|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 7, 2018 15:51:37 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. True... it's not minutes... impossible to calculate for each participant. It's "exposures"... practices and games. Football can literally (not legally) have 120 players "practicing" in college... and far more than 25 in games. Point being... hoops causes more overall injuries/1000 exposures in more recent studies... Football is not the only, or in some cases the "most" dangerous, however, it is the one that gets the headlines... the NFL is only cited as its the "big boy" that has the name to get you in the news or to the bank. Again... I wasn't initially argue the finer points... that the NFL is unfair judged in the cte debate. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 7, 2018 15:56:35 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. I missed that. How is that possible, though? How do they take a true incident rate of 307%, more than three-to-one (3,417-to-1,113), and whittle it down to 6.34% (6.71-to-6.31)? If anything, the numbers should be going the other way. If the true incident rate is 307%, the number of teams should force that number higher. I truly am no expert about wrestling, but the hockey numbers also suffer from the same thing. The time only runs, when the puck is in play. That is not the case in football. The other troubling part of Baseba11's CDC study is the statement, "In almost every sport, the majority of SRCs occurred in practice, while the actual rates of SRCs were higher in competition settings. " I believe the SRC rate in game-to-practice in football is something on the order of about four-to-one. One of the side effects of limiting the number of practices for football players is that the average SRC rate skyrocketed, because they artificially decreased the denominator in the standard calculation. Now, I see red herrings about percentages of injuries involving SRCs, rather than true numbers. The whole thing is very troubling. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 7, 2018 16:00:36 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. True... it's not minutes... impossible to calculate for each participant. It's "exposures"... practices and games. Football can literally (not legally) have 120 players "practicing" in college... and far more than 25 in games. Point being... hoops causes more overall injuries/1000 exposures in more recent studies... Football is not the only, or in some cases the "most" dangerous, however, it is the one that gets the headlines... the NFL is only cited as its the "big boy" that has the name to get you in the news or to the bank. Again... I wasn't initially argue the finer points... that the NFL is unfair judged in the cte debate. Whoever drafted up that CDC study deserves a medal for cooking the books! That is some wizard-level nonsense right there! So, just so I understand what you are saying and what the study you cited is saying, it is ok that the true incident rate is much higher in football, because, as there are so many more players, the odds of getting an SRC for each player is a lot lower (even though a lot of those players never really play in games)? |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 7, 2018 16:02:19 GMT -8
True... it's not minutes... impossible to calculate for each participant. It's "exposures"... practices and games. Football can literally (not legally) have 120 players "practicing" in college... and far more than 25 in games. Point being... hoops causes more overall injuries/1000 exposures in more recent studies... Football is not the only, or in some cases the "most" dangerous, however, it is the one that gets the headlines... the NFL is only cited as its the "big boy" that has the name to get you in the news or to the bank. Again... I wasn't initially argue the finer points... that the NFL is unfair judged in the cte debate. Whoever drafted up that CDC study deserves a medal for cooking the books! That is some wizard-level nonsense right there! So, just so I understand what you are saying and what the study you cited is saying, it is ok that the true incident rate is much higher in football, because, as there are so many more players, the odds of getting an SRC for each player is a lot lower (even though a lot of those players never really play in games)? That is akin to saying that it's okay that three times as many soldiers died in a battle, because our army is 10 times larger! |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 7, 2018 16:26:26 GMT -8
Sometimes it is ok to acknowledge that others just know more than you. I believe that's the CDC and other independent doctorates and such.
And... the CDC didn't say "it's ok". LMAO
Larger #s = larger incidents of injury... BUT... not necessarily a higher RATE!
Ok... I'm thinking since the Luke thread that someone has hacked your acct... WLP??
