A couple of people have asked that in this thread- and I definitely don’t; I don’t know if anyone else has done studies. I would think the difference in size and speed of football players (particularly as you make your way up the college ranks and into the pros) could make a huge difference by itself. I don’t know anything about rugby, really.
The NFL has been changing its rules on those hits and should probably restrict them further.
No. You’re talking about consenting adults who actively choose to participate and are more aware of the inherent dangers than ever. Don’t Nerf the Earth.
Minor quibble: this applies to professional players and arguably to college players, but not younger football players (and few people start playing the game seriously in college).
Makes sense, as that kind of tackle is likely not just ingrained but also taught (?).
Question: if said ban was put in place, do you think it would ‘take away’ from the game to the point of losing some fans?
Fair enough. Maybe I’ll give it an amateur shot, time permitting.
That said, I understand that football players are much larger than their rugby counterparts on the average, but wouldn’t that (impact force) be offset by the protection given by each sport? No need for an answer, just thinking aloud.
Perhaps you can give some input to the same question I asked Czar.
Maybe. A lot of people feel that tackling in the NFL has actually gotten worse and worse over the years: defenders are trying to make bigger and more-exciting-looking hits by diving instead of using proper technique, which generally means using your chest to make the tackle. I sometimes think currently players learned their tackling style from video games - pressing the ‘dive’ button to hit players because it’s easier than running all the way over and tackling or switching to the right guy. 
However there is also an emphasis on putting your helmet on the ball to knock it out of the runner’s hands, and that does obviously mean people are taught to use their helmets (although it doesn’t mean hitting the other guy in the head).
It depends on how it’s done. I thought there was already a rule against spearing, which means using the helmet as a weapon. It seems to me you could just tweak this rule and that would take care of it as long as the penalty was called consistently and properly.
Assuming it’s not too late to answer your post, I actually played comparatively few sports games when I was in grade school and hs. I played a little soft ball in grade school. But that was about it. I guess I’m just not sports-minded;).
(Minor little nitpick:): It’s customary to bold a user’s name when you ask him a question. That way he can scan down to it right away. Of course my username was the first word in your post, so that wasn’t really necessary.)
I’m not sure that matters. If we’re talking about devoting societal resources to a ban, then the absolute numbers matter a lot more than proportional ones. If there’s an absurdly dangerous sport that only 10 people play, that’s still probably not worth banning over a much more widely-played less-dangerous sport. The total damage to society is what matters.
And, even if it didn’t, football is probably not that high on the list of sports ranked by damage/player.
I disagree in general that we should ban sports with known risks because they have risks. I would agree with pressuring football leagues to change the rules to lessen the risks. I’d maybe agree with a general kind of law that provides some kind of financial incentive for companies (like NFL teams) to provide for more expensive medical coverage if it’s shown that the conditions of their employees’ work leads to greater physical damage.
Kids don’t hit as hard, or more importantly, as often. Head injuries in the NFL are the result of both long careers with repeated blows to the head of moderate strength (by NFL standards) and playing while already concussed. High school players are not cleared to play after a concussion without a doctor’s say-so, and their parents are protective as well. They also don’t get hit hard enough or repeatedly enough to have the late onset symptoms we see with the NFL. Furthermore, there’s a genetic component that plays into footballers and boxers going punchy that is not yet fully understood, but some are clearly genetically disposed to develop symptoms, and some are apparently immune. All of this, save for the rare unscrupulous coaches and parents urging a concussed kid to play, are unheard of at the high school level.
We’re talking about a cumulative injury, though: high school games and practice can still mean a lot of hits over four years. So the fact that they don’t hit as much or as hard and that the rules are stricter reduces the risk but doesn’t eliminate it.
I agree with you w/regards to the ferocity of the tackles. Again, I am only a (very) casual fan but I do go way back to the 70’s (used to follow the Dolphins back then; loved Marino’s air raids). And yes, hard as the Lamberts & Mean Joe Greens hit at the time, in my mind’s eye it wasn’t nearly as brutal as what we’re watching today. Then again, perhaps its just perception?
