|
Post by funkfriss on Jul 21, 2018 22:31:38 GMT -6
Wow, what’s thread to read through! Kinda want that half-hour back, but man I couldn’t stop reading!
There was a time when I thought the same as Fedora. Sort of. I remember being upset when rules were changed; notably contact of defenseless player, anything pertaining to QB protection, and KO changes. Heck, that younger me would’ve been mad about the ban on crack backs too. But what I’ve really come to realize is that these rules tend to either reduce serious head/spinal injury or protect a player who cannot protect himself. I remember being a kid and loving the big Steve Atwater, LT, Ronnie Lott hits on receivers over the middle or blindsiding QBs who never saw it coming.
But as I become older and wiser (and softer as one poster might believe) I see these hits for what they really are; the equivalent of a sucker punch in a fight. If you think eliminating sucker punches in a fight makes the fighters soft then l question your definition of soft. I don’t think football is a softer game now nor do I think football players are softer now. I think the game is safer and smarter now (seriously imagine if a bigger, faster, stronger 2018 athlete made those same hits). There is still plenty of psycicality, contact and even injuries if that’s what gets your rocks off.
I think what this boils down to is that some people really like one brand of football and hate to see it go. It kind of reminds me of coaches like Bill Parcells and Buddy Ryan who would b!tch about Steve Walsh’s 49ers ruining football with its “ice skating on grass” feel. Take a deep breath. Football is fine. For any other reason, it generates way too much money (pro, college, and high school) to go away any time soon. And as for the play on the field, it still comes down to blocking, tackling, toughness, and discipline. Funny how that hasn’t changed in 100+ years and all those pesky rule changes....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 2:02:17 GMT -6
fb doesn't need us mortals yapping our gums to teach life lessons. Somewhat serious...have you been drinking all day? No. If you think, God forbid, the demands of the game, if taught correctly, teaches kids values and life lessons all by itself. Coaches do not need to spend time talking about thing kids are actually experiencing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 2:06:04 GMT -6
Thanks for the reply... Strong points, for sure... I don't think I would ever say these things "on the record" ... it's just that I can empathize with Coach Fedora for the reasons I expressed. The hard part for me is: where is the line? If I don't feel strongly about this great game (ie, that we need football), or that there are redeeming qualities that the game offers that *some* CANNOT obtain through other avenues (be it due to low socio-emotional function, poor socio-econimic opportunity, or other scenarios where football IS the best way to self improvement and/or opportunity) then why am I coaching it and attempting to create arguments to counter the increasing barrage of negative stereotyping that is obviously hurting the game. Because it is fun? It is a fun game to play. But make no mistake that other fun activities can provide those redeeming qualities you mention. I am pretty sure that there are kids with low socio-emotional function, poor Socio-economic opportunities or other situations in countries that do not play American football. I am pretty sure there are females here in the US with low socio-emotional function and poor socio-economic opportunities that don't get to play football. I am pretty sure there are males here in the US with low socio-emotional function and poor socio-economic opportunities that aren't good enough football players to play football. Football is a fun game, which also provides some other desirable learning opportunities. It is not a panacea for social ailments nor is it the only (or even best) avenue for those lessons. Trying to paint football as anything other than that invalidates an argument. You are coaching it because it is fun. Because it is fun. Since you mention "young boys" are you suggesting that young girls have no opportunities to mature and live up to their highest capabilities? Should be we getting rid of young girls all together then? Are boys who do not play football doomed to remain immature and never live up to their highest capabilities? So, obviously you can anticipate that my answer to your question is : because it is fun. This isn't a global geopoltical situation where the lives of millions of citizens hang in the balance. There is no need to make a Patton-esque speech here. Also, keep in mind that one thing that nobody is forcing changes upon football. These are things that different organizations are doing on their own. Keep in mind here that ultimately we are discussing a matter of degree correct? I think if asked "are repeated blows to the head a good thing" most individuals would answer "no". If asked "do you think repeated blows to the head may increase the risk of medical issues stemming from brain trauma" I think most would say "yes" So what we are doing is discussing the degree of risk. Just as there is a degree of risk in most life long activities. Becoming hysterical like some here on this board (not you) or like Fedora seemed to do doesn't help instill confidence in the profession with regards to the professions ability to handle these potential increase in injury risks. Again, I think the analogy to tobacco companies fits very well here. As a sensible person, do you think that was handled properly for the past 5 or 6 decades? Hopefully the evidence comes out that the risks of football are less than smoking. amazed you are still coaching!
