You can leave your hat … off?

The hottest off-the-field topic this football season is head injuries in the sport, and the post-career problems they pose.  In the course of the debate, Congress has involved itself and the NFL has defended itself.  And the concussions continue.

In the midst of the hue and cry, an article in today’s Wall Street Journal asks a simple question:  Do the players have to wear helmets?  If one of the leading causes of concussions are so-called “helmet-to-helmet” hits, does it stand to reason that if helmets are removed from the equation, players can’t use them as weapons, thus limiting their exposure to head injuries?  Andrew McIntosh, a researcher at Australia's University of New South Wales, thinks so:

One of the strongest arguments for banning helmets comes from the Australian Football League. While it's a similarly rough game, the AFL never added any of the body armor Americans wear. When comparing AFL research studies and official NFL injury reports, AFL players appear to get hurt more often on the whole with things like shoulder injuries and tweaked knees. But when it comes to head injuries, the helmeted NFL players are about 25% more likely to sustain one.

Andrew McIntosh … says there may be a greater prevalence of head injuries in the American game because the players hit each other with forces up to 100% greater. "If they didn't have helmets on, they wouldn't do that," he says. "They know they'd injure themselves."

Dhani Jones, a linebacker for the Cincinnati Bengals who has played rugby, too, says head injuries in that sport do happen, but they're mostly freak accidents. "In football, you're taught to hit with your face," he says. "You're always contacting with your 'hat,' which is your head."

Taking away helmets might have other benefits for the sport. It would bring down the cost of equipment, which can be crippling for some schools. A slower game might also be more palatable to some parents.

McIntosh’s point is interesting.  It should be noted, however, that there are several rule differences between American and Australian football that also account for fewer head injuries.  And even with those rule differences, a 25% greater chance of head injury doesn't seem a significant enough factor to get American football administrators to make such a drastic change to the game.

Perhaps a similar study of rugby injuries might be in order.

Comments

[Jimmy]

While helmet to helmet hits have been a major problem I think they are necessary. The coaches, leagues, etc...should continue to emphasize the importance of them.