|
Post by coachdirt on Jan 28, 2018 18:25:35 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 28, 2018 20:29:36 GMT -6
You could take away loads of ways for kids, or adults, to have fun, & there'd still be plenty of ways left. But that fact about the relative mass of helmets is at best an argument for just making tackle football for kids that size helmetless. Town Beef (now American Sevens) brought back unpadded football for adults; it may be just a matter of time for that to filter down to younger players. (Of course they also changed some other things, like getting rid of snaps & kicks, & making throw-off plays 3-on-1.) Does Hockey Canada have legal authority to keep someone from forming a hockey league that doesn't affiliate w it & therefore not be subject to its rules? Only a few sports in the USA are legally commission-regulated. If there are no state football commissions as there are for boxing & racing, I wouldn't expect them to be instituted now. As to Roosevelt, it's been debated for a long time how serious his threat was. There was a back-&-forth 30 yrs. ago in the Journal of Sport History about that. The only reason there was leverage over football at that time is that the pro game was minuscule in interest, & the high school game was a smaller deal too; it was only the college game that got much att'n.
|
|
|
Post by bigshel on Jan 28, 2018 21:11:51 GMT -6
While I agree with some of what you said above, specifically with respect to our willingness to change the way we do things as coaches, the portion that I have highlighted is just a baseless assumption. Are there some dad coaches that fit that mold? Sure. Many? Based on the sheer number of kids playing youth football, I'd say that's probably correct. Most? I'm not sure you have the actual statistical backing to substantiate that statement. MANY youth football organizations (including teams, leagues, and national associations) require their coaches to be USA Football certified. Is that a guaranteed solution? No, but it is a good place to start. Add to that that MANY youth coaches regularly attend coaches clinics, lurk on forums like this one, watch film, spend out of their own pockets for books, DVD's memberships, etc., and your characterization doesn't really hold water. Go over to Dumcoach.com and you'll find a whole community of youth football coaches who are dedicated to honing their craft. There is no data that I am aware of that points to playing youth football resulting in CTE. In fact, in all of the high profile cases of which I am aware, the individuals played college or professional football or both. Now I'm no physicist, but I was in school the day we learned that Momentum = Mass x Velocity. Both mass (size and weight) and velocity (speed) increase the older and more physically developed the players get; this creates an exponential increase in momentum. Given that, which level of football is more likely to cause the larger collision? A bunch of second graders, or a group of weight trained, grocery-depleting, testosterone filled 12th graders? I know where I'd put my money. Does that mean we should eliminate high school football? The point I'm making is that eliminating football before age 12 won't accomplish squat. Let's stick to what we can control: teaching proper technique, controlling the level of contact, and anything else that places the safety of the players first and foremost. Blaming one group or another is counter-productive. You are right that I don't have the statistical backing to prove my statement above but it is my personal experience that this is the norm. All 5 schools that I have been a part of(4 coaching and 1 playing) have operated exactly this way. But lets look at the numbers. There are 1.23 million kids playing football ages 6-12 as of a 2015 report Pop Warner who does require coaches to be USA certified and is the largest national youth league in the country represents 250,000 of those kids. That is roughly 20%Pop Warner is also only in 30 states and doesn't even cover the whole state in most cases. So using those numbers we can assume that Pop Warner only covers 20% of the youth coaches. Now maybe there are enough town leagues out there that require more of their coaches other than just showing up and making sure everyone plays but I would be willing to bet there aren't. Also, it has been proven that CTE comes from repeated sub-concussive hits not just the real big hits. So the fact that momentum happens at greater rates as we get older is a moot point. That's a classic cherry-picking logical fallacy. You can't cherry pick a particular data cluster in one breath, then make the assumption that the entire rest (or even most of the rest) of the population is NOT doing the same or similar. You have no basis on which to make that claim, except your own opinion (which you can't possibly substantiate). Unsubstantiated assumptions are not facts. This is a gross overstatement. It is a theory that has not been conclusively proven. They THINK this may be the case. Logically, if this were a proven causative relationship, then most everyone who experienced repetitive sub-concussive hits (not to mention, actual concussions) would end up with CTE, and that's NOT the case. I'm not saying that there is no correlation; but correlation is not the same as causation.
