with the head will go away. The helmet is the weapon. I'd also do away with all the pads. There are less injuries in rugby.  

- Posted by PacknoPride

There are also far less two hundred and forty five pound linebackers that run a 4.47. They would all be dead in a week.