|
|
|
Post by Football42 on Jul 22, 2018 2:24:18 GMT -6
Thanks for the reply... Strong points, for sure... I don't think I would ever say these things "on the record" ... it's just that I can empathize with Coach Fedora for the reasons I expressed. The hard part for me is: where is the line? If I don't feel strongly about this great game (ie, that we need football), or that there are redeeming qualities that the game offers that *some* CANNOT obtain through other avenues (be it due to low socio-emotional function, poor socio-econimic opportunity, or other scenarios where football IS the best way to self improvement and/or opportunity) then why am I coaching it and attempting to create arguments to counter the increasing barrage of negative stereotyping that is obviously hurting the game. Because it is fun? It is a fun game to play. But make no mistake that other fun activities can provide those redeeming qualities you mention. I am pretty sure that there are kids with low socio-emotional function, poor Socio-economic opportunities or other situations in countries that do not play American football. I am pretty sure there are females here in the US with low socio-emotional function and poor socio-economic opportunities that don't get to play football. I am pretty sure there are males here in the US with low socio-emotional function and poor socio-economic opportunities that aren't good enough football players to play football. Football is a fun game, which also provides some other desirable learning opportunities. It is not a panacea for social ailments nor is it the only (or even best) avenue for those lessons. Trying to paint football as anything other than that invalidates an argument. You are coaching it because it is fun. Because it is fun. Since you mention "young boys" are you suggesting that young girls have no opportunities to mature and live up to their highest capabilities? Should be we getting rid of young girls all together then? Are boys who do not play football doomed to remain immature and never live up to their highest capabilities? So, obviously you can anticipate that my answer to your question is : because it is fun. This isn't a global geopoltical situation where the lives of millions of citizens hang in the balance. There is no need to make a Patton-esque speech here. Also, keep in mind that one thing that nobody is forcing changes upon football. These are things that different organizations are doing on their own. Keep in mind here that ultimately we are discussing a matter of degree correct? I think if asked "are repeated blows to the head a good thing" most individuals would answer "no". If asked "do you think repeated blows to the head may increase the risk of medical issues stemming from brain trauma" I think most would say "yes" So what we are doing is discussing the degree of risk. Just as there is a degree of risk in most life long activities. Becoming hysterical like some here on this board (not you) or like Fedora seemed to do doesn't help instill confidence in the profession with regards to the professions ability to handle these potential increase in injury risks. Again, I think the analogy to tobacco companies fits very well here. As a sensible person, do you think that was handled properly for the past 5 or 6 decades? Hopefully the evidence comes out that the risks of football are less than smoking. The argument against Fedora is not necessarily the argument you are making against me. I guess I can be guilty of playing the devil's advocate... and we can all be a little hypocritical at times. Sure. Football is fun and that's why I coach. Also, I have two daughters. One plays flag football and loves the sport. I have taught her everything that I will also teach my son when he starts expressing interest in the sport. I have also encouraged her to give water polo a try because she enjoys the water, likes to swim, and is generally more competitive than most girls her age. She also has the hand-eye skills to pick up the game play. If she wants to play football in highs school I suppose I would let her do that. We have had a girl on our roster for each of my first two seasons- 3 at one point last year. Of course I didn't bat an eye when they wanted to join. The girl on our team now is one of the hardest workers. She is accepted by her teammates and she is a good teammate. She is not a very good football player, but she works hard, shows improvement, and shows up daily. Why do infer that football is for boys? It's part of a patriarchy hierarchy that I ascribe to, I guess. I think football has more to teach a boy about being a man than it does to teach a girl about being a woman. For my daughter, sure, it's great if she gets to play football and experience that, but for her future, girls water polo makes a lot more sense to her mother and I when the economics of paying for college come into play. I work with kids who are IEP and 504 all day long. Anecdotally, the kids who don't want to come out and play football struggle with direction, purpose, character and overall motivation for life in general. Conversely, you can see the lights come on when the ones that do decide to make the commitment find a niche and create a new path for themselves. As you referenced, the repeated blows to the head question can