Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
So I really don't want to litigate the actual hit by Reid. I will say that I respect the fact that Reid made a specific attempt to reconcile with Ben before he left the field.
What I think is more questionable, is how was Ben allowed to stay on the field and play? There is an supposed to be an independent neurologist on the sidelines. To my line of thinking, if a QB just took a hit to the head that caused the ejection of a player for delivering the blow -- how can I legitimately NOT trigger the "independent review" process and put the QB in the magic blue tent for a play?
I'm not saying that I think Ben was concussed or that the Steelers did anything wrong. I am saying that the NFL's process is laughable. IF the defensive hit is so egregious that it triggers a disqualification, then by definition the offensive player has just experienced a significant blow to the head. Which, should, then mean that the player must pass an independent evaluation prior to being able to resume play. How can the NFL claim the process is legitimate if you get one and not the other? Because we have seen it the other way across the league as well -- no penalty and a concussed player. If the league is serious about this then it should be an automatic relationship - one guy penalized then one guy goes in the tent. Guy goes in the tent, someone is getting a penalty.
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
You expect the NFL to act logically.....how illogical. :huh:
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mojouw
So I really don't want to litigate the actual hit by Reid. I will say that I respect the fact that Reid made a specific attempt to reconcile with Ben before he left the field.
What I think is more questionable, is how was Ben allowed to stay on the field and play? There is an supposed to be an independent neurologist on the sidelines. To my line of thinking, if a QB just took a hit to the head that caused the ejection of a player for delivering the blow -- how can I legitimately NOT trigger the "independent review" process and put the QB in the magic blue tent for a play?
I'm not saying that I think Ben was concussed or that the Steelers did anything wrong. I am saying that the NFL's process is laughable. IF the defensive hit is so egregious that it triggers a disqualification, then by definition the offensive player has just experienced a significant blow to the head. Which, should, then mean that the player must pass an independent evaluation prior to being able to resume play. How can the NFL claim the process is legitimate if you get one and not the other? Because we have seen it the other way across the league as well -- no penalty and a concussed player. If the league is serious about this then it should be an automatic relationship - one guy penalized then one guy goes in the tent. Guy goes in the tent, someone is getting a penalty.
Apparently there is no automatic requirement to examine a player and take him out of the game if there is an impact to the head. Whether the conduct of the player who made the hit was sufficiently egregious to support ejection is not tied to the severity of the hit.
According to the "play smart/playsafe" NFL link, when a player receives an impact to the head, the player goes into the Concussion Protocol if:
- the player exhibits or reports symptoms or signs suggestive of a concussion or stinger (a nerve pinch injury); or,
- the team Athletic Trainer, booth ATC spotter, team Physician, NFL game official, coach, teammate, sideline Unaffiliated Neurotrauma Consultant (UNC) or booth UNC initiates the protocol
https://www.playsmartplaysafe.com/ne...ocol-overview/
Ejection addresses the conduct of the player, not the severity of the hit
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2018/11/09/panthers-eric-reid-said-he-didnt-know-you-could-be-ejected-targeting-he-knows-now/?utm_term=.652f2a5e8743
A better policy probably would be check any player who takes a blow to the head that draws a penalty. But since that would allow a team to trade 15 yards for knocking the QB out of the game, if only for as long as it takes to be checked, maybe say the penalized player cannot return until the player placed in protocol returns, at least for the duration of that game?
But that does not change the NFL concussion protocol being a joke with concussed players being waved back on to the field all the time.
I posted in another thread, on Conner being in concussion protocol, the video of Dupree clocking the Dolphins QB in the playoff game several years ago. In that case the QB was on the ground for several minutes, put in protocol, and returned after one play.
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AtlantaDan
Apparently there is no automatic requirement to examine a player and take him out of the game if there is an impact to the head. Whether the conduct of the player who made the hit was sufficiently egregious to support ejection is not tied to the severity of the hit.
According to the "play smart/playsafe" NFL link, when a player receives an impact to the head, the player goes into the Concussion Protocol if:
- the player exhibits or reports symptoms or signs suggestive of a concussion or stinger (a nerve pinch injury); or,
- the team Athletic Trainer, booth ATC spotter, team Physician, NFL game official, coach, teammate, sideline Unaffiliated Neurotrauma Consultant (UNC) or booth UNC initiates the protocol
https://www.playsmartplaysafe.com/ne...ocol-overview/
Ejection addresses the conduct of the player, not the severity of the hit
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...=.652f2a5e8743
Which does not mean the NFL concussion protocol is not a joke
I posted in another thread, on Conner being in concussion protocol, the video of Dupree clocking the Dolphins QB in the playoff game several years ago. In that case the QB was on the ground for several minutes, put in protocol, and returned after one play.
