Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

King Colt

"Consussion" The Movie, Who Is Behind This?

Recommended Posts

A movie "Concussion" is coming out to, I assume will make our beloved commissioner look very bad and I would love to be a fly on the wall when preproduction meetings were going on. Are the players behind this film? I don't know the slant on this movie but it seems a bit of a reach to get anyone interested in this subject since no one really cares, we love our football at any cost especially when the people on the stretchers are not us. What's next, "Knee Injuries,The Untold Story"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

concussions are a serious issue. I suspect the nfl had to give the ok before this was even put into production which tells me the nfl wants concussions to be addressed and have families know the risk their putting their kids to by having them play football or any sport for that matter, but the nfl is smart and understand regardless their too huge to ever go away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL didn't have to give the okay for this movie to be made. That's ludicrous. I'm pretty sure they aren't happy about a movie that's going to paint a picture of them trying to bury the concussion issue by any means necessary.

 

As for the Goodell testimony, I'm pretty sure it's all public record. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

concussions are a serious issue. I suspect the nfl had to give the ok before this was even put into production which tells me the nfl wants concussions to be addressed and have families know the risk their putting their kids to by having them play football or any sport for that matter, but the nfl is smart and understand regardless their too huge to ever go away

The nfl isn't happy about this movie. I take it you haven't seen the trailer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nfl isn't happy about this movie. I take it you haven't seen the trailer

 

ive seen the preview. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL didn't have to give the okay for this movie to be made. That's ludicrous. I'm pretty sure they aren't happy about a movie that's going to paint a picture of them trying to bury the concussion issue by any means necessary.

 

As for the Goodell testimony, I'm pretty sure it's all public record. 

 

you cant have the logos of teams in a movie without that league's consent. thats trademark infringement 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the only way to prevent all the brain damage that is occuring is to somehow design some ridiculous helmet or grow thicker skulls (lol). Its not just players hitting each other in the helmet to helmet either, any player hitting the turf, or other parts of their body with the helmet pretty much causes a ridiculous amount of trauma. Imho the NFL will either cease to exist or players/the league will just have to realise that a huge majority of the players will have CTE or other trauma induced injuries and accept that fatct without placing the blame on anyone. If you outlawed all hits to the head then every player will soon just be walking around with no knees, or shattered lower bodies and displaced vertebrae. This is my honest opinion on the subject :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you cant have the logos of teams in a movie without that league's consent. thats trademark infringement 

 

Not true.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-rocks-ballers-can-use-nfl-logos-without-consent-2015-6

After speaking to entertainment lawyer Michael C. Donaldson, who has over 30 years of experience in copyright and entertainment issues, BI learned that as long as the NFL trademark and team logos are used as they were intended to be used, and do not disparage or tarnish it, there is no need to ask for permission.

 

Corroborated in other reports around the Internet as well. In short, the NFL doesn't have to consent for anyone to use NFL logos or team logos in a move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-rocks-ballers-can-use-nfl-logos-without-consent-2015-6

 

Corroborated in other reports around the Internet as well. In short, the NFL doesn't have to consent for anyone to use NFL logos or team logos in a move. 

 

it is being tarnished. the nfl is being exposed for concussions. how is that not tarnishing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't take a movie like this seriously, as serious as the issue is, when it stars Alec Baldwin, Luke Wilson and Will Smith in "serious" roles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is being tarnished. the nfl is being exposed for concussions. how is that not tarnishing?

 

Read the article. As long as the movie accurately depicts what happened, specific to those trademarks, then the NFL has no legal grounds for action, nor do they have to consent to the use of those trademarks. I don't know whether the NFL consented to the use of its trademarks for this movie, but they did not have to. Nor did they have to consent to the making of this movie.

 

If I make a documentary about a company that did something wrong, I don't have to get that company's permission to use its name, logo, or any other trademarks. Columbia Pictures didn't have to get Mark Zuckerberg's consent to make The Social Network or to use his trademarks. This is no different. 