correlate out to other sports as well - soccer, hockey, lacrosse. From an article in USA Today: New study shows that girls soccer has higher per capita rate of concussions than any other sport: "From the study: To our knowledge, this is the first study to report that concussions now account for a higher proportion of injuries in girls soccer than boys football. The concussion rate for girls soccer is also increasing rapidly, and is now nearly tied with boys football and 3-fold higher than boys soccer." This is where I tend to think that the "science isn't settled, yet"- camp has a valid point. So, if the science isn't settled and girls soccer is equally as risky in terms of concussions, where are the demands from the special interest groups to ban the sport at the youth level like there was recently was in CA with youth football? I don't know if this factors into the analogy between the risks of developing lung cancer smoking cigarettes vs the risk of concussion playing football. But I do know that both big tobacco and the NFL knew about the risks of their product. And I think that's certainly one of the reasons we're having this conversation today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2018 3:27:39 GMT -6
Anybody ever see the signs that says drive like your kids live here? I always want plant a sign that says you parent like your kids live here. Ultimately, I believe they will never come to the conclusion that fb causes cte/ brain damage. And I the Fedora is the first to say what he said, and I think his underlying message is going to get said more often.
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jul 22, 2018 6:52:37 GMT -6
Somewhat serious...have you been drinking all day? No. If you think, God forbid, the demands of the game, if taught correctly, teaches kids values and life lessons all by itself. Coaches do not need to spend time talking about thing kids are actually experiencing. ?
|
|
|
Post by natenator on Jul 22, 2018 6:54:10 GMT -6
Because it is fun? It is a fun game to play. But make no mistake that other fun activities can provide those redeeming qualities you mention. I am pretty sure that there are kids with low socio-emotional function, poor Socio-economic opportunities or other situations in countries that do not play American football. I am pretty sure there are females here in the US with low socio-emotional function and poor socio-economic opportunities that don't get to play football. I am pretty sure there are males here in the US with low socio-emotional function and poor socio-economic opportunities that aren't good enough football players to play football. Football is a fun game, which also provides some other desirable learning opportunities. It is not a panacea for social ailments nor is it the only (or even best) avenue for those lessons. Trying to paint football as anything other than that invalidates an argument. You are coaching it because it is fun. Because it is fun. Since you mention "young boys" are you suggesting that young girls have no opportunities to mature and live up to their highest capabilities? Should be we getting rid of young girls all together then? Are boys who do not play football doomed to remain immature and never live up to their highest capabilities? So, obviously you can anticipate that my answer to your question is : because it is fun. This isn't a global geopoltical situation where the lives of millions of citizens hang in the balance. There is no need to make a Patton-esque speech here. Also, keep in mind that one thing that nobody is forcing changes upon football. These are things that different organizations are doing on their own. Keep in mind here that ultimately we are discussing a matter of degree correct? I think if asked "are repeated blows to the head a good thing" most individuals would answer "no". If asked "do you think repeated blows to the head may increase the risk of medical issues stemming from brain trauma" I think most would say "yes" So what we are doing is discussing the degree of risk. Just as there is a degree of risk in most life long activities. Becoming hysterical like some here on this board (not you) or like Fedora seemed to do doesn't help instill confidence in the profession with regards to the professions ability to handle these potential increase in injury risks. Again, I think the analogy to tobacco companies fits very well here. As a sensible person, do you think that was handled properly for the past 5 or 6 decades? Hopefully the evidence comes out that the risks of football are less than smoking. amazed you are still coaching! Surprised you haven't been sued while still teaching bite the ball and 3 points of contact.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 22, 2018 8:17:08 GMT -6
Somewhat serious...have you been drinking all day? No. If you think, God forbid, the demands of the game, if taught correctly, teaches kids values and life lessons all by itself. Coaches do not need to spend time talking about thing kids are actually experiencing. Please stop and read what you are writing, because I cannot understand what half your posts are trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jul 22, 2018 8:30:53 GMT -6
@jbwolfe off topic, but do you know how rough water polo is? Things get real nasty underwater.
