|
Post by wingtol on Jan 26, 2018 10:44:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jan 26, 2018 11:06:23 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.
|
|
|
Post by jrk5150 on Jan 26, 2018 13:19:07 GMT -6
Tough subject. Considering the fact we're on a HS football coaching forum, I assume everyone here is pretty well sold on the positives that football brings to the table, so no need to go through them all.
I tend to agree that, from a HS football perspective, starting the game at age 12 or even 14 is probably a reasonable idea. The vast majority of the kids who get on the field with you guys on Friday night would get on the field regardless of when they started playing. Could it hurt numbers? Some say yes, I'm not convinced. I think the kids who start playing earlier than 12 now and stay with it would still sign up at 12 if that's the earliest they could.
But I have two issues with this proposed regulation/the line of thinking that says no football before age 12 or HS or whatever.
The first is general - youth football isn't about HS football, it's about youth football. Those positive attributes of football apply to an 8 year old as well as a 16 year old. I'm not sure it's a good thing to deny those kids the opportunity to learn the lessons that football teaches. I know they can still play at 12, but for a variety of reasons 12 is when we tend to start losing the kids that aren't planning to play in HS. Many (most?) of those kids may still try it out at 12, but they'll play a year or two and drop. And I don't believe they will reap the same benefits from football as a kid who starts at 7 or 8 and plays until he's 12 or 13.
The second is more specific, and more personal. There are kids who only continue to play at 12 and beyond because of what they learned playing at younger ages. Some kids need time to learn the game when things aren't quite as fast and violent as the game gets at 12. Not many, so I don't know that if I was a HS coach I'd particularly care, but I care because one of those kids is my son. He's 20 and on a D1 FCS roster. He started playing Pop Warner at 7 (ironically against my wishes). And I can say now, without any reservations, that youth football changed his life for the better. He would not be who he is (and he's a pretty damn fine young man) without having played youth football. Not HS football - frankly that was a mixed bag for him. He's on the mild end of the autism spectrum, and he really struggled finding his place socially. Football was a lifeline for him, all of those positive attributes we talk about were times ten for him. And I'm pretty confident that, had he been unable to play until he was 12, he either never would have played, or he'd have played a year and dropped. He needed those years from 7-11 to learn and get his feet under him. In fact, those were the life-changing years for him. By the time he was 12, he was pretty locked in as far as who he was and his "social standing" so to speak as well.
So I personally think this is a horrible idea. Especially given that there is NO, NADA, ZERO evidence that it would make a difference for CTE. In fact, the little evidence there is would point towards banning football AFTER 12 years old. This is just a knee-jerk reaction that ultimately won't help anyone, but will in fact hurt a relatively small handful of kids who really could benefit from football.
|
|
|
Post by 50slantstrong on Jan 26, 2018 14:26:03 GMT -6
This is the sad part:
A) Football players are not the most prone to head injuries B) Football has a coaching community that has done more to prevent head injuries than all other sports combined
But that won't get clicks on ESPN or CNN....
|
|
|
Post by bigshel on Jan 26, 2018 16:50:18 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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by somecoach on Jan 26, 2018 16:52:06 GMT -6
I look at it like the "Let's raise the driving age to 21" argument. Sure you get rid of all of these dangerous inexperienced teenagers off the road, but now you have a large crop of dangerous inexperienced adults on the road! The same goes for youth football. Instead of letting these kids learn how to defend themselves and play safely while the game is slow... now we have faster and stronger inexperienced kids The bigger issue is gonna be the experience gap between that class of kids and the kids who came before them, as well as the kids out of state. Sure the standouts will standout; but when it comes time to get recruited for college, the lack of playing ability might hinder quite a few.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 26, 2018 20:54:24 GMT -6
Note that such legisl'n wouldn't make it illegal for children to play football, only for adults to supervise them.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 26, 2018 21:00:35 GMT -6
That would've meant many of those who've played football would never have played football in their lives. Not that many take it up at 12, and even of those who would, many might wind up playing only that year.