 

If the NFL feels that this movie inaccurately portrays the situation or their response to the situation, then they can sue for slander, libel, etc. That includes any individuals that are portrayed in the movie. And from what I've read, the movie goes out of its way to avoid demonizing "the NFL" and instead goes after individuals that may or may not have been working in behalf of the NFL, without making direct implications that that's the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a boring movie to be honest, but I think it's an important movie. I'm also a fan of anything that shows just how incompetent Roger Goodell is as a commissioner and how he works on behalf of the owners as a puppet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like a boring movie to be honest, but I think it's an important movie. I'm also a fan of anything that shows just how incompetent Roger Goodell is as a commissioner and how he works on behalf of the owners as a puppet.

You mean just like every commissioner in all pro sports ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A worthy subject, but "artistic license" will ruin it. A documentary would have been more appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concussions in the NFL are serious business, that's why the NFL has a special and separate Concussion Protocol program for its athletes.

 

In order to reduce concussions, they would need to design something that acts in a way similar to a spring / shock absorber on your vehicle that greatly softens the blow from bumps and holes, or something equally creative in function. The Brain is a 3 pound organ that essentially floats inside the skull.  There is a protective cushioning layer of (cerebral spinal) fluid around it that protects it from colliding into the interior of the skull on minor impacts.  But extreme impacts (like a player getting his head slammed into the turf) causes great acceleration and deceleration forces as the brain hits the inside of the skull, the shoots the other way and does the same on the other side. Stretching and tearing forces (rotational concussion)could also tear nerve fibers.  Some of those can heal, many others severely injured cannot repair itself.

 

*** Extra info on concussions for those wanting to know a bit more  **

CT, MRI, and PET scans are great at imaging any damage to the brain from concussions.  On you have one, you are almost twice as likely to get another.  Once you get another, you are 2-4 times more likely to get a 3rd.   Once you get a 3rd, you are 3 to 9 times more likely to get a 4th, etc... It's serious business. So while imaging show what, where, how bad/much, it is neuropsychological testing that determines cognitive function.  All players have been given baseline tests that test skills and abilities such as intelligence, problem solving, memory, concentration, impulse control, and reaction time, to name a just few. Giving this test again after injury determines whether cognitive function in full has returned or not.

How does one know when an athlete can be cleared to return to sport?  At the Sports Concussion Institute it is-

"With computerized neuropsychological testing procedures acting as the "cornerstone for concussion management", patients at the Sports Concussion Institute will be administered an additional battery of tests that assess cognitive and neurobehavioral function. Additionally, patients at SCI will undergo vestibular balance testing which has been shown to be an effective, empirically driven approach to managing concussions. After a comprehensive interview, a full assessment of patient symptoms will take place. Because of the complex nature of concussions, a multi-factorial, multi-disciplinary approach must be taken to ensure the safety and well-being of the patient, and only after all these factors indicate that the athlete can safely participate in their sport will he or she be cleared for Returning to Play."

 

I'm sure the NFL isn't happy, but they will point to their efforts at reducing them from rule changes to equipment advances.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the only way to prevent all the brain damage that is occuring is to somehow design some ridiculous helmet or grow thicker skulls (lol). Its not just players hitting each other in the helmet to helmet either, any player hitting the turf, or other parts of their body with the helmet pretty much causes a ridiculous amount of trauma. Imho the NFL will either cease to exist or players/the league will just have to realise that a huge majority of the players will have CTE or other trauma induced injuries and accept that fatct without placing the blame on anyone. If you outlawed all hits to the head then every player will soon just be walking around with no knees, or shattered lower bodies and displaced vertebrae. This is my honest opinion on the subject :(

Simpson did create a lighter prototype helmet that quite a few players liked and tried out. I believe Collie was one of the players that got to try it out. Simpson said the reason the players are taking more head trauma is because the helmets are too heavy. So he made a lighter version from carbon fiber/Kevlar, but as far as I am aware the league didn't approve the helmet for league play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simpson did create a lighter prototype helmet that quite a few players liked and tried out. I believe Collie was one of the players that got to try it out. Simpson said the reason the players are taking more head trauma is because the helmets are too heavy. So he made a lighter version from carbon fiber/Kevlar, but as far as I am aware the league didn't approve the helmet for league play.

 

You wear SG helmets in the NFL. Joe Reitz currently wears one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A worthy subject, but "artistic license" will ruin it. A documentary would have been more appropriate.