|
|
|
Post by coachklee on Jul 22, 2018 8:46:29 GMT -6
I don't spend one second talking about life lessons learned playing football or in athletics. Earlier: ...because us guys in the “club” would prefer that the sport we love & use to teach young men so many lessons regarding hard-work, teamwork, discipline, pride in self / team / school / community, etc to continue. I typically agree with slippery slope arguments, but we’ve yet to have a specific example of what new rules have been implemented or are about to be implemented by NFHS or NCAA that will take the “core” blocking & tackling out of the game. fb doesn't need us mortals yapping our gums to teach life lessons. Not sure where I said I use talking to teach those lessons yet you seemed to find it.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 22, 2018 10:13:44 GMT -6
The argument against Fedora is not necessarily the argument you are making against me. I guess I can be guilty of playing the devil's advocate... and we can all be a little hypocritical at times. Sure. Football is fun and that's why I coach. Also, I have two daughters. One plays flag football and loves the sport. I have taught her everything that I will also teach my son when he starts expressing interest in the sport. I have also encouraged her to give water polo a try because she enjoys the water, likes to swim, and is generally more competitive than most girls her age. She also has the hand-eye skills to pick up the game play. If she wants to play football in highs school I suppose I would let her do that. We have had a girl on our roster for each of my first two seasons- 3 at one point last year. Of course I didn't bat an eye when they wanted to join. The girl on our team now is one of the hardest workers. She is accepted by her teammates and she is a good teammate. She is not a very good football player, but she works hard, shows improvement, and shows up daily. Why do infer that football is for boys? It's part of a patriarchy hierarchy that I ascribe to, I guess. I think football has more to teach a boy about being a man than it does to teach a girl about being a woman. For my daughter, sure, it's great if she gets to play football and experience that, but for her future, girls water polo makes a lot more sense to her mother and I when the economics of paying for college come into play. So the other daughter is a lost cause? Because remember, you said we NEED football, and she doesn't play it. And the one that does, is not very good, so she may not continue. Are you writing her off, because we NEED football. Naturally this then extends to boys who don't play. Based on some very quick research from the dept of education and sports illustrated article, there are probably 16 million students enrolled in grades 9-12 in public and private schools in the country and a little over 1 million play football. If we NEED football, then we are screwed because 93% of HS students aren't playing football. Unlike other posters in this thread (who apparently are masterful trolls, or it is really scary that they work with impressionable kids in a school setting) I think you get my point from this. That point being, the argument that football is necessary is clearly not the best discussion point when faced with someone concerned about the risks inherent to the sport, because clearly football is not necessary. Side note regarding your daughter and water polo. Getting academic money should make a lot more sense to her parents when the economics of paying for college come into play. Water polo is an equivalency sport, with 8 scholarships to divide amongst rosters of about 20-21 players. Only about 950 girls played water polo at schools with a scholarships and the (equivalency) limit that could be offered was 368. Water polo isn't the best avenue for paying for your kids college, although it could help with admittance in many cases. Going back to what was said earlier, I could substitute almost any activity for the word football and this statement is true. The key point here is simply that I think proponents of football need to avoid baseless statements about the necessity of football. It isn't necessary, obviously, if only around 7-10% of HS kids are playing it. KEY POINT HERE--That doesn't mean that what you stated was wrong. Only that football is not the sole out source of direction, purpose, character, etc. So those are all good things, I just don't think it is in the best interest of those involved with football to proclaim that football is the sole source of these things because that is simply false. A few things about that study...one, the authors were guys with bachelors degrees and an ortho doctor. They weren't actually "researchers", and as discussed elsewhere on this board the research design was quite lacking. In reading the abstract, they never defined "injury", they just compiled injury reports from athletic trainers around the country. Also, the key take away from that "study" was simply that once various laws involving concussions were put into place, it was obvious that the numbers of concussions for ALL SPORTS were drastically under reported in the past. Particularly for girls sports. Also, that "study" IS a good example of headlines and how people don't think through the language. Lets look at your quote "concussions now account for higher proportion of injuries in girls soccer than boys football". Lets dig deep. What kind of injuries can occur in girls HS soccer? Ankle injuries, knee injuries. Since the "study" didn't