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Jan 26, 2018 22:42:53 GMT -6
That would've meant many of those who've played football would never have played football in their lives. Not that many take it up at 12, and even of those who would, many might wind up playing only that year. Was an assistant in a league that didn’t have tackle football until middle school (7th and 8th grade). Often times their HS rosters more than doubled competition from outside the league. The league is home to 38 state football titles. They don’t have tackle youth football and are better for it. I’m not sure there are any arguments for youth tackle football that would convince me it’s great for multiple reasons but the one tangible reason is the league I know of that doesn’t have it is arguably the most successful in the state. for what it’s worth, there are two schools in the league that have tackle...one has never won a title and is a perennial bottom dweller with significantly smaller HS numbers.
|
|
|
Post by bigshel on Jan 26, 2018 22:48:09 GMT -6
That would've meant many of those who've played football would never have played football in their lives. Not that many take it up at 12, and even of those who would, many might wind up playing only that year. Was an assistant in a league that didn’t have tackle football until middle school (7th and 8th grade). Often times their HS rosters more than doubled competition from outside the league. The league is home to 38 state football titles. They don’t have tackle youth football and are better for it. I’m not sure there are any arguments for youth tackle football that would convince me it’s great for multiple reasons but the one tangible reason is the league I know of that doesn’t have it is arguably the most successful in the state. for what it’s worth, there are two schools in the league that have tackle...one has never won a title and is a perennial bottom dweller with significantly smaller HS numbers. One personal anecdote is not proof of some universal truth. To use it as such is fallacious logic.
|
|
|
Post by fballcoachg on Jan 27, 2018 7:13:29 GMT -6
Was an assistant in a league that didn’t have tackle football until middle school (7th and 8th grade). Often times their HS rosters more than doubled competition from outside the league. The league is home to 38 state football titles. They don’t have tackle youth football and are better for it. I’m not sure there are any arguments for youth tackle football that would convince me it’s great for multiple reasons but the one tangible reason is the league I know of that doesn’t have it is arguably the most successful in the state. for what it’s worth, there are two schools in the league that have tackle...one has never won a title and is a perennial bottom dweller with significantly smaller HS numbers. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 7:41:40 GMT -6
Reasons i support this, these are my opinions, and are purely anecdotal, but stereotypes exist for a reason.
1. Coaching is typically underwhelming. Too much yelling and dangerous drills, jades kids from what could be a good experience in high school. 2. Kids that havent developed early do not play, and when they grow, theyve already had a poor experience and wont give the game another chance. 3. Kids are peaking too early. They get burnt out before they even have a chance to do something great. I have kids now that played tons of junior football and had success, and that is all they talk about, instead of working to get better for high school. 4. Bad habits are hard to change. The best players usually play despite their attendance to practice. They play despite their poor attitude. If they have poor attendance, work ethic, and attitude, when they get to high school, it is a damn near impossible fix. 5. Last, but definitely not least, player safety in the long run. There is merit in these studies, and while i think football is unfairly targetted over other activities, there is truth there.
|
|
|
Post by coachfrigo on Jan 27, 2018 7:51:22 GMT -6
I don't agree with it, but not a huge deal, so long as kids can still get physically fit, and learn technique.
Hell, I've seen some nasty lineman play in flag.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jan 27, 2018 9:52:57 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. 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.
|
|
|
Post by mrjvi on Jan 27, 2018 10:20:17 GMT -6
At my previous school padded football didn't start until 7th grade. An informal flag program was around for a while for younger kids (boys and girls) We made the state finals 4 years and won it once. Starting hitting in 7th grade didn't seem to hurt us. Many kids played soccer younger but the red blooded American boys switched to FB.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2018 11:07:01 GMT -6
There is a whole political party that is more than willing to give you a total security based state, meaning they will gladly tell you what is or is not good for you. This is just the latest example.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jan 27, 2018 15:34:20 GMT -6
This isn’t about debating the benefits of youth football, it’s football being attacked by alarmist politics. This is the kind of stuff that slowly erodes the base of the game we all love and know is no where near as dangerous as some in the media and political realm want all the moms out there to think it is.
