|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 6, 2018 13:16:32 GMT -8
baseba11, I like Fox News as much as the next guy, but the author of your article, John Lott is citing two studies: one from 11 years ago and another from 12 years ago. As of 2013, according to the University of North Carolina, concussion rates are 34.5 per 10,000 athletic exposure, more than five times the number that Mr. Lott is reporting. Mr. Lott is an economist and Second Amendment activist. To say that he is out of his depth and talking out of his arse is an understatement. No, football is wildly more dangerous than the other sports, when it comes to concussions. There are multitudes of studies... but you're wrong. Football doesn't cause more overall injuries, nor more serious injuries than other sports. Head in the sand approach at best. There are many sports deemed dangerous, and making the NFL the bell cow as such is just that. Head in the sand. It's been shown repeatedly since those studies that soccer, wrestling, and hockey cause the most severe head injuries. www.google.com/amp/usatodayhss.com/2017/new-study-shows-that-girls-soccer-has-higher-per-capita-rate-of-concussions-than-any-other-sport/ampIt's lunacy to equate the NFL with a major factor in CTE and concussions when there is a cumulative effect and NFL players have had 1000s of collisions before ever reaching that level. They are the cash cow plain and simple. Respectfully, you are moving around. The article that you cite is back to high school sports. And that study is not apples-to-apples. That study shows that, as a percentage of all injuries, girl's soccer injuries are more concussion-related than football. Without knowing what the total injury rate is, we cannot compare the two. The numbers for girls' soccer are very high but mostly because of a high incidence of injury in freshman girls' soccer. There are a lot of freshman high school girls that have never played soccer or who have never really received de facto training at soccer, who go out and compete as freshmen. The incident rates of concussions to freshman girls' soccer players are 256% the background girls' soccer concussion rate. The concussion incidence rate that you see in high school girls is not found at the college level, which is why the pro-staus quo crowd typically ignores actual college statistics. Additionally, the high school football concussion rate is low compared to at the college level, either because the players are not athletic enough to cause each other concussion or because concussions are under-reported by high schools. Once again, high school numbers are often disingenuously used to bury actual college statistics.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 6, 2018 13:32:30 GMT -8
There are multitudes of studies... but you're wrong. Football doesn't cause more overall injuries, nor more serious injuries than other sports. Head in the sand approach at best. There are many sports deemed dangerous, and making the NFL the bell cow as such is just that. Head in the sand. It's been shown repeatedly since those studies that soccer, wrestling, and hockey cause the most severe head injuries. www.google.com/amp/usatodayhss.com/2017/new-study-shows-that-girls-soccer-has-higher-per-capita-rate-of-concussions-than-any-other-sport/ampIt's lunacy to equate the NFL with a major factor in CTE and concussions when there is a cumulative effect and NFL players have had 1000s of collisions before ever reaching that level. They are the cash cow plain and simple. Respectfully, you are moving around. The article that you cite is back to high school sports. And that study is not apples-to-apples. That study shows that, as a percentage of all injuries, girl's soccer injuries are more concussion-related than football. Without knowing what the total injury rate is, we cannot compare the two. The numbers for girls' soccer are very high but mostly because of a high incidence of injury in freshman girls' soccer. There are a lot of freshman high school girls that have never played soccer or who have never really received de facto training at soccer, who go out and compete as freshmen. The incident rates of concussions to freshman girls' soccer players are 256% the background girls' soccer concussion rate. The concussion incidence rate that you see in high school girls is not found at the college level, which is why the pro-staus quo crowd typically ignores actual college statistics. Additionally, the high school football concussion rate is low compared to at the college level, either because the players are not athletic enough to cause each other concussion or because concussions are under-reported by high schools. Once again, high school numbers are often disingenuously used to bury actual college statistics. My gawd... football is not the most or only dangerous sport. No one limited the discussion... but you. And,multiple studies over years prove those points. Every study is skewed in some way. Every writer has a background and agenda. Trying to argue the shortcomings of each doesn't prove you are correct. PERIOD. You'd think you'd have learned that in recent weeks!
