NFL/NFLPA release helmet testing results, 10 models now prohibited

[Chargers]

8 minutes ago, JustAnotherFan said:

This ended about 8-10 years ago when the rule passed that no team was allowed to use more than one helmet in a season anymore.

Yeah, I know it just seems odd that the NFL has an issue with break in periods for new helmets. The NCAA on other hand doesn't think a break in period for new helmets is a concern, which is why Oregon and Oklahoma State have several different pairs. It may be the level of play that is deciding factor but the committee that handed down that rule never made it clear. If it's been 10 years though It must mean it'll never be overturned.

[JAF-N72EX]

21 minutes ago, Classic said:

Yeah, I know it just seems odd that the NFL has an issue with break in periods for new helmets. The NCAA on other hand doesn't think a break in period for new helmets is a concern, which is why Oregon and Oklahoma State have several different pairs. It may be the level of play that is deciding factor but the committee that handed down that rule never made it clear. If it's been 10 years though It must mean it'll never be overturned.

The NFL is a union based and the NCAA isn't. I don't have an official answer or explanation for it (obviously) but it appears to simply be a matter of the fine print that most of us aren't privy too. 

The same reason as to why some 200 players are not forced to only wear the helmets that are passed for next season, like Woz pointed out. It don't make sense to me either but there must be a reason for it.

[Small Town Values]

17 hours ago, rudyZ said:

Habits. The NHL ruled that helmets would be mandatory in 1979, leaving the option to current players to keep playing without a helmet if they so chose, and Craig McTavish played until 1997 without a helmet. Players don't always make the smartest choices. Some just like the look of their current helmet. Some just like how it feels on their hand, as compared to some others they tested. Some are simply superstitious. Ask Craig Biggio if he wanted a new shining batting helmet.

No doubt. I remember similar resistance from a small group of players when the league started clamping down on helmet to helmet hits. As if making minor adjustments to tackling technique was some kind of biological impossibility.  

[Ryan_W]

Staubach is one of the primary investors that founded/funded Vicis

[ramssuperbowl99]

22 hours ago, sp6488 said:

The flip-side to this is that if you mandate one helmet, it is a "sticky" thing.  What if a safer helmet comes out?  How long does it need to outperform in tests before you change your mandated helmet?  What if you switch and then the old mandated helmet starts testing better?  Does someone who has a concussion sue the league now for not letting them wear some other helmet?

This doesn't matter tbh. The NFL would have a policy stating it would use whatever helmets are statistically proven to be safer. Anyone who would want their helmet to be the NFL helmet would need to either get the NFL to pay for a study demonstrating better safety than the leading helmet or pay for it themselves.

If that sentence sounded like a pharma commercial, it's because this is how best-in-class pharmaceuticals get approved all the time.

[sp6488]

23 hours ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

Why doesn't the NFL have one helmet yet? I get it that players have preferences, but come on, every other piece of equipment they have no problem agreeing to an exclusive contract with. VICIS helmets are  clearly the safest at the moment, just make them the official helmet of the NFL.

 

The question why doesn't the NFL have an "official" helmet is two-pronged. From a money standpoint I don't understand, surely ridell would pay loads to have their helmet be the official NFL helmet? From a health standpoint, why would you let players wear anything but the safest models?

 

22 hours ago, sp6488 said:

The flip-side to this is that if you mandate one helmet, it is a "sticky" thing.  What if a safer helmet comes out?  How long does it need to outperform in tests before you change your mandated helmet?  What if you switch and then the old mandated helmet starts testing better?  Does someone who has a concussion sue the league now for not letting them wear some other helmet?

 

5 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

This doesn't matter tbh. The NFL would have a policy stating it would use whatever helmets are statistically proven to be safer. Anyone who would want their helmet to be the NFL helmet would need to either get the NFL to pay for a study demonstrating better safety than the leading helmet or pay for it themselves.

If that sentence sounded like a pharma commercial, it's because this is how best-in-class pharmaceuticals get approved all the time.

Your response doesn't really address the crux of my point, I think (unless I'm misunderstanding you).

My overall point was that by tying itself to one brand/model, even if it's under the guise of picking the "safest" helmet, creates a lot of potential liability issues for the NFL (at the very least perceived or that someone could target them for***).  Rather than having an incredibly rigid standard where they say, "you may wear A, but not B, C nor D," they provide guidelines that they recommend a group, caution another and bar a third.  From a purely pragmatic standpoint it gives them way more wiggle on liability re: informed safety for the players.  I think it's the best approach for all parties involved, honestly.