I reviewed the PBS Special "League Of Denial" over a year ago on my "Seen Any Good Movies" thread a TV documentary based on the book by the same title, but since a lot of people don't read books anymore, this film is a good idea & a necessary endeavor. I wanna know how detailed this picture taps into the CTE debate. Men will play football no matter what the studies may warn because if a player has exceptional talent & intelligence they can earn multi-millions within 10-12 years.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/league-of-denial/

 

If you come from an impoverished background, I view it like a coal miner. You know black lung will kill you eventually but as long as you know the risks ahead of time, so be it. Life's a series of trade offs. The miner, who is probably not highly educated, knows that for awhile he will own a nice home, have a nice car or 2, marry a wife & have a family. He understands that his profession will kill him one day. The same with say an NFL LB. He will have a pretty wife, a mansion, a nice bank account, & fancy cars. But, he also knows that with collisions comes memory loss, dementia, divorce, knee surgeries, back surgeries, sensitivity to light, depression, & temporary bouts of unexplained anger. It comes with the territory which the player signed up for & knew going in. 

 

I'm not interested in Goodell's reaction to this film. Just why the league continues to bury their head in the sand over brain trauma & that no helmet no matter how specialized will prevent CTE overall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A movie "Concussion" is coming out to, I assume will make our beloved commissioner look very bad and I would love to be a fly on the wall when preproduction meetings were going on. Are the players behind this film? I don't know the slant on this movie but it seems a bit of a reach to get anyone interested in this subject since no one really cares, we love our football at any cost especially when the people on the stretchers are not us. What's next, "Knee Injuries,The Untold Story"?

The NFL has a lot of money.

 

A lot of groups and organized agitators want some of it...act like parasites or blatant highway/stagecoach robbers of old.  Legally authorized of course.

 

Its been going on for a few years now...if you haven't noticed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-rocks-ballers-can-use-nfl-logos-without-consent-2015-6

 

Corroborated in other reports around the Internet as well. In short, the NFL doesn't have to consent for anyone to use NFL logos or team logos in a move. 

 

According to the blurb that airs before each game, you have to have the NFL's consent to talk about scores with your brother. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested to see how this new film deals with players like former 49ers LB  Chris Borland who walked away from a promising career over a fear over his quality of life would be dramatically lessened had he continued to play ball for over a decade in the NFL.

 

Are players who walk away mocked like their masculinity is being challenged for be a wuss or does this film view these men as smart for not putting their physical & mental health in jeopardy? 

 

Also, how does the film tackle the issue of if you make the NFL too safe nobody will watch it then since the likelihood of getting busted up is part of the NFL's mass global appeal? 

 

I want this picture to take a definitive stand & not ride the neutral fence. Screw the Switzerland politically correct angle. Take a side but tell me what drew you to this conclusion as a director. I don't care which way you go just inform the audience what persuaded you to your final position on concussions & why? If you were in 1 camp & swung completely around to side B what changed your mind? Personal experience with CTE side effects, bankruptcy, what? 

 

It's like smokers. As long as you accept the fact that you forked over the dow to buy cigarettes for 35-40 years, don't come crying to me when you get throat cancer. I will donate a few bucks to you to raise money for treatment but don't try to portray your circumstance as completely unforeseen that hit you out of left field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be interested to see how this new film deals with players like former 49ers LB  Chris Borland who walked away from a promising career over a fear over his quality of life had he continued to play ball for over a decade in the NFL.

 

Are players who walk away mocked like their masculinity is being challenged for be a wuss or does this film view these men as smart for not putting their physical & mental health in jeopardy? 

 

 

Hopefully it does neither.  Borland made a personal choice based upon his values, personal goals, and opportunities to fulfill them. 

 

Another may choose to have his head beat to a pulp in order to provide money for his children.  Our goals may not square with his, but its not our place to judge or teach him another way.

 

If the movie passes judgment on either course you suggest, or brings with it even a slight message about...anything...I would consider it propaganda or a tool for extracting money out of the league...by somebody somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the blurb that airs before each game, you have to have the NFL's consent to talk about scores with your brother. :)

 

Yeah, it makes it seem that way. 

 

However, that's broadcast rights, which is different from trademark rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully it does neither.  Borland made a personal choice based upon his values, personal goals, and opportunities to fulfill them. 