From what little I’ve seen of late it is certainly not enforced consistently. Goes back to your prior paragraph, players and fans alike seem to love watching opposing players get KO’ed or nearly so on every hit. Over the top really.
No, I don’t think it’s perception at all. On average the players are larger, stronger, and faster than ever.
I don’t have any numbers but I have played both sports. They really are two different beasts. My guess is rugby has a lot more minor injuries while football had the few, more serious injuries.
In a football tackle you want to stop the opponent’s forward progress or, even better, drive him backward. One good hard hit, the play is over and you both go back to your lines so why not hit that sucker as hard as you can? In rugby you want to stop the other guy from moving the ball forward. The tackles are more upright and often don’t even result in the ball going to the ground. A lot of bumping, grabbing and trying to wrap up the guy with the ball. Since the play does not end after the tackle it behooves the tackler to not commit everything to that one hit.
Plus, in football, once you get the pads and helmet on it is hard to not feel invulnerable, especially if you are 6’10’’ and 300 pounds. With the pads you can actually run into walls and not get hurt (usually.)
Certainly true in every sport. You are right, it’s not perception.
Thanks for the input. From your last sentence it would appear that not much can be done to stop such brutes…other than making it a different game.
How can anybody take the argument “it’s the amount of people that are injured that matters, not the chance of injury” argument seriously? Easily one of the most ridiculous things ever said on this board.
The amount of people that injure themselves from recreationally walking is several orders of magnitude higher than the amount of people that injure themselves playing Russia roulette. Clearly the latter should be legal and the first banned!
Well it would be, if anyone had said it. Did they?
I have seen quite a change in player size in my adult life - from A single 300lb player in 1970 to nearly 400 in 2009.
.. Or you could tweak the helmet design to a Pickelhaube and hope that player behavior changes 
I suppose that would be pretty easy to figure out, wouldn’t it? Maybe by reading the thread? You should give it a try.
That was probably a bit over the top. Sorry.
iamthewalrus(:3=, for one, does make that argument.
Nitpick: Although I agree with you that the “net total damage to society” metric isn’t the best choice for evaluating the dangerousness of sports, this argument doesn’t actually work as an illustration of its absurdity.
You’d have to be comparing the net total damage to society of the two sports. And I think it’s fair to say that recreational walking, unlike Russian roulette, averts more health damage than it causes.
So even by the “net total damage to society” metric, recreational walking is not more dangerous than Russian roulette.
I did make that argument, and I don’t think it’s ridiculous.
First, I don’t think it’s just number of people injured that we should consider, I think it’s total harm. Obviously, that’s going to be difficult to quantify for sure, but I think we can agree that, say, recurring migrane headaches are worse than a twisted ankle, so we might weigh football injuries much more than walking injuries. A simple count of injuries is probably not enough to make this distinction (though it’s a good start, and it’s much easier data to collect).
Second, if you read my entire post, I don’t believe that we should ban any activity just because of inherent risk to the participants (who choose to take that risk). I’m absolutely not saying we should ban sports based on total harm. I’m saying we should focus on the sports where we can do the most good first, and the higher the total harm, the greater potential to alleviate it. On preview Kimstu makes a really good point about net harm. But even that isn’t necessarily relevant to my point. Regardless of the benefits of walking, lessening the harm is a good thing (if we can do it without losing the benefits).
Do you have any recommendations to make recreational walking more safe? If recreational walking really does cause greater total societal harm, then wouldn’t it make more sense to concentrate on reducing the harm from that than focusing on a professional sports league with a few thousand players total?
I bet there are more and worse injuries caused by driving to sports bars to watch the game than there are actually caused by playing football. That doesn’t mean we should ban cars or driving. But it means that as a society we should concentrate on driving safety over football safety. We’re just going to have a much bigger impact there.
This is a pretty basic utilitarian approach to preventing harm. Lots of people don’t agree with utilitarianism, but I think it’s a valid approach.