I read stories of players in the 60’s/70’s regularly becoming concust trying to head the leather balls when they were soaking in winter. Todays lightweight balls, and the tendency to call professional matches off when they would have gone ahead decades ago mitigate this, somewhat.
That, plus it’s well understood by all players that if you walk off the field without at the very least your uniform covered in mud an inch thick and a broken nose… you played like a goddamn pussy 
ETA (I’m only half-joking too. I’ve yet to hear a discussion between amateur rugbymen that didn’t involve bragging about their injuries at some point. I think it’s a guy thing.)
I always assumes that brain damage was more of a prerequisite.
This is a silly argument. You can’t compare something like riding a motorcycle, which carries a real but manageable risk of accident or injury, to something like football, which carries a 100% risk of repeated, violent collision, often head to head.
People wear motorcycle helmets *in case *they get into an accident. People wear football helmets because they will get hit in the head over and over again during the course of a game.
I think there is ample reason to mandate better helmet technology for players and stricter enforcement of non-headhunting rules on the field.
We’re just learning that football is dangerous? Isn’t this like a study that snow is cold? WTF? High school kids break their necks in this sport. A concussion is a completely obvious risk. Now we’re worried about the long-term risk of smashing our brains into our own skulls? Gosh, who’d have thought that would lead to complications.
(1) The guys who are dying or being diagnosed now in many cases played in the '60s and '70s, when it was de facto encouraged to use your head/helmet as a weapon in tackling. Due in the first instance to worries about paralysis, but also now concussions, players are certainly not told any more to “put your hat on the ball” as coaches were known to say in past decades. Future studies may show that rule changes over the past decade or two have reduced the cumulative harm.
(2) The N.Y.T. has had a running series of these articles. Partly I am sure it is some journalist who wants to make a name for himself. But in one of the very first of the series, I smelled a rat. The writer used a phrase (I’ll track it down in a little bit) to the effect that one concussed guy had been told to get back in the scrimmage by a trainer or some other low-level staffer but that the coach also “knew or should have known” that he shouldn’t be going back in. Hmmm. “Knew or should have known.” That sounds to me an awful lot like a line from a legal pleading, not a news or sports story. I have no proof at all, but I would be far from shocked if one of the background sources for a lot of these stories turned out to be a plaintiffs’ lawyer who was helpfully tracking down stories of injured retired players and providing good case studies for the journos, as a prelude to ginning up a good old fashioned class action suit against the NFL. Let’s see if that doesn’t materialize within the next year or two, once the potential jury pool has been sufficiently conditioned to believe the NFL has been systematically neglectful of its players’ health.
Football is dangerous. OTOH, it contributes billions of dollars and probably millions of jobs to the economy. More importantly, it gives the millions of people who live by stunted, comic-book conceptions of character, community, heroism, and sacrifice, a feeling that they understand those things in Capital Letters. And without that, who knows what sordid acts of desperation they’d resort to.
In rugby union the use of protection like scrum caps and thicker padding began to be used just when the sport was turning professional around 1995. Injuries have gone up but if this is linked to players tackling harder because of the false sense of safety that the protection gives or whether its just because professional players are faster and stronger is debatable. Obviously its the latter mostly, but the former may also play a part. Interestingly, and it could just be me, but I’ve noticed that a lot of players have stopped wearing scrum caps recently. Maybe they were more trouble than they were worth.
As for rugby league which has been professional for almost a century? I’m not from the north of England or Australia, so the hell do I know!
shudder They might even do square dancing.
Yes you must have at least a spare hooker and a spare prop on the bench in a squad of 22. They may not switch either, i.e. the reserve hooker cannot come on for a prop. These are also the only positions where a substituted player may come back on if his replacment has been injured. If one side has run out of props or hookers due to injuries then uncontested scrums are called where neither side is allowed to push. These are generally hated, but it isn’t unknown for a team that is being hammered at scrum time to have a few convenient injuries.
Interestingly scrums are blamed a bit too much for serious injuries in rugby. They are policed so well, due to the eligibility laws and the “crouch, touch, pause, engage” stuff. Being at the bottom of a ruck can be far worse and don’t get me started on this new “its ok to bring down a maul” rule. Someone is going to get hurt badly.
Whu ? Hookers with props ? Is that what rugby players call cheerleaders ?
(d&r)
To me, this is the only solution that will reduce the number of concussions and subsequent brain damage. You still get some very hard hits with proper tackling technique, but most of the hardest and most damaging hits are just hits. They don’t try to tackle the person they try to hit him as hard as humanly possible to make him fall over or drop the ball. Like this recent example, slow mo is 30sec in.
Change the rules, make tackles require wrapping an arm around the player being tackled. Make blocks require leading with the arms instead of just a shoulder. If you don’t it’s a penalty.
Granted, I have no idea what that would do to the game, but I don’t see any lesser changes reducing the chance of injury.
The black humorist in me likes to think they’d combine it with mass spousal abuse.
All this will accomplish is increasing pressure to not diagnose the concussion and thus make the player unavailable. Then you’ll have an injury problem and a statistical under-reporting problem.
That all depends on who pays the medics.
Anyway, I’ve been curious as to why the NFL doesn’t require neck-braces or some kind of support to cut down on neck injuries. I know the things aren’t fullproof, but they don’t have to be. It would, of course, restrict the range of head motion the players have and might not be suitable for every position.
Most teams don’t want to put a player who has suffered a concussion back on the field the same day. This is for many reasons, but you certainly don’t want a guy out there who can cost you the game.
I can’t refute this with a cite, but I think you may be mistaken. For years football players have referred to concussions as “stingers” and treated them as just part of the game. Anectotal evidence supports there being huge pressure on players to continue playing after suffering blows to the head. Otherwise they appear weak.
No, no, he’s obviously a fan of rugby’s version of the Minnesota Vikings.
How would that be scored 
Yeah, right. Do this when people (including players, coaches and commentators) are already suggesting that the rules of the game are making it very difficult to get a sack without incurring a roughing the passer penalty.
More than once it’s been said that although you don’t want to see a guy get hurt, this is football, not a professional tickling competition.