 

Another may choose to have his head beat to a pulp in order to provide money for his children.  Our goals may not square with his, but its not our place to judge or teach him another way.

 

If the movie passes judgment on either course you suggest, or brings with it even a slight message about...anything...I would consider it propaganda or a tool for extracting money out of the league...by somebody somehow.

I will concede that Chris Borland is an unusual case that hardly fits the norm DD. However, toeing the line & not leaning 1 way or another is a cop out & not propaganda at all.  Ivory tower academia, my world, does this all the time. They ride in the middle designed to not ruffle any feathers or upset any apple carts. Oh they will present all sides all facets of the argument on a heated issue but they will end with a stock line like this: "Further research & clinical study is warranted on this provocative subject." Translation: The writer doesn't have the balls or confidence to say this is what I think needs to be done on this topic & why. 

 

The best authors in this world are never neutral. They can be balanced & fair, but by the end of the article, film, or blog the audience should be able to determine where an author stands on an issue by their tone & word choice if nothing else. You don't have to agree with the author or director's conclusion but the audience wants to see their vision before they can ascertain whether or not they subscribe to that point of view. Being neutral is easy; Taking a stand is difficult & it takes real courage. Just like with my movie reviews...The quotes I use are very deliberate & based on those quotes my audience can figure out who I am sympathetic toward, dislike, & the central thesis I am attempting to drive home to my readers. 

 

People claim they like neutral writers but they really don't they just want consistency & a journalist who stands up for themselves & their positions even if you are diametrically opposed to them yourselves. We all respect writers who stand their ground in the face of opposition, are respectful toward others, & who just speak their mind provided that some logical reasoning was involved in their decision making & overall construction of whatever they write. 

 

It's a lot like federal court cases...Legal statutes which are dry & clinical in scope & the emotional reaction favorable or un favorable on how citizens interpret how specific ruling will affect their daily lives say regarding the health & safety of their children in the aftermath of a toxic spill for instance. Namely, what the company's legal stipulations are & whether or not the affected community is pleased with the clean up & their medical wellbeing years after the accident transpired. My point is this: Facts may seem straight forward but resolving quality of live issues are always untidy & sticky in terms of appropriate compensation etc. etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will concede that Chris Borland is an unusual case that hardly fits the norm DD. However, toeing the line & not leaning 1 way or another is a cop out & not propaganda at all.  Ivory tower academia, my world, does this all the time. They ride in the middle designed to not ruffle any feathers or upset any apple carts. Oh they will present all sides all facets of the argument on a heated issue but they will end with a stock line like this: "Further research & clinical study is warranted on this provocative subject." Translation: The writer doesn't have the balls or confidence to say this is what I think needs to be done on this topic & why. 

 

The best authors in this world are never neutral. They can be balanced & fair, but by the end of the article, film, or blog the audience should be able to determine where an author stands on an issue by their tone & word choice if nothing else. You don't have to agree with the author or director's conclusion but the audience wants to see their vision before they can ascertain whether or not they subscribe to that point of view. Being neutral is easy; Taking a stand is difficult & it takes real courage. Just like with my movie reviews...The quotes I use are very deliberate & based on those quotes my audience can figure out who I am sympathetic toward, dislike, & the central thesis I am attempting to drive home to my readers. 

 

People claim they like neutral writers but they really don't they just want consistency & a journalist who stands up for themselves & their positions even if you are diametrically opposed to them yourselves. We all respect writers who stand their ground in the face of opposition, are respectful toward others, & who just speak their mind provided that some logical reasoning was involved in their decision making & overall construction of whatever they write. 

The movie could be a very fine movie, and I certainly didn't mean to offend the profession.  

 

I prefer my writers to teach me about something substantive and quantifiably measurable, like the molecular composition of a rock or the scientific realities of brain contusions.

 

When they start writing about how I should feel about what another person does, or what a company does and for what reasons the writer thinks they do it, I start guarding my wallet.  Sorry, its just my instinct.  But a lot of folks like to read and watch that kind of stuff. That's fine.

 

I prefer to watch things that don't have the filter of someone else's eyes and ears producing it...which is why I like to watch football games or shows with relatively little social meaning...like how to build a street rod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it makes it seem that way. 