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 6, 2018 13:32:39 GMT -8
Malcolm Jenkins is a scumbag for other reasons, but Jenkins led with the crown of his helmet straight into the side of Cooks' helmet. That is spearing. It is illegal, even in the NFL. They just did not call it. Concussions are ruining the game. Spearing and targeting is a huge reason for the number of concussions. The NFL should implement a rule that a hit to a players head with the crown of your helmet is a penalty that results in automatic ejection. Any team who loses a player to targeting should receive the option to activate one of the inactive players. The NFL was marred by far too many instances of this throughout the year. As for making a difference, in college teams generally carry at least six active receivers. The Patriots only had four on the 46-man active squad. After Cooks was speared, they were down to three receivers. If my rule had been implemented, Kenny Britt could be activated, which would have given the Patriots a lot more options in the passing game. The helmet-to-helmet hit limited the Patriots' passing options, especially the Patriots' vertical passing options. Additionally, it made the other Patriot receivers have to play more, which caused them to be more fatigued at game's end. Your definition of the "crown of the helmet" seems to be different from mine. Jenkins appeared to hit Cooks with the side of his helmet. The crown is the top of the helmet. If you want to see spearing, you only need to look back at NFL playoffs 2015: This is not the crown of the helmet Cooks at 30 secondsTHIS is the crown of the helmet. Bernard
One of these is a guy intentionally launching the crown of his helmet into a player with the intent to injure. The other is a runner who spun back into the path of a defender who hit him with the side of his helmet. Not sure why my video imbeds didn't work - here's the link. SaveSaveShazier's hit is the crown to the body. The back of the helmet is what impacted Bernard. I cannot find a great picture of Jenkins' hit on Cooks. Both Shazier and Jenkins led with their helmet down and their helmet made impact with the head of a ball-carrier. Jenkins squared up and launched up (textbook "illegal launching"), which is illegal, too. The crown of the helmet rule was just amended this year to include the "'hairline' parts" of the helmet. A tackle involving the "hairline" of a helmet if "violent" or "unnecessar[y]" is a penalty. And, if "fragrant," should result in ejection.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 6, 2018 13:46:01 GMT -8
Respectfully, you are moving around. The article that you cite is back to high school sports. And that study is not apples-to-apples. That study shows that, as a percentage of all injuries, girl's soccer injuries are more concussion-related than football. Without knowing what the total injury rate is, we cannot compare the two. The numbers for girls' soccer are very high but mostly because of a high incidence of injury in freshman girls' soccer. There are a lot of freshman high school girls that have never played soccer or who have never really received de facto training at soccer, who go out and compete as freshmen. The incident rates of concussions to freshman girls' soccer players are 256% the background girls' soccer concussion rate. The concussion incidence rate that you see in high school girls is not found at the college level, which is why the pro-staus quo crowd typically ignores actual college statistics. Additionally, the high school football concussion rate is low compared to at the college level, either because the players are not athletic enough to cause each other concussion or because concussions are under-reported by high schools. Once again, high school numbers are often disingenuously used to bury actual college statistics. My gawd... football is not the most or only dangerous sport. No one limited the discussion... but you. And,multiple studies over years prove those points. Every study is skewed in some way. Every writer has a background and agenda. Trying to argue the shortcomings of each doesn't prove you are correct. PERIOD. You'd think you'd have learned that in recent weeks! Baseba11, if you believe that, you will be able to provide a study that proves that that was created sometime in the last five years. The concussion rates at the college level are more than double hockey and wrestling and more than five times any other sport. That is a fact, my friend. Trotting out high school studies that compare the percentage of injuries versus the numerosity of injuries does not change my fact. Further, if you want to go down the rabbit hole of statistical studies, when you strip away timeouts, remember that football only features 11 minutes of actual play in an average 60-minute game. Soccer features 90 minutes of actual play. That puts the concussion incidence rate at approximately 40 times soccer's rates for each minute of actual play. No one says that football is the only dangerous sport. But, respectfully, you are either misinformed or naive to believe that football is not an order of magnitude more dangerous than sport like baseball, basketball, and soccer. Finally, I think you and I generally see eye-to-eye when it comes to football X and O's and politics. We disagree about other things. I do not believe that there is any sense arguing about baseball on a football board, though.
