AHC: football in 1960s becomes more side to side, esp. high school and youth

And it does so out of concern regarding long-term brain health and growing realization on the part of parents that helmets do not really protect. I mean, it anticipates modern worries and studies of former players by about 50 years, so it's quite a challenge.

On the other hand, the 60s was the time of energetic competition between the AFL and NFL, so perhaps either or both would be open to radical rule changes or at least a series of medium steps. In addition, the Green Bay Packers were famous for their power sweep which is somewhat of a side to side play.

So, how does safer football come about?
 
Last edited:
This seems very much in contradiction to the idea of moving the ball forward to score. While the zone plays similar to the Packer sweep and the various forms of the Option/Wishbone attacks run in college at this time attepted to move the ball to the outside of the formations, you then start seeing defenses spread out, creating a lack of depth and opening up the defensive secondary. The passing game is not going to go away, and thusly the type of hard hits that generate head trauma.

At the time, in the 1960's, there was little protection for either the receivers or the quarterbacks. The head slap was still in the defensive playbook for linemen and the offensive linemen could not have their hands engaged with the opponent or it would be called holding. Equipment had also not developed to the extent that it has today with more shock reducing materials and the general ethos of the coaches and players was that it was "unmanley" to go out injured to begin with. "Rub some dirt on it and get back out there." Players from this era talk about playing with broken fingers, torn up knees, a multitude of injuries. Head injuries are the hardest ones to properly identify and to determine the long term consequences of.
 
I agree. It's quite a challenge. The coaching ethos of the times was very much to "tough it out."

But, if there had been substantial medical study(ies) in the early 60s and maybe some of the personalities or details could catch people's attention and be talked about. For example, the idea that with an abrupt stop, the brain collides with the inside of the skull and some short pithy phrase to describe this. And the idea that a concussion doesn't necessarily mean loss of consciousness, and in most cases does not but has other symptoms.

And please remember, the new AFL with its emphasis on passing in some ways produced more exciting football. Maybe some NFL owners are worried about this, as well as the image of professional football from the long-term health consequences. And maybe a handful of owners become enamored with the idea that open field running is the genius of the game and we should promote this.

And whatever the pros do, college and high school is likely to follow. Plus, if the health concerns are widely discussed, leagues at this level will gave upward pressure from parents.
 
Definitely make it more of a passing game.
Also eliminate most of the stoppages that give players a chance to catch their breath. A "running" game would cause fewer concussions, need less armour, etc.
 
As a former high school football coach, I will say that the changes in the game do trickle down, but very slowly especially where I was at. We were still running with 5 man defensive fronts and having to worry about the flexed wishbone offense.

So much of what teams do with their play has to do with the talents of the players that are available, especially at the lower levels of play. And while there was some data even so far back as the 1960's about concussions, it was not openly talked about among coaches, let alone players. In the 60's, NFL players were still needing off-season jobs because the pay wasn't enough to live off of. Now, by the end of the decade and with the success of the AFL, pay had improved, but you are still not dealing with players who would risk the chance to play a sport professionally.

Contracts were not guarenteed, and to my knowledge still aren't. If you are too badly hurt, you simply aren't resigned for the next year. If you are a concussion case, you aren't resigned and unless your talent outweighs your risk of injury, then you have lost a means of making a very good living. Where are you going to make a similar living?
 
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that horizontal or running oriented football produces fewer concussions. Look at Mike Webster. I think his concussions were going to happen either way and it may actually be a net positive for the lineman if they do more pass blocking. LBs most likely hit harder on run plays regardles as to whether they are outside or inside. Lineman pulling out on the sweep are running at full speed rather than just hitting forward. The only ones it makes a difference for are the DBs and WRs. And its not as if Daryl Stingley affected the game at all.
 
As a former high school football coach, I will say that the changes in the game do trickle down, but very slowly especially where I was at. We were still running with 5 man defensive fronts and having to worry about the flexed wishbone offense.
In the late 90s, I taught one year of high school math. I did not do well in the area of classroom conduct, among other issues letting students gray-area me too often. And frankly, I was not organized enough as a teacher.

Being very optimistic, do you think some starters might be mature enough to stand up for other starters? For example, something along the lines of, "Hey, Robert. Hey, Man, you may not be okay. You need to sit out for a play and see if you're okay. You do. I'll walk over to the sidelines with you."

I read a good chunk of Gregg Easterbrook's book The King of Sports: Why Football Must Be Reformed. Some of the book is a paean to Virginia Tech and perhaps deservedly so, for it does sound like a well run program. I also heard Gregg speak on C-SPAN. He said modern spread offenses increase the risk of head injuries, often putting five receivers and running backs at full speed and maybe six DBs plus linebackers. In addition, the spread allows more plays per game.

