I second this, american football derived from rugby. Look at how rugby players tackle with no helmets and no padding. It really looks like adding the protective gear doesn't help the players as much as they were thinking.

I've heard the same argument applied to automobiles. Would people drive more safely/carefully/considerately if a metal spike were attached to the steering wheel rather than an airbag? I can't pretend to know the answer, but it's interesting in that behaviors definitely change if there are costs associated with the actions.

I don't know about a metal spike, but automakers could cheaply implement something if they put a sticker on the airbag cover that said something like "SRS manufactured by Takata"...

/s

My understanding is that the problem isn't specifically related to the incidence of concussions, but rather more related to the continuous lower-level trauma to the brain from hits during practices and games. That is why you see a lot of football teams at various levels switching to non-contact practices.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/421009/analyzing-hard-hit...

With the stakes that high for the players you don't think the players will engage in dangerous behavior? It could be just as likely that we will see more skull fractures.

The rules need to be constantly adjusted to disincentivise dangerous behavior. If it hurts your team to injure others, injuries should happen less.

It would be interesting to study Rugby comparatively re: concussion.

Here's an interesting article on how Rugby is ignoring CTE:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/11857548/Rugby-u...

There is a decent interview with Jamie Cudmore on the rugby dungeon where he talks pretty candidly about concussion issues:

https://www.acast.com/therugbydungeon/ep-22jamiecudmore