That is good data and seems to be supporting the exact idea I was trying to get after.
How the hell can an honest independent neurotrauma doc see a player receive a hit to the head like 27 times on replay and not figure maybe they should check the guy out? It is a total joke.
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Ben was allowed to stay and play because the hit was not sufficient to induce what appeared to be any form of actions, symptoms of what would be a concussion.
Ben got a shoulder pad to the head. If they took everybody off the field that got a shoulder pad to the head, but showed zero signs of disorientation, then an NFL game would be 6 hours long and have more "blue tents" on the sideline than gatorade cups.
The hysteria regarding concussions and football is laughable and other sports such as Hockey, Lacrosse, Rugby, Soccer have as many concussions as football. But there has been a culture created of hyper-sensitivity to any contact with the head of a football player. While few seem as interested in possible head contact in Rugby, Hockey, Soccer, Lacrosse, etc.
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
I thought the ejection was a little harsh, but rules are rules. When a QB slides, you can't lower the boom on him, he's basically giving himself up on that play. From that point he's no longer a runner and you have to let up. Reid lowered his shoulder and tried to punish him, and according to the rules that's a flagrant foul.
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fire Goodell
I thought the ejection was a little harsh, but rules are rules. When a QB slides, you can't lower the boom on him, he's basically giving himself up on that play. From that point he's no longer a runner and you have to let up. Reid lowered his shoulder and tried to punish him, and according to the rules that's a flagrant foul.
I agree, I didn't think it warranted ejection, but its a judgement call based on the rules. At least good to see Ben getting the same soft QB treatment that Brees, Brady, Rodgers, etc would get.
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El-Gonzo Jackson
I agree, I didn't think it warranted ejection, but its a judgement call based on the rules. At least good to see Ben getting the same soft QB treatment that Brees, Brady, Rodgers, etc would get.
Agreed and he did apologize to Ben after being choked by Pouncey. :lol:
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mojouw
What I think is more questionable, is how was Ben allowed to stay on the field and play? There is an supposed to be an independent neurologist on the sidelines. To my line of thinking, if a QB just took a hit to the head that caused the ejection of a player for delivering the blow -- how can I legitimately NOT trigger the "independent review" process and put the QB in the magic blue tent for a play?
I'm not saying that I think Ben was concussed or that the Steelers did anything wrong. I am saying that the NFL's process is laughable.
Are you just figuring this out now? The whole thing is in place so they can point to it and say "See! We have a policy! We're taking steps!" when the lawyers or the media show up. And by extension, it probably fools 90% of the fans, whose thought process on the subject only goes as far as burying their face in the fantasy football app on their smartphone. It's mainly for show.
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El-Gonzo Jackson
Ben was allowed to stay and play because the hit was not sufficient to induce what appeared to be any form of actions, symptoms of what would be a concussion.
Ben got a shoulder pad to the head. If they took everybody off the field that got a shoulder pad to the head, but showed zero signs of disorientation, then an NFL game would be 6 hours long and have more "blue tents" on the sideline than gatorade cups.
The hysteria regarding concussions and football is laughable and other sports such as Hockey, Lacrosse, Rugby, Soccer have as many concussions as football. But there has been a culture created of hyper-sensitivity to any contact with the head of a football player. While few seem as interested in possible head contact in Rugby, Hockey, Soccer, Lacrosse, etc.
Sure. Maybe. I don't know. The comparisons across sports have not been seriously quantified and remain qualitative from what I have seen.
But that doesn't matter. The NFL claims to have a policy and a process in place and they clearly ignore it whenever it suits them. Just silly is my point.
- - - Updated - - -
Quote:
Originally Posted by
steelreserve
Are you just figuring this out now? The whole thing is in place so they can point to it and say "See! We have a policy! We're taking steps!" when the lawyers or the media show up. And by extension, it probably fools 90% of the fans, whose thought process on the subject only goes as far as burying their face in the fantasy football app on their smartphone. It's mainly for show.
Yeah. I realize that and acknowledge that most people are aware that it is all a joke. But to see it so starkly ignored and not considered on national TV was worth pointing out.
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mojouw
Sure. Maybe. I don't know. The comparisons across sports have not been seriously quantified and remain qualitative from what I have seen.
