Comments (9) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   PICTO said, 5 months ago

   The Colorado Cementheads vs the Detroit Hardtops.
2. 

   gmforde said, 5 months ago

   Sorry, this is not funny.
3. 

   hcr1985 said, 5 months ago

   @gmforde

   I did not think it was funny either….concussions are serious business and serious injuries….the last thing we need to do is make a joke out it!!!!
4. 

   mkahn said, 5 months ago

   RIP Junior Seau
5. 

   Vegas Viper said, 5 months ago

   It’s only a cartoon people…AND it’s not even a person it’s a doll…
6. 

   J. Short said, 5 months ago

   It’s the guy from the Patriots, Ravens Game; Ridely. (Wow what a hit.)
7. 

   Lolapoo said, 5 months ago

   The comic is not making fun or light of concussions. Rather, it is mocking fans (and the public) who continue to pay, watch and revel in the violence that leads to concussions. Besides, simply using the euphemism “concussion” is another way for the public to avoid facing what this trauma really is — a brain injury.
8. 

   bueller said, 5 months ago

   @Vegas Viper

   When you reference a specific injury or
   illness in a cartoon, you’ll get complaints-
   mainly because attitudes have changed
   about that sort of humor in cartoons ( in
   place of “attitudes”," sanctimony" would be
   more accurate.)
   It’s a response we mainly see in the medium
   of cartooning, specifically cartoons created
   for newspaper publication.
   If all this is considered in the context of “good
   taste”, this same topic has been discussed in
   other media in ways that are infinitely more
   offensive.
9. 

   Night-Gaunt49 said, 5 months ago

   Considering the amount and severity of damage, this isn’t really funny. What they need is to remove the armor not make it stronger. That is the whole point of the extra body contact is the armor.
   -
   http://matadornetwork.com/sports/american-football-vs-rugby-which-is-tougher/
   

   
   Rugby vs Football
   -
   Best Answer – Chosen by Asker
   The nature of the contact is different between the two codes. In particularly, the rules of tackling are very different – high tackles are impermissible, and one may not shoulder-charge or (of course) lead with the head (as is taught in gridiron, to its shame). There also is no “blocking” (it would be interference), and most contact except at the tackle (and even then) comes with limited run-up: no wide receiver running at speed into open space and being taken in the air by a strong safety with a 15 yard running start. A head slap or a clip would be a red-card dismissal, with your team playing a man down the rest of the way.
   

   
   Helmets were added to gridiron as a matter of law, during the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt if memory serves, to stave off having the game banned entirely because of the number and severity of injuries. The evolution and detailed design of the American gear is driven by actual physical testing (in engineering labs and research kinesiology departments) and vetted by the loss-control departments of the insurance companies, without which the games would not be played at all (because clubs,m schools, Unis and professional teams could not play without liability insurance. So although the equipment does not prevent injuries (which happen all the time,of course), they certainly mitigate the risks.
   

   
   A very important source of danger to American"football" players that is not at all well addressed by their gear is heat stroke. I daresay this is the largest single source of fatalities in American football. This is rarely a problem in rugby, although active steps to avoid dehydration are of course needed.
   

   
   Mark L
   http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090625120539AAw64jg
10. Refresh Comments.