Should players be required to wear basic helmets?

[perfectionist]

At least two AFL players that I can think of wear basic helmets, there might be more. There appears to be an increasing incidence of concussion relating to a "clash of heads". A basic helmet would minimise these impacts although not all other instances where concussion results. Should all players now be required to wear a basic helmet?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... n-research

[Vortex]

You'd have to think the wearing of PPE will become mandatory at some time in the not too distant future. The insurance companies will probably accelerate the issue at a guess also.

[Beno88]

If mouth guards aren't compulsory, I can't see helmets being required.

[roskilde]

Could have unintended consequences like the NFL and make players more reckless. Weirdly enough there's such terrible issues with neurological damage in NFL BECAUSE they wear those stupid helmets. They use them like battering rams and in ways no sane person would without them hence the insane levels of dysfunction in ex-players.

[SaintPav]

Maybe.

What is the science behind the use of helmets in contact sports?

Very political and ideological from the Guardian. It would be nice if they just stuck to the science and the scientific method.

This caught my eye:

“Barclay did not have a substantial clinical history of concussion, and her brain did not show evidence of her having sustained a concussion in the weeks before she died”.

Why is everything so ideological these days!

[SaintPav]

Could have unintended consequences like the NFL and make players more reckless. Weirdly enough there's such terrible issues with neurological damage in NFL BECAUSE they wear those stupid helmets. They use them like battering rams and in ways no sane person would without them hence the insane levels of dysfunction in ex-players.

There are always unintended/perverse consequences and unforeseen costs.

Concussion is a very serious issue and I'm not against it but I just hope the AFL think through some of the consequences of implementing such a requirement.

[bigcarl]

The science seems to say that helmets don't reduce concussions (since your brain still rattles about inside your skull at impact whether wearing a helmet or not). However, they can protect to a degree against facial and skull injuries since they spread the load of the impact.

That's as I understand it. But I'm not sure on how good the science is.

[carn_sainter]

The brain doesn't have to 'rattle' inside the head.

Having studied concussion and post-concussion symptoms, I can tell you
- you do not have to hit your head to have a concussion
- you do not have to lose consciousness to have a concussion
- only 10% of concussions lose consciousness

Thc lassic coup-contrecoup mechanism is injurious, but the main injury is caused by rotation to the head/neck.

Evidence and the enormous amount of sport related concussion research that is coming out every month basically supports the idea that a concussion is essentially a whiplash injury that is absorbed by the brain and nervous system...same thing; one occurs to the neck tissues (whiplash) the other to the nervous system (concussion)

The sports concussion consensus statement which is current was made in 2017 and is being updated later this year...when it comes out in Sep (i think) it might have radical implications for sport. For example, at the moment, guidelines are based on the belief that concussion (as opposed to post-concussion) is a process/injury that normally resolves in 14 days, but evidence since suggest it's actually 30-45 days...imagine players being rested for 6 weeks post a concussion!

I've not read any research about helmets so I don't know. My hunch is they don't help much.

What formula one did is the way to go - they installed a new helmet in which the neck is fixed in a neutral position and basically cannot rotate. This is the best way to prevent concussion (though not possible in Aussie rules).

The best ways our players can avoid concussion injuries
- strong, strong, strong deep neck flexors and neck stability
- consistent practice of oculomotor and vision therapy exercises (university of Tennessee (if i remember) football team is a great case study on this))
- don't get hit

[B.M]

Yes in junior footy up to 14’s

1/ because they don’t know how to protect themselves when picking up the ball
2/ because there are big packs of kids bending over to pick the ball up at the same time and head clashes are common

After 14yo the game opens up and there are less rolling mauls and kids know to get side on when picking up the pill

Most AFL concussions occur from
High contact from a Heavy bump at high velocity
Sling tackle head hits the ground

Helmets won’t really help there,

[bigcarl]

at the moment, guidelines are based on the belief that concussion (as opposed to post-concussion) is a process/injury that normally resolves in 14 days, but evidence since suggest it's actually 30-45 days...imagine players being rested for 6 weeks post a concussion!

That would be the end of anything that resembles Australian Rules football.

[The_Dud]

Those helmets don't make a difference.

[shanegrambeau]

The brain doesn't have to 'rattle' inside the head.

Having studied concussion and post-concussion symptoms, I can tell you
- you do not have to hit your head to have a concussion
- you do not have to lose consciousness to have a concussion
- only 10% of concussions lose consciousness

Thc lassic coup-contrecoup mechanism is injurious, but the main injury is caused by rotation to the head/neck.

Evidence and the enormous amount of sport related concussion research that is coming out every month basically supports the idea that a concussion is essentially a whiplash injury that is absorbed by the brain and nervous system...same thing; one occurs to the neck tissues (whiplash) the other to the nervous system (concussion)

The sports concussion consensus statement which is current was made in 2017 and is being updated later this year...when it comes out in Sep (i think) it might have radical implications for sport. For example, at the moment, guidelines are based on the belief that concussion (as opposed to post-concussion) is a process/injury that normally resolves in 14 days, but evidence since suggest it's actually 30-45 days...imagine players being rested for 6 weeks post a concussion!

I've not read any research about helmets so I don't know. My hunch is they don't help much.

What formula one did is the way to go - they installed a new helmet in which the neck is fixed in a neutral position and basically cannot rotate. This is the best way to prevent concussion (though not possible in Aussie rules).

The best ways our players can avoid concussion injuries
- strong, strong, strong deep neck flexors and neck stability
- consistent practice of oculomotor and vision therapy exercises (university of Tennessee (if i remember) football team is a great case study on this))
- don't get hit

What about those neck things? You know, those skin-toned coloured things people wore around their necks after a traffic accident? Why don’t we try those. I think you make an excellent point.

I suppose peripheral vision is compromised by reducing the radius of ‘head-swirl’ but if that is so, and all players are similarly compromised, perhaps it would work? Trial it in a pre-season game?

[saintsRrising]

The science seems to say that helmets don't reduce concussions (since your brain still rattles about inside your skull at impact whether wearing a helmet or not). However, they can protect to a degree against facial and skull injuries since they spread the load of the impact.

That's as I understand it. But I'm not sure on how good the science is.

When your heads stops, or moves, quickly the brain which is suspended in liquid impacts the inside of your skull.

It is the rate of deceleration/acceleration that does the damage.

[Enrico_Misso]

Did Phil Narkle get a patent on his famous helmut?

[The Billings Method]

The efficacy of helmets is a highly contentious topic of research. Many say they they are useless in preventing concussion and that they are only good at preventing head wounds.

The Jacinta Barlclay findings will no doubt throw a huge scare into the AFL industry. Perhaps justified. It seems nothing is a foolproof antidote against concussion. Maybe our sport is doomed in the long run. The lawyers and insurance number crunchers will decide. As they always do.

[SaintPav]

Did Phil Narkle get a patent on his famous helmut?

Horrid looking thing.

[SaintPav]

The efficacy of helmets is a highly contentious topic of research. Many say they they are useless in preventing concussion and that they are only good at preventing head wounds.

The Jacinta Barlclay findings will no doubt throw a huge scare into the AFL industry. Perhaps justified. It seems nothing is a foolproof antidote against concussion. Maybe our sport is doomed in the long run. The lawyers and insurance number crunchers will decide. As they always do.

I'm sure the financial rent-seekers, ticket clippers and parasites will find a way to monetise player risk in a industry now worth billions. Then there are the possible future insurance exclusions or player health insurance premiums will go parabolic. Once the research is in, which may take up to another decade or so, the AFL will probably seek indemnity against liability for brain injuries. Players will need to read the fine print when they sign up to play in the AFL. The AFLPA will probably seek compensation schemes but these may have to be self funded by the players.

We are already seeing a disturbing trend of serious injuries and collisions in the AFLW. Pound for pound, they go just as hard as the men and I wonder what impact this has on their bodies compared to the men given their very different anatomical structures. It can’t be good. Another emerging legal minefield in the next ten years!