Jump to content

Hastings using new "breakthrough" helmet design


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

The point of the design is the deformation of the shell takes the energy away from the hit so there isn't anything to transfer to the neck. It absorbs the blow vs trying to deflect it, which still passes on all of the energy from the part of the blow that isn't deflected.

It works like crumple zones in a car.  The objective is to burn off all of the energy by doing all of the damage BEFORE said energy from the blow can get to what is being protected.

It's not going to do much more to protect the neck from a helmet to face mask or ear hole kind of hit, but it should do a lot for crown to crown, shoulder to crown, and the like kind of hits. It also should dramatically reduce concussion risk for any blow to the head.

Yep....and  IMO, an unfortunate side effect is that kids once again think they are not at risk of head injury (not thinking about neck) and will feel free to lower their head at the point of collision.   BUT.....not sure what comes first....the idea that a helmet makes a player invulnerable...or that players think they are invulnerable and therefore need more protection. 

I watch a little rugby and Aussie rules football from time to time...and players sans helmets rarely lower their heads when contact is inevitable...have to tackled between knees and shoulders and it's still an exciting game with some serious contact.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites





Just now, AU64 said:

Yep....and  IMO, an unfortunate side effect is that kids once again think they are not at risk of head injury (not thinking about neck) and will feel free to lower their head at the point of collision.   BUT.....not sure what comes first....the idea that a helmet makes a player invulnerable...or that players think they are invulnerable and therefore need more protection. 

I watch a little rugby and Aussie rules football from time to time...and players sans helmets rarely lower their heads when contact is inevitable...have to tackled between knees and shoulders and it's still an exciting game with some serious contact.    

There are a lot of arguments that the equipment is directly to blame for the growing injury rate... the players feel less of the pain, so they feel free to hit harder and abandon technique that protects them. It's not uncommon... people are motivated by positive and negative stimuli. Take away the negative and the effort to prevent it fades away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

There are a lot of arguments that the equipment is directly to blame for the growing injury rate... the players feel less of the pain, so they feel free to hit harder and abandon technique that protects them. It's not uncommon... people are motivated by positive and negative stimuli. Take away the negative and the effort to prevent it fades away.

It's a very good point. People like to talk about how tough the guys who used to play with leather helmets were. Ditto for rugby players. And they're right. But they didn't and don't collide the way the modern football player does because they aren't emboldened by their protective gear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

It's a very good point. People like to talk about how tough the guys who used to play with leather helmets were. Ditto for rugby players. And they're right. But they didn't and don't collide the way the modern football player does because they aren't emboldened by their protective gear. 

True, they aren't emboldened by protective gear...but they are not deterred by the lack of it either. 

Check this video....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heoO_5MvZ0w 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

It's a very good point. People like to talk about how tough the guys who used to play with leather helmets were. Ditto for rugby players. And they're right. But they didn't and don't collide the way the modern football player does because they aren't emboldened by their protective gear. 

That being said... those rugby guys are NUTS!  I worked with a guy who played rugby... he could barely walk for 3 days after a match, and then a couple days after recovering, he'd be out there again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imagejpegYou guys remember Auburn Alum Steve Wallace, 3 x Super Bowl Champ and 3 x All Pro. He was Lord Helmet before big helmets were cool, and no body told him he looked like a goober. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AU64 said:

True, they aren't emboldened by protective gear...but they are not deterred by the lack of it either. 

 

15 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

That being said... those rugby guys are NUTS!  I worked with a guy who played rugby... he could barely walk for 3 days after a match, and then a couple days after recovering, he'd be out there again.

They're definitely nuts. They're even nuts off the field. Their traditions are insane. And they're far tougher than normal human beings.

Perhaps another way of saying it is that they're more likely to leave the field bleeding, but less likely to leave with neck/spinal trauma? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course there is Aussie Rules football....where LSU has been getting kickers perhaps?  I think this is where guys who are too rough for Rugby end up.   Saw several 15 yard penalties for head shots.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why fans care about safety anyway... I ain't seen a fan yet who was hurt by a good football lick!  Keep the players looking cool...with slick gear and nice uniforms.  Don't ugly up the aesthetics with "dark helmet" safety silliness.

 

 

:beer2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...