|
|
|
Post by CS on Jan 27, 2018 19:03:27 GMT -6
This isn’t about debating the benefits of youth football, it’s football being attacked by alarmist politics. This is the kind of stuff that slowly erodes the base of the game we all love and know is no where near as dangerous as some in the media and political realm want all the moms out there to think it is. I see what you’re saying and agree but if you look at all the rules changes and the emphasis on safer tackling techniques that state associations are pushing to make the game safer I don’t see youth leagues doing the same. Believe me, if every youth league was required to have coaches be certified I would be more on board but without the pay most places can only take who is willing to volunteer for the job. IMO this isn’t a horrible move and it’s sad that the the state legislation even has to get involved because nothing significant has changed in youth football.
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Jan 27, 2018 21:44:51 GMT -6
Anyone consider how Roosevelt was received at the time he moved to evolve the game? Probably some parallels to this generations epidemic. Not playing until HS doesn't appear to be a hindrance to quite a few folks listed: QB – Tom Brady, 9th grade RB – Jim Brown, 9th grade RB – Walter Payton, 10th grade WR – Jerry Rice, 10th grade WR – Tim Brown, 10th grade TE – John Mackey*, 10th grade OT – Anthony Munoz, 9th grade OG – Larry Allen, 11th grade C – Dermontti Dawson, 11th grade OL – Matt Birk, 10th grade OT – Walter Jones, 9th grade DE – Michael Strahan, 12th grade DT – Dan Hampton, 11th grade DT – Warren Sapp*, 10th grade DE – Julius Peppers, 9th grade LB – Lawrence Taylor, 11th grade LB – Willie Lanier*, 9th grade LB – Harry Carson*, 9th grade CB – Mike Haynes*, 11th grade FS – Everson Walls, 12th grade SS – Jack Tatum, 10th grade CB – Hanford Dixon, 9th grade (* These players have personally stated to the Concussion Legacy Foundation that they never played tackle football until the age listed.) "Dozens of other greats narrowly missed the cut for the All-Time Greatest Team, including Drew Brees, Curtis Martin, Kellen Winslow Sr., Clinton Portis, Malcolm Butler, Mike Iupati, Jahri Evans, Charlie Joiner, Jackie Smith, Ben Coates, Ed “Too Tall” Jones, Leo Nomellini and many more." I suppose it wise to sort out what trench we are trying to defend before we dig in and launch ordinance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 9:07:45 GMT -6
Anyone consider how Roosevelt was received at the time he moved to evolve the game? Probably some parallels to this generations epidemic. Not playing until HS doesn't appear to be a hindrance to quite a few folks listed: QB – Tom Brady, 9th grade RB – Jim Brown, 9th grade RB – Walter Payton, 10th grade WR – Jerry Rice, 10th grade WR – Tim Brown, 10th grade TE – John Mackey*, 10th grade OT – Anthony Munoz, 9th grade OG – Larry Allen, 11th grade C – Dermontti Dawson, 11th grade OL – Matt Birk, 10th grade OT – Walter Jones, 9th grade DE – Michael Strahan, 12th grade DT – Dan Hampton, 11th grade DT – Warren Sapp*, 10th grade DE – Julius Peppers, 9th grade LB – Lawrence Taylor, 11th grade LB – Willie Lanier*, 9th grade LB – Harry Carson*, 9th grade CB – Mike Haynes*, 11th grade FS – Everson Walls, 12th grade SS – Jack Tatum, 10th grade CB – Hanford Dixon, 9th grade (* These players have personally stated to the Concussion Legacy Foundation that they never played tackle football until the age listed.) "Dozens of other greats narrowly missed the cut for the All-Time Greatest Team, including Drew Brees, Curtis Martin, Kellen Winslow Sr., Clinton Portis, Malcolm Butler, Mike Iupati, Jahri Evans, Charlie Joiner, Jackie Smith, Ben Coates, Ed “Too Tall” Jones, Leo Nomellini and many more." I suppose it wise to sort out what trench we are trying to defend before we dig in and launch ordinance. you are talking about kids not actively participating in a sport till they are 12, you will miss out on kids completely, depleting numbers even more. My bigger issue is the lack of individual responsibility. NFL players are adults who knew full well. Parents need to start acting like parents. legislators of any sort really are over stepping their bounds. I am incensed at the willingness to turn our game over to a bunch of know nothing politicians.
