NY: Offensive Play

[jkypoo]

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/19/091019fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=1

One evening in August, Kyle Turley was at a bar in Nashville with his wife and some friends. It was one of the countless little places in the city that play live music. He’d ordered a beer, but was just sipping it, because he was driving home. He had eaten an hour and a half earlier. Suddenly, he felt a sensation of heat. He was light-headed, and began to sweat. He had been having episodes like that with increasing frequency during the past year—headaches, nausea. One month, he had vertigo every day, bouts in which he felt as if he were stuck to a wall. But this was worse. He asked his wife if he could sit on her stool for a moment. The warmup band was still playing, and he remembers saying, “I’m just going to take a nap right here until the next band comes on.” Then he was lying on the floor, and someone was standing over him. “The guy was freaking out,” Turley recalled. “He was saying, ‘Damn, man, I couldn’t find a pulse,’ and my wife said, ‘No, no. You were breathing.’ I’m, like, ‘What? What?’ ”[/Quote]

More after link. Much more...

Malcolm Gladwell writes this piece examining the short and long term effects of trauma caused by hits to the head in football. He also compares football to dog fighting. It is a longer article, but interesting and a fairly easy read.

He also answers questions on his article here:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/ask/2009/10/questions-for-gladwell.html

In the Q&A he elaborates, gives new information, and offers his opinion.

I am posting this article and bringing this up because Gladwell was on PTI today. He had some interesting things to say. To paraphrase, he spoke about football evolving into a league with weight limits, where lineman don't put their hand in the dirt, and where impact is generally limited. There was also mention about congressional hearings on the matter later this month. When asked if he thought the sport would eventually be banned, he responded that it will more likely fizzle away.

While I am not paranoid about the league going away, there is also mention in the Q&A about changes to any new collective bargaining agreement that may be signed that will allow players to sue the NFL. This would mean that the NFL would have to take active steps to ensure the safety of the players and help guarantee that they will not suffer from relatively early onset of dementia due to their playing career. Who knows what those steps might be.

While I am not paranoid, it is a little worrisome.

I love this sport.

I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is: Is it really that different than dog fighting?

[darklight1216]

My first thought was that comparing football to dogfighting is a bit of an exaggeration. However, when I consider the fact that football players have an average lifespan of 55 years, (52 for linemen) the notion doesn't seem so farfetched.

[jkypoo]

My first thought was that comparing football to dogfighting is a bit of an exaggeration. However, when I consider the fact that football players have an average lifespan of 55 years, (52 for linemen) the notion doesn't seem so farfetched.

Yeah, when I saw him on PTI I though he was a quack.

But when I got to thinking about it...it gets a little fuzzy.

And I didn't know that players weren't allowed to sue the NFL and the NFL didn't, until recently, even consider paying out disability.

However...they do get paid millions.

It's just a weird juxtaposition.

[OWUeagleMD]

Man, Gladwell never ceases to amaze me. Such a great writer.

[Eli to Burress]

Here's the problem for me with the comparison. Football player's are on the field because they want to be. They are being paid millions of dollars to play a game they love. No one forces them onto a football field.

The dogs on the other hand are being forced into a cage and are forced to kill or be killed with no reward in the end. These dogs could be just as happy living at the foot of the owner's bed. They aren't given the choice though.

This guy's reaching for a connection that just isn't there. One is there of their own free will and being rewarded for the risk they know they are taking. The other is being forced into a cage where it's kill or be killed. The only reward for the dog is to live to fight another day whether they like it or not.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Man, Gladwell never ceases to amaze me. Such a great writer.

Ditto.

I kind of wish he stayed away from the dog fighting comparison though. That's what people are going to get stuck on and he could have made his point without it.

[jkypoo]

Here's the problem for me with the comparison. Football player's are on the field because they want to be. They are being paid millions of dollars to play a game they love. No one forces them onto a football field.

The dogs on the other hand are being forced into a cage and are forced to kill or be killed with no reward in the end. These dogs could be just as happy living at the foot of the owner's bed. They aren't given the choice though.

This guy's reaching for a connection that just isn't there. One is there of their own free will and being rewarded for the risk they know they are taking. The other is being forced into a cage where it's kill or be killed. The only reward for the dog is to live to fight another day whether they like it or not.

I kind of wish he stayed away from the dog fighting comparison though. That's what people are going to get stuck on and he could have made his point without it.

The following is taken from the Q&A. I just realized the link to the Q&A is wrong and have since fixed it. If you enjoyed the article but see breaks in logic, as I did, the Q&A tackles most of that. I'm still not convinced that the comparison is valid, but he does a good job of attempting to keep it alive.

QUESTION FROM EUGENE: The dogs don’t choose to participate in dog fights. Owners prey on the dog’s loyalty to stage the fight. Football players choose to play football. Even after their careers end due to injury, whether by brain injury or otherwise, football players say they would do it all over again. Can you comment? Thanks.

MALCOLM GLADWELL: This is the most common response I’ve gotten to the piece. I guess I would say that I think consent is a red herring. First, the players currently playing didn’t “consent” to getting dementia. We’re just finding out about this problem now. In any case, our social obligation to reduce the risk of any endeavor is independent of the question of consent. When I get into a car, I freely consent to the risks associated with driving. But that doesn’t relieve society of the obligation to make the roads as safe as possible.[/Quote]

The players agree to play a game. They did not sign up to become disabled or possibly die. Whether that should be a known inherent risk is debatable. But much like the dogs, the players don't ask to put their lives or futures on the line. And since the dementia findings are fairly new, no player really had the option to opt out. Like I said, I'm still not sure of a concrete comparison, but there is enough in this to keep the comparison alive.

