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.

Not necessarily falling on their heads, but having multiple players running at high speeds (speed as I define it). When this is done over the middle of the field, big collisions happen and the speeds they happen at make it difficult for players to even try to avoid hitting with their helmet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VESKYKlcDo

Defender had his head up, led with his shoulder. Offensive player put his head down in the wrong spot and so goes the concussion, plus you see the sandwich effect that happens often when receivers run routes over the middle.

Coaches won't teach their players to wrap up and take guys down because of the emphasis on creating turnovers and avoiding knee injuries. Everyone teaches players to stay on their feet, but not necessarily to hit with their head. Back when the field was compressed concussions were more rare but knee injuries were more common. Knee injuries are seen as worse because they knock a player out for the season, but he can come back quickly with a concussion (even though the concussion has much worse long-term effects).

I think you grossly underestimate the violence of line collision. It is something maybe you can't get a feel for on the television but the mass is so huge. A huge part of line play is what is called a punch too (that is using your arm to blow people off the ball). You aren't supposed to hit in the head but it happens incidentally and deliberately all the time. That's a 300-350 pound man hitting.

Second football is no doubt faster during the play (the stoppages may make it "slower" but the pace of the actual plays is much faster particularly on special teams).

Your hand isn't as hard as your shoulder or helmet, and if you punch on the opposing player's face or facemask the amount of force transferred to the brain is much less.

I'm talking about what would happen if they weren't wearing helmets per Mint's suggestion.

I think you grossly underestimate the violence of line collision. It is something maybe you can't get a feel for on the television but the mass is so huge. A huge part of line play is what is called a punch too (that is using your arm to blow people off the ball). You aren't supposed to hit in the head but it happens incidentally and deliberately all the time. That's a 300-350 pound man hitting.

Second football is no doubt faster during the play (the stoppages may make it "slower" but the pace of the actual plays is much faster particularly on special teams).

Not necessarily falling on their heads, but having multiple players running at high speeds (speed as I define it). When this is done over the middle of the field, big collisions happen and the speeds they happen at make it difficult for players to even try to avoid hitting with their helmet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VESKYKlcDo

Defender had his head up, led with his shoulder. Offensive player put his head down in the wrong spot and so goes the concussion, plus you see the sandwich effect that happens often when receivers run routes over the middle.

Yes but that's a perfect example of the type of tackling I'm talking about. There's no attempt at using the arms and he basically flies in with the shoulder and fairly high. This type of tackling is actually legal in one form of rugby as well.

For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4a5T0bDcjE

In the other form of rugby (rugby union...which is the bigger form worldwide and likely the type you've seen), these sort of hits without the arms are against the rules precisely because of issues with concussion. Doesn't mean you can't still absolutely smash someone in a tackle, but if you're forced to wrap the arms it does tend to make the tackles a little lower and definitely more controlled.

Well I've seen quotes from NFL players saying that they're taught to use their head as well.

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.

they are taught to use their heads on the ball to cause fumbles. not to lead with their heads into the other person's chest or something, cause that would just be stupid...

Maybe you misinterpreted what they said, because no football coach would tell a player to lead with his head. In high school I was taught to look up and put my facemask to the side of the players body, while put my shoulder into

Arm tackles generally don't work in football. The players are too big and too strong.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 99454.html

Dhani Jones, a linebacker for the Cincinnati Bengals who has played rugby, too, says head injuries in that sport do happen, but they're mostly freak accidents. "In football, you're taught to hit with your face," he says. "You're always contacting with your 'hat,' which is your head."



That's really not true if done properly. Arm tackles still use the shoulder for the primary hit, but the arms help make sure the player doesn't get away after the original collision and increases the control in the tackle. And for less forceful tackles, if you tackle the player around the legs using the arms they're going to fall. I don't see many tackles in the NFL around the legs but they're highly effective. It's the only way a smaller guy can tackle a much bigger guy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 99454.html

Dhani Jones, a linebacker for the Cincinnati Bengals who has played rugby, too, says head injuries in that sport do happen, but they're mostly freak accidents. "In football, you're taught to hit with your face," he says. "You're always contacting with your 'hat,' which is your head."



That's really not true if done properly. Arm tackles still use the shoulder for the primary hit, but the arms help make sure the player doesn't get away after the original collision and increases the control in the tackle. And for less forceful tackles, if you tackle the player around the legs using the arms they're going to fall. I don't see many tackles in the NFL around the legs but they're highly effective. It's the only way a smaller guy can tackle a much bigger guy.