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Jan 28, 2018 10:55:59 GMT -6
Not following the logic...Present a list of mostly HOF Pros...but they/we somehow missed the Football Boat? Seems the point of their presentation is off? Bobblehead Football is a sick joke imo...but responsibly graduated levels of contact through age groups is the lynchpin that will topple the Game? Sorry, but if that data doesn't show that tackle before 14 or 10,000 hrs is NOT a prerequisite for professional success, there's not much more to say. Anecdotally, had cousin, year older, metro/city life...played young, got concussed, never played when older. Myself, rural, first opportunity at org ball at 15...able to play through inj...(that can be viewed 2 ways)...continued to play mult. seasons. Very small sample, but stands as a clear example for myself. **Hockey is a sport that keeps bodychecking out of play until a certain age...The Dying Game of Hockey (full sarcasm)
|
|
|
Post by coachdirt on Jan 28, 2018 12:22:09 GMT -6
Arizona v Texas Flag Competition of teens at ProBowl/NFL FLAG Championship...nah..no carryover here...move along!
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jan 28, 2018 13:04:17 GMT -6
Again it’s not the point of debating youth football vs no youth football, it’s the over the “FOOTBALL IS DANGEROUS WE NEED TO MAKE LAWS ABOUT IT” the more negativity there is out there about the game the more we have to fight against to keep the sport going strong.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 28, 2018 13:26:17 GMT -6
Again it’s not the point of debating youth football vs no youth football, it’s the over the “FOOTBALL IS DANGEROUS WE NEED TO MAKE LAWS ABOUT IT” the more negativity there is out there about the game the more we have to fight against to keep the sport going strong. But isn't it though? We can't say that repeatedly crashing into others, regardless of how well we teach "heads up" or "head free" tackling does not have the potential to be worse for a brain, developing or fully developed, than NOT crashing into things can we? That is the tricky part, for me anyway, particularly after seeing a classmate of mine do his graduate work on football players and how their brains responded to the IMPACTS testing protocols. HS and JR high ages. The data was not pleasant to review.
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Jan 28, 2018 13:32:35 GMT -6
I'm not a fan of having the government getting involved but I don't get the "Sky is falling" theme here. AS lot of us seem to think that ending organized youth football means that kids will stop playing football. Nonsense.
Gee, what a tragedy it would be if kids had to figure things out on their own and just have fun without adults running things for them.
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jan 28, 2018 14:22:18 GMT -6
I’m not a youth football fan by any means and I’m not saying it’s imperative to the game to have it BUT stuff like this just makes it easier for people to not let their kids ever play the game. I know you know everyone on this board knows what football is all about and how the positives out weigh the negatives but there are still threads all about getting kids to play, dealing with parents, etc etc. These kinds of stories only add more ammo to the anti-football movement. We all see the posts where cheerleading, soccer, lacrosse, Hell kids riding bikes have higher injury rates that football but it seems football is regularly brought up as this monstrosity that will destroy your brain!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 14:31:55 GMT -6
Again it’s not the point of debating youth football vs no youth football, it’s the over the “FOOTBALL IS DANGEROUS WE NEED TO MAKE LAWS ABOUT IT” the more negativity there is out there about the game the more we have to fight against to keep the sport going strong. But isn't it though? We can't say that repeatedly crashing into others, regardless of how well we teach "heads up" or "head free" tackling does not have the potential to be worse for a brain, developing or fully developed, than NOT crashing into things can we? That is the tricky part, for me anyway, particularly after seeing a classmate of mine do his graduate work on football players and how their brains responded to the IMPACTS testing protocols. HS and JR high ages. