- Revision—Brevity and Clarity
- Magical Dependency
- Revision—Scholarship Plus and Minus
- Final Polish Workshop
Taking helmets out of football is a very counterintuitive idea itself.
Taking helmets out of football is counterintuitive.
It may seem as if this will hurt the players, but in fact it will help protect the players.
Playing unprotected will help players, not hurt them.
No helmets will make keep players from taking risky, hard hits, and cause them to have more caution when playing the game.
Playing bareheaded will keep players from tackling head-first, sparing them from head, neck, and brain injuries.
They all will be protected from severe concussions, spinal cord injuries, and developing CTE later in life.
They will be protected from severe concussions, spinal cord injuries, and late-developing CTEs.
There is however, some opposition to this counterintuitive idea.
There is, however, some opposition to this counterintuitive idea.
Many people feel as if there would be no change to the amount of head injuries sustained in a football game.
Many people feel there would be no reduction to the number of head injuries sustained in a football game.
They feel as if players will still hit hard, and make risky plays.
They feel players will still hit hard and make risky plays.
Today football helmets are evolving more and more everyday.
Football helmets are evolving.
Risk compensation is when protective equipment prompts individuals to act more aggressively which increases the potential for injury.
“Risk compensation” is the tendency of players to risk injury through reckless play when equipment upgrades make them feel invulnerable.
If you give an individual better protective equipment, they are going to have an increase in aggression, causing more injuries.
More-protective equipment encourages reckless play, causing more injuries.
Helmets may have been upgraded, and made to absorb hits, but they still do the same damage.
Today’s helmets absorb more hits, but players’ brains suffer the same damage.