Continue on if you wish... as with my ex you've beaten me down with persistence... often lacking logic or common sense! 😥
|
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Feb 7, 2018 21:21:16 GMT -8
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. You can't take a screen-cap and expect me to give it more credence than the video. His head is down because this is AFTER he made the initial contact. What constitutes the "hairline" of the helmet? Most people would say it's on the forehead. If Jenkins' forehead is above his right ear, then I guess he hit him with his hairline. Cooks spun around and directly into the path of a defender he didn't know was there. Again, spearing is what Shazier did, NOT what Jenkins did. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 7, 2018 21:44:20 GMT -8
Sometimes it is ok to acknowledge that others just know more than you. I believe that's the CDC and other independent doctorates and such. And... the CDC didn't say "it's ok". LMAO Larger #s = larger incidents of injury... BUT... not necessarily a higher RATE! Ok... I'm thinking since the Luke thread that someone has hacked your acct... WLP?? Continue on if you wish... as with my ex you've beaten me down with persistence... often lacking logic or common sense! 😥 Larger numbers equals a larger incident of injury, but only if they are all playing at once. Both football and soccer are 11-on-11. The fact that 99 people are on the bench in football versus the 16 in soccer does not change that. But it changes the rates, if you include them. Let's use Oregon State's numbers. There are 110 people on the football team and 27 people on the womens' soccer team. Let's say the incidence rate of injury is equal in a game as in a practice. (The rate of injury is higher at games rather than practices for football but let's assume for a second.) Using the American Journal of Sports Medicine article by Vanderbilt that you are trying to pass off as a CDC study, on average, the incident rate for concussions in football is 6.71/10,000 versus 6.31/10,000 in womens' soccer. That means that there is a concussion approximately every 7 games in football and approximately every 29 games in womens' soccer. That is to say that the true incident rates of concussions in football is more than four times as high as soccer. Now, let's bring in another study, the previously mentioned North Carolina/Toledo study, which was published in the The Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015, the concussion rates for games in football is more than seven times the concussion rates for practices. If you use the rate from the 2015 North Carolina/Toledo study, the rate is an average of one concussion per game, 29 times higher than womens' soccer. Football causes wildly more concussions than soccer. We can talk about other injury rates and comparisons with other sports, but you cannot deny math. Baseba11, I am concerned that you have been misinformed. My question is it through willful ignorance or are you a product of a deliberate disinformation campaign? You seem to be well-read on the issue, which makes me believe that it is probably the latter. That concerns me. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 7, 2018 22:00:55 GMT -8
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. You can't take a screen-cap and expect me to give it more credence than the video. His head is down because this is AFTER he made the initial contact. What constitutes the "hairline" of the helmet? Most people would say it's on the forehead. If Jenkins' forehead is above his right ear, then I guess he hit him with his hairline. Cooks spun around and directly into the path of a defender he didn't know was there. Again, spearing is what Shazier did, NOT what Jenkins did. SaveSave![]() I have attached my own screen-cap, rather than one that I found online. (Hopefully it worked?) No. Jenkins' head is clearly down before. Hairline is above the ear. After really getting into this, I believe that spearing requires impacting with the crown of the helmet. It looks like Jenkins tried to spear Cooks but misjudged the hit and only impacted him with the hairline of the helmet. This is still illegal, but I do not know that it is technically spearing. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 7, 2018 22:08:39 GMT -8
You can't take a screen-cap and expect me to give it more credence than the video. His head is down because this is AFTER he made the initial contact. What constitutes the "hairline" of the helmet? Most people would say it's on the forehead. If Jenkins' forehead is above his right ear, then I guess he hit him with his hairline. Cooks spun around and directly into the path of a defender he didn't know was there. Again, spearing is what Shazier did, NOT what Jenkins did. SaveSave![]() I have attached my own screen-cap, rather than one that I found online. (Hopefully it worked?) No. Jenkins' head is clearly down before. Hairline is above the ear. After really getting into this, I believe that spearing requires impacting with the crown of the helmet. It looks like Jenkins tried to spear Cooks but misjudged the hit and only impacted him with the hairline of the helmet. This is still illegal, but I do not know that it is technically spearing.  Also, the crown is pretty sizable. I am still not sure that the initial impact missed the crown. It certainly missed the very center of the crown. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Feb 7, 2018 22:10:28 GMT -8
