|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Shepard to @NewsdaySports “I’m not worried about (the concussions). This is what I love to do and it’s how I take care of my family. Yeah I do have two kids and I think about it from time to time, but I’ll make that decision later on down the road.” |
| Quote: |
| “They’ve been saying stuff,” he said of people nudging him away from football. “But I’m gonna fo what makes me happy and this is what makes me happy. I’m going to continue to do that until I feel like it’s a little too much.” |
| Quote: |
| What’s a little too much? “When I get fed up with it.” |
I completely understand the concern about head injuries, but I wonder if the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction.
Do you guys realize that under the new rules that Jeff Hostetler would not have been allowed to continue to play in Super Bowl XXV?
They just gave him a huge 4-year deal.
Agreed. Heal up and make sure he's 100% when he steps on the field again. If he gets one more concussion then retire.
I honestly don’t think that is that big of a factor. Kind of agree with Eric, these guys are making a ton of money and their families are going to be concerned no matter what anyway. And then fans think they know what’s best for a player which we all know is never the case.
I do think more players will continue to retire early but that will still be somewhat random as to who it will be (Willis and Luck) since we’ve got guys like Reed still trying to play.
Do you guys realize that under the new rules that Jeff Hostetler would not have been allowed to continue to play in Super Bowl XXV?
There is no single objective diagnosis for a concussion. Nor is there any definitive treatment for a concussion. It's absurd to believe the NFL is being too cautious here. If anything, the NFL concussion protocol is a band-aid on a problem that needs surgery.
Shepard should take the rest of the year off and reevaluate in the off-season.
you've been told several times that Shep has been re-signed.
This is a VIOLENT, CONTACT sport.
I am getting the sense that some NFL fans are now uncomfortable with the toll it takes on the human body. Same reason some people don't like boxing.
Shepard will make the decision he is most comfortable with. Harry Carson said he had something like 30 concussions in his career. But he loved the game.
The combination of better money management and more awareness of the health risks is going to make an Andrew Luck type retirement less shocking in the future.
You must be a great hang.
However, I certainly have no problem should he decide his health is in jeopardy. He seems like a great guy. Of course family members are looking at all the players developing CTE and are worried. Cannot blame them.
I completely understand the concern about head injuries, but I wonder if the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction.
Do you guys realize that under the new rules that Jeff Hostetler would not have been allowed to continue to play in Super Bowl XXV?
I agree with you. I also wonder if players start doing this how that would effect salary caps for teams.
I completely understand the concern about head injuries, but I wonder if the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction.
Do you guys realize that under the new rules that Jeff Hostetler would not have been allowed to continue to play in Super Bowl XXV?
I think you're right. The physicians are going to err on the side of caution, but it'll hopefully end up toward a middle ground.
The numbers of players out with concussions compared with years ago is much higher.
If that never happened, I dont think he would have been held out of the Viking game.
My son is not playing football because of this very reason. It’s been a hard decision but I have to do what I think best.
I don’t think he has thought about retirement. Honestly. Sounds like some folks have talk to him about doing it but he isn’t close to doing it. In fact, he sounds like he is committed to playing. I get your point, but I don’t think he’s there, yet
Quote:
I hate to say this too.
They just gave him a huge 4-year deal.
Oh my........
Carson has also said he wouldn't have played the game knowing what he knows now about the impact of the concussions. That certainly doesn't change the fact that it's Shepard's choice to continue playing, given clearance by doctors, but it's not a compelling example that people are overreacting to the seriousness of head trauma.
you've been told several times that Shep has been re-signed.
No flap.....go,F yourself too. I may have been told but if I didn’t see it, then how would I know. I did see Eric saying it here though.
Why would I troll about this? SMH.....you must think I’m trolling because you probably “hate” DG or DJ and you know how supportive and passionate I am for each.
This is a VIOLENT, CONTACT sport.
I am getting the sense that some NFL fans are now uncomfortable with the toll it takes on the human body. Same reason some people don't like boxing.
Shepard will make the decision he is most comfortable with. Harry Carson said he had something like 30 concussions in his career. But he loved the game.
Harry Carson won't even let his grandkids play football!
If they were winning, would your opinion on the worth of the risk change?
Not too long ago, getting "your bell rung" was not a big deal in football. Obviously, it should have been taken more seriously.
But note the thread on soccer and head injuries from earlier this week.
I get the sense that there are many out there who just want to ban competitive sports. (Hell, my kids weren't allowed to play dodge ball in school).
I already referenced it above, but do you think Jeff Hostetler regrets not being pulled from Super Bowl XXV? (He couldn't even smell the smelling salts on the sidelines).
Quote:
You and I are going to have to agree to disagree.
This is a VIOLENT, CONTACT sport.
I am getting the sense that some NFL fans are now uncomfortable with the toll it takes on the human body. Same reason some people don't like boxing.
Shepard will make the decision he is most comfortable with. Harry Carson said he had something like 30 concussions in his career. But he loved the game.
Harry Carson won't even let his grandkids play football!
Full disclosure...if I had a choice or a say in it, I would not let my kids play. In fact, I've tried to discourage my friends from having their kids choose football over other sports when there was a choice to be made (go soccer!).
Any "experts" care to weigh in?
His basic premise was that the negative evidence about CTE and playing football will become so overwhelming that only a select few will continue to play.
Quote:
Who wants to risk permanent damage for this crew of losers?
If they were winning, would your opinion on the worth of the risk change?
My opinion has nothing to do with it. I do think a player would be more willing to assume the risks when playing for a contender than a bottom feeder.
Not too long ago, getting "your bell rung" was not a big deal in football. Obviously, it should have been taken more seriously.
But note the thread on soccer and head injuries from earlier this week.
I get the sense that there are many out there who just want to ban competitive sports. (Hell, my kids weren't allowed to play dodge ball in school).
I already referenced it above, but do you think Jeff Hostetler regrets not being pulled from Super Bowl XXV? (He couldn't even smell the smelling salts on the sidelines).
As mentioned in the other thread, there have been modifications to youth soccer to help decrease head injuries. Also, I'm not sure about the latest data, but the older data suggested that any potential brain problems in soccer resulted from long-term cumulative hits, as opposed to the acute contact injuries in football. That's notwithstanding the head to head collisions which I still think (based on nothing) is more detrimental than heading per se (with proper technique).
His basic premise was that the negative evidence about CTE and playing football will become so overwhelming that only a select few will continue to play.
You seriously think that the majority of athletes around the country are going to abandon playing football on Friday (high school), Saturday (college), and Sunday (NFL)?
I watch a lot of high school football now. The kids still love it.
Yeah, those poor college teams around the nation. They can't even field competitive teams! College football has never been in a worse state! (sarcasm off)
Quote:
I'm not convinced that the 30-year old Carson would have given up football, even if he said so later in life.
Not too long ago, getting "your bell rung" was not a big deal in football. Obviously, it should have been taken more seriously.
But note the thread on soccer and head injuries from earlier this week.
I get the sense that there are many out there who just want to ban competitive sports. (Hell, my kids weren't allowed to play dodge ball in school).
I already referenced it above, but do you think Jeff Hostetler regrets not being pulled from Super Bowl XXV? (He couldn't even smell the smelling salts on the sidelines).
As mentioned in the other thread, there have been modifications to youth soccer to help decrease head injuries. Also, I'm not sure about the latest data, but the older data suggested that any potential brain problems in soccer resulted from long-term cumulative hits, as opposed to the acute contact injuries in football. That's notwithstanding the head to head collisions which I still think (based on nothing) is more detrimental than heading per se (with proper technique).
I could be 100% wrong, but I always thought the latest science believes (and I think it is only a belief) that the CTE and dementia issues stemmed from players playing with concussions and getting concussion upon concussion while never being cleared up. And, the remedy, which they have now is to keep you out of the game until you are no longer suffering a concussion. But, again, I know I heard this, but I am not sure if it is right.
Quote:
wrote an interesting opinion piece on this a while back.
His basic premise was that the negative evidence about CTE and playing football will become so overwhelming that only a select few will continue to play.
You seriously think that the majority of athletes around the country are going to abandon playing football on Friday (high school), Saturday (college), and Sunday (NFL)?
I watch a lot of high school football now. The kids still love it.
People will always play; the NFL is too big. I do wonder whether the demographics will show a loss in the suburban kids though.
Quote:
In comment 14640782 Eric from BBI said:
Quote:
I'm not convinced that the 30-year old Carson would have given up football, even if he said so later in life.
Not too long ago, getting "your bell rung" was not a big deal in football. Obviously, it should have been taken more seriously.
But note the thread on soccer and head injuries from earlier this week.
I get the sense that there are many out there who just want to ban competitive sports. (Hell, my kids weren't allowed to play dodge ball in school).
I already referenced it above, but do you think Jeff Hostetler regrets not being pulled from Super Bowl XXV? (He couldn't even smell the smelling salts on the sidelines).
As mentioned in the other thread, there have been modifications to youth soccer to help decrease head injuries. Also, I'm not sure about the latest data, but the older data suggested that any potential brain problems in soccer resulted from long-term cumulative hits, as opposed to the acute contact injuries in football. That's notwithstanding the head to head collisions which I still think (based on nothing) is more detrimental than heading per se (with proper technique).
I could be 100% wrong, but I always thought the latest science believes (and I think it is only a belief) that the CTE and dementia issues stemmed from players playing with concussions and getting concussion upon concussion while never being cleared up. And, the remedy, which they have now is to keep you out of the game until you are no longer suffering a concussion. But, again, I know I heard this, but I am not sure if it is right.
Could be. It's not my area. I did read a few older studies but the info is out of date.
If my son wanted to play football, I would have supported him. But my concern would not have been over concussions but him getting a torn ACL or broken arm.
But competitive sports is still too attractive to all demographic groups for various reasons.
Quote:
Who wants to risk permanent damage for this crew of losers?
You must be a great hang.
He has been a miserable sack of shit around here for weeks.
Quote:
I'm not convinced that the 30-year old Carson would have given up football, even if he said so later in life.
Not too long ago, getting "your bell rung" was not a big deal in football. Obviously, it should have been taken more seriously.
But note the thread on soccer and head injuries from earlier this week.
I get the sense that there are many out there who just want to ban competitive sports. (Hell, my kids weren't allowed to play dodge ball in school).
I already referenced it above, but do you think Jeff Hostetler regrets not being pulled from Super Bowl XXV? (He couldn't even smell the smelling salts on the sidelines).
As mentioned in the other thread, there have been modifications to youth soccer to help decrease head injuries. Also, I'm not sure about the latest data, but the older data suggested that any potential brain problems in soccer resulted from long-term cumulative hits, as opposed to the acute contact injuries in football. That's notwithstanding the head to head collisions which I still think (based on nothing) is more detrimental than heading per se (with proper technique).
Long-term cumulative hits appear to be significantly more of a causative issue in football as well as other contact sports. CTE appears both in those with a significant concussion history, and also in those with slight or no concussion history.
Roofers, loggers, miners, iron workers, cops, firemen, postal workers - jobs with high risk of injury or death. If people avoided dangerous jobs, every one would be an accountant.
And consider his class status when doing so.
Despite the uncertainty, as time passes more college and NFL players will opt to retire early, and fewer young athletes will choose to play football.
Not too long ago, getting "your bell rung" was not a big deal in football. Obviously, it should have been taken more seriously.
Well obviously 30 year old Harry Carson didn't give up football, so I'm not sure what your point is.
More broadly, I'm having a hard time understanding what your overall point is. You said that you think the pendulum is swinging too far the other way, which to me reads as you suggesting people are becoming too cautious. But in this post you're acknowledging that serious hits should have been taken more seriously than they used to be. So I'm not really sure what your position is. And whether Carson, even a more informed Carson, would have chosen to play as a 20 or 30 year old, the fact that he now regrets it seems to make a pretty good case that players aren't necessarily in the best position to make those decisions in the moment.
As for Hoss, I'm familiar with neither the state he was in during that game, nor the state of his health today, though I've never read anything to suggest he's in bad shape. I assume he's glad he stayed in that game, but if he was really suffering concussion symptons, it may have been a medically risky and foolish decision. Hopefully he's not suffering lifelong problems because of it. At any rate, even if Hostetler was left in a game that today he'd be taken out of, and suffered no long-term ill effects because of it, that doesn't seem all that meaningful in judging whether the current protocols are appropriate are not. The evidence seems pretty clear that the downside is big enough that caution is the side to err on. (That's not to say I think Shepard should retire, or sit out the rest of the season. Or not. I know effectively nothing about head trauma, and even less about Shep's specific symptoms and condition. But I think it's perfectly reasonable for him to be concerned and to consider whether the ongoing risk is worth it).
And consider his class status when doing so.
Yeah, but we're talking about a very recent trend or shift. DJ is young, but the decision to play is still more than a decade ago.
Is this a joke?
Cops risk their lives everyday and get paid far less and while not as physical on a day to day basis at any time they could lose their life. same with people who join the military. why are we holding athletes to a different standard? Many jobs have health risks associated with them and yet people do them anyway, its just that the NFL pays way better than most jobs.
I know if I had the talent for the NFL I wouldn't think twice about the injuries and play and I would bet there are a ton of people who would risk it for the money as well.
I fully understand my position is a minority one and now controversial. But football players are going to get their "bell rung". As long as they understand that risk, then the consequences are their own. Similar to any other injury a player may suffer, including a broken neck, inability to walk properly by the age of 40, issues associated with massive weight gain, etc.
If I understand then new rules, the NFL has largely taken control of this issue AWAY FROM the teams. I'm not sure that is a good thing.
With all due respect, much of this sounds like virtue signaling from a group of football fans who enjoy the violence of the game but then are supposedly appalled that people get hurt playing it.
This stuff used to happen ALL OF THE TIME in the NFL until not too long ago.
If Hostetler comes out of that game, we lose. Anyone who saw Matt Cavanaugh play for a few plays in the NFC Championship Game knows that.
America's Game 1990 New York Giants Superbowl XXV Champions - ( New Window )
WR is one of the few positions in which I think you can translate success from team to team unless the WR is coming from a prolific QB like Rodgers or Peyton Manning. Thus, I would be happy to take the FA route with respect to WR and I am normally not a big FA person in terms of team building.
So if Shephard can get out of the game with his health mostly intact then good for him. Smart move if he does it.
It's whatever he decides regardless of who it is. Along with his doctor
Quote:
Even with Shep, we need one, anyway.
WR is one of the few positions in which I think you can translate success from team to team unless the WR is coming from a prolific QB like Rodgers or Peyton Manning. Thus, I would be happy to take the FA route with respect to WR and I am normally not a big FA person in terms of team building.
That's fair. I'm just not sure what WRs will be available in FA this offseason.
In theory, the team could play hardball and try to minimize the dead money. Doesn't seem like the "Mara Way", but it's possible.
Quote:
Cops risk their lives everyday and get paid far less and while not as physical on a day to day basis at any time they could lose their life.
That's a common fallacy, propagated aggressively by police advocacy groups. Certain cops do face mortal danger on a regular basis, but the vast majority don't. Statistically, police work isn't especially dangerous.
Last year in the US, 150 officers were killed in the line of duty. I would say thats a pretty dangerous job even if the majority dont have risks. Are you really saying that being a cop is not a dangerous job???
So if Shephard can get out of the game with his health mostly intact then good for him. Smart move if he does it.
My oldest three kids go to a pretty affluent DC-burb public high school. The varsity football team is in shambles. Very few seniors on the team, have sophomores and juniors who have never played organized football before ... starting. Getting beat by 25, 35, 45 points a game.
I don’t think football is in danger of extinction ... but in more affluent areas, it’s gotta be taking some big hits.
I personally wish that wrap tackling (like rugby) became required. Good hard wrap tackling would still look like football to me ... and spare a lot of brains (see eg the two gruesome injuries in the GB v Iggs game).
Quote:
Cops risk their lives everyday and get paid far less and while not as physical on a day to day basis at any time they could lose their life.
That's a common fallacy, propagated aggressively by police advocacy groups. Certain cops do face mortal danger on a regular basis, but the vast majority don't. Statistically, police work isn't especially dangerous.
This may be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this site.
Just going to a house with a domestic dispute call is dangerous for police.
You might hate police, but don't be stupid and say the work they do isn't dangerous.
Quote: I completely understand the concern about head injuries, but I wonder if the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction.
Do you guys realize that under the new rules that Jeff Hostetler would not have been allowed to continue to play in Super Bowl XXV?
There is no single objective diagnosis for a concussion. Nor is there any definitive treatment for a concussion. It's absurd to believe the NFL is being too cautious here. If anything, the NFL concussion protocol is a band-aid on a problem that needs surgery.
Shepard should take the rest of the year off and reevaluate in the off-season.
While I agree, I will also disagree to some extent. The NFL is still using the flawed and incomplete reports that were initially used back as far as 2012 to 2015. It is a knee jerk reaction to a bunch of really bad press.
There was one study was deemed flawed because they used the brains of deceased people who had CTE and live subjects who thought that they had some form of CTE going into the tests instead of the normal randomly chosen group. So of course the test subject number will automatically be higher.
There are numerous newer reports (within the last couple of years) that have stated that while there still is an inherent risk for CTE when playing football. The risks are nowhere near as bad as the press has made it out to be. These newer reports also have football further down the list of sports for potential CTE behind soccer, hockey and even extreme sports. Remember. Terrible news sells. Good positive news, not so much.
Is this something that needs to be properly looked at and full discussed? Yes 100%. However it also has to be looked at factually and objectively to make sure that anything that is done, is done properly and not as a result of flawed data or by media pressure.
With all due respect, much of this sounds like virtue signaling from a group of football fans who enjoy the violence of the game but then are supposedly appalled that people get hurt playing it.
Getting hurt and possible lifetime brain injury are two different things. And a hearty FUCK YOU on the virtue signaling remark.
Most dangerous occupations by fatality rate, 2017:
1)Fishermen
2)Loggers
3)Pilots/flight engineers
4)Roofers
5)Garbagemen
6)Iron and steel workers
7)Delivery drivers
8)Farmers/ranchers
9)Groundskeepers/landscapers
10)Electrical linemen
Police are 18th on that list. It can be a dangerous job, yes, but it's nowhere near the most dangerous. Fisherman have a fatality rate almost ten times that of police.
We Software guys are the REAL hero's! When do we get OUR holiday?
Not many. Neither do most cops. Very few of them are working in Fort Apache, the Bronx. Most of them work in quiet small towns, suburbs, and rural areas.
Quote:
trolling?
you've been told several times that Shep has been re-signed.
No flap.....go,F yourself too. I may have been told but if I didn’t see it, then how would I know. I did see Eric saying it here though.
Why would I troll about this? SMH.....you must think I’m trolling because you probably “hate” DG or DJ and you know how supportive and passionate I am for each.
You might know because you're supposedly a Giants fan and it happened.
and about half of police deaths come from fatal car crashes and reckless driving, not from being murdered while responding to calls.
They live with pressure, anxiety, and danger on a daily basis that most people cannot comprehend. And their families often worry in fear that they won't come home.
I can't believe anyone from the New York metropolitan area can't understand or appreciate.
And to be brutally frank, I find you views on minimalizing the risks they experience to be offensive.
a couple of football fans on BBI posting concern about head injuries- in a league that has made this a visible issue- is not in the same category. you really think posters here could give a shit about concussions and are pretending to so that they seem virtuous?
by accusing posters here of "virtue signaling," you're doing the same thing- signaling to others here- that you're pragmatic, appropriately cynical, a "true" rationalist, world-weary, and "above" the virtue signaling that you see from all these snowflakes and millennial wimps- engaging in the same smug posturing that you think you're calling out.
what other made-up political buzzwords can you shoehorn into the conversation? "gaslighting"? "sjw"?
i realize you're a somewhat older fellow trying to use hip, made-up internet/twitter words to make some vague point about political correctness run amok, but please, give it a rest dude. its painful.
My point was a simple one: using the police as an example of a dangerous profession is dumb. Lots of jobs are much more dangerous.
Quote:
How many landscapers get shot at?
Not many. Neither do most cops. Very few of them are working in Fort Apache, the Bronx. Most of them work in quiet small towns, suburbs, and rural areas.
Interesting that 2017 was cited as the year for the statistics for dangerous profession, that year was a noted "down year": 95/fatalities per 100,000 as opposed to 144 fatalities per 100,000 for 2018. Oh, and 2016 was 159 fatalities per 100,000.
Police fatality statistics 2018 - ( New Window )
He wanted to get the repetitive hits out and on each other and its cumulative role out of practice. I believe their injuries were cut, concussions were cut, wins increased and missed tackles decreased.
what view(s)? that police work isn't as dangerous as other blue collar professions?
that you don't know what you're talking about with regard to virtue signaling?
also: shame on me? seriously? take it easy bro. you sound triggered.
Quote:
How many landscapers get shot at?
Not many. Neither do most cops. Very few of them are working in Fort Apache, the Bronx. Most of them work in quiet small towns, suburbs, and rural areas.
Interesting that 2017 was cited as the year for the statistics for dangerous profession, that year was a noted "down year": 95/fatalities per 100,000 as opposed to 144 fatalities per 100,000 for 2018. Oh, and 2016 was 159 fatalities per 100,000.
Police fatality statistics 2018 - ( New Window )
Wrong. The rate is NOT 144 per 100,000. 144 is the total number of occupational deaths. The rate for 2016, since you brought that up, was 14.6 per 100,000. The most dangerous occupation in 2016 was logging, with 135.9 fatalities per 100,000.
...and have every bit as much to do with Sterling Shepard as this stupid, stupid, triggered thread.
I love football, but it's turned into modern-day gladiators, half the team on IR each season and retirees with brain damage.
I'd love to see rule changes, weight limits, stricter penalties for dangerous hits. Sprint football.
about half of all police deaths in 2017 were from traffic accidents. the other half were firearm related (there were 128 total officer deaths that year). these data are from national law enforcement officers memorial fund (NLEOMF), which has tracked police deaths for many decades.
these data are publicly available, and you can simply look at the trend line from the late 70s through 2017 to see that police work is objectively safer now than it was 40-50 years ago in terms of both death rate and total number of deaths. also: the nonfatal injury rate for police is also in line with that of other blue collar professions-in fact, it is slightly lower.
buddyryansux10's post appears to be misinterpreting data from a USA today article
Quote:
got speared as a freshman WR on his high school team. It was a brutal, intentional hit. And he was not the same kid for nearly the next 8 months. Fortunately, his head cleared up and he's now fine. But I no longer allow him to play. The sport is just too brutal for my tastes for my kid.
So if Shephard can get out of the game with his health mostly intact then good for him. Smart move if he does it.
My oldest three kids go to a pretty affluent DC-burb public high school. The varsity football team is in shambles. Very few seniors on the team, have sophomores and juniors who have never played organized football before ... starting. Getting beat by 25, 35, 45 points a game.
I don’t think football is in danger of extinction ... but in more affluent areas, it’s gotta be taking some big hits.
I personally wish that wrap tackling (like rugby) became required. Good hard wrap tackling would still look like football to me ... and spare a lot of brains (see eg the two gruesome injuries in the GB v Iggs game).
Totally agree. I argued this last week on a different thread. If football was just tackling, and not hitting, the game would be in a different place in terms of how it's viewed and the participation levels. Unfortunately, there is a mindset at the high school level where it is still coached to inflict damage through hitting. And the helmet is leveraged as a weapon...
Look, I get it. I still have some old school in my veins. But somewhere along the path the idea of the helmet got perverted. And it went from protective device to weapon...
My kids go to Chantilly HS. The participation levels have decreased at a rapid pace. So much so that they had to combine the freshman and JV teams to even field another non-varsity team.
Anyway, I apologize for sidetracking the thread with a superfluous fact-check.
Anyway, I apologize for sidetracking the thread with a superfluous fact-check.
this aligns pretty closely with my view. although im not sure i'd characterize it as an honorable profession (but it is certainly time honored). i also miss wrap tackling.
I completely understand the concern about head injuries, but I wonder if the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction.
Do you guys realize that under the new rules that Jeff Hostetler would not have been allowed to continue to play in Super Bowl XXV?
I agree, mostly in the sense that - we REALLY don't know how severe the concussions have been.
Yes, I know any concussion is serious, but no one can tell me they are all equal.
His basic premise was that the negative evidence about CTE and playing football will become so overwhelming that only a select few will continue to play.
Smart guy. Not a neurologist. ANd I’m not saying I have a crystal ball but IMO with the amount of kids who have played football, soccer, hockey and boxing that we know a lot about the dangers of CTE and related trauma.
Why is it people still smoke. Not enough data? Drink alcohol? Why do some guys have many issues and some seemingly few or none that truly effect their day to day lives.
Are the issues related to potential CTE worse than those associated with obesity many ex lineman face? There are concerned but the good news is they are monitoring and addressing this. Sadly for the ex OL who dies at 58 due to complications from obesity no one caress really.
The publicity due to ignoring this issue has mad it so people are reacting w zero information. And it’s a personal choice. Now Reed out of Washington needs to retire. Shepard who knows but articles by laymen with assumptions like this are pretty much just meant to creat more hysteria rather than intelligent Conversation.
Quote:
going to get hammered on this, but I think everyone is overreacting here. It sounds like Shepard was surprised he was even diagnosed with a concussion and even held out.
I completely understand the concern about head injuries, but I wonder if the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction.
Do you guys realize that under the new rules that Jeff Hostetler would not have been allowed to continue to play in Super Bowl XXV?
Yes, in his case it worked out wonderfully, good for him, good for us.
I fully understand my position is a minority one and now controversial. But football players are going to get their "bell rung". As long as they understand that risk, then the consequences are their own. Similar to any other injury a player may suffer, including a broken neck, inability to walk properly by the age of 40, issues associated with massive weight gain, etc.
If I understand then new rules, the NFL has largely taken control of this issue AWAY FROM the teams. I'm not sure that is a good thing.
With all due respect, much of this sounds like virtue signaling from a group of football fans who enjoy the violence of the game but then are supposedly appalled that people get hurt playing it.
I could not disagree more, you are way underestimating the effects of brain trauma when you equate it to other injuries. We are in the infancy of addressing these issues so we have to err on the side of caution. Individual players need to be given as much information as they can in order to make the right decision for themselves, which in some cases might be early retirement.
They live with pressure, anxiety, and danger on a daily basis that most people cannot comprehend. And their families often worry in fear that they won't come home.
I can't believe anyone from the New York metropolitan area can't understand or appreciate.
And to be brutally frank, I find you views on minimalizing the risks they experience to be offensive.
Cops like in the NYPD have a very stressful and often dangerous job. Every call is a crapshoot with your life and career possibly on the line. Add now the growing sentiment that cops are "bad" and perpetuate injustice as opposed to pillars of the community and it is a wonder anyone would choose to be a cop in a big city. Thankfully, some do, even knowing what the job entails and how it is currently viewed by society.
I believe ten NYPD officers have committed suicide this year alone.
And you are supporting, and worse, enjoying an activity that you believe is ruing people's lives.
I can't fathom the mental gymnastics you go through to justify that position.
Quote:
going to get hammered on this, but I think everyone is overreacting here. It sounds like Shepard was surprised he was even diagnosed with a concussion and even held out.
I completely understand the concern about head injuries, but I wonder if the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction.
Do you guys realize that under the new rules that Jeff Hostetler would not have been allowed to continue to play in Super Bowl XXV?
I agree, mostly in the sense that - we REALLY don't know how severe the concussions have been.
Yes, I know any concussion is serious, but no one can tell me they are all equal.
No, but they can tell you they are all potentially dangerous.
I could get mowed down by a bus walking to my car after work today, freedom and liberty means freedom to ascertain an appropriate level of risk in one's life.
And you are supporting, and worse, enjoying an activity that you believe is ruing people's lives.
I can't fathom the mental gymnastics you go through to justify that position.
I am not going to play the insult game with you, I am just agreeing with the NFLs position as we don’t really have a way of measuring concussion severity reliably. I never told anyone to stop watching football as you suggest.
They live with pressure, anxiety, and danger on a daily basis that most people cannot comprehend. And their families often worry in fear that they won't come home.
I can't believe anyone from the New York metropolitan area can't understand or appreciate.
And to be brutally frank, I find you views on minimalizing the risks they experience to be offensive.
Eric, I like your sentiment but the fact is that sanitation workers are at a higher mortality risk than police officers in NYC.
De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt
Quote:
Interesting that 2017 was cited as the year for the statistics for dangerous profession, that year was a noted "down year": 95/fatalities per 100,000 as opposed to 144 fatalities per 100,000 for 2018. Oh, and 2016 was 159 fatalities per 100,000. Police fatality statistics 2018 - ( New Window )
Wrong. The rate is NOT 144 per 100,000. 144 is the total number of occupational deaths. The rate for 2016, since you brought that up, was 14.6 per 100,000. The most dangerous occupation in 2016 was logging, with 135.9 fatalities per 100,000.
My sincere apologies Greg, that was a mis-read error on my part. That said only truck drivers, farm workers, and construction workers had more total deaths in their respective professions. Point being, police work isn't fishing in Mayberry.
The argument was that policing really isn't all that dangerous.
To me, that's like saying that statistics prove that serving in Afghanistan isn't all that dangerous.
It defies common sense and logic.
Cops can get hit accidentally by other drivers during a traffic stop. Or someone may pull a knife or a gun on them. Someone infected with HIV can bite them.
And the nay-sayers here seem to be all ignoring the daily stress of dealing with these dangers. And you don't have to live in Baltimore, DC, NYC, Chicago, etc. to be live under this danger.
Christ, probably the first reality show was "Cops", which was immensely popular because viewers lived vicariously through the danger.
I get it. There is a lot of anti-police sentiment in the Northeast now. But don't be stupid enough to say police work isn't dangerous.
Quote:
In comment 14640939 bw in dc said:
Quote:
got speared as a freshman WR on his high school team. It was a brutal, intentional hit. And he was not the same kid for nearly the next 8 months. Fortunately, his head cleared up and he's now fine. But I no longer allow him to play. The sport is just too brutal for my tastes for my kid.
So if Shephard can get out of the game with his health mostly intact then good for him. Smart move if he does it.
My oldest three kids go to a pretty affluent DC-burb public high school. The varsity football team is in shambles. Very few seniors on the team, have sophomores and juniors who have never played organized football before ... starting. Getting beat by 25, 35, 45 points a game.
I don’t think football is in danger of extinction ... but in more affluent areas, it’s gotta be taking some big hits.
I personally wish that wrap tackling (like rugby) became required. Good hard wrap tackling would still look like football to me ... and spare a lot of brains (see eg the two gruesome injuries in the GB v Iggs game).
Totally agree. I argued this last week on a different thread. If football was just tackling, and not hitting, the game would be in a different place in terms of how it's viewed and the participation levels. Unfortunately, there is a mindset at the high school level where it is still coached to inflict damage through hitting. And the helmet is leveraged as a weapon...
Look, I get it. I still have some old school in my veins. But somewhere along the path the idea of the helmet got perverted. And it went from protective device to weapon...
My kids go to Chantilly HS. The participation levels have decreased at a rapid pace. So much so that they had to combine the freshman and JV teams to even field another non-varsity team.
Agreed. I actually think it could be changed within a few years — and it would still be “football” ... does anyone think rugby is too “soft”?
Personally, I don’t want my 15 year old son to play ... I even wince when he heads a soccer ball ... maybe I’m just getting soft in my old age, though, don’t watch boxing either. I’ve had a few too many concussions myself (which I’m reminded of when I can’t remember where I parked the car lol).
ConcussionFoundation.Org Football Experts weigh in
Science behind waiting till 14
Concussions are going to remain a problem until the proper rule changes (many of which won't be popular) are made all the way from High School to the Pros. I doubt you can eliminate CTE outright, but you can keep concussions down by enforcing Rugby Rule wrap up tackling only, no using the helmet, shoulder glancing blow tackles. Helmets need to be taken out of tackling, too many people are using their head because they think their head is protected by a shell of plastic.
It won't be popular, but Football has gone through this before. Football was almost eliminated, but thanks to Teddy Roosevelt, it was saved (by rule changes). Here's a quote from the article:
With little protective equipment, players sustained gruesome injuries—wrenched spinal cords, crushed skulls and broken ribs that pierced their hearts. The Chicago Tribune reported that in 1904 alone, there were 18 football deaths and 159 serious injuries, mostly among prep school players. Obituaries of young pigskin players ran on a nearly weekly basis during the football season. The carnage appalled America. Newspaper editorials called on colleges and high schools to banish football outright.
“The once athletic sport has degenerated into a contest that for brutality is little better than the gladiatorial combats in the arena in ancient Rome,” opined the Beaumont Express. The sport reached such a crisis that one of its biggest boosters—President Theodore Roosevelt—got involved.
How Teddy Roosevelt Saved Football
ConcussionFoundation.Org Football Experts weigh in
Science behind waiting till 14
Concussions are going to remain a problem until the proper rule changes (many of which won't be popular) are made all the way from High School to the Pros. I doubt you can eliminate CTE outright, but you can keep concussions down by enforcing Rugby Rule wrap up tackling only, no using the helmet, shoulder glancing blow tackles. Helmets need to be taken out of tackling, too many people are using their head because they think their head is protected by a shell of plastic.
It won't be popular, but Football has gone through this before. Football was almost eliminated, but thanks to Teddy Roosevelt, it was saved (by rule changes). Here's a quote from the article:
Quote:
At the turn of the 20th century, America’s football gridirons were killing fields. The college game drew tens of thousands of spectators and rivaled professional baseball in fan appeal, but football in the early 1900s was lethally brutal—a grinding, bruising sport in which the forward pass was illegal and brute strength was required to move the ball. Players locked arms in mass formations and used their helmetless heads as battering rams. Gang tackles routinely buried ball carriers underneath a ton and a half of tangled humanity.
With little protective equipment, players sustained gruesome injuries—wrenched spinal cords, crushed skulls and broken ribs that pierced their hearts. The Chicago Tribune reported that in 1904 alone, there were 18 football deaths and 159 serious injuries, mostly among prep school players. Obituaries of young pigskin players ran on a nearly weekly basis during the football season. The carnage appalled America. Newspaper editorials called on colleges and high schools to banish football outright.
“The once athletic sport has degenerated into a contest that for brutality is little better than the gladiatorial combats in the arena in ancient Rome,” opined the Beaumont Express. The sport reached such a crisis that one of its biggest boosters—President Theodore Roosevelt—got involved.
How Teddy Roosevelt Saved Football
Great post. And amen to that.
My point was that people wilfully sign up to do dangerous jobs. Pro football players sign up to play a dangerous sport and now it even turns out CTE rates are higher than expected in soccer.
People sign up for dangerous jobs for their own reasons, money, benefits, family occupation, lifestyle, the rush and thrill, the glory.
The point was not whose job is most dangerous, it was that people from all walks of life freely accept dangerous jobs as their occupation.
Not too long ago, the NFL and football hid the studies indicating brain damage from repeated hits to the head. By this time players are aware of the issue. The league rightfully was forced to take action. Given the information, players are free to play or move on to another career.
If Sterling Shepard decides that playing football is acceptable risk that is a decision for his family and him to make. He has the information. The team is trying to diminish permanent damage as required by league rule (and legal action that caused the rule changes). Until it becomes apparent that a player is not competent to make this determination, he is free to choose to play.
ConcussionFoundation.Org Football Experts weigh in
Science behind waiting till 14
Concussions are going to remain a problem until the proper rule changes (many of which won't be popular) are made all the way from High School to the Pros. I doubt you can eliminate CTE outright, but you can keep concussions down by enforcing Rugby Rule wrap up tackling only, no using the helmet, shoulder glancing blow tackles. Helmets need to be taken out of tackling, too many people are using their head because they think their head is protected by a shell of plastic.
It won't be popular, but Football has gone through this before. Football was almost eliminated, but thanks to Teddy Roosevelt, it was saved (by rule changes). Here's a quote from the article:
Quote:
At the turn of the 20th century, America’s football gridirons were killing fields. The college game drew tens of thousands of spectators and rivaled professional baseball in fan appeal, but football in the early 1900s was lethally brutal—a grinding, bruising sport in which the forward pass was illegal and brute strength was required to move the ball. Players locked arms in mass formations and used their helmetless heads as battering rams. Gang tackles routinely buried ball carriers underneath a ton and a half of tangled humanity.
With little protective equipment, players sustained gruesome injuries—wrenched spinal cords, crushed skulls and broken ribs that pierced their hearts. The Chicago Tribune reported that in 1904 alone, there were 18 football deaths and 159 serious injuries, mostly among prep school players. Obituaries of young pigskin players ran on a nearly weekly basis during the football season. The carnage appalled America. Newspaper editorials called on colleges and high schools to banish football outright.
“The once athletic sport has degenerated into a contest that for brutality is little better than the gladiatorial combats in the arena in ancient Rome,” opined the Beaumont Express. The sport reached such a crisis that one of its biggest boosters—President Theodore Roosevelt—got involved.
How Teddy Roosevelt Saved Football
I coach rugby in the spring and was never allowed to play football. We have a fair number of players who overlap and I was shocked at how hard it was for some of them to adjust to a rugby style tackle. Rugby teaches you to target a hip, hit with shoulder and wrap with arms, and get your head behind the body. Apparently, these kids are still taught to put their heads across the body for football. Some of these guys have been tackling that way for five years or longer and they're only 14. How many direct collisions is that to the head over that span of time factoring in not only games, but full contact practices and drills? Seems insane to me.
Our AD is trying to get the state to make Rugby a varsity sport and is using the concussion argument so we've been tracking it. We had a total of two concussions all last season in what amounts to 10 full length games (some preseason tournaments had shortened games), one of them was a fluke where two of our own players bumped heads trying to tackle the same player. It's just a safer, more dependable way to tackle in general and I don't know why so many teams hesitate to implement it at all levels.
There was one study was deemed flawed because they used the brains of deceased people who had CTE and live subjects who thought that they had some form of CTE going into the tests instead of the normal randomly chosen group. So of course the test subject number will automatically be higher.
There are numerous newer reports (within the last couple of years) that have stated that while there still is an inherent risk for CTE when playing football. The risks are nowhere near as bad as the press has made it out to be. These newer reports also have football further down the list of sports for potential CTE behind soccer, hockey and even extreme sports. Remember. Terrible news sells. Good positive news, not so much.
Is this something that needs to be properly looked at and full discussed? Yes 100%. However it also has to be looked at factually and objectively to make sure that anything that is done, is done properly and not as a result of flawed data or by media pressure.
Well, isn't that even more of a reason to be cautious going forward?!
There isn't a single Neurologist in the country who would tell you that head trauma is good for the brain! Based on that simple fact, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that football isn't good for the brain either. And given how little the medical community knows about the human brain, I wouldn't take a back-seat approach to the issue if I were the league.
In SBXXV, Jeff Hostetler was visibly playing concussed.
In his case, it worked out for the best. For others, it didn't and doesn't.
I'm not sure where you're going with this line of thought.
Are you saying you disagree with Concussion Protocols?
I fully realize this is a minority position.
But the decision should be made by the team doctor and the player.
Right now, if a player even shows signs of a concussion, he is automatically out of the game and next week's game at the very least.
I fully realize this is a minority position.
But the decision should be made by the team doctor and the player.
Right now, if a player even shows signs of a concussion, he is automatically out of the game and next week's game at the very least.
It sucks, but to me, it's definitely a case of 'better safe than sorry.'
As for Sterling Shepherd, if he's already thinking that way, then I wonder how much effort he's gonna have chasing balls in traffic over the middle?
I'd hate to lose him, but he's got a fat bank account and a long life ahead of him.
Why put it at risk?
I fully realize this is a minority position.
But the decision should be made by the team doctor and the player.
Right now, if a player even shows signs of a concussion, he is automatically out of the game and next week's game at the very least.
Eric, totally agree with you are saying in this thread.
RG3. I know, it wasn't a concussion, but that's all you need to know about players, teams and their concerns for safety in the heat of the battle.
RG3. That's why the player and the team can't make the call.
If I were Shep I would retire. But I’m not a professional athlete. They are wired differently. They make these kinds of decisions differently. They can’t be protected from themselves or it would ruin the sport.
Superb point.
Also, why have games on Thursday?
The BS just keeps piling up.
Thanks for good posts.
Bad idea, actually awful idea.
The team has no incentive to protect the player.
Quote:
I think I've been pretty clear on this. They are now being too cautious with the concussions.
I fully realize this is a minority position.
But the decision should be made by the team doctor and the player.
Right now, if a player even shows signs of a concussion, he is automatically out of the game and next week's game at the very least.
Yeah - I'm good with that rule.
It sucks, but to me, it's definitely a case of 'better safe than sorry.'
As for Sterling Shepherd, if he's already thinking that way, then I wonder how much effort he's gonna have chasing balls in traffic over the middle?
I'd hate to lose him, but he's got a fat bank account and a long life ahead of him.
Why put it at risk?
You have no idea if they are being too cautious, hell they might not be cautious enough, we don’t really know. As for the player having a say, definitely NOT, especially if they are concussed can they really make a lucid decision and the pressure to get back in during the game is just too great.
Again, just to piss some folks off, I see some virtue signaling going on here. Football is a horrifically violent game that uses players and discards them, even when they don't suffer concussions.
As fans, we celebrate players who "suck" being cut, which usually means their lifestyles radically change for much worse. How many of these guys have very little education and few prospects after football? (See Bobby Johnson being forced to sell his Super Bowl ring and losing a finger in an industrial accident as just one example). How many can't walk normally in middle age? How many die in their 50s and early 60s?
But we're supposed to be more outraged over concussions that players have experienced in this sport since it was invented? We should all feel bad for ANY lasting physical or mental impact on a player. We shouldn't celebrate any bottom-tier player being fired and seeing his personal financial welfare radically diminish. We shouldn't celebrate another player getting injured on the field (I see the latter posts all of the time).
The good news is the NFL is taking this more seriously, trying new equipment, trying new rules. The bad news is that it doesn't seem to be working. Either that or they are simply reporting more concussions now (or I suspect, concussion-like symptoms).
Again, if you are personally appalled/disturbed by concussions being suffered in this sport, I can't fathom why you watch. Concussions will always be a part of this game. I would guess that there are about 20-30 concussions suffered every weekend in the NFL.
On top of all of this, just think about the lower levels of football. How many high school and college teams are qualified to "diagnose" a concussion and take appropriate steps? I would imagine very few.
As some have alluded to above, I think one of the central issues here is the gladiatorial nature of the game. We celebrate player toughness. We marvel at LT playing with a torn pectoral muscle. Or Jack Youngblood playing on a broken leg. Look at how Giants fans romanticize how beat up Eli Manning was in the 2011 Championship Game.
Meadowlander says Jeff Hostetler should have been pulled from Super Bowl XXV. I personally think that would have been a TRAGIC result, not only sacrificing the team's chance to win a title, but also sacrificing one of Hostetler's most amazing moments in his life.
My point in all of this? If you like football, accept that people are going to get hurt, and hurt horribly. How that is managed must be addressed, but there also has to be balance.
At the same time, the NFL is full of shit on much of this. If you want to protect players, stop expanding the # of games. Stop playing football on Thursday night.
Quote:
In comment 14640686 Eric from BBI said:
Quote: I completely understand the concern about head injuries, but I wonder if the pendulum has swung to far in the other direction.
Do you guys realize that under the new rules that Jeff Hostetler would not have been allowed to continue to play in Super Bowl XXV?
There is no single objective diagnosis for a concussion. Nor is there any definitive treatment for a concussion. It's absurd to believe the NFL is being too cautious here. If anything, the NFL concussion protocol is a band-aid on a problem that needs surgery.
Shepard should take the rest of the year off and reevaluate in the off-season.
While I agree, I will also disagree to some extent. The NFL is still using the flawed and incomplete reports that were initially used back as far as 2012 to 2015. It is a knee jerk reaction to a bunch of really bad press.
There was one study was deemed flawed because they used the brains of deceased people who had CTE and live subjects who thought that they had some form of CTE going into the tests instead of the normal randomly chosen group. So of course the test subject number will automatically be higher.
There are numerous newer reports (within the last couple of years) that have stated that while there still is an inherent risk for CTE when playing football. The risks are nowhere near as bad as the press has made it out to be. These newer reports also have football further down the list of sports for potential CTE behind soccer, hockey and even extreme sports. Remember. Terrible news sells. Good positive news, not so much.
Is this something that needs to be properly looked at and full discussed? Yes 100%. However it also has to be looked at factually and objectively to make sure that anything that is done, is done properly and not as a result of flawed data or by media pressure.
Source?
Really? Holy conspiracy theory.
It's all about the $.
There was a time when the game was quite lethal. There was a minority of fans who enjoyed it maybe, but the players and the majority of fans recognized the barbarism and those forces pushed the game in a safer direction.
And something totally crazy happened; the game exploded in popularity.
Football is a beautiful, cerebral, tactical, and physically wonderful game.
Dragging a guy down to an elbow or knee doesn't have to be blood sport. It's no more brutal than Judo.
It's a physical sport, and people will get injured. But with better medicine, technology, coaching, rules, and a dose of humanity from fans, football can have another renaissance in safety and popularity.
Brain safety will advance if the league, the players, and maybe most importantly the fans require it.
Maybe the worst among us get off on the kill shot, gladiator elements. I tend to think those among us are dodos.
Of course they should. But you know the answer. The owners don't want to pay out more money to the proletariat.
Unless you are Jason Witten or Ben Watson...
Quote:
gets into a player's mind, its generally only a matter of time.
Once a player gets into the NFL, it's generally only a matter of time.
Once they're born, really.
Turns out 225mph+ for stock cars causes INSANE accidents. FANTASTIC TV and really wonderful racing, but guys were getting maimed and killed at an unacceptable rate.
So now, restictor plates basically mean you're watching trains race - it's all about the draft, boring as hell, viewership and attendance in decline.
The sport is dying because of safety.
I'm good with that. I wasn't watching to watch people die.
You'd drive home with a carload of contusions and bruises. All fun - but we didn't realize people were literally dying there.
Eventually litigation and insurers catch up to entertainment that doesn't take care of it's performers or it's audience.
The NFL is doomed to the same fate as NASCAR, as Action Park.
It's nobody's fault - it's an unsustainable model.
Not as much fun to watch slow racing, not as much fun to watch football when all your favorite players are on IR, but that's the nature of the business.
Turns out 225mph+ for stock cars causes INSANE accidents. FANTASTIC TV and really wonderful racing, but guys were getting maimed and killed at an unacceptable rate.
So now, restictor plates basically mean you're watching trains race - it's all about the draft, boring as hell, viewership and attendance in decline.
The sport is dying because of safety.
I'm good with that. I wasn't watching to watch people die.
Yeah I hate restrictor plates, too. But while the accidents were spectacularly bad, who was actually maimed? Last guy I remember was Dale Earnhardt in a basically innocuous accident on the last lap of the Daytona 500 and that was because his seat belt broke after it had been altered for some reason. Those cars are built like tanks - maybe safer than tanks.
I'm just drawing a blank and I was a huge race fan up until 10 years ago, maybe.
I love football for two reasons, the chess match that goes on, and the inherent violence of the game.
Sneakers is 100% on point here. It's going to be quite a while (if ever) before we get to the point where we know what an "acceptable" level of brain trauma. CTE is a result of cumulative hits to the head, along with possible genetic issues that may make some people more vulnerable.
What IS known is that cumulative hits to the head for those exposed 12 years or younger result in worst outcomes than those over 12. Also, those with longer careers have a greater chance for CTE.
I suspect in the next few years, we will see "Smart" helmets in the NFL that record impacts real time. Perhaps we might see the equivalent of a "Pitchers Count" in football, so if you get a certain level of impacts, you will need to sit out for a while.
I still think that in the meantime, we need to make rule changes that force tackling to go back to what it used to be back in the early part of the 20th century (form tackles, not impact blows, similar to Rugby tackling). You didn't really see the impact/using the helmet tackling on defense before the impact of TV (especially ESPN, who glorified it and made it popular).
The current NFL rules don't go far enough, and actually are counter productive (they limit not hitting the head, and not hitting too low, but they don't do enough to stop non form blow tackles. I think some sort of "softer" helmet (with better materials than leather) would be useful, people won't lead with the head if they are afraid of hurting themselves.
And I don't agree with all about the game being "less" exciting if you take the killer impact blows out. Rugby is just as physical, but a much safer sport because of the emphasis on form tackling.
Anyway, when you get the constant injuries because of impact tackling, it's not so exciting when your favorite players are on the IR, is it? That's the reality we face today.
Quote:
Yeah I hate restrictor plates, too. But while the accidents were spectacularly bad, who was actually maimed? Last guy I remember was Dale Earnhardt in a basically innocuous accident on the last lap of the Daytona 500 and that was because his seat belt broke after it had been altered for some reason. Those cars are built like tanks - maybe safer than tanks.
I'm just drawing a blank and I was a huge race fan up until 10 years ago, maybe.
Bill Elliot set the NASCAR lap speed record at Talledega in 1987 at 212 mph.
Restrictor plates arrived in 1988 for safety and 'competition' - pre-restrictor plate racing commonly had only a few cars on the lead lap by the end, Earnhardt's death is actually typical of the shitty racing I speak of with a TON of cars on the lead lap at the finish, a late caution and people driving like assholes to the checkered flag.
Earnhardt died driving the way he always did. Being an asshole to the end, this time blocking faster traffic so his kid or teammate could win. Noble, but reckless and that time finally cost him. (he'd done it COUNTLESS times before)