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Feb 6, 2018 14:45:09 GMT -8
Your definition of the "crown of the helmet" seems to be different from mine. Jenkins appeared to hit Cooks with the side of his helmet. The crown is the top of the helmet. If you want to see spearing, you only need to look back at NFL playoffs 2015: This is not the crown of the helmet Cooks at 30 secondsTHIS is the crown of the helmet. Bernard
One of these is a guy intentionally launching the crown of his helmet into a player with the intent to injure. The other is a runner who spun back into the path of a defender who hit him with the side of his helmet. Not sure why my video imbeds didn't work - here's the link. SaveSaveShazier's hit is the crown to the body. The back of the helmet is what impacted Bernard. I cannot find a great picture of Jenkins' hit on Cooks. Both Shazier and Jenkins led with their helmet down and their helmet made impact with the head of a ball-carrier. Jenkins squared up and launched up (textbook "illegal launching"), which is illegal, too. The crown of the helmet rule was just amended this year to include the "'hairline' parts" of the helmet. A tackle involving the "hairline" of a helmet if "violent" or "unnecessar[y]" is a penalty. And, if "fragrant," should result in ejection. I'm not sure you watched the videos. Watch the hit on Cooks starting at 30 seconds and tell me that Jenkins "squared up and launched". It's also obviously the side of his helmet that collides with Cooks, and his helmet is NOT down. He can see what he's hitting. Shazier's hit is what you'd put in a dictionary for "spearing", as he obviously has his head down (he can't possibly "see what he's hitting") and drills Bernard in the chin with the top (crown) of his helmet. A huge difference between these two hits is that Shazier clearly puts 100% of the force of his hit with the top of his head. Jenkins makes first contact with his head (not uncommon in a tackle) but the bulk of the force of the hit comes from his body, not from his head.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Feb 6, 2018 15:13:05 GMT -8
There are multitudes of studies... but you're wrong. Football doesn't cause more overall injuries, nor more serious injuries than other sports. Head in the sand approach at best. There are many sports deemed dangerous, and making the NFL the bell cow as such is just that. Head in the sand. It's been shown repeatedly since those studies that soccer, wrestling, and hockey cause the most severe head injuries. www.google.com/amp/usatodayhss.com/2017/new-study-shows-that-girls-soccer-has-higher-per-capita-rate-of-concussions-than-any-other-sport/ampIt's lunacy to equate the NFL with a major factor in CTE and concussions when there is a cumulative effect and NFL players have had 1000s of collisions before ever reaching that level. They are the cash cow plain and simple. There are a lot of freshman high school girls that have never played soccer or who have never really received de facto training at soccer, who go out and compete as freshmen. I'd like to see your source for this. Seems very, very counter to what I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by nabeav on Feb 6, 2018 15:56:03 GMT -8
; And, if " fragrant," should result in ejection. Fragrant hits stink.
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 6, 2018 16:30:16 GMT -8
; And, if " fragrant," should result in ejection. Fragrant hits stink. Depends on the fragrance... There are hits that cause "fragrance" 🤤
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 6, 2018 16:53:21 GMT -8
My gawd... football is not the most or only dangerous sport. No one limited the discussion... but you. And,multiple studies over years prove those points. Every study is skewed in some way. Every writer has a background and agenda. Trying to argue the shortcomings of each doesn't prove you are correct. PERIOD. You'd think you'd have learned that in recent weeks! Baseba11, if you believe that, you will be able to provide a study that proves that that was created sometime in the last five years. The concussion rates at the college level are more than double hockey and wrestling and more than five times any other sport. That is a fact, my friend. Trotting out high school studies that compare the percentage of injuries versus the numerosity of injuries does not change my fact. Further, if you want to go down the rabbit hole of statistical studies, when you strip away timeouts, remember that football only features 11 minutes of actual play in an average 60-minute game. Soccer features 90 minutes of actual play. That puts the concussion incidence rate at approximately 40 times soccer's rates for each minute of actual play. No one says that football is the only dangerous sport. But, respectfully, you are either misinformed or naive to believe that football is not an order of magnitude more dangerous than sport like baseball, basketball, and soccer. Finally, I think you and I generally see eye-to-eye when it comes to football X and O's and politics. We disagree about other things. I do not believe that there is any sense arguing about baseball on a football board, though. Again... you may want to read ALL posts... raw #, rate/1000, etc. Studies vary, and stats can be pulled out to make your point... HOWEVER... MY POINT was the NFL is a cash cow and the discussion of CTE and concussions centered on the NFL are vastly inaccurate due to the 1000s of previous exposures in college and HS. AND... in college and HS football is only the most dangerous because of the larger numbers playing (college)... "The large overall number of football-related injuries is attributable to football having the largest number of student-athletes (71,291 during the 2013–14 academic year) among all 25 reported NCAA sports (16.1%) (2). Although wrestling had the highest overall injury rate among all 25 reported NCAA sports, the number of student-athlete wrestlers was much smaller (6,982). At the same time, the competition injury rates in wrestling and football were nearly equivalent, although the practice injury rate in wrestling was higher than that in football." CDC study... And... "Researchers analyzed statistics from the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (ISP) and found that between the 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 academic years, the overall SRC (sports related concussions) rate was 4.47 per 10,000 athlete exposures, or about 10,560 SRCs annually. Among reported SRCs, about 1 in 11 was recurrent. In almost every sport, the majority of SRCs occurred in practice, while the actual rates of SRCs were higher in competition settings. Topping the list in terms of SRC RATES was men's wrestling, which reported an overall rate of 10.92 per 10,000 athlete exposures. Next was men's ice hockey at 7.91, followed closely by women's ice hockey at 7.52. Men's football had a 6.71 rate of SRCs, but with an estimated 3,417 SRC incidents annually, it took the position as the sport that produced the most SRCs overall. Research results were published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine in September (abstract only available for free). Rounding out the top 10 sports in terms of SRC rates were football in third position at the 6.71 rate, followed by women's soccer (6.31,), women's basketball (5.95), women's lacrosse (5.21), women's field hockey (4.02), men's basketball (3.89), and women's volleyball (3.57). When it came to the OVERALL estimated annual numbers of SRCs by sport, men's football was followed by women's soccer (1,113), women's basketball (998), men's basketball (773), and men's wrestling (617)." NCAA study Done...