describe how injuries were defined, we don't know if bruises, scrapes, etc are included. So, based on the nature of the sport, how many injuries in soccer are going to be upper extremity based? How many hand, wrist, neck, shoulder, arm, back injuries are there going to be? One could use that study, and say that it is scarier that football had almost 1 out of every 4 of all its injuries reported as a traumatic brain injury (concussion). So, in a sport with tons of lower body injuries (broken, sprained, twisted ankles, ACL/MCL/LCL/PCL knee injuries, Hip dislocations, as well as shoulder injuries (dislocations, labrum tears) , hand injuries (wrist, fingers) arm injuries etc, 1 out of every 4 injuries was a brain injury? What is the point here? That yes, indeed headlines can be scary! That is definitely something you can sit down and talk with someone who shows concerns. You can sit down with that concerned parent and talk THROUGH the scary headlines , and acknowledge that football has risks, but it is indeed safer than before, and measures are being taken to increase that safety. Yes, this analogy is fairly accurate in my opinion. What is happening right now is that risks are being recognized, and studied. The discovery of risk will almost always bring apprehension. I don't think that chest thumping, and "fake news" ranting are useful or appropriate reactions to this apprehension, because like it or not the risk is real. Unlike guys like @grad17 who whether he realizes or not is detrimental to the cause he claims to support, I would hope that most can recognize that there is a risk. He has argued here that admitting a risk then means that the game should be banned. I (and most others--hopefully yourself) think that is a pretty foolish idea. At this point, the evidence just shows that there is risk. Something that, when you take a step back and just think a bit, "everyone knew" If you just ask, is it better or worse to bang heads around the answer for most sensible people is going to be worse. That doesn't mean ban the game (despite what the hysterical coaches here are saying)
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 22, 2018 12:18:11 GMT -6
No. Risk is inherent in the sport.Hello Sherlock! Football is in the business of banning itself due to any number of things, some of which are fact based like what soccer moms think, and politicians, and the games is somehow now after 100 + years, with no concrete scientific research or data to support it, to dangerous. You are the one who insist we evolve insisting that science will find the game faulty. I dont Think science will ever come to that conclusion in our life time. Stop. JUST STOP. You are going to hurt football as you try and "save" it. Again, what are you trying to convey? Several times in this thread you have stated that if someone believes there is risk in football, they should just quit coaching and the sport should be banned. Now you type "Risk is inherent in the sport. Hello Sherlock". What are you trying to convey, because all that posters such as myself have been saying is "accept that there is risk, recognize that data is showing that football carries with it head trauma risk, and this may lead to issues later in life, AND Then look for ways to reduce this risk while continuing research. Remember this thread started because you were applauding Fedora and his comments. I disagreed, and stated I believed that kind of behavior (chest thumping, "fake news" ranting) will only be detrimental. I presented reasons why I felt this, and what I thought would be more useful. You on the other hand...well, I really don't know what to say.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 22, 2018 12:30:23 GMT -6
Stop. JUST STOP. You are going to hurt football as you try and "save" it. Again, what are you trying to convey? Several times in this thread you have stated that if someone believes there is risk in football, they should just quit coaching and the sport should be banned. Now you type "Risk is inherent in the sport. Hello Sherlock". What are you trying to convey, because all that posters such as myself have been saying is "accept that there is risk, recognize that data is showing that football carries with it head trauma risk, and this may lead to issues later in life, AND Then look for ways to reduce this risk while continuing research. Remember this thread started because you were applauding Fedora and his comments. I disagreed, and stated I believed that kind of behavior (chest thumping, "fake news" ranting) will only be detrimental. I presented reasons why I felt this, and what I thought would be more useful. You on the other hand...well, I really don't know what to say. not try to save anything. My only point is the sport is killing itself with no justification. Comprende? And posters repeatedly have asked you for examples of "killing itself" They have repeatedly asked you what rule changes are shaking the game to its core. You have never supported your argument in that regard. Your replies immediately then shift to something along the lines of "why are you even coaching if you think it is dangerous!" This has been nearly a 5 page thread, and you have yet to explain what rule changes are shaking the game to its core. Now, we disagree on one thing apparently. I believe it is pretty obvious that the jarring the brain undergoes in football has some risks. I think that stands on its own. You seem to think otherwise, and want "concrete evidence" to prove it. Well, you are correct, you will not get "concrete evidence" to prove either argument. We disagree that recognizing data showing this brain trauma is not good, and looking for ways to reduce it is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 22, 2018 12:32:54 GMT -6