Sometimes it is ok to acknowledge that others just know more than you. I believe that's the CDC and other independent doctorates and such. And... the CDC didn't say "it's ok". LMAO Larger #s = larger incidents of injury... BUT... not necessarily a higher RATE! Ok... I'm thinking since the Luke thread that someone has hacked your acct... WLP?? Continue on if you wish... as with my ex you've beaten me down with persistence... often lacking logic or common sense! 😥 Larger numbers equals a larger incident of injury, but only if they are all playing at once. Both football and soccer are 11-on-11. The fact that 99 people are on the bench in football versus the 16 in soccer does not change that. But it changes the rates, if you include them.  Let's use Oregon State's numbers. There are 110 people on the football team and 27 people on the womens' soccer team. Let's say the incidence rate of injury is equal in a game as in a practice. (The rate of injury is higher at games rather than practices for football but let's assume for a second.) Using the American Journal of Sports Medicine article by Vanderbilt that you are trying to pass off as a CDC study, on average, the incident rate for concussions in football is 6.71/10,000 versus 6.31/10,000 in womens' soccer. That means that there is a concussion approximately every 7 games in football and approximately every 29 games in womens' soccer. That is to say that the true incident rates of concussions in football is more than four times as high as soccer. Now, let's bring in another study, the previously mentioned North Carolina/Toledo study, which was published in the The Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015, the concussion rates for games in football is more than seven times the concussion rates for practices. If you use the rate from the 2015 North Carolina/Toledo study, the rate is an average of one concussion per game, 29 times higher than womens' soccer. Football causes wildly more concussions than soccer. We can talk about other injury rates and comparisons with other sports, but you cannot deny math. Baseba11, I am concerned that you have been misinformed. My question is it through willful ignorance or are you a product of a deliberate disinformation campaign? You seem to be well-read on the issue, which makes me believe that it is probably the latter. That concerns me. Give circled the wagons so much you've lost any sense of which you speak. Your right, it's Math... which is one of my MAs... and you not only don't get that, but the comprehending of what was written. I'd stick to the canned wiki searches. I'm sure you'll have to have the last say... but, realize your last major posts on two recent threads have lost you plenty of site cred. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by blackbug on Feb 7, 2018 22:24:37 GMT -8
Sometimes it is ok to acknowledge that others just know more than you. I believe that's the CDC and other independent doctorates and such. And... the CDC didn't say "it's ok". LMAO Larger #s = larger incidents of injury... BUT... not necessarily a higher RATE! Ok... I'm thinking since the Luke thread that someone has hacked your acct... WLP?? Continue on if you wish... as with my ex you've beaten me down with persistence... often lacking logic or common sense! 😥 Larger numbers equals a larger incident of injury, but only if they are all playing at once. Both football and soccer are 11-on-11. The fact that 99 people are on the bench in football versus the 16 in soccer does not change that. But it changes the rates, if you include them.  Let's use Oregon State's numbers. There are 110 people on the football team and 27 people on the womens' soccer team. Let's say the incidence rate of injury is equal in a game as in a practice. (The rate of injury is higher at games rather than practices for football but let's assume for a second.) Using the American Journal of Sports Medicine article by Vanderbilt that you are trying to pass off as a CDC study, on average, the incident rate for concussions in football is 6.71/10,000 versus 6.31/10,000 in womens' soccer. That means that there is a concussion approximately every 7 games in football and approximately every 29 games in womens' soccer. That is to say that the true incident rates of concussions in football is more than four times as high as soccer. Now, let's bring in another study, the previously mentioned North Carolina/Toledo study, which was published in the The Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015, the concussion rates for games in football is more than seven times the concussion rates for practices. If you use the rate from the 2015 North Carolina/Toledo study, the rate is an average of one concussion per game, 29 times higher than womens' soccer. Football causes wildly more concussions than soccer. We can talk about other injury rates and comparisons with other sports, but you cannot deny math. Baseba11, I am concerned that you have been misinformed. My question is it through willful ignorance or are you a product of a deliberate disinformation campaign? You seem to be well-read on the issue, which makes me believe that it is probably the latter. That concerns me. Let me sum it up better for you if you have 4 times the participants then you are 4 times more likely to have a concussion in any given game. Well, duh! The only way you can establish what you want is by finding the individual risk of each individual of a concussion for each minute of participation of the chosen sport. You cannot disregard lack of activity in 1 sport versus another. That is exactly what makes a difference in the statistics. 11 minutes of activity per football game is the biggest factor in affecting concussion rates, it does not skew the stats. You have to compare that to the amount of activity per game in other sports. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 8, 2018 12:01:30 GMT -8