But that doesn't matter. The NFL claims to have a policy and a process in place and they clearly ignore it whenever it suits them. Just silly is my point.
- - - Updated - - -
.
I don't know the exact policy, but at some point common sense has to prevail. Ben was not staggering around, nor appeared disoriented. He was just hit with a shoulder pad, so I don't see any reason that he should have been removed from the game. I don't see the issue.
its a contact sport and if some fans aren't comfortable with watching contact, then there are other options for their entertainment such as Tennis and Golf, rather than Football.
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El-Gonzo Jackson
Ben was allowed to stay and play because the hit was not sufficient to induce what appeared to be any form of actions, symptoms of what would be a concussion.
Ben got a shoulder pad to the head. If they took everybody off the field that got a shoulder pad to the head, but showed zero signs of disorientation, then an NFL game would be 6 hours long and have more "blue tents" on the sideline than gatorade cups.
The hysteria regarding concussions and football is laughable and other sports such as Hockey, Lacrosse, Rugby, Soccer have as many concussions as football. But there has been a culture created of hyper-sensitivity to any contact with the head of a football player. While few seem as interested in possible head contact in Rugby, Hockey, Soccer, Lacrosse, etc.
That actually isn't true. In Hockey, they, too, have instituted concussion spotters. Hockey has gone way overboard with the rules as well. Here's their rule:
Quote:
Rule 620 | Head Contact
(Note) Head Contact is the action of a player contacting an opponent in the head, face or neck with any part of the player's body, equipment or stick.
(a) A minor plus a misconduct or major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed for head contact to an opponent.
(b) A major plus a game misconduct penalty shall be assessed to any player who injures an opponent as a result of head contact or who intentionally or recklessly contacts an opponent in the head, face or neck.
(c) A match penalty for attempt to injure or deliberate injury to an opponent may also be assessed for head contact.
So, any head contact at any time can equal a shorthanded situation for two minutes plus the player guilty sitting in the box for 10 minutes. Moreover, at the ref's discretion, the play may be thrown out of the game. Now, if that player is injured at all, the ref has the right to eject the player and suspend the player on the spot for one game (Game Misconduct Penalty). If the ref thinks the player was reckless. Not even intentional, just reckless, he can call a match penalty, which means the player is suspended immediately and is banned from the NHL unless the league reviews his case and decides to reinstate him.
For Lacrosse, a quick internet search shows all types of concerns and moreover, rule changes. Here's a set from 2014
Quote:
In another change designed to minimize risk, the committee added a fifth example of an illegal body-check. Rule 5-3-5 will now state that an illegal body-check is one that targets a player in a defenseless position. This includes but is not limited to: a) body-checking a player from his "blind side"; b) body-checking a player who has his head down in an attempt to play a loose ball; and c) body-checking a player whose head is turned away to receive a pass, even if that player turns toward the contact immediately before the body-check. A minimum of a two- or three-minute no- releasable penalty is assessed for this violation.
"Intentional player-to-player collisions with players in a defenseless position are a concern, and this revision will reinforce the need to eliminate these collisions from the game," Summers said.
In Rule 5-4 - Checks Involving the Head/Neck - the penalty for a violation was strengthened by dropping the possibility of a one-minute penalty. Thus, a minimum two- or three-minute non releasable penalty will now be enforced for this violation. Summers said this increased penalty will reinforce the need to eliminate hits to the head/neck from the game.
And, for college, here's the NCAA
Quote:
q Reducing head trauma exposure management plan. While the committee acknowledges that ‘reducing’ may be difficult to quantify, it is important to emphasize ways to minimize head trauma exposure. Examples of minimizing head trauma exposure include, but are not limited to: 1. Adherence to Interassociation Consensus: Year-RoundFootball Practice Contact Recommendations. 2. Adherence to Interassociation Consensus: Independent Medical Care for College Student-Athletes Best Practices. 3. Reducing gratuitous contact during practice. 4. Taking a ‘safety-first’ approach to sport. 5. Taking the head out of contact. 6. Coaching and student-athlete education regarding safe play and proper technique.
Several of those sound just like the NFL rules—Contact rules for practice, reducing "gratuitous contact" when they can hit, attempts to remove the head from any contact at all, and so on.
That's only two. I know for a fact there's serious consideration about soccer and head injury, even to the point of banning headers in all u-14 and younger teams (they can practice headers when their 11-13, but cannot do so in a game until they are 14 years old.