Why do infer that football is for boys? It's part of a patriarchy hierarchy that I ascribe to, I guess. I think football has more to teach a boy about being a man than it does to teach a girl about being a woman. No, it's just the numbers. 99% of players are boys, so we come to expect that. It's just not popular among girls. I wish it were more so, but this is just the way it comes out, not part of any patriarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jul 22, 2018 12:36:52 GMT -6
You’ve already made it clear that you don’t grasp the notion of evidence so you probably shouldn’t comment on it.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 22, 2018 13:04:13 GMT -6
And posters repeatedly have asked you for examples of "killing itself" They have repeatedly asked you what rule changes are shaking the game to its core. You have never supported your argument in that regard. Your replies immediately then shift to something along the lines of "why are you even coaching if you think it is dangerous!" This has been nearly a 5 page thread, and you have yet to explain what rule changes are shaking the game to its core. Now, we disagree on one thing apparently. I believe it is pretty obvious that the jarring the brain undergoes in football has some risks. I think that stands on its own. You seem to think otherwise, and want "concrete evidence" to prove it. Well, you are correct, you will not get "concrete evidence" to prove either argument. We disagree that recognizing data showing this brain trauma is not good, and looking for ways to reduce it is a good thing. so why is boxing still legal? What are you talking about? This is what coaches keep trying to tell you in this thread. You keep calling yourself "stupid" , and I don't know if that is true or not, but you don't help things when you type posts like this. Boxing is legal. Driving is legal. Mcdonalds/Burgerking/PizzaHut are legal. There are risks associated with all of those activities. Things can be legal, and have risk. What point are you trying to convey with this? To simply, this post seems to highlight what appears to be your opinion on the matter You think that if one believes or admits there are risks in football,that person should not coach and that football should be banned. I prefer to think that there ARE indeed risks in football, and believe it would benefit all involved to recognize that and look for ways to mitigate them.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 22, 2018 13:16:27 GMT -6
if you are going to say head trauma is generally bad? Then lets get real. Quit coaching sports lead the charge in producing a society where head trauma mitigated at every corner. So I am not accused of "lying, manipulating, using my 'power' (whatever that means)" here, I just want to be clear on your position. You are saying that you believe that just in principle, head trauma would not generally be considered bad? Is that a fair assessment of your position?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jul 22, 2018 14:15:27 GMT -6
All right, since I’m in for a penny:
1. You asked me to humour you but I really don’t think you understand the phrase, it doesn’t make sense on the context you used it, you just tried to flip my previous post back on me.
2. You claim the “evidence” is inadequate then say that no amount of evidence could ever satisfy you. If the very notion of following evidence is anathema to you then I don’t know what to tell you.
3. You talk about science in a way that belies that you don’t understand it at all. It’s just the rigorous examination of the physical world. There’s nothing to invent.
4. You don’t seem to understand how evidence works. There’s no such notion of an “omnibus study” that determines something conclusively. You set out to research some very small, testable notion with the data you have available and you come away with a small, probabilistic conclusion with a pretty wide uncertainty. Someone else does something similar and again and again, eventually an overarching pattern emerges. Someone writes a paper that combines all of those to create a theme. Repeat many times over and the confidence grows. You never establish something 100%, it’s impossible, but you become ever more confident. It’s statistically possible that gravity is just a coincidence, or caused by magic invisible faeries, but that possibility is vanishingly small. Similarly, the likelihood that massive head trauma causes brain damage is not in doubt. The probability that repeated minor or moderate brain trauma causes long term damage, well that’s getting clearer slowly but surely. The degree to which it happens and can be controlled is somewhat uncertain.
5. You don’t understand risk management and applied probability. Everything in life involves a lot of probabilistic risks. We manage those by examining cost and benefit. We drive places instead of walking because the risk of a fatal crash is acceptable given the time savings (granted there are a lot of secondary considerations but it’s just a bigger version of the same calculation). We played football a certain way at a certain time because we were balancing the risks and benefits, with the information available at the time. That information has changed, ergo the calculus changes.