To call greater momentum a moot point is to not understand that hits (whether concussive or sub-concussive) are, in fact, changes of momentum and/or direction. To say that magnitude would have no effect is like saying actual proven laws of physics are not true.
|
|
|
Post by bigshel on Jan 28, 2018 21:18:28 GMT -6
One personal anecdote is not proof of some universal truth. To use it as such is fallacious logic. Fair enough but that’s my experience and the conclusion I’ve come to. The one league without youth football dominates football in their divisions (7 of the 10 schools have state titles, 6 have multiple) and probably more appropriately has significantly more kids involved in middle school and high school. With many places scurrying to get numbers up, youth middle and high school numbers dropping, I’ve made the leap to believe a stronger argument for giving kids alternatives to tackle football in the second grade. So I don’t see finding alternatives to tackle football at young ages to be a bad thing, legislation isn’t the answer but doing the same thing isn’t either. if our weight program isn’t getting results or our defense can’t stop option I’m going to find those that are getting results or are getting stops, ask questions, take the information and see what fits. You make your conclusions, I’ll make mine but mine won’t be to keep doing the same thing because I’ve been told or always assumed that’s the best way to do it. I know guys in that league always get asked how they are so successful, how they get so many kids out, etc and that’s usually one of their answers (and many of those coaches worked somewhere else previously so it’s not the only thing they’ve ever known). Not trying to change anyone’s mind just sharing my thoughts and experiences, To each his own. What about the hundreds or thousands (?) of successful high school programs nationwide that do have youth football in their areas? How do you account for them?
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Jan 28, 2018 22:01:55 GMT -6
You could take away loads of ways for kids, or adults, to have fun, & there'd still be plenty of ways left. But that fact about the relative mass of helmets is at best an argument for just making tackle football for kids that size helmetless. Town Beef (now American Sevens) brought back unpadded football for adults; it may be just a matter of time for that to filter down to younger players. (Of course they also changed some other things, like getting rid of snaps & kicks, & making throw-off plays 3-on-1.) Does Hockey Canada have legal authority to keep someone from forming a hockey league that doesn't affiliate w it & therefore not be subject to its rules? Only a few sports in the USA are legally commission-regulated. If there are no state football commissions as there are for boxing & racing, I wouldn't expect them to be instituted now. As to Roosevelt, it's been debated for a long time how serious his threat was. There was a back-&-forth 30 yrs. ago in the Journal of Sport History about that. The only reason there was leverage over football at that time is that the pro game was minuscule in interest, & the high school game was a smaller deal too; it was only the college game that got much att'n. If the physics of the helmet would promote helmetsless, then what harm in eliminating tackling until 14? (I've misplaced the links, but I recall an uptick of 100k more registered players w/Hockey Canada in the two seasons after the checking ban for 13 and under...dropoff since has been cited to be caused mostly by costs and likely a need for options for less 'pro-inclined' competition. As for rogue leagues, I doubt any exist, as I imagine there is some type of Insurance involved...little less inclination to deviate from a National body in this case...I mean, were talkin' Canada & Hockey. Sacrosanct, I believe describes the relation. Doubt anyone puts their child into an unaffiliated program. Thanks for taking on Teddy...I hadn't much point to make aside from that the game didn't die off due to changes...113 years on...we discuss further in the same vein as he. Who knows what the game looks like in another century...but that won't be for us to see. **Also important to note/consider is that Hockey Canada proactively instituted the changes related to bodychecking.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 28, 2018 22:12:59 GMT -6
Fair enough but that’s my experience and the conclusion I’ve come to. The one league without youth football dominates football in their divisions (7 of the 10 schools have state titles, 6 have multiple) and probably more appropriately has significantly more kids involved in middle school and high school. With many places scurrying to get numbers up, youth middle and high school numbers dropping, I’ve made the leap to believe a stronger argument for giving kids alternatives to tackle football in the second grade. So I don’t see finding alternatives to tackle football at young ages to be a bad thing, legislation isn’t the answer but doing the same thing isn’t either. if our weight program isn’t getting results or our defense can’t stop option I’m going to find those that are getting results or are getting stops, ask questions, take the information and see what fits. You make your conclusions, I’ll make mine but mine won’t be to keep doing the same thing because I’ve been told or always assumed that’s the best way to do it. I know guys in that league always get asked how they are so successful, how they get so many kids out, etc and that’s usually one of their answers (and many of those coaches worked somewhere else previously so it’s not the only thing they’ve ever known). Not trying to change anyone’s mind just sharing my thoughts and experiences, To each his own. What about the hundreds or thousands (?) of successful high school programs nationwide that do have youth football in their areas? How do you account for them? Do their opponents also have youth programs?