*** By anchoring themselves to one helmet they could seriously provide fodder for another class action suit.  At this point there isn't much room to argue that players don't know the general risks moving forward.  The league mandating specific equipment, that could be shown to not be the safest possible in the future, seems to open themselves up for future litigation.  They seem FAR better served doing something like this where the choice remains with the participants, but they provide standards and information regarding testing.

[ramssuperbowl99]

8 minutes ago, sp6488 said:

 

 

Your response doesn't really address the crux of my point, I think (unless I'm misunderstanding you).

My overall point was that by tying itself to one brand/model, even if it's under the guise of picking the "safest" helmet, creates a lot of potential liability issues for the NFL (at the very least perceived or that someone could target them for***).  Rather than having an incredibly rigid standard where they say, "you may wear A, but not B, C nor D," they provide guidelines that they recommend a group, caution another and bar a third.  From a purely pragmatic standpoint it gives them way more wiggle on liability re: informed safety for the players.  I think it's the best approach for all parties involved, honestly.

*** By anchoring themselves to one helmet they could seriously provide fodder for another class action suit.  At this point there isn't much room to argue that players don't know the general risks moving forward.  The league mandating specific equipment, that could be shown to not be the safest possible in the future, seems to open themselves up for future litigation.  They seem FAR better served doing something like this where the choice remains with the participants, but they provide standards and information regarding testing.

As long as they continued to do relevant safety testing on the other helmets and adopted any better iterations timely, then they'd be free of any liability. Same reason that people who are terminally ill aren't going to successfully sue the FDA, even though the FDA limits which medications they can take.

[sp6488]

30 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

As long as they continued to do relevant safety testing on the other helmets and adopted any better iterations timely, then they'd be free of any liability. Same reason that people who are terminally ill aren't going to successfully sue the FDA, even though the FDA limits which medications they can take.

Eh, a comparison of the potential liability of the FDA (which is a public entity that is charged with protecting the public broadly) and the NFL (which is a private entity making standards for employees/participants) is a pretty flawed analogy.

[ramssuperbowl99]

36 minutes ago, sp6488 said:

Eh, a comparison of the potential liability of the FDA (which is a public entity that is charged with protecting the public broadly) and the NFL (which is a private entity making standards for employees/participants) is a pretty flawed analogy.

Yep, because the NFL has far less liability. The players would have to demonstrate negligence, and the NFL consistently updating their helmets to the most modern safety standards shuts that down immediately.

[Mid Iowa]

I'm a Hawkeye. I found this interesting and fun.

The Hawkeyes have been testing special helmets for 2 seasons now. 15 players each season. So far, zero concussions.

Here's the story

[Superman(DH23)]

somebody should become the IAHSA of helmet testing and do this annually with all new models.  Create a certification class and then the NFL could just apply a standard of certification that players can choose from.  The information being public also keeps youth parents more well informed.

[Superman(DH23)]

1 hour ago, Mid Iowa said:

I'm a Hawkeye. I found this interesting and fun.

The Hawkeyes have been testing special helmets for 2 seasons now. 15 players each season. So far, zero concussions.

Here's the story

Thats the Riddell Speedflex Precision and that is #3 on the list. (The top 3 were statistically indistinguishable.

[Steeler Hitman]

This is as many stated a step in the right direction. The other measure would be to expand the game day rosters. You have a concussion protocol, but yet limit the number of players on game day. It doesn't make much sense as you are gambling with who may or may not get hurt in a game and then limiting the product on the field by having a TE play OT or a WR play QB.  With Thursday night games and the wear and tear from the physical sport, this seems like a no brainer, yet year after year this is not addressed.

[frenchie]

Seems simple enough; so why wasn't this done like 10 years ago when all this concussion stuff first came to the forefront?

[Woz]

On 4/20/2018 at 11:01 AM, frenchie said:

Seems simple enough; so why wasn't this done like 10 years ago when all this concussion stuff first came to the forefront?

Because the NFL inexplicably thought it was better to spend money trying to deny/bury the story (and then come up with a huge settlement) instead of putting together a more modest/forward-thinking approach to concussion-related injuries.