Bobref

If it works for you, that’s really all that matters. You’re getting the desired result (eliminating concussions), whatever the cause, so keep on doing what you’re doing. Having said that, I highly doubt that your practices control all the variables that could have an effect on the outcome and, therefore, you cannot draw scientifically valid cause and effect conclusions. And one trainer’s opinion is not the only one who doubts the effectiveness of Guardian caps in preventing concussions. Try the American Academy of Neurology. https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/1347, or, more recently, the Stanford School of Medicine https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2023/03/28/padded-helmet-cover-shows-little-protection-for-football-players/

This is why anecdotal evidence is insufficient to allow valid conclusions to be drawn. “I can't remember the last concussion we had in practice. I don't think we've had one since we've worn the skull caps.” This is useful information, but not nearly enough to draw any conclusions about cause and effect. The scientific method works … when it is properly used.

I edited my answer to provide some more specific details on how the device works.

The device was called a Q-Collar. The theory was that the collar, by compressing the internal jugular veins in the neck, increased the volume of blood in the brain’s vessels, leaving less room for the brain to slosh around inside the skull. Theoretically, less sloshing = fewer and/or less severe concussions. I don’t recall any scientific data showing it actually worked.

I seem to recall that the “study” was a very small one, certainly too small and without the scientific rigor needed to draw firm conclusions. You and I can speculate all we want about the impact a single play might have had in a game with well over 100 scrimmage plays. But the fact is that the decidedly better team won … decisively.

🤣😂

Since I was on the Merrillville sideline, and not in the end zone, I didn’t see the play well enough to express an opinion at that time. I don’t like to express an opinion without having facts to justify it … unlike a few others on this thread. After I saw the Hudl video, I freely conceded it was the wrong call. Glad that it turned out to be meaningless in the grand scheme of things. One man’s “cowardice” is a more thoughtful man’s “prudence.”

Is there anyone who thinks Merrillville was the better team on the field that night? I haven’t heard anyone say that. The final margin saw the team that had the multi-hour road trip win by 18 pts. I saw both teams multiple times that season. 18 pts. seems about right.

Far better organized and disciplined, which translated to superior execution. Check the penalty and turnover stats. For example, Merrillville had 8 pre-snap penalties … in the first half. If Merrillville gets the TD on the wrong call in the end zone, they would have led 14-7 … in the second period. The outcome would have been the same.

This is what I said: “The back judge let a D1 player run by him, so he was in a poor position to make a call on the end line. He got it wrong.”

I suppose the 8 false starts Merrillville had in the first half were bad calls, too. 😆🤣😂

The call in the back of the end zone was in the 2nd quarter with the score 7-7. It ended up 41-23.

Thank goodness!

What is the difference between a “horrible” call and one that is merely “wrong?” I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored. The back judge let a D1 player run by him, so he was in a poor position to make a call on the end line. He got it wrong. And I stand by my statement that Westfield was the obviously superior team that night. That TD might have made a difference in the score, but the outcome wasn’t in doubt in the 2nd half.

And no one would find such a self-study credible.

I believe what IO was saying 😉is that Guardian caps and other similar technologies have been found to reduce linear acceleration of the head in collisions by as much as 11%, but only reduce angular acceleration by about 2%. And, of course, angular acceleration is what produces concussions. At least, that’s what the American Academy of Neurology says. Interesting that this study was published in 2015, and there are still no good studies demonstrating that these devices reduce the risk of concussion. https://www.aan.com/PressRoom/Home/PressRelease/1347 HELMET ADD-ONS MAY NOT LOWER CONCUSSION RISK IN ATHLETES WASHINGTON, DC - Football helmet add-ons such as outer soft-shell layers, spray treatments, helmet pads and fiber sheets may not significantly help lower the risk of concussions in athletes, according to a study released today that will be presented at the American Academy of Neurology’s 67th Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, April 18 to 25, 2015. “Our study suggests that despite many products targeted at reducing concussions in players, there is no magic concussion prevention product on the market at this time,” said study author John Lloyd, PhD, of BRAINS, Inc. in San Antonio, Fla., and a member of the American Academy of Neurology. Researchers modified the standard drop test system, approved by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment, by using a crash test dummy head and neck to more realistically simulate head impact. Sensors were placed in the dummy’s head to measure linear and angular rotational responses to helmet impacts at 10, 12 and 14 miles per hour. Using this device, BRAINS researchers evaluated four football helmet add-ons: Guardian Cap, UnEqual Technologies’ Concussion Reduction Technology, Shockstrips and Helmet Glide. Riddell Revolution Speed and Xenith X1 football helmets were outfitted with each of these add-ons and impacted five times from drop heights of 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 meters. Linear acceleration, angular velocity and angular accelerations of the head were measured in response to impacts. The study found that compared to helmets without the add-ons, those fitted with the Guardian Cap, Concussion Reduction Technology and Shockstrips reduced linear accelerations by about 11 percent, but only reduced angular accelerations by 2 percent, while Helmet Glide was shown to have no effect. “These findings are important because angular accelerations are believed to be the major biomechanical forces involved in concussion,” said Lloyd. “Few add-on products have undergone even basic biomechanical evaluation. Hopefully, our research will lead to more rigorous testing of helmets and add-ons.” The study was supported by BRAINS, Inc. and Seeing Stars Foundation. To learn more about concussion, please visit www.aan.com/concussion.

I was there that night. The back judge got one wrong on a bang-bang play on the end line. But Westfield was by far the better team that night.

Helmet add ons that purport to reduce concussions are all the rage now. The NFL even mandates them in certain situations. But what is the science behind them and, more importantly, do they work? I’d like to hear about your experiences, both pro & con.

Done. Thanks.

That doesn’t work for me, maybe because I’m using an iPad? Help!

I am not a big fan of the manner in which the Rulebook deals with “defenseless” players. It does a great job of defining what is meant by “defenseless,” and gives helpful examples of defenseless players. But, IMO, does not do a very good job of telling us what sort of contact against such a player is legal, and what constitutes unnecessary roughness, and is a foul. The new definitions contained in Rule 2-32-16, however, provide that guidance … but only with regard to defenseless receivers (or interceptors, as the rule applies equally to offense and defense). I sought, and received, an official interpretation of the new rule from Asst. Commissioner Faulkens. Regardless of how awkwardly the new rule goes about it, the official interpretation is as follows: In the case of a defenseless receiver, the only types of forcible contact permitted against such a receiver are: Contact initiated with open hands and arms extended, just like in the blindside block rule. Contact during an attempted “form tackle,” i.e., where the opponent’s contact includes an attempt to “wrap up” the receiver. Contact occurring in the course of a legitimate attempt to make a play on the football. Any forcible contact against a defenseless receiver that does not fit into one of these three categories is a foul, either for unnecessary roughness or targeting (if the contact is above the shoulders). No more ESPN highlight hits on receivers, trying to separate them from the ball. Prediction: In the coming years we will see this type of specific protection extended to all types of defenseless players.

First Amendment, anyone?

Maybe the easiest prediction I ever made on here. He gone! I’m just waiting for the other shoe to drop. Can you say “lawsuit?” Edited July 11 by Bobref

I worked a lot of games for those two schools. They were my favorite places to work for many reasons. Just two great, classy programs.