Eubanks 1

Jessica Eubanks
Padgett
ENGL 102 section 27
22 November 2016

NOCSAE Certified Football Helmets vs. Non-certified Football Helmets: Which Causes
the Least Amount of Concussions?

Over the past few decades, no major changes have been made in the standards set
for athletic equipment. A nonprofit group created the National Operating Committee on
Standards for Athletic Equipment, or NOCSAE, in 1969 to aid in the reduction of
concussions sustained by athletes. NOCSAE established certain standards that athletic
equipment, like football helmets, are tested against to determine the safety of the
equipment. This organization preforms and develops original studies and research by
which they derive the safety standards from. Not all athletic equipment in use today is, or
was once, certified under NOCSAEs standards. Athletic equipment manufacturers are
not required to abide by these standards. The standards are merely a suggestion.
However, most coaches, parents and athletic teams look to the standards set by NOCSAE
as a guide for finding the safest athletic equipment.
More times than not, the athletic equipment that is certified by NOCSAE is very
costly and some athletic teams do not have the funds to supply their athletes with the
newest and safest equipment. There have been several studies completed to check the
validity and reliability of the standards produced and followed by NOCSAE. The studies

Eubanks 2
showed mixed results. Some of the studies accredited NOCSAEs standards, while other
studies questioned the relevance and authenticity of the standards. Many researchers have
even demanded a call to action and changes to be made to the standards to update them.
So, do NOCSAE certified football helmets actually show a reduction in concussion rates
as compared to non-certified football helmets?
Like many other products, there is no one piece of athletic equipment that
prevents all injuries from occurring. As a result, athletic equipment is a necessity for the
majority of athletes. Manufacturing companies see the need of athletic equipment as a
means to gain more business and increase profits. Nancy Armour, writer for USA Today,
believes that athletic equipment companies are making a profit solely off of fear (par 2).
These companies understand that an athletes parents will buy them the newest and safest
equipment, and the companies use this to their advantage to raise prices of their products.
The majority of the time the ratings these companies display on their websites are not
accurate. Armour also writes, theres no one to verify that those statements, and many
others, are true (par 3). Without a government approved organization that monitors and
regulates the standards for athletic equipment, there is no way to ensure the safety of all
athletic equipment. Manufacturing companies are almost given free range to display their
safety ratings. Each manufacturers website displays numerous benefits of their athletic
equipment, but the risks are less pronounced and not as many are even listed to begin
with (Armour par 5). Armour is making a call to action to revise the standards on athletic
equipment and for the development of a government based group to oversee new
regulations. This would help standardize the safety requirements for athletic equipment
and in return make the equipment safer for athletes.

Eubanks 3
A study completed by Collins et al, set out to determine if the type of helmet an
athlete wore could predict future symptoms of a concussion if one occurred (1383).
Almost all helmets are made differently and each one is unique, but they should all meet
certain safety standards and ensure the most safety for an athlete. Collins et al designed a
study that would investigate whether high school football concussion characteristics
varied by helmet age/recondition status, manufacturer, and model (1382). With this
study, Collins et al wanted to determine if the brand of the helmet affected the type of
concussion symptoms that would follow. Despite differences in the manufacturers and
models of helmets worn by high school football players compared with players who
sustained a concussion, the mean number of concussion symptoms, specific concussion
symptoms, symptom resolution time, and time until return to play were similar for
concussion sustained by football players wearing the most common helmet manufacturers
and models (Collins et al 1382). The results of this study show that the majority of
helmets produced cause the same rate and symptoms of concussions. They also show that
there is no significant difference between certified and non-certified helmets.
With every hit administered and received on the field there is a possibility a
concussion could follow. Just like every hit is different, every concussion sustained is
also unique in its own way. Gary, of USA Today, reports that a study was completed that
also showed no significant difference in concussion rates between non-certified and
certified football helmets. Like a drivers test or legal bar exam, the testing system that
decides whether football helmets meet the national safety standard is pass/fail (Gary par
1). Most athletic equipment manufacturing companies use very simple star rating scales.
These scales can often be inaccurate and lead to falsified information about the actual