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jan 29, 2018 8:31:24 GMT -6
You are right that I don't have the statistical backing to prove my statement above but it is my personal experience that this is the norm. All 5 schools that I have been a part of(4 coaching and 1 playing) have operated exactly this way. But lets look at the numbers. There are 1.23 million kids playing football ages 6-12 as of a 2015 report Pop Warner who does require coaches to be USA certified and is the largest national youth league in the country represents 250,000 of those kids. That is roughly 20%Pop Warner is also only in 30 states and doesn't even cover the whole state in most cases. So using those numbers we can assume that Pop Warner only covers 20% of the youth coaches. Now maybe there are enough town leagues out there that require more of their coaches other than just showing up and making sure everyone plays but I would be willing to bet there aren't. Also, it has been proven that CTE comes from repeated sub-concussive hits not just the real big hits. So the fact that momentum happens at greater rates as we get older is a moot point. That's a classic cherry-picking logical fallacy. You can't cherry pick a particular data cluster in one breath, then make the assumption that the entire rest (or even most of the rest) of the population is NOT doing the same or similar. You have no basis on which to make that claim, except your own opinion (which you can't possibly substantiate). Unsubstantiated assumptions are not facts. This is a gross overstatement. It is a theory that has not been conclusively proven. They THINK this may be the case. Logically, if this were a proven causative relationship, then most everyone who experienced repetitive sub-concussive hits (not to mention, actual concussions) would end up with CTE, and that's NOT the case. I'm not saying that there is no correlation; but correlation is not the same as causation.
To call greater momentum a moot point is to not understand that hits (whether concussive or sub-concussive) are, in fact, changes of momentum and/or direction. To say that magnitude would have no effect is like saying actual proven laws of physics are not true.
1-I never stated it as "fact." I actually said one could assume based on the information known that it was that the majority of youth coaches have no formal training or the external motivation to get the training. And it's not really cherry picking if I'm not withholding anything. If there were evidence to prove my opinion wrong I would gladly welcome it because that means that what I have witnessed is only a small fraction of what actually happens at the youth level. Again, I'm just making an assumption based on personal experience and the information presented. I chose Pop Warner because it is the biggest youth football organization and it only covers 20% of kids 6-12 who play the game. The whole point that I am trying to make it that there needs to be some sort of a governing body over youth football whether it be state or national for things like this law to go away. 2-You can believe what you want about CTE but there have been multiple studies done that point to repeated sub-concussive hits having a huge correlation to getting CTE. link Here is one of them. It may not be "proven," but if it sounds like a duck and looks like a duck. 3-I don't understand how me saying greater momentum being a moot point means I don't understand that hits are changes in momentum. I'm saying that the big hit that you may take every now and then isn't as big of a problem as the many little hits they take on a daily basis during practice and games. Go and google youth football big hits and tell me that some of those kids aren't bringing wood.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 10:51:47 GMT -6
That's a classic cherry-picking logical fallacy. You can't cherry pick a particular data cluster in one breath, then make the assumption that the entire rest (or even most of the rest) of the population is NOT doing the same or similar. You have no basis on which to make that claim, except your own opinion (which you can't possibly substantiate). Unsubstantiated assumptions are not facts. This is a gross overstatement. It is a theory that has not been conclusively proven. They THINK this may be the case. Logically, if this were a proven causative relationship, then most everyone who experienced repetitive sub-concussive hits (not to mention, actual concussions) would end up with CTE, and that's NOT the case. I'm not saying that there is no correlation; but correlation is not the same as causation.
To call greater momentum a moot point is to not understand that hits (whether concussive or sub-concussive) are, in fact, changes of momentum and/or direction. To say that magnitude would have no effect is like saying actual proven laws of physics are not true.
1-I never stated it as "fact." I actually said one could assume based on the information known that it was that the majority of youth coaches have no formal training or the external motivation to get the training. And it's not really cherry picking if I'm not withholding anything. If there were evidence to prove my opinion wrong I would gladly welcome it because that means that what I have witnessed is only a small fraction of what actually happens at the youth level. Again, I'm just making an assumption based on personal experience and the information presented. I chose Pop Warner because it is the biggest youth football organization and it only covers 20% of kids 6-12 who play the game. The whole point that I am trying to make it that there needs to be some sort of a governing body over youth football whether it be state or national for things like this law to go away. 2-You can believe what you want about CTE but there have been multiple studies done that point to repeated sub-concussive hits having a huge correlation to getting CTE. link Here is one of them. It may not be "proven," but if it sounds like a duck and looks like a duck. 3-I don't understand how me saying greater momentum being a moot point means I don't understand that hits are changes in momentum. I'm saying that the big hit that you may take every now and then isn't as big of a problem as the many little hits they take on a daily basis during practice and games. Go and google youth football big hits and tell me that some of those kids aren't bringing wood. if sounds and talks like a duck, lets just outlaw it. If that is your argument, athletics is finished. You said it. I think it is all non sense.
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Jan 29, 2018 10:59:50 GMT -6
1-I never stated it as "fact." I actually said one could assume based on the information known that it was that the majority of youth coaches have no formal training or the external motivation to get the training. And it's not really cherry picking if I'm not withholding anything. If there were evidence to prove my opinion wrong I would gladly welcome it because that means that what I have witnessed is only a small fraction of what actually happens at the youth level. Again, I'm just making an assumption based on personal experience and the information presented. I chose Pop Warner because it is the biggest youth football organization and it only covers 20% of kids 6-12 who play the game. The whole point that I am trying to make it that there needs to be some sort of a governing body over youth football whether it be state or national for things like this law to go away. 2-You can believe what you want about CTE but there have been multiple studies done that point to repeated sub-concussive hits having a huge correlation to getting CTE. link Here is one of them. It may not be "proven," but if it sounds like a duck and looks like a duck. 3-I don't understand how me saying greater momentum being a moot point means I don't understand that hits are changes in momentum. I'm saying that the big hit that you may take every now and then isn't as big of a problem as the many little hits they take on a daily basis during practice and games. Go and google youth football big hits and tell me that some of those kids aren't bringing wood. if sounds and talks like a duck, lets just outlaw it. If that is your argument, athletics is finished. You said it. I think it is all non sense. Hope you handle the Drama department and not the Debate Teams. Little worried about History & the Sciences, so I won't ask of those. Bill & Sean like Tom & Drew and neither of em played youth tackle. What do they prove, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jan 29, 2018 11:09:01 GMT -6
1-I never stated it as "fact." I actually said one could assume based on the information known that it was that the majority of youth coaches have no formal training or the external motivation to get the training. And it's not really cherry picking if I'm not withholding anything. If there were evidence to prove my opinion wrong I would gladly welcome it because that means that what I have witnessed is only a small fraction of what actually happens at the youth level. Again, I'm just making an assumption based on personal experience and the information presented. I chose Pop Warner because it is the biggest youth football organization and it only covers 20% of kids 6-12 who play the game. The whole point that I am trying to make it that there needs to be some sort of a governing body over youth football whether it be state or national for things like this law to go away. 2-You can believe what you want about CTE but there have been multiple studies done that point to repeated sub-concussive hits having a huge correlation to getting CTE. link Here is one of them. It may not be "proven," but if it sounds like a duck and looks like a duck. 3-I don't understand how me saying greater momentum being a moot point means I don't understand that hits are changes in momentum. I'm saying that the big hit that you may take every now and then isn't as big of a problem as the many little hits they take on a daily basis during practice and games. Go and google youth football big hits and tell me that some of those kids aren't bringing wood. if sounds and talks like a duck, lets just outlaw it. If that is your argument, athletics is finished. You said it. I think it is all non sense. That's not my argument.
|
|
|
Post by bigshel on Jan 29, 2018 11:22:52 GMT -6
That's a classic cherry-picking logical fallacy. You can't cherry pick a particular data cluster in one breath, then make the assumption that the entire rest (or even most of the rest) of the population is NOT doing the same or similar. You have no basis on which to make that claim, except your own opinion (which you can't possibly substantiate). Unsubstantiated assumptions are not facts. This is a gross overstatement. It is a theory that has not been conclusively proven. They THINK this may be the case. Logically, if this were a proven causative relationship, then most everyone who experienced repetitive sub-concussive hits (not to mention, actual concussions) would end up with CTE, and that's NOT the case. I'm not saying that there is no correlation; but correlation is not the same as causation.