Larger numbers equals a larger incident of injury, but only if they are all playing at once. Both football and soccer are 11-on-11. The fact that 99 people are on the bench in football versus the 16 in soccer does not change that. But it changes the rates, if you include them. Let's use Oregon State's numbers. There are 110 people on the football team and 27 people on the womens' soccer team. Let's say the incidence rate of injury is equal in a game as in a practice. (The rate of injury is higher at games rather than practices for football but let's assume for a second.) Using the American Journal of Sports Medicine article by Vanderbilt that you are trying to pass off as a CDC study, on average, the incident rate for concussions in football is 6.71/10,000 versus 6.31/10,000 in womens' soccer. That means that there is a concussion approximately every 7 games in football and approximately every 29 games in womens' soccer. That is to say that the true incident rates of concussions in football is more than four times as high as soccer. Now, let's bring in another study, the previously mentioned North Carolina/Toledo study, which was published in the The Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015, the concussion rates for games in football is more than seven times the concussion rates for practices. If you use the rate from the 2015 North Carolina/Toledo study, the rate is an average of one concussion per game, 29 times higher than womens' soccer. Football causes wildly more concussions than soccer. We can talk about other injury rates and comparisons with other sports, but you cannot deny math. Baseba11, I am concerned that you have been misinformed. My question is it through willful ignorance or are you a product of a deliberate disinformation campaign? You seem to be well-read on the issue, which makes me believe that it is probably the latter. That concerns me. Give circled the wagons so much you've lost any sense of which you speak. Your right, it's Math... which is one of my MAs... and you not only don't get that, but the comprehending of what was written. I'd stick to the canned wiki searches. I'm sure you'll have to have the last say... but, realize your last major posts on two recent threads have lost you plenty of site cred. Good luck. Site cred? I'll need to run a Gallup poll or something. I might as well keep digging. The "Beavers" is a terrible nickname and needs to be changed. No Beavers. No Benny. No Bernice. Let's re-brand! |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 8, 2018 12:06:18 GMT -8
Larger numbers equals a larger incident of injury, but only if they are all playing at once. Both football and soccer are 11-on-11. The fact that 99 people are on the bench in football versus the 16 in soccer does not change that. But it changes the rates, if you include them. Let's use Oregon State's numbers. There are 110 people on the football team and 27 people on the womens' soccer team. Let's say the incidence rate of injury is equal in a game as in a practice. (The rate of injury is higher at games rather than practices for football but let's assume for a second.) Using the American Journal of Sports Medicine article by Vanderbilt that you are trying to pass off as a CDC study, on average, the incident rate for concussions in football is 6.71/10,000 versus 6.31/10,000 in womens' soccer. That means that there is a concussion approximately every 7 games in football and approximately every 29 games in womens' soccer. That is to say that the true incident rates of concussions in football is more than four times as high as soccer. Now, let's bring in another study, the previously mentioned North Carolina/Toledo study, which was published in the The Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015, the concussion rates for games in football is more than seven times the concussion rates for practices. If you use the rate from the 2015 North Carolina/Toledo study, the rate is an average of one concussion per game, 29 times higher than womens' soccer. Football causes wildly more concussions than soccer. We can talk about other injury rates and comparisons with other sports, but you cannot deny math. Baseba11, I am concerned that you have been misinformed. My question is it through willful ignorance or are you a product of a deliberate disinformation campaign? You seem to be well-read on the issue, which makes me believe that it is probably the latter. That concerns me. Let me sum it up better for you if you have 4 times the participants then you are 4 times more likely to have a concussion in any given game. Well, duh! The only way you can establish what you want is by finding the individual risk of each individual of a concussion for each minute of participation of the chosen sport. You cannot disregard lack of activity in 1 sport versus another. That is exactly what makes a difference in the statistics. 11 minutes of activity per football game is the biggest factor in affecting concussion rates, it does not skew the stats. You have to compare that to the amount of activity per game in other sports. If you have four times the participants at a time, you will have four times more concussions in any given game. That is correct. If all else is equal, you would expect to see concussion rates higher per game in basketball rather than wrestling, because there are more participants at a time. If I add 83 people to ride pine at a womens' soccer game, though, would the amount of concussions in womens' soccer increase? Logic says no, but I am surprised by a bunch of the baseless assertions made in this thread. I do not understand your last two sentences, can you please explain further? |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Feb 8, 2018 12:31:44 GMT -8
![]() I have attached my own screen-cap, rather than one that I found online. (Hopefully it worked?) No. Jenkins' head is clearly down before. Hairline is above the ear. After really getting into this, I believe that spearing requires impacting with the crown of the helmet. It looks like Jenkins tried to spear Cooks but misjudged the hit and only impacted him with the hairline of the helmet. This is still illegal, but I do not know that it is technically spearing. Also, the crown is pretty sizable. I am still not sure that the initial impact missed the crown. It certainly missed the very center of the crown. Not even close to the crown from that graphic. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Feb 9, 2018 11:29:06 GMT -8
Also, the crown is pretty sizable. I am still not sure that the initial impact missed the crown. It certainly missed the very center of the crown. Not even close to the crown from that graphic. That is from the official NFL definition of the crown since at least 2015. |
|