USA Rugby now mandates an immediate 1 week suspension from play or practice for anyone with a concussion, at minimum, then a five-day workup until they can play again. That five-day work-up can only start once a player is symptom free, regardless of how long it's been.
The reason we don't hear so much about these is simple. Neither Lacrosse, Soccer, or Rugby is a multibillion dollar industry in the United States that is flashed across our TV screens in prime time three out of the seven nights each week. It has nothing to do with them not being "as hysterical" about it. Also note, the only other "professional" sport listed here was hockey, and they too have spotters and even stricter rules about hitting the head.
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
steelreserve
Are you just figuring this out now? The whole thing is in place so they can point to it and say "See! We have a policy! We're taking steps!" when the lawyers or the media show up. And by extension, it probably fools 90% of the fans, whose thought process on the subject only goes as far as burying their face in the fantasy football app on their smartphone. It's mainly for show.
Not really. Here's the actual policy and the way it is played out. It does sound much like a joke at all. https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/p...pOP/story.html
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El-Gonzo Jackson
The hysteria regarding concussions and football is laughable and other sports such as Hockey, Lacrosse, Rugby, Soccer have as many concussions as football. But there has been a culture created of hyper-sensitivity to any contact with the head of a football player. While few seem as interested in possible head contact in Rugby, Hockey, Soccer, Lacrosse, etc.
Not certain whether concerns about the statistically significant possibility of incurring a brain injury while playing football constitutes "hysteria."
There definitely is a problem.
Particularly in high school football has a commanding “lead” in concussions per 10,000 games and practices.
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu....8r-252x300.jpg
According to a study done by the Sports Concussion Clinic, Division of Sports Medicine, Children’s Hospital Boston, football accounts for just under 57% (shown to the right in the pie chart) of concussions in high school athletes.
https://u.osu.edu/groupbetaengr2367/...9g-300x196.jpg
https://u.osu.edu/groupbetaengr2367/...dd-stuff-here/
You correctly note that playing other sports also presents a significant risk of incurring a brain injury, although due to higher participation rates the total number of concussions related to football is going to be higher. Since football is so much more popular than those other sports, and few people could pick a top shelf lacrosse or rugby player out of a lineup, it is not surprising that brain damage sustained by a Mike Webster or Junior Seau is going to lead to greater focus upon the consequences of having a brain injury in football than those other sports.
I do not have a clue what those interested in or overseeing soccer, lacrosse or rugby are doing to reduce the risks of brain injury in those sports since I have no interest in those sports. In his post above Craic has linked to actions that are being taken.
Those risks clearly are impacting participation rates for high school football, which is a mortal risk to the long term popularity of the sport.
An HBO Real Sports/Marist Poll found that most Americans are aware of a connection between football and long-term brain injury, with about one-in-three saying this knowledge would make them less likely to allow a son to play.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...ncussion-risk/
As far as hockey, I am a casual fan and do know the days of glorifying the enforcer at the NHL level are gone, with someone like Tom Wilson of the Capitals getting suspended for 25% of the season for high hits that were applauded in the past. And any Penguins fan probably is concerned about hits to the head since that nearly ended Sidney Crosby's career in his mid 20s.
As far as anyone else in hockey being interested, the parties to a pending lawsuit certainly are.
For the past four years, [the NHL] has fought the retired hockey players at every juncture in court. Commissioner Gary Bettman, a former litigator, has not only tried to have the cases dismissed, he has vigorously questioned the growing evidence linking head hits and brain trauma.
In depositions, N.H.L. team owners have claimed to not know about chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease found posthumously in retired players, despite ubiquitous media attention to the disease and mounting examples of declining brain function among retired players. Some of those players were so-called “enforcers” — hockey players whose main responsibility was to fight with opponents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/24/s...y-bettman.html
As a niche sport maybe the NHL can pull off that defense.
Or maybe basketball can continue its march to becoming the most popular sport in the U.S. for reasons including you are unlikely to get your brains scrambled while playing it
:drink:
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AtlantaDan
Not certain whether concerns about the statistically significant possibility of incurring a brain injury while playing football constitutes "hysteria."
There definitely is a problem.
Particularly in high school football has a commanding “lead” in concussions per 10,000 games and practices.