To call greater momentum a moot point is to not understand that hits (whether concussive or sub-concussive) are, in fact, changes of momentum and/or direction. To say that magnitude would have no effect is like saying actual proven laws of physics are not true.
1-I never stated it as "fact." I actually said one could assume based on the information known that it was that the majority of youth coaches have no formal training or the external motivation to get the training. And it's not really cherry picking if I'm not withholding anything. If there were evidence to prove my opinion wrong I would gladly welcome it because that means that what I have witnessed is only a small fraction of what actually happens at the youth level. Again, I'm just making an assumption based on personal experience and the information presented. I chose Pop Warner because it is the biggest youth football organization and it only covers 20% of kids 6-12 who play the game. The whole point that I am trying to make it that there needs to be some sort of a governing body over youth football whether it be state or national for things like this law to go away. 2-You can believe what you want about CTE but there have been multiple studies done that point to repeated sub-concussive hits having a huge correlation to getting CTE. link Here is one of them. It may not be "proven," but if it sounds like a duck and looks like a duck. 3-I don't understand how me saying greater momentum being a moot point means I don't understand that hits are changes in momentum. I'm saying that the big hit that you may take every now and then isn't as big of a problem as the many little hits they take on a daily basis during practice and games. Go and google youth football big hits and tell me that some of those kids aren't bringing wood. 1 - When you choose a particular data cluster, then ASSUME the opposite about everything outside that data cluster without any type of actual data, THAT is nearly the perfect example of the definition of the cherry-picking fallacy. 2 - Correlation does NOT prove causation. For example, there are multiple studies that indicate that 90% of serial killers are men. That's a pretty high correlation. However, to assume that being male causes one to become a serial killer, simply because there is a correlation, would be ludicrous, wouldn't it? That's the type of assumption that you (and a lot of other folks) are making. 3 - You seem to cherry-pick quite a bit. In the very next sentence I said, "To say that magnitude would have no effect is like saying actual proven laws of physics are not true." Even the everyday sub-concussive hits are going to have a greater order of magnitude because the players are bigger, faster, and stronger the older they get. Hopefully, that clarifies my point a bit.
|
|
|
Post by knightfan64 on Jan 29, 2018 11:50:47 GMT -6
argument could be made that a bad youth program or experience could deter playing as much as anything. I think we can be smarter in how we do youth football though....When I played youth ball (15 years ago so still relatively not that long ago) we still played with 1) weight limits (hate it, I get it but we have had kids come through our youth league who either starved themselves to run the ball or played OL and went on to be all state tailbacks in high school go figure) 2) not much in the way of coaching education or certification major no no now a days. 3. My big complaint here....we played on the same size field as the high school. Why play youth ball or flag football on the same size field? Especially for kids under 13? Smaller kids don't play baseball on a field that has 90 foot base paths? A lot of leagues don't let kids play basketball on 10 foot goals under a certain age. Why is football so inclined to the 11 on 11 100 yard format for every age group. No offense, but when I played youth ball that was boring as chit.....tell me our game is 6-0.....not because of stellar defense or anything but because going on a 60-70 yard drive in youth ball is downright impossible without constant explosive plays.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jan 29, 2018 12:41:25 GMT -6
If anything I made a hasty generalization because I'm not cherry-picking information. It's all the information I have. And instead of providing me with some sort of statistics that could prove me wrong or educate me you just attack the way I make my argument. I'm not saying anything is true, and it may be unfair of me to have the opinion that I have but this is the real world, not a debate.
There hasn't been a good pee wee football league anywhere I have seen. Maybe it's the same for this lady or maybe she is just trying to make a name for herself on a hot-button issue. Only time will tell.