[jkypoo]

I would also like to reiterate that the most worrisome part of this article for me is not the comparison between dog fighting and the NFL, but the possible ramifications of the dementia research and the potential impact on the game that we all love. I know that is a very selfish statement, but I really, really, really love me some football.

[FightingIrishman]

He should be more concerned with sports like boxing and the ultimate fighting leagues rather than football. How about rugby? Even Ice Hockey.....

AT least in American football you wear a ton of protective gear.

[Vicious]

Eh, carbon nanostructures are going to steadily become cheaper and cheaper and eventually everything will be made out of them, including t-shirts and protective gear. No human will be able to create enough force to damage another human when wearing it.

[Perky72]

He should be more concerned with sports like boxing and the ultimate fighting leagues rather than football. How about rugby? Even Ice Hockey.....

AT least in American football you wear a ton of protective gear.

He chose dogfighting solely due to the Michael Vick connection, basically using it for an easy link of comparison. Quite a dumb decision--I agree with those above, the consent/free choice difference is just too massive for the comparison to be taken seriously. The article was good about raising questions of safety, of whether us fans will acknowledge risks vs. the reward of watching (though he drew the wrong conclusion there), but it would've been much better without any reference to dog-fighting. What's more, I end up feeling pretty damned offended towards the end, with this, my bold:

For me, as a Jewish kid from Long Island, I’d be just as happy if we did that. But I don’t know if the fans would be happy with that. So what else do you do?”

Casson is right. There is nothing else to be done, not so long as fans stand and cheer. We are in love with football players, with their courage and grit, and nothing else—neither considerations of science nor those of morality—can compete with the destructive power of that love.

Maybe he's merely waxing poetic, but this explicitly claims that we fans are incapable of balancing morality with fanhood. Which is exactly the problem with dogfighting fans. The comparison again doesn't work--dogfighting is rightfully illegal and reviled because we recognize it as completely immoral. If we were to recognize football as completely immoral, there's no reason to think we'd react the opposite way. His earlier points of fans okay with other safety progress in NASCAR and the like reinforce this position, but for some reason he decides to add the above travesty as his concluding point. Bizarre.

Some additional thoughts:

*as he writes, the research is new, so any light it shines on football, fans, or safety concerns are rather premature. Because of course, 99% of us (and players) may have never heard of this type of injury. That doesn't stop him from passing judgement and assuming for us what our reaction will be.

*football isn't as risky as dogfighting. Additionally the risks are very different--most dog injuries are acute, they happen immediately and their effects are immediate; the football injuries he describes are chronic, slow to build, show to be noticed. Half a football team isn't killed outright or severely injured every game. While the sub-concussive brain injuries may be a hidden risk, the studies are very nascent and no strong conclusions can be made.

*Even if the conclusion was 90% have the injury (the damaged portion of the brain that shows up under cat-scan), that doesn't mean 90% end up like Turley or Webster. It's possible most don't suffer much ill effects, or certainly nothing comparable with dogs. I'd guess it's probable even, because retired linemen are not apparently 90% dead/demented after 10 years away from the league.

*To the Turley thing, I think Gladwell is relying too much on specific anecdotes to form a conclusion for the general.

*Ignoring the dog comparison, the moral question is libertarian concern (right to subject oneself to great risk) vs. the social concern of protecting people from their own choices. It's a good point of debate, with the extreme of the libertarian position being that we'd allow 1v1 deathmatches. The extreme of the protection position that ALL sports would be outlawed (even golf, someone could pull a hamstring), as well as most jobs (no construction, etc.)

*The only way that wouldn't apply is if we set an arbitrary line to where the risk is not sufficient to override a player's choice. This is how it's done already, and will likely always be done. And despite this study, or because it's new, it seems clear to me football is quite comfortably within the margins that morally make it an acceptable choice.

*He's not a football fan, and his predicting its demise seems quite biased. Perhaps in an intellectualist's utopia everyone plays chess or competes using virtual reality robots, but in the real world football is very popular, is NOT incredibly dangerous, and unlikely to go away any time soon. Safety gear is always being improved, and in the event sub-concussive injury truly is a large risk, other changes will be made. More examinations including from independent doctors with the ability to force retirement, more follow-up treatment after playing days are over, etc.

*His comparison point of "gameness" of dogs and football players is okay, but rather generic and could apply to any sport, any activity, any venture in life. Not enough to justify why he'd pick dogfighting of all things.

[tr1]

However...they do get paid millions.

Very few have been paid millions.

[Big Blue Joe]

Very few have been paid millions.

But now they all get paid 100's of thousands. Even the practice squad players get at least that much.

[Warhead36]

He should be more concerned with sports like boxing and the ultimate fighting leagues rather than football. How about rugby? Even Ice Hockey.....

AT least in American football you wear a ton of protective gear.

Even with all the great, football players still suffer the most. How many other sports have guys that weight 250+ lbs. running 4.5 40 times and just straight up smashing into other players with similar body types? It's just straight up chaos.

Good article. Interesting to see what happens. Could football fall like boxing did? I don't think it will as long as us fans keep paying our money to watch and support the game. Hell even boxers(at least the great ones)still get paid tens of millions. I don't see football going anywhere as long as players still get paid millions to play.