Thursday, February 17, 2011
Another day, another helmet/concussion article
This one addresses the prohibition against helmets in women's lacrosse. While the argument is constant (helmets promote more violent play by giving the false sense of protection v. helmets protect against violent play already inherent in the sport), the facts are a little more complicated.
For instance, this excerpt only muddies the issue:
"According to research by Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, not only does the sport have the third-highest rate of concussion among female scholastic sports (behind soccer and basketball), but its in-game rate is only about 15 percent less than the rougher male version."
The players themselves admit that they would play more violently if they had an extra layer of protection. With concussion rates only marginally lower than their male counterparts, would that violent behavior rise or would the extra protection lower the concussion rate further? As the article rightly points out, once you add a helmet, the play may fundamentally change and removing the helmet may become impossible. Removing helmets from the next football season would create serious and widespread injury.
Of course the biggest proponents of requiring helmets are associated with Nocsae. The above article does a terrible job of explaining their position. It was only a few months ago that the NY Times published this:
Oh well. Looks like all of our athletes will be brain dead, including our child athletes. Let's just hope they learn that they can't go pro before they stop being able to learn.
For instance, this excerpt only muddies the issue:
"According to research by Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, not only does the sport have the third-highest rate of concussion among female scholastic sports (behind soccer and basketball), but its in-game rate is only about 15 percent less than the rougher male version."
The players themselves admit that they would play more violently if they had an extra layer of protection. With concussion rates only marginally lower than their male counterparts, would that violent behavior rise or would the extra protection lower the concussion rate further? As the article rightly points out, once you add a helmet, the play may fundamentally change and removing the helmet may become impossible. Removing helmets from the next football season would create serious and widespread injury.
Of course the biggest proponents of requiring helmets are associated with Nocsae. The above article does a terrible job of explaining their position. It was only a few months ago that the NY Times published this:
The fact that helmets are held to no standard regarding concussions surprised almost every one of dozens of people interviewed for this article, from coaches and parents to doctors and league officials. Even one member of the Nocsae board, Grant Teaff — who represents the American Football Coaches Association — said he was unaware of it.
“Obviously if you’re protecting against skull fracture, you’re protecting against any type of concussion,” Teaff said, incorrectly.
Nocsae receives no oversight from any independent agency, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Its 16-member board features five representatives of the helmet industry, six volunteer doctors, two athletic trainers, two equipment managers and one coach.
Nocsae’s annual budget of about $1.7 million is funded mostly by sporting-goods manufacturers whose products bear the Nocsae seal of approval. The largest share of that comes from football helmet makers and reconditioners.
Oh well. Looks like all of our athletes will be brain dead, including our child athletes. Let's just hope they learn that they can't go pro before they stop being able to learn.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]