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu....8r-252x300.jpg
According to a study done by the Sports Concussion Clinic, Division of Sports Medicine, Children’s Hospital Boston, football accounts for just under 57% (shown to the right in the pie chart) of concussions in high school athletes.
https://u.osu.edu/groupbetaengr2367/...9g-300x196.jpg
https://u.osu.edu/groupbetaengr2367/...dd-stuff-here/
You correctly note that playing other sports also presents a significant risk of incurring a brain injury, although due to higher participation rates the total number of concussions related to football is going to be higher. Since football is so much more popular than those other sports, and few people could pick a top shelf lacrosse or rugby player out of a lineup, it is not surprising that brain damage sustained by a Mike Webster or Junior Seau is going to lead to greater focus upon the consequences of having a brain injury in football than those other sports.
I do not have a clue what those interested in or overseeing soccer, lacrosse or rugby are doing to reduce the risks of brain injury in those sports since I have no interest in those sports. In his post above Craic has linked to actions that are being taken.
Those risks clearly are impacting participation rates for high school football, which is a mortal risk to the long term popularity of the sport.
An HBO Real Sports/Marist Poll found that most Americans are aware of a connection between football and long-term brain injury, with about one-in-three saying this knowledge would make them less likely to allow a son to play.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/a...ncussion-risk/
As far as hockey, I am a casual fan and do know the days of glorifying the enforcer at the NHL level are gone, with someone like Tom Wilson of the Capitals getting suspended for 25% of the season for high hits that were applauded in the past. And any Penguins fan probably is concerned about hits to the head since that nearly ended Sidney Crosby's career in his mid 20s.
As far as anyone else in hockey being interested, the parties to a pending lawsuit certainly are.
For the past four years, [the NHL] has fought the retired hockey players at every juncture in court. Commissioner Gary Bettman, a former litigator, has not only tried to have the cases dismissed, he has vigorously questioned the growing evidence linking head hits and brain trauma.
In depositions, N.H.L. team owners have claimed to not know about chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease found posthumously in retired players, despite ubiquitous media attention to the disease and mounting examples of declining brain function among retired players. Some of those players were so-called “enforcers” — hockey players whose main responsibility was to fight with opponents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/24/s...y-bettman.html
As a niche sport maybe the NHL can pull off that defense.
Or maybe basketball can continue its march to becoming the most popular sport in the U.S. for reasons including you are unlikely to get your brains scrambled while playing it
:drink:
And this paper here takes into account the fact that Football has a much larger number of participants than other sports and breaks it down into concussions where other NCAA sports that rank higher in concussions include Men's Hockey, Women's Hockey, Women's Soccer, Men's spring football and then Football.
No doubt that concussions happen in football, but other sports have as many, if not more than football but they don't receive the amount of public anxiety that football does, because they are not as high profile as football and the NFL. I have coached over 20 years of contact football and the concussion concern by parents and coaches in Football is so high, yet those same parents have few reservations about their children playing Soccer, Hockey, Lacrosse, Rugby, etc
My son has played 9 seasons of football and had 1 concussion. He has had greater contact to the helmet than Ben Roethilisberger did yesterday and he too walked back to the huddle to be involved in the next play. I don't see any reason that Ben needed to come out of the game due to a shoulder pad contacting his helmet in which he displayed zero signs of disorientation.
- - - Updated - - -
I forgot to add the link to this clinical paper from Boston U.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987636/
Apologies
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
surprised softball is 4 times higher than baseball, lol. what gives? I would have figured being hit with a softball is a lot less dangerous
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fire Goodell
surprised softball is 4 times higher than baseball, lol. what gives? I would have figured being hit with a softball is a lot less dangerous
Beer leagues.
Re: Ben Head Hit and the Blue Tent
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fire Goodell
surprised softball is 4 times higher than baseball, lol. what gives? I would have figured being hit with a softball is a lot less dangerous
???
I think you might be thinking slow pitch softball. Go watch fastpitch softball. MLB reaction times from the time the ball leaves the pitchers hand to crossing the plate is .413 seconds on average. For fastpitch women's softball, it i s .419 seconds, or almost the exact same. For men's fastpitch, it's .369 (and probably faster, since these are based on pitches from the rubber, but fastpitchers can leap off it, actually). So, there's the pitching and possibly getting hit there. Of course, there's the infield. Baseball infield is 16700 feet total. Softball infield is 7200 feet total.
A baseball comes off a major league bat at around 110 miles an hour, which generates 2905 pounds of force as the ball moves off the bat. A softball comes off a bat at around 100 miles an hour with 3370 pounds of force. Now, remember, that ball travles a much shorter distance to any of the infielders... even shorter to a pitcher, and also shorter to runners.