6. You’ve got a black and white perspective of everything here. It’s a bogus straw man to dismiss whatever doesn’t fit your world view. Don’t like the results of this research? Pick a criticism and dismiss it outright. Like this result? Tout it as definitive.
7. You’ve got a bubble bias. Football isn’t the only sport under attack, it’s just the only sport you follow seriously on the issue. Soccer has a lot of hand-wringing over teaching heading at young ages. Hockey is waffling on contact ages and helmet standards.
8. You’ve created calamitous consequences to everything. If a rule of an arbitrary game is modified, the game becomes unrecognizable! If the game is unrecognizable, the game will cease to exist! If the game ceases to exist, the country will collapse!
9. You keep demanding to be convinced by evidence after having already said that no amount of evidence will convince you. There’s no helping you there.
I don’t love every rule change, some of them are poorly conceived and aren’t great from a process perspective, but the same could be said about tons of rules, safety related or otherwise, but playing the victim of a mass conspiracy is the height of narcissism, and reactionary thinking just isn’t going to work. If the future frightens you, it’s because you’re not prepared for it.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jul 22, 2018 14:31:43 GMT -6
I don’t believe in science. It’s not a religion. You don’t put faith in it. You gather evidence and you follow that evidence whether you like the results or not. That’s the great thing about science, it’s true whether you believe it or not.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 22, 2018 15:59:42 GMT -6
I don’t believe in science. It’s not a religion. You don’t put faith in it. You gather evidence and you follow that evidence whether you like the results or not. That’s the great thing about science, it’s true whether you believe it or not. That is debateable especially now a days but that will have to be done in another setting. Best. Troll. Ever. And like morons, we keep feeding you because we genuinely thought/think you are a football coach who cares about his players and the game.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Clement on Jul 22, 2018 17:00:48 GMT -6
That is debateable especially now a days but that will have to be done in another setting. Best. Troll. Ever. And like morons, we keep feeding you because we genuinely thought/think you are a football coach who cares about his players and the game. Honestly, based on previous posts and threads, I think he’s just thick.
|
|
|
Post by YoungDumbCoach on Jul 22, 2018 17:13:05 GMT -6
Best. Troll. Ever. And like morons, we keep feeding you because we genuinely thought/think you are a football coach who cares about his players and the game. science is man made. If you believe science is king, you then believe man is supreme being. That whole line of thought is irrational. So is religion, if that is the direction you are thinking next. But please read something other than a blog post so you can create a argument. At the moment even your screen name makes no since.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 22, 2018 17:39:01 GMT -6
So is religion, if that is the direction you are thinking next. But please read something other than a blog post so you can create a argument. At the moment even your screen name makes no since. Religion has killed billions of people. Even religion though is man made. Yes. Science proved that religion causes CTE which is what killed the dinosaurs while they played foosball.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 22, 2018 17:45:16 GMT -6
Yes. Science proved that religion causes CTE which is what killed the dinosaurs while they played foosball. before or after man-god died? Time has no meaning. Therefore concussion.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 22, 2018 17:52:22 GMT -6
Time has no meaning. Therefore concussion. did man or science come first? The chicken
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 22, 2018 17:59:03 GMT -6
you mean the egg or the chicken that produced the egg? Hawk tackle
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 22, 2018 18:11:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jul 22, 2018 18:15:12 GMT -6
Actually, they've known about boxing for decades. You can see old movies from the 30's and 40's with "punch drunk" ex-fighters. And yet they are not boxing isn't making it safer!!! How about that! There are not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of young Americans participating in boxing.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 22, 2018 18:27:35 GMT -6
There are not hundreds of thousands, if not millions of young Americans participating in boxing. oh how inviting! How bout soccer. Again I didn't one ioda how how we need to find to "mitigate" head trauma in soccer. And the number playing soccer far outweighs those playing fb. And again there will be no rule changes in soccer, ever. And I didn't even take the invite. Ummmmmm..... Some associations have outlaw heading for younger groups.
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 22, 2018 18:30:07 GMT -6
Ummmmmm..... Some associations have outlaw heading for younger groups. in america. Shocker! You said never.
|
|