PS I am a fan. I have fond memories of watching Superbowl XIII between the Steelers and Cowboys when I was sixteen. And the college option play where the quarterback pulls the ball back and keeps it at the very last second is a thing of beauty.
 
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that horizontal or running oriented football produces fewer concussions. Look at Mike Webster. . .
I was kind of visualizing a side-to-side battle and jockeying for position over maybe the course of five yards. So, no abrupt stops to the forward motion of the head.

Okay, that may not be radical enough. So, maybe the NFL owners do not want to merely copy what the AFL has done as far as loosening up passing. so, the NFL by definition declares that a turnover cannot take place on a running play. If the ball is fumbled, it's merely the end of the play. So, it would make for some really wild laterals and really wild, loose carrying of the football. A good runner could at times use it as a counterbalance and to help shift momentum. In addition, add a little spice in that passes are truly risky plays.

And for safety, maybe one shoulder in front of the player and hand around other side counts as a stop. That is, much more like rugby(?)
 
I'm confused about the phrase "side-to-side"? Could you please explain what you mean?

I mean, if you're asking for football to become safer, then possibly you could have Chuck Bednarik's hit on Frank Gifford become a bigger deal, which could lead to more player safety and stricter rules. But really, the nature of football is dangerous. When the goal of the game is to tackle the opponent, there's going to be rough stuff either way. You'll have to change the fundamental rules of football, which will make the game unrecognizable and many fans will lose interest. In my opinion, there's no way to make football truly safe unless we have more technologically advanced helmets.
 
I was kind of visualizing a side-to-side battle and jockeying for position over maybe the course of five yards. So, no abrupt stops to the forward motion of the head.

Okay, that may not be radical enough. So, maybe the NFL owners do not want to merely copy what the AFL has done as far as loosening up passing. so, the NFL by definition declares that a turnover cannot take place on a running play. If the ball is fumbled, it's merely the end of the play. So, it would make for some really wild laterals and really wild, loose carrying of the football. A good runner could at times use it as a counterbalance and to help shift momentum. In addition, add a little spice in that passes are truly risky plays.

And for safety, maybe one shoulder in front of the player and hand around other side counts as a stop. That is, much more like rugby(?)

Football until the West Coast Offence in the 80's was basically what you are talking about. Vince Lombardi, after taking over the Packers in 1959, said that he wanted to build a solid running game because passing was too risky. He said that their is way too many ways a pass play can end in a bad way (sack, interception, incompletion) that one should only use it in moderation to supplement the running game. Passing plays were supposed to be a big play, with a checkdown to a back if the receiver was covered. In fact, one game Joe Namath had 496 yards even though he only threw the ball 28 times and completed only 15 passes.

With the West Coast Offence became popular, with short passing plays replacing a lot of running plays, you saw more passing, and the notion that throwing the ball was always a risk was discredited.

And I don't think a lot of people would buy the "one hand and a shoulder" rule. Some people don't even like the forward progress stopped rule

EDIT: sorry bout the double post
 
And I don't think a lot of people would buy the "one hand and a shoulder" rule. Some people don't even like the forward progress stopped rule
I agree. And that's probably why you'd need to call the new sport by a new name. Let's say a critical mass developed among Ohio high school coaches. And let's say they call it 'Central Ohio Rugby' or 'Ohio Steeplechase.' and since many football stadiums have tracks with the field inside the track, there could be some interesting, circuitous routes. A good runner could get 1,500 yards in a single game. Imagine that, a season worth of highlights in a single game.

And all this is based on the assumption of straightforward medical studies which the average citizen who is motivated can understand. And whose conclusions seem to stand up even when you look at it a second, third, and fourth time.

Now, with classic football the skinny fast guys can play defensive back, the big guys can play defensive line, and the guys who are in between play linebacker. Not quite how to do this with "Central Ohio Rugby," but maybe there's a way.
 
Go back and create a variant of Rugby then. As long as American football allowed blocking and emphasized specialized role players for that purpose it would always feature plays to open holes for straight-ahead running. Also, another thing that would the increase side-to-side running game and lateral passes would be a reduction in the protective equipment players wore. Take off those face guards, hard plastic helmets, and all but the most minimal padding and players just won't consider the crown of their heads a tool to be used in tackling. Like in Rugby, players will be grasped and pulled down, not bashed down.

I went to college during the triple option wishbone craze, which is about as close as American football got to a true side-to-side game. Line players were smaller and faster to pull and run block, backs were small and quick, and quarterbacks were generally athletic runners, and there was a lot less straight ahead pounding or drilling a stationary QB as he passed the ball. Injuries were typically things like broken/sprained legs, ankles, shoulders etc., not concussions. Plus the game was more fun.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure where the idea comes from that horizontal or running oriented football produces fewer concussions. Look at Mike Webster. I think his concussions were going to happen either way and it may actually be a net positive for the lineman if they do more pass blocking. LBs most likely hit harder on run plays regardles as to whether they are outside or inside. Lineman pulling out on the sweep are running at full speed rather than just hitting forward. The only ones it makes a difference for are the DBs and WRs. And its not as if Daryl Stingley affected the game at all.
You bring up good points. Mike Webster and his serious health problems and his relatively early death really got my attention, but then I'm (indirectly!) a Steeler fan from their glory days in the 1970s. They played so well in big games, it was hard not to like them.