 

However, that's broadcast rights, which is different from trademark rights.

 

So in the movie it can show them in uniform, but they can't talk about the plays in which they suffered their concussions. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie could be a very fine movie, and I certainly didn't mean to offend the profession.  

 

I prefer my writers to teach me about something substantive and quantifiably measurable, like the molecular composition of a rock or the scientific realities of brain contusions.

 

When they start writing about how I should feel about what another person does, or what a company does and for what reasons the writer thinks they do it, I start guarding my wallet.  Sorry, its just my instinct.  But a lot of folks like to read and watch that kind of stuff. That's fine.

 

I prefer to watch things that don't have the filter of someone else's eyes and ears producing it...which is why I like to watch football games or shows with relatively little social meaning...like how to build a street rod.

I never took issue with what you said nor was I offended DD. I just have a different vantage point than you do, which is perfectly fine naturally. Me, I prefer another person's vision on something because otherwise all you're seeing is non threatening bullet points in any debate on any subject. A film without perspective or a book without a thesis is like a video game with no rules or primary objective. Ultimately, we are playing the computer programers interpretation, design schematics, & scope of the game.  The trick is to take those neutral bullet points & show the audience how you interpret those facts. Science & math are different because their is always an equation, a formula, or a chemical reaction that will either solve a problem, cure a disease, & duplicate the same outcome under specific conditions. Yes, there is value in examining how certain areas of the brain are affected by repeated collisions to specific regions are traumatized by slamming into the skull. 

 

You can't read a book or watch a movie based on a book without seeing the final product filtered through their eyes DD. I will acknowledge though that it is possible to have a different interpretation from an author & director on the same subject matter, but I would surmise that 85-90% of what we hear & see is thru somebody else's filter in this world. We just have to decide whether or not we find the source credible or faulty in their assertions. 

 

Regarding concussions in the sport of professional football, there isn't much debate on the harmful side effects of concussions just how fans perceive whether or not the risks & financial rewards are worth it. 

 

There is social meaning in football BTW: Can the elite team maintain their place at the top of the mountain? Can the underdog prove why they should not have been overlooked or underestimated? Can a team come together despite injuries & do what no one saw coming. Yes on all 3 questions which speaks to human excellence, adversity, & resiliancy etc. etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-the-rocks-ballers-can-use-nfl-logos-without-consent-2015-6

 

Corroborated in other reports around the Internet as well. In short, the NFL doesn't have to consent for anyone to use NFL logos or team logos in a move. 

 

So why is it only EA can use football logos in video games then? It's okay for every other form of media EXCEPT video games to use logos? I see how it is. Just one more reason EA is corrupt.

If I make a video game and use an NFL logo, I am not doing anything negative to harm the NFL's image. I am using it in the correct context; I am not misrepresenting it, but no, EA says we can't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Superman said:

The NFL didn't have to give the okay for this movie to be made. That's ludicrous. I'm pretty sure they aren't happy about a movie that's going to paint a picture of them trying to bury the concussion issue by any means necessary.

 

As for the Goodell testimony, I'm pretty sure it's all public record. 

The important part about what was posted earlier is that it has to accurately portray what happened.  Video games do not do that.  They may portray some things accurately, but in general, i'ts not a historical event.  Concussions is depicting a historical event.  If the movie was making some hypothetical scenario in which the NFL covered up concussion issues (when in fact, there is no factual evidence to back it up) then it would unequivocally require the NFL's consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

 

So why is it only EA can use football logos in video games then? It's okay for every other form of media EXCEPT video games to use logos? I see how it is. Just one more reason EA is corrupt.

If I make a video game and use an NFL logo, I am not doing anything negative to harm the NFL's image. I am using it in the correct context; I am not misrepresenting it, but no, EA says we can't do that.

Because a video game isn't considered an accurate representation of real events. I'm sure that battle has been fought legally. 

I don't know what makes EA corrupt for paying for trademarks and licensing. Maybe argue that the NFL is corrupt for enforcing their trademarks and licensing, but I don't believe that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

Simpson did create a lighter prototype helmet that quite a few players liked and tried out. I believe Collie was one of the players that got to try it out. Simpson said the reason the players are taking more head trauma is because the helmets are too heavy. So he made a lighter version from carbon fiber/Kevlar, but as far as I am aware the league didn't approve the helmet for league play.