I also never said that the magnitude doesn't have an effect. I said the argument is a moot point because the problem being addressed is repeated hits to the head not necessarily harder hits to the head. What they are saying is that by not allowing kids to play before 12 in most cases you are taking 5-6 seasons of hits off of the brain.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jan 29, 2018 12:44:44 GMT -6
argument could be made that a bad youth program or experience could deter playing as much as anything. I think we can be smarter in how we do youth football though....When I played youth ball (15 years ago so still relatively not that long ago) we still played with 1) weight limits (hate it, I get it but we have had kids come through our youth league who either starved themselves to run the ball or played OL and went on to be all state tailbacks in high school go figure) 2) not much in the way of coaching education or certification major no no now a days. 3. My big complaint here....we played on the same size field as the high school. Why play youth ball or flag football on the same size field? Especially for kids under 13? Smaller kids don't play baseball on a field that has 90 foot base paths? A lot of leagues don't let kids play basketball on 10 foot goals under a certain age. Why is football so inclined to the 11 on 11 100 yard format for every age group. No offense, but when I played youth ball that was boring as chit.....tell me our game is 6-0.....not because of stellar defense or anything but because going on a 60-70 yard drive in youth ball is downright impossible without constant explosive plays. I saw a video of a USA football coach giving a presentation about changing the field dimensions for youth football. I thought it was great.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 29, 2018 12:56:15 GMT -6
Does Hockey Canada have legal authority to keep someone from forming a hockey league that doesn't affiliate w it & therefore not be subject to its rules? Only a few sports in the USA are legally commission-regulated. If there are no state football commissions as there are for boxing & racing, I wouldn't expect them to be instituted now. As for rogue leagues, I doubt any exist, as I imagine there is some type of Insurance involved...little less inclination to deviate from a National body in this case...I mean, were talkin' Canada & Hockey. Sacrosanct, I believe describes the relation. Doubt anyone puts their child into an unaffiliated program. But we were discussing legisl'n by gov't, not an independent rules-making body. Whatever authority Hockey Canada has is by reput'n, not police power. It's the same w football, where at any given time a great many different rules codes exist.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 29, 2018 13:06:22 GMT -6
The whole point that I am trying to make it that there needs to be some sort of a governing body over youth football whether it be state or national for things like this law to go away. Then the trouble is if that single governing body goes wrong, you have no good model left to turn to. A few yrs. ago the NFL-sponsored youth football ass'n, addressing the danger-appearance problem, adopted the teaching of tackling techniques which within a few yrs. were manifest as a more dangerous technique for kids to use. Fortunately they didn't have a monopoly on teaching football to children.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 29, 2018 13:15:30 GMT -6
I also never said that the magnitude doesn't have an effect. I said the argument is a moot point because the problem being addressed is repeated hits to the head not necessarily harder hits to the head. What they are saying is that by not allowing kids to play before 12 in most cases you are taking 5-6 seasons of hits off of the brain. Actually in most cases you'll be taking all of their seasons of football away, because more players play tackle football below that age than ever play above it. Anyway, even if you discount for the magnitude of impulse of the hit, then for those who do play for many years you'd achieve the same result of taking away seasons of hits by not allowing anyone over 12 to play.
|
|
|
Post by 53 on Jan 29, 2018 13:23:31 GMT -6
Seems like a slippery slope, and I've seen some pretty bad coaching at the high school level too. I don't think those wanting to ban football for "safety" would just stop at youth ball.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 29, 2018 13:24:44 GMT -6
argument could be made that a bad youth program or experience could deter playing as much as anything. I think we can be smarter in how we do youth football though....When I played youth ball (15 years ago so still relatively not that long ago) we still played with 1) weight limits (hate it, I get it but we have had kids come through our youth league who either starved themselves to run the ball or played OL and went on to be all state tailbacks in high school go figure) 2) not much in the way of coaching education or certification major no no now a days. 3. My big complaint here....we played on the same size field as the high school. Why play youth ball or flag football on the same size field? Especially for kids under 13? Smaller kids don't play baseball on a field that has 90 foot base paths? A lot of leagues don't let kids play basketball on 10 foot goals under a certain age. Why is football so inclined to the 11 on 11 100 yard format for every age group. No offense, but when I played youth ball that was boring as chit.....tell me our game is 6-0.....not because of stellar defense or anything but because going on a 60-70 yard drive in youth ball is downright impossible without constant explosive plays. I saw a video of a USA football coach giving a presentation about changing the field dimensions for youth football. I thought it was great. The club I coached in last year, the Newton (NJ) Braves, did use a shorter, narrower home field for their U10 teams. I don't think that was by design, though; I think it's just what the Parks Dept. had for a field for them, probably built originally for shorter sides and/or touch or flag. The goals are traditional 6-man dimensions, 25' wide with the 9' high X-bar. It does make sense, though, to use narrower fields for the smaller players, to avoid the common effect in kiddie ball of having the fast kid running around end dominate play.