I think Daryl Stingley being paralyzed from the neck down from a collision in a 1978 pre-season game was viewed as a once in a million type of accident. It's also a great story in a number of ways. Daryl was quoted to the effect, Oh, I forgave Jack a long time ago. And yes, Jack Tatum struggled with this, in spite of giving a big tough title to his book which the publisher may have actually largely selected. Raider coach John Madden visited Daryl extensively while he was in the hospital. And apparently early on, John noticed and yelled to hospital personnel that some tube which was supposed to clear phlegm from the throat to allow for good breathing wasn't working. In addition, John and his wife invited Daryl's wife to stay with them when she was in town, and the two couples became friends. Daryl went back to college and finished his degree. He worked in the Patriots organization. A lot of great aspects to the story. But, I think people view it as a one in a million.

So, it's a good solid question: What health aspects tend to get people's attention?

For me, one issue is asking, okay, even if you get a really good helmet that provides like a half-inch of genuine slowdown for the head, is that really enough for a full frontal collision and maybe even an unexpected collision at that? I tend to think not.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
And it does so out of concern regarding long-term brain health and growing realization on the part of parents that helmets do not really protect. I mean, it anticipates modern worries and studies of former players by about 50 years, so it's quite a challenge.

On the other hand, the 60s was the time of energetic competition between the AFL and NFL, so perhaps either or both would be open to radical rule changes or at least a series of medium steps. In addition, the Green Bay Packers were famous for their power sweep which is somewhat of a side to side play.

So, how does safer football come about?

It hasn't. Running plays, especially those designed to put OL into position to engage DB (like sweeps) and meant to get ball carriers up to speed have some of the highest impact collisions in the non kick return game. Running plays are HOW you get crunched.
 
It hasn't. Running plays, especially those designed to put OL into position to engage DB (like sweeps) and meant to get ball carriers up to speed have some of the highest impact collisions in the non kick return game. Running plays are HOW you get crunched.

I think every play in football excluding field goals and extra points are designed for people get crunched. Whether its the strong safety slamming into the offensive line at full speed to hit the back, the linebacker sitting in the middle of the field waiting for the slot receiver coming his way to get the ball, the punt returner sitting helplessly 50 yards downfield while flankers are coming at him at full speed and likely aren't going to stop until they are well past him.

You can't take the physicality out of football without severely changing the game, and a change that radical will probably lose many fans in the process and the NFL won't be a viable company
 
"Central Ohio Rugby" is tried and it catches on. That's the gist of the matter. And there's enough health concern early to mid '60s that a handful of high school coaches are willing to try something new.
 

Driftless

Donor
"Football is not a contact sport, it's a collision sport - dancing is a contact sport." Vince Lombardi

There's the combination of physics and biology at work over the last 50 years too. Back then, the average sized pro lineman (on both sides of the ball) was 250 lbs and comparatively slow. Today, the same positional guys are 300+ lbs and faster than the running backs of 50 years ago. That's even without the "help" of PED's to achieve those performance gains.

Force = Mass x Acceleration.

There's just a much greater physical impact going on now. The nature of the American game is built on highly specialized roles and built on violent contact. I don't know how you change that short of complete overhaul of the game. I played football in high school (a long time ago), but I didn't press my son to pick up the game. He plays soccer - which is often rough too, but not on the same plane.
 
Last edited:

jahenders

Banned
There just wasn't the science to prompt significant changes years ago and, even now, the change is very slow.

It'll be interesting to see what the future brings. Is football limited to the point that it becomes less interesting? Do you wind up with different leagues -- a constrained league and a no-holds-barred league?

Or, do we just slowly incorporate robots that can bash each other up to no end?
 

Driftless

Donor
There just wasn't the science to prompt significant changes years ago and, even now, the change is very slow.

It'll be interesting to see what the future brings. Is football limited to the point that it becomes less interesting? Do you wind up with different leagues -- a constrained league and a no-holds-barred league?

Or, do we just slowly incorporate robots that can bash each other up to no end?

My general interest in football is declining with each year, and the head trauma and other chronic injuries is a part of that change. I do think many businesses (and the NFL is big business first and sport second) work in cycles. As most Americans know, the NFL is and has been the undisputed king of sports for a generation. Still, I can't help but think it's business cycle is near the peak of the Bell Curve for development. I think it remains on the top of the heap for several years, but then the decline starts.
 
Top