 

There will likely never be a helmet that can totally eliminate concussions, especially rotational concussions.  It is still the egg-yolk-inside-the-shell analogy. Making the shell stronger and / or lighter will still scramble the yolk.

Rules changes and concussion protocols and management is about the best the NFL can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

Simpson did create a lighter prototype helmet that quite a few players liked and tried out. I believe Collie was one of the players that got to try it out. Simpson said the reason the players are taking more head trauma is because the helmets are too heavy. So he made a lighter version from carbon fiber/Kevlar, but as far as I am aware the league didn't approve the helmet for league play.

Simpson's helmet is approved for use in the NFL. Just hasn't caught on. It's also not the highest rated helmet by NOCSAE, only getting four stars out of five.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The movie "Concussion" is based in part on the trials & sufferings of Junior Seau & Dave Duerson. It is a DRAMA. It is also medically punctuated by truth. CTE. It portrays a forensic pathologist who links CTE to concussions in pro football. Go Google it. Or, any other search engine you have.

Seems worth seeing to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

There will likely never be a helmet that can totally eliminate concussions, especially rotational concussions.  It is still the egg-yolk-inside-the-shell analogy. Making the shell stronger and / or lighter will still scramble the yolk.

Rules changes and concussion protocols and management is about the best the NFL can do.

One of the targets of the newer helmets is to reduce the impact of the dozens of smaller hits to the head that players take throughout a practice or game. Some players said they didn't have the usual headache after practices and games when using lighter helmets, like the Simpson helmet. And other helmets have what are basically crumple zones to absorb the force of impact. 

Won't ever prevent concussions with a revolutionary helmet, but the more common brain trauma might be drastically reduced with new designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Superman said:

One of the targets of the newer helmets is to reduce the impact of the dozens of smaller hits to the head that players take throughout a practice or game. Some players said they didn't have the usual headache after practices and games when using lighter helmets, like the Simpson helmet. And other helmets have what are basically crumple zones to absorb the force of impact. 

Won't ever prevent concussions with a revolutionary helmet, but the more common brain trauma might be drastically reduced with new designs.

Isn't Simpson a company that is completely entrenched into impact products & protocols for many sports? From NASCAR to the NFL? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Simpson was a racer.  I used his stuff years ago. His racing safety products range from helmets, gloves, harness systems, driver's suits, head restraints, shoes and other safety apparel.  His helmet for the NFL was begun when he met Tom Moore of the Colts, and attended a Colts Eagles game where Austin Collie got whalloped and knocked out cold.  Simpson later inquired as to the players’ health, and Moore said to him lightly that concussions were ‘just part of the game’. Simpson was aghast. Story here-

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/21/racing-helmet-legend-bill-simpson-turning-his-attention-to-pro-f/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kufy7Q1FVSA

So Bill designed has designed a helmet that is half the weight and twice as strong.  That's great.  Every bit helps, but it just reduces some concussions, and not eliminate them.  What I see may be next in helmets is built in g-force meters and telemetry that measure rotational and translational forces to the sidelines.  After research is done to predict potential injury based upon certain quantified levels of force incurred, then helmets measuring greater forces can automatically signal the Ref and also signal in to the medical team on the sidelines to remove the player for initial testing. 

One huge factor in concussions is that the (large amount of times) first one is never being reported.  That macho NFL stuff, and thoughts of losing your job due to injury interfere.  But getting a second concussion is markedly increased now, especially if the first is left untreated.  And every one after that is multiple times easier to incur.  It's apparent the ATC spotter in the booth is a Failure (Case Keenum and Ben Roethlisberger just recently!) so another method must be employed.  Might as well take the human element out of it, they're inattentive or biased {or in some ATC Spotter cases, chicken!}. Use technology in helmets to measure and make the call, IMHO. Continue to try to improve helmers and make sure helmet to helmet hits are illegal against any player that is in a position to avoid getting speared in the noggin.  Get those injured off the field and healed up before letting them back on the field.  My 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2015, 8:31:25, BOTT said:

A worthy subject, but "artistic license" will ruin it. A documentary would have been more appropriate.

But no one would want to watch a documentary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...