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Feb 6, 2018 18:30:00 GMT -8
There are a lot of freshman high school girls that have never played soccer or who have never really received de facto training at soccer, who go out and compete as freshmen. I'd like to see your source for this. Seems very, very counter to what I've seen. I was just talking to the mother of a freshman girl the other day, and she told me, unsolicited, about how many club soccer players were cut from the HS frosh (or JV2 as I guess it's called these days)
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Feb 6, 2018 20:25:00 GMT -8
My gawd... football is not the most or only dangerous sport. No one limited the discussion... but you. And,multiple studies over years prove those points. Every study is skewed in some way. Every writer has a background and agenda. Trying to argue the shortcomings of each doesn't prove you are correct. PERIOD. You'd think you'd have learned that in recent weeks! Baseba11, if you believe that, you will be able to provide a study that proves that that was created sometime in the last five years. The concussion rates at the college level are more than double hockey and wrestling and more than five times any other sport. That is a fact, my friend. Trotting out high school studies that compare the percentage of injuries versus the numerosity of injuries does not change my fact. Further, if you want to go down the rabbit hole of statistical studies, when you strip away timeouts, remember that football only features 11 minutes of actual play in an average 60-minute game. Soccer features 90 minutes of actual play. That puts the concussion incidence rate at approximately 40 times soccer's rates for each minute of actual play. No one says that football is the only dangerous sport. But, respectfully, you are either misinformed or naive to believe that football is not an order of magnitude more dangerous than sport like baseball, basketball, and soccer. Finally, I think you and I generally see eye-to-eye when it comes to football X and O's and politics. We disagree about other things. I do not believe that there is any sense arguing about baseball on a football board, though. No one? Hmmm
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 7, 2018 14:53:28 GMT -8
Shazier's hit is the crown to the body. The back of the helmet is what impacted Bernard. I cannot find a great picture of Jenkins' hit on Cooks. Both Shazier and Jenkins led with their helmet down and their helmet made impact with the head of a ball-carrier. Jenkins squared up and launched up (textbook "illegal launching"), which is illegal, too. The crown of the helmet rule was just amended this year to include the "'hairline' parts" of the helmet. A tackle involving the "hairline" of a helmet if "violent" or "unnecessar[y]" is a penalty. And, if "fragrant," should result in ejection. I'm not sure you watched the videos. Watch the hit on Cooks starting at 30 seconds and tell me that Jenkins "squared up and launched". It's also obviously the side of his helmet that collides with Cooks, and his helmet is NOT down. He can see what he's hitting. Shazier's hit is what you'd put in a dictionary for "spearing", as he obviously has his head down (he can't possibly "see what he's hitting") and drills Bernard in the chin with the top (crown) of his helmet. A huge difference between these two hits is that Shazier clearly puts 100% of the force of his hit with the top of his head. Jenkins makes first contact with his head (not uncommon in a tackle) but the bulk of the force of the hit comes from his body, not from his head. Launching involves a tackle that is made upward and where the tackler leaves his feet, both of which Jenkins did. Squaring up is where it may fall short. I think you may have a point there. No, Jenkins' head is down. The bulk of the force is from Jenkins' head to Cooks' left jaw. A roundhouse to the face involving the hairline of the helmet (if not the crown). Jenkins does not even try to use his arms to tackle. Jenkins tried to hurt Cooks and succeeded.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 7, 2018 14:55:16 GMT -8
There are a lot of freshman high school girls that have never played soccer or who have never really received de facto training at soccer, who go out and compete as freshmen. I'd like to see your source for this. Seems very, very counter to what I've seen. High school freshman girls' soccer is one of the most dangerous sports that there is. Most of them probably have a high level of training. The problem is that the ones that do not cause a lot of the problems.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 7, 2018 15:06:12 GMT -8
