Stalvern wrote:Besides being factually wrong (67.7% of concussions are from helmet-to-helmet impacts), this is disingenuous. I could give you the exact same BS - you don't like the helmet rule, so you also want to get rid of helmets themselves, and why not just get it all out of the way and lobotomize players from the start? - but I don't because that kind of discussion is worse than useless. And how well do you think your argument would fly if you put it to one of the actual players affected by this?
There are trade-offs to everything. Why is it so important to you that people give up their well-being for the game but not for the game to give up some of its action for their well-being? Is the cost to your entertainment really worse than the cost to players' minds and lives? I hope that you aren't actually selfish enough to think that way. A perfectly safe sport is impossible, but that is no excuse to neglect safety itself or to ignore the consequences of that neglect.
A few things. First, do you know what the new helmet rule is? Helmet-to-helmet impacts are already not permitted. The new rule they’re implementing is not that. This is when players make impact, they’re not allowed to initiate contact with their helmet, which is what every running back does when running into a pile, or when players tackle, or the O and D lineman make contact on the line. It has the potential to dramatically alter the game.
Second, when I asked if you’d rather have sports banned was in response to your “suffering by thousands is not an acceptable price” line. This new helmet rule may have an impact, sure. It also might not, and like I said, will change the way the game is played. And even if it does have a marginal impact , football is built around men running full speed into other men. As long as the game is that, the only way injuries won’t happen is if you ban the game entirely. There are also studies that show it’s not just concussions that may cause brain damage; it’s the repeated hits to the head that happen in football, hockey, soccer even, combat sports, etc that may contribute to it.
Third, it’s not important to me that people give up their well being. Quite the opposite, actually. Players definitely should put their health first. But if football is to exist, it should stay the physical sport that it is. The helmet-to-helmet rule is a good change that can prevent dangerous situations while keeping the game mostly similar. This new one? I’m not as sure. I wouldn’t consider that neglecting safety. And If that’s selfish viewpoint I don’t know what to tell you. No one is forcing these adults to play the game. They all get full rides in college, which is a lot more than most if they’d like to do something else. If you want to discuss if tackle football should be banned from high schoolers and younger, that’s a different question.
Fourth, I used the anecdote about the former player to convey why people who are responsible for their own lives might want to play the game. You don’t have to disagree with or understand their reasoning, but that’s why they choose to play. And I hope you’re not suggesting that football players are commiting suicide at a significant rate, because that’s false. In fact, just googling quickly there’s a couple pages that say that the suicide rate is lower for former players than the general population.