Eubanks 4
safety of the equipment (Gary par 4). In contrast to the pass/fail method, NOCSAE uses a
score rating scale to determine if a helmet meets the safety requirements. Due to
misleading safety standards, if the standards found by the manufacturing companies does
not correlate with the standards set out by NOCSAE, the companies are not allowed to
flaunt them. The safety of players is put in jeopardy if manufacturing companies are
indeed falsifying safety information. Misconceptions could be made about the safety of
the helmets and this could lead to an increase in concussion rates. As mentioned earlier
by Armour, I believe that an outside, government based group should develop and
regulate safety standards for all athletic equipment. This will ensure that the safety of the
athletes is most important and will standardize all safety requirements.
There have been other factors, other than whether a helmet is certified or not, that
have raised question to causing an increase in the rate of concussions. The weight of a
football helmet has been studied to determine if it causes an increase in concussions as
the weight of the helmet increases. Now a days, helmets are designed and created with so
much padding and extra add-ons to enhance the safety of the helmet. Jadischke et al
tested many different helmets; all with varying weight, and different acceleration forces
to determine the effect the weight of a helmet will have on the concussion rate. The
increased neck forces provide a possible explanation as to why there has not been a
corresponding reduction in concussion rates despite the improvements in helmets ability
to reduce head accelerations (Jadischke et al 1). The results of this study deduce that
even though a helmet may be certified, the force or acceleration behind a hit may increase
the chances of a concussion. Coaches should teach their athletes on correct hitting
mechanics to ensure no wrong or potentially threatening hits will be delivered. This in

Eubanks 5
return could supply a more accurate reading on the concussion rates. If the force behind
the hit is no longer a factor in the concussion rate, then the true difference between
certified and non-certified helmets can be recorded.
Another possible confounding factor in the rate of concussions could be if the
player is wearing a mouth guard when they are hit. McGuine et al tested the effects of
wearing a custom fit mouth guard and concussion rates of an athlete. In addition to using
different types of mouth guards, different helmet brands were used as well throughout the
study. In conclusion, the results of the study showed there was no significant difference in
concussion rates between certified and non-certified helmets. However, the concussion
rate was significantly higher in those athletes who were wearing a mouth guard at the
time the concussion was sustained. Sports medicine providers who work with high
school football players need to realize that factors other than the type of protective
equipment worn affect the risk of [concussions] in high school players (McGuine et al
2470). After the results of these two studies were analyzed, two conclusions can be
drawn. One is that there are other factors than the helmet that can lead to an increase or
prevent a decrease in the concussion rates of athletes. The other is that there has been no
significant difference in concussion rates between certified and non-certified helmets.
The New York Times raises more questions about the safety of football helmets.
The industry, which receives no governmental or other independent oversight, requires
helmets for players of all ages to withstand only the extremely high-level force that
would otherwise fracture skulls (As Concussions Rise, Scant Oversight for Football
Helmet Safety par 4). This means that the standards set by NOCSAE do not accurately
support the necessary safety standards for athletic equipment. There has been limited

Eubanks 6
research done on the causes of concussions and this could lead to inaccurate safety
standards set to reduce the concussion rate. More than 100,000 children are wearing
helmets too old to provide adequate protection and perhaps half a million more are
wearing potentially unsafe helmets that require critical examination (As Concussions
Rise, Scant Oversight for Football Helmet Safety par 6). Due to the outdated safety
standards set out by NOCSAE, all currently used and newly produced helmets should be
reevaluated and tested on new and improved safety standards to ensure the safety of
athletes. Further research should be completed by NOCSAE to ensure their standards on
safety are up to date with the new technology used to produce helmets to actually aid in
the reduction of concussions.
A study completed at Virginia Tech University also showed that the safety
standards for football helmets only support high impact hits that are likely to result in a
skull fracture. The results of this study showed that some of the most common helmets
worn by high school and college football players ranked among the worse for having
significantly high concussion rates (Researchers Employ New Test to Estimate
Concussion Risk for Helmets par 2). After the study was completed, the Virginia Tech
football team all received new helmets to help reduce the concussion risk. However, a
few limitations are seen in this study. The study only tested helmets in a few different
plains of motion. Another limitation is actual hits cannot be tested in a lab setting as they
would be in a field setting. Due to these limitations, manufacturing companies claim the
results of this study are false. Overall, more research is needed to be completed in regards
to concussion rates and football helmets.