|
|
|
Post by knightfan64 on Jan 29, 2018 13:33:25 GMT -6
It could also help alleviate some of the troubles you have in youth football in terms of wide open field, full speed hits to the helmet, and lack of fundamental tackling and blocking. You mentioned the ol' put the fastest kid on the team at rb and run toss sweep play....well imagine if you forced coaches away from that and into teaching proper tackling and blocking bc the toss sweep wasn't as affective. I like the idea of USA football with shortening the field and modifying the game for younger levels (some arguments to drop back from playing an 11 man game to a smaller game which I am all for, when I played youth ball we had maybe 15-17 kids on our team.....now I think about that as a hs coach and think how in the world we were able to keep a team like that) I would modify the game up until you get to the 12 year old range heck I teach 12 year olds and the thought of some of them playing tackle football still kinda throws me for a loop
|
|
|
Post by Coach Vice on Jan 29, 2018 13:40:53 GMT -6
I don't think kids should make contact until 7th grade. It's not necessary. That being said, there are much larger issues looming than long term head trauma from high school football. Less than 9% of HS FB injuries are concussions and NO ONE has documented data about long term head injuries for high school football players. This is a societal issue. We are growing less and less willing to do things that are physically and mentally difficult...ie. football. Translation: We're getting softer and softer each generation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 13:47:20 GMT -6
if sounds and talks like a duck, lets just outlaw it. If that is your argument, athletics is finished. You said it. I think it is all non sense. That's not my argument. if you go down the road of if, or in your case talk and walk like... then it is your argument. Lets just shut it all down. The evidence is overwhelming, study after study shows it. Lets just surrender to the if.
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Jan 29, 2018 14:02:10 GMT -6
I also never said that the magnitude doesn't have an effect. I said the argument is a moot point because the problem being addressed is repeated hits to the head not necessarily harder hits to the head. What they are saying is that by not allowing kids to play before 12 in most cases you are taking 5-6 seasons of hits off of the brain. Actually in most cases you'll be taking all of their seasons of football away, because more players play tackle football below that age than ever play above it. Anyway, even if you discount for the magnitude of impulse of the hit, then for those who do play for many years you'd achieve the same result of taking away seasons of hits by not allowing anyone over 12 to play. Oh the irony. Cog Dis is a nasty nasty thing. So...youth tackle doesn't retain #'s throughout HS and beyond?? Hmmm. But eliminating tackling under 14 would mean nobody would ever play tackle, ever...You can't fix some things...sometimes they are what they is.
|
|
|
Post by irishdog on Jan 29, 2018 14:15:52 GMT -6
I'm not sure war is what I would call it but unfortunately if our sport isn't willing to try different things to make the game safer than we will see more of this. I know that a lot of coaches are changing the way they teach tackling and trying to have less contact in practice, but there are still things that just need to change. In a lot of places, there isn't a national youth football association and it's just put together by the towns. There is a league close to the school I'm at now that has football start in 1st or 2nd grade which, in my opinion, is ridiculous.Plus the coaching in most cases is just some dad who used to play and teaches old techniques. I honestly don't believe that football should be played before you are twelve anyway. If Illinois passes this abomination of a law I would expect California and New York to seriously consider a similar law.
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Jan 29, 2018 14:17:04 GMT -6
As for rogue leagues, I doubt any exist, as I imagine there is some type of Insurance involved...little less inclination to deviate from a National body in this case...I mean, were talkin' Canada & Hockey. Sacrosanct, I believe describes the relation. Doubt anyone puts their child into an unaffiliated program. But we were discussing legisl'n by gov't, not an independent rules-making body. Whatever authority Hockey Canada has is by reput'n, not police power. It's the same w football, where at any given time a great many different rules codes exist. My point about HC is that as a National Body it proactively instituted these rules as opposed to having to be made to via Legislation. Something about taking responsibility or some such thing. Probably some antiquated notion. Useless to some, even. So we kinda ARE talking about HAVING to Legislate something that IS CONFLICTED and INCONSISTENT. Up here we have Football Canada as the umbrella for that sport just like Hockey...no player anywhere avoids registration and gets to participate...certainly with population & geography, it might be easier up here...though if every Province dug in with differing stances, there'd be similar issues, no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by bigshel on Jan 29, 2018 14:53:30 GMT -6
If anything I made a hasty generalization because I'm not cherry-picking information. It's all the information I have. And instead of providing me with some sort of statistics that could prove me wrong or educate me you just attack the way I make my argument. I'm not saying anything is true, and it may be unfair of me to have the opinion that I have but this is the real world, not a debate. There hasn't been a good pee wee football league anywhere I have seen. Maybe it's the same for this lady or maybe she is just trying to make a name for herself on a hot-button issue. Only time will tell. I also never said that the magnitude doesn't have an effect. I said the argument is a moot point because the problem being addressed is repeated hits to the head not necessarily harder hits to the head. What they are saying is that by not allowing kids to play before 12 in most cases you are taking 5-6 seasons of hits off of the brain. By telling you that a causative relationship has not been proven, I am educating you. By challenging the logic of your assumptions, I am educating you. I'm making the point that uninformed assumptions/opinions are not "just as good or valid" as informed assumptions and opinions. I'm not saying don't have an opinion, just inform that opinion with facts, and formulate an opinion based on facts and logic, rather than a knee-jerk reaction (or a hasty generalization, as you aptly put it). Even the article you linked to says, "...the mechanisms that cause CTE and relationship to concussion, subconcussive injury and TBI remain poorly understood." (italics mine) Civil discourse (i.e., debate) is real world. Logic is real world. If I don't agree with something you say, or that you assume, my ability to tell you why in a calm and reasoned way is productive communication. I get it - CTE is a real hot-button issue right now. It's easy to get caught up in the hysteria. I'm a father and a grandfather, in addition to being a coach. I understand concerns about the health of players and player safety, and I share those concerns. I said as much in my initial response to your comments. I'm just saying that thinking things through and having real, reasoned discussion based on informed opinion is better than just fanning the flames with "hasty generalizations." I'll leave you with this food for thought though. Once they determine the there should be no football under age 12, how soon do you think it will be before someone will put 2 and 2 together and say that children are not adults until age 18? They can't form legally binding contracts until they are 18. By law, they are not, at least for most civil cases, considered legally liable for their behavior; their parents are. So, football shouldn't be allowed until a person reaches the age of majority. What would be the effect on the high school game? I'm not saying this will happen; it's just a logical extension based on the same line of reasoning that seeks to justify eliminating youth football.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 29, 2018 15:28:32 GMT -6
One issue I don't believe has been mentioned is this:
Many supporters of football - including HS coaches - are afraid that, since kids start playing Soccer so early (5-6 years old), that if there is no youth Football at a similar age, they will never give Football a try.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 29, 2018 15:43:46 GMT -6
One issue I don't believe has been mentioned is this: Many supporters of football - including HS coaches - are afraid that, since kids start playing Soccer so early (5-6 years old), that if there is no youth Football at a similar age, they will never give Football a try. A logical fear. Of course the converse could be true, that kids start playing soccer, travel soccer, baseball, travel baseball etc at such young ages that they are aching for something DIFFERENT to do when they get older.
|
|
|
Post by blb on Jan 29, 2018 15:55:45 GMT -6
One issue I don't believe has been mentioned is this: Many supporters of football - including HS coaches - are afraid that, since kids start playing Soccer so early (5-6 years old), that if there is no youth Football at a similar age, they will never give Football a try. A logical fear. Of course the converse could be true, that kids start playing soccer, travel soccer, baseball, travel baseball etc at such young ages that they are aching for something DIFFERENT to do when they get older. You may be right.
While I did have a few kids who never played Football before HS come out, I don't remember any who said they were "tired" or "sick" of playing something else in order to do so.
Having said that - maybe some realized they weren't going to be the next Derek Jeter or David Beckham, in spite of money parents spent, or just didn't want try to be any more.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jan 29, 2018 17:14:50 GMT -6
If something like this actually comes to fruition, they're coming after HS football next. There is simply no logical argument you can make based on the limited medical knowledge we currently have that would favor no hitting before 12 and hitting from 13-18. If they take it away before 12, it won't be long before they look to take it away up to the age of 18. Your only hope is that the people who vote will be as irrational in favor of HS football as they were against youth football...
|
|