I agree with your points about head injuries, bob jengr. Even when the players weren't 6'-7' and 320 pounds, they were apparently sustianing some brain damage. The list is long -- John Mackey, Mike Webster, Bill Wade, Dave Duerson and many, many others have succcumbed to problems at young ages.
"I think it's only right that technology be applied to sports relative to the equipment used by the athletes. I suppose I'm OK with instant replay but it does drag out the various games and quite frankly, it appears to me the "refs" do a great job. "
Bobengr, it has to be used for all types of sports activities.
"Its true Mydesign that tech will support for the fine decision making in sport. But when it comes to more lively energetic sports like soccer and I would believe that sometimes it will effect to liveliness of the game and it will diversify the morel from the game."
Pubudu, we had similar thoughts while implementing the technology in cricket, but it get widely appreciated rather than criticism.
William K, you were probably being clear and I just didn't get it. When I was a kid, we didn't use any equipment while playing backyard football -- tackle or two-hand touch. Occasionally one of us would go down on the sidewalk that constituted the 50-yard line, and occasionally that would result in a concussion. But that last time I checked Facebook, we are all still alive.
I like your comments on Wrigley Field, Rich. As a semi-regular at Wrigley, I agree that the lack of technology is part of the park's charm. But that lack of technology is also a double-edged sword. The bathrooms there are notorious for having advanced only marginally beyond the invention of indoor plumbing. If the challenge is to use sports technology judiciously, I would say the Wrigley Field bathrooms would be a good place to start.
Excellent post Rich. I think it's only right that technology be applied to sports relative to the equipment used by the athletes. I suppose I'm OK with instant replay but it does drag out the various games and quite frankly, it appears to me the "refs" do a great job. Most calls remain in force. I saw a fascinating interview with Terry Bradshaw just last week. He was discussing the NFL and the legal action taken by the players' union relative to head injuries. The NFL "caved" and probably should have. The players today are nine feet tall and weigh 800 pounds. Any protective gear that can be developed should be used in these high impact sports
On one thing we DO agree.... this blog has morphed into a multi-faceted one. But, sorry, I don't agree with much of your analysis. Mental maturity & outlook on life in general USUALLY is the product of physical age. I certainly wouldn't expect a teenager to have the same outlook for caution in ANY endeavor as a person in their mid 30s & beyond. I think accident statistics in general bear out that fact. Look at the number of highway deaths involving teenagers & young drivers vs. drivers in their 40s & beyond. The statistics are overwhelming. Young folks, especially young males have an attitude that they can test "death" and NOT get burned. A very blatant example is with motorcycle riding. Here in FLA, we have a "no helmet required" statute. I personally travel a very arterial hwy on a daily basis to & from my employment. NOT one single day goes by that I don't see a young fellow acting out some very dangerous, HOLLYWOODesque stunt to the amazement & chagrin of all in the immediate area. That IS pure testosterone at work!!!
Regarding pro-sports players & the game..... While I agree that for us spectators, it certainly IS entertainment, for the participants, it's a career, just as being a doctor is a career, or being an engineer is a career. So, that doesn't mean that because it IS entertainment to us, the participants shouldn't have the advantage of all the safety available for their sport.
Furthermore, regarding young sports players (grammar school & high school)... when they see their favorite players on TV banging heads, rushing as if they were "D9" CATS, it instills in their heads an "I CAN DO THAT" mental attitude, and when they apply those tactics on the field, they come out the losers. Again, statistics ARE showing that school-level sports (including some college sports) ARE becoming MORE intense with the probability of serious life-threatening injury OR death.
I stand by my opinion that "better" technology of equipment IS partially to blame for the increase in serious accidents on the playing field. It is just one more example of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Rob, What I was hoping to say is that while of course students should have safety equipment appropriate for the sport they are involved in, they must still recognize that the sports are not risk-free and injury free. I see a mindset among many that all activities must not include any risk at all, even for the most unqualified and those incapable or unwilling to avoid any hazard.
Of course this does mean that all must play acording to the rules, which hopefully are such as to avoid a lot of the problems, but at the same time each individual does need to pay attention to their own safety.
I did not realize that I was being unclear in that aspect.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.