Eubanks 7
The chairwoman of the Consumer Products Safety Commission told a Senate
subcommittee that the agency would monitor and accelerate the development of
stronger standards for headgear, particularly among children (Safety Commission to
Push Stronger Helmet Standards par 1). Once again a call to action is being placed on
NOCSAE to update and ensure their safety standards are accurate in the reduction of
concussions. A representative from NOCSAE commented that science behind the cause
of concussions was all over the place and no clear cause could be determined at
that time (Safety Commission to Push Stronger Helmet Standards par 6). This leads to the
conclusion that the standards set out by NOCSAE are not accurate and in fact do not aid
in the reduction of concussions. Many may conclude that since NOCSAE is under such
fire to change and improve their standards, that their current standards are not to be
trusted and are not reliable. As a result, all previously certified helmets should be
reevaluated under new safety standards to ensure their safety.

Eubanks 8

The chart above depicts the average TBI-related injury sustained by individuals
15-24 years of age and 5-14 years of age from 2001-2010. The increase in the number of
head injuries sustained by the 15-24 year age group could be as a result of playing sports
and wearing inadequate equipment.

Eubanks 9

The chart above depicts the average TBI-related injury sustained by individuals
15-24 years of age and 65+ years of age from 2001-2010. The cause of the increase in the
number of head injuries sustained by the 65+-year age group is unknown. It is surprising
to me that the oldest age group sustains more concussions than the age group who would
be considered the most active.

In reference to the research shown above, NOCSAE needs to reevaluate and

improve their safety standards to better suit the needs of reducing concussion rates in
football players. Their standards have not been updated in many decades; however, new
helmets are created almost every year. The safety standards should keep up with the new
technology that is used to produce helmets. As of right now, there is no significant

Eubanks 10
difference in concussion rates between certified and non-certified helmets. That means
that no matter what helmet a football player is wearing his chance of getting a concussion
is the same. More intensive research should be completed on the causes of concussions
and that information should be used to better test how to prevent concussions from
occurring.

Jessica,
The breadth and scope of your topic is impressive, and I think you've done a good job
walking your audience through the complicated network of research you've
compiled here. You do a good job synthesizing these sources with your ideas, and
your visualizations accompany your argument well too, but could play more of a
primary role in your argumentation. While I do get a clear sense of what you are
arguing, at times this feels more like a report rather than a research paper. By
which I mean, there is a lot of really interesting information and context here, but
no real argument guiding it a lot of your discussion points. While your sources
take issue with simplifying the problem by talking about only equipment, you
dont seem to pick that discussion point up. Rather, you lay it out there and then
move on with your survey of research. Really engage these sources and these
arguments. It seems to me, at the end, you are continuing to push for better
equipment, is that where this discussion should end? According to your research,
it doesnt seem that way. Good work and good research. Dont forget that you
should be interpreting the research, interpreting the data, and making an
argument.

Eubanks 11

Armour, Nancy. "Profiting From Fear?" USA Today: Academic Search Complete. Web.
29 Sept. 2016.
Collins, Christy L., et al. "Concussion Characteristics In High School Football By Helmet
Age/Recondition Status, Manufacturer, And Model." American Journal Of Sports
Medicine, 44.6 (2016): 1382-1390. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Sept.
2016.

Eubanks 12
Gary, Mihoces. "Helmets Not Made Equal." USA Today: Academic Search Complete.
Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Jadischke, Ron, et al. "The Effects Of Helmet Weight On Hybrid III Head And Neck
Responses By Comparing Unhelmeted And Helmeted Impacts." Journal Of
Biomechanical Engineering, 138.10 (2016): 1-10. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
McGuine, Timothy A., et al. "Protective Equipment And Player Characteristics
Associated With The Incidence Of Sport-Related Concussion In High School
Football Players: A Multifactorial Prospective Study." American Journal Of
Sports Medicine, 42.10 (2014): 2470-2478. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29
Sept. 2016.
Schwarz, Alan. "As Concussions Rise, Scant Oversight for Football Helmet Safety." The
New York Times: Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Schwarz, Alan. "Researchers Employ New Test to Estimate Concussion Risk for
Helmets." The New York Times: Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Schwarz, Alan. "Safety Commission to Push Stronger Helmet Standards." The New York
Times: Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.