Baseba11, if you believe that, you will be able to provide a study that proves that that was created sometime in the last five years. The concussion rates at the college level are more than double hockey and wrestling and more than five times any other sport. That is a fact, my friend. Trotting out high school studies that compare the percentage of injuries versus the numerosity of injuries does not change my fact. Further, if you want to go down the rabbit hole of statistical studies, when you strip away timeouts, remember that football only features 11 minutes of actual play in an average 60-minute game. Soccer features 90 minutes of actual play. That puts the concussion incidence rate at approximately 40 times soccer's rates for each minute of actual play. No one says that football is the only dangerous sport. But, respectfully, you are either misinformed or naive to believe that football is not an order of magnitude more dangerous than sport like baseball, basketball, and soccer. Finally, I think you and I generally see eye-to-eye when it comes to football X and O's and politics. We disagree about other things. I do not believe that there is any sense arguing about baseball on a football board, though. Again... you may want to read ALL posts... raw #, rate/1000, etc. Studies vary, and stats can be pulled out to make your point... HOWEVER... MY POINT was the NFL is a cash cow and the discussion of CTE and concussions centered on the NFL are vastly inaccurate due to the 1000s of previous exposures in college and HS. AND... in college and HS football is only the most dangerous because of the larger numbers playing (college)... "The large overall number of football-related injuries is attributable to football having the largest number of student-athletes (71,291 during the 2013–14 academic year) among all 25 reported NCAA sports (16.1%) (2). Although wrestling had the highest overall injury rate among all 25 reported NCAA sports, the number of student-athlete wrestlers was much smaller (6,982). At the same time, the competition injury rates in wrestling and football were nearly equivalent, although the practice injury rate in wrestling was higher than that in football." CDC study... And... "Researchers analyzed statistics from the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (ISP) and found that between the 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 academic years, the overall SRC (sports related concussions) rate was 4.47 per 10,000 athlete exposures, or about 10,560 SRCs annually. Among reported SRCs, about 1 in 11 was recurrent. In almost every sport, the majority of SRCs occurred in practice, while the actual rates of SRCs were higher in competition settings. Topping the list in terms of SRC RATES was men's wrestling, which reported an overall rate of 10.92 per 10,000 athlete exposures. Next was men's ice hockey at 7.91, followed closely by women's ice hockey at 7.52. Men's football had a 6.71 rate of SRCs, but with an estimated 3,417 SRC incidents annually, it took the position as the sport that produced the most SRCs overall. Research results were published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine in September (abstract only available for free). Rounding out the top 10 sports in terms of SRC rates were football in third position at the 6.71 rate, followed by women's soccer (6.31,), women's basketball (5.95), women's lacrosse (5.21), women's field hockey (4.02), men's basketball (3.89), and women's volleyball (3.57). When it came to the OVERALL estimated annual numbers of SRCs by sport, men's football was followed by women's soccer (1,113), women's basketball (998), men's basketball (773), and men's wrestling (617)." NCAA study Done... There is some great stuff there. You have a quoted section, and it appears that you are leaving parts out, namely the total number of SRCs for football. (I am not saying that you left it out on purpose. I am just saying that it is not there.) Just from looking at it, it looks like they are monkeying around with participant numbers. At most only 14 soccer players play in a game, but football has a higher number of participants (usually at least 25 different players play in a game). Otherwise, I cannot square how divergent the numbers are with the numbers I see in true disinterested studies. Do you have a cite? Finally, as stated above, there are far fewer minutes of play for football than soccer. Thus, it never is really an apples-to-apples comparison.
|
|
|
Post by bennyskid on Feb 7, 2018 15:26:05 GMT -8
The number of SRC's for football is stated (3417).
I don't understand the obsession with the number of minutes of play - wrestling has even fewer minutes "in play". The number of players on a team is obviously irrelevant. And it seems in every sport, the bulk of injuries are in practice, anyway,
I don't have a strong opinion on this matter - I didn't play football, my boy played just one year (and wrestled for one year, before determining that his "gifts" were better suited for tennis). But I'm seeing solid statistics from baseba1111, from a fair authority (CDC). Baseba1111 is way ahead on this argument.
|
|