Those Kickoff rules are truly barf tastic. And even worse than moving the line up (even though that would make touchbacks easier) is moving the touchback distance out to the 25 yardline. That big of a shift in average starting field position will make a gigantic fucking difference. Do they want any defense played at all?

Rule changes with the NFL disgust me more and more every year. It's funny, because as a person working in neurotrauma, these single-event concussions aren't even the primary cause of neurological deterioration in football players. The accumulation of minor hits and poor helmet design that's the main problem.

At this point I'm so tired of the NFL changing that I almost don't even care if there's a lockout. The league is driving me away.

Presumably if the QB is trying to tackle they are still fair game but yeah pretty ridiculous.

Just about all of these are ridiculous:

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

• A quarterback in the act of throwing;

• A receiver trying to catch a pass;

• A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;

• A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;

• A kicker or punter during the kick;

• A quarterback at any time after change of possession;

• A receiver who receives a blind-side block;

• A player already on the ground.

It's going to be flag football before we know it.

I hope the NFL just goes away for a while.

have these guys even played football before? that shit is impossible to consider when you're trying to making a freaking tackle. game speed is too fast. shit happens.

That sentence describes my feelings perfectly. Each season my football watching has went down because of all the illogical rule changes going on. It was once my favorite sport, now it's a distant 3rd.

Why don't they just get rid of the helmets?

Players would then stop using their heads as weapons and have to learn how to tackle properly (like rugby players). Additionally players peripheral vision would improve so you might get some cool plays after the forward pass has been completed with support players running onto lateral passes off the initial receiver etc. Those sort of plays and "trick" plays would be far less risky with the improved peripheral vision.

Because they used to play the game without helmets. It lead to a fairly high number of deaths. People have suggested getting rid of facemasks as that would make players less likely to throw their heads headlessly but that has problems of its own. Also keep in mind that the speed of the game is much faster than rugby so that would make them likely have to slow the speed of the game without helmets. NFL players are also (specifically at the lineman positions) much bigger and stronger than anyone who plays rugby. Finally, I bet there are some pretty big issues with concussions in rugby that will emerge.

Sorry for the late reply, I only just remembered I'd made the post above.

I realise there had been some deaths in the pre helmet era but I would argue this was not because of a lack of helmets but because of a lack of regulation around tackling and dumping players on their heads. There was a problem but the wrong solution was found.

Rugby is not a slower game than American Football (AF). It's significantly faster...both forms of rugby are more continuous and faster games, just (with the exception of the rugby union scrum) less explosive because of the lack of padding and helmets and because of the faster speed (players get more fatigued). There are definitely head injuries in rugby, but they are less prevalant and happen as a result of freak accidents, foul play or just poor technique. They're not part and parcel of the game like AF where most players are suffering brain damaging head collisions every game. It's simply because players are taught to tackle with their face/heads first in AF. In rugby you'd never do it because you'd seriously injure yourself - you learn to keep your head out of collisions. You learn to tackle with your head to the ball runners closest side, wrapping your arms around their waist as you drive with the shoulder, ensuring your head lands on top of the tackled player. In one form of rugby you are even penalised for not using your arms in a tackle (i.e. a shoulder only tackle or shoulder charge)...in the other form of rugby (called rugby league) you aren't, and in that form there has been some greater problems with concussions.

The linesman are massive no doubt, but they're basically grappling with another similar sized guy from about a yard away. The power and force is huge, but the speed of the collision is not very fast. They wouldn't need a helmet to do it...they'd just need to change their technique. Removing the helmet would take some of the explosiveness out of the sport, but the shape of the game would stay the same. When I watch NFL the thing that interests me is the tactical complexity. Not whether the linesman are bashing their heads together or whether the receiver gets tackled by a guy flying at him kamikaze style. If the linesman were colliding only with their shoulders and the receivers brought down with textbook rugby style tackles do you think people would go off the sport? You'd still get big hits without helmets, they'd just be done safer and a little less frequent. On the plus side, improved peripheral vision might add another dimension to the game from an attacking point of view.

Also just to clarify...by helmets I mean exclusively the big hard plastic ones that American Football players wear. Not the soft, leather head gear that some rugby players wear and I think American Football players used to wear back in the day. The soft ones have very minimal cushioning and really all they do is protect your ears and your head from cuts and grazes.

I'd probs like Mint's version of the NFL more than the current one.

I think the history around that era means the NFL would never seriously consider removing helmets. Football was almost outlawed in the United States at that time due to the number of deaths and the NFL isn't going to invite anything close to that type of controversy again. Keep in mind that the NFL's decisions on safety reach far beyond the NFL itself, but also all the way down to the high school level where hundreds of thousands of players participate each year as these levels always adopt NFL safety standards. Removing helmets isn't going to happen.

Not really sure how rugby is faster than football. It requires more stamina, but the maximum speed and change of direction capability required in football by receivers and defensive backs are probably the highest speed movements that I observe in sports.

Main problem isn't really the linemen. I don't think linemen get concussions that often because they move so little. Even in the case of running plays, guys aren't moving that fast. I'd bet the bulk of concussions occurs on passing plays between defensive backs, wide receivers, and linebackers.

No they're not, they're taught to tackle the way you described. Most head injuries in AF don't occur in one on one tackles, its when a player hits their head on the ground or on the knee (or something) or another player as he's being tackled. Leading with your head is more likely to causes neck injuries, and its a penalty in American football, and the occurrence rate has severely decreased the last few years.

The vast majority of players lead with their shoulders, even on the big hits, really its just 1-3 times in the entire league on a Sunday somebody gets flagged for helmet-to-helmet, and given the amount of tackles that occur on a Sunday that's really not that bad. I think people think the wrong thing when they see guys get blown up. They think the defensive player is trying to showboat or hurt the guy or make the fans excited... maybe there's a handful of players that do this, but the majority of the time they're trying to a)knock the ball loose or b) sometimes its the only way to make a tackle because the fastest way to do it would be to throw your body at someone before they change direction. Obviously there are a lot of cases where there's other reasons, but again the vast majority of those hits are shoulder to chest/shoulder.

The no-helmet thing just wouldn't work, there's too much going on in football where without you'd get concussed even if you weren't around the ball.

Well I've seen quotes from NFL players saying that they're taught to use their head as well. And with the helmets so big it must be pretty hard to get it out of the way. Maybe they're just exaggerating. But even with using the shoulder, they're using it and their body as a missile, rather than simply trying to bring the player down. If you use the arms in the tackle, to wrap around the ball carrier, it results in a much safer take down...and more accurate tackling as well (the flying missile tackle style can often result in players simply deflecting out of the tackle).

Lonewolf, just depends on what you're talking about by speed. I would say rugby is faster because the play is continuous, i.e. the game itself is quicker. The maximum speed in football is probably higher but it's just in such short bursts. So I think we agree, we're just using the word differently.

I agree that most of the concussions probably occur on the passing plays with players falling on their heads. You see guys catch the ball and then suddenly get upended by some guy flying in with no arms basically trying to hammer him. It's a little low percentage because as I said before, players can deflect or ricochet out of these attempts if the angles are in their favour...but if they come off for the defender they're pretty spectacular and can obviously cause a fumble which is I guess why they go in that way. I guess that's part of football really, but you could lessen the damage by ensuring players tackle with their arms and aren't allowed to lift the tackled player beyond the horizontal (i.e. where their head hits the ground first). The size of the hits are definitely bigger because of helmets and so much padding. It makes the players feel invincible.

It'll never happen but I'd just be interested to see what American football would look like if they didn't wear any protection and the rules...besides a couple of additions around tackling style and player safety were kept the same. I think it'd still be a very dynamic and powerful game of great tactical complexity (which is the sports greatest strength IMO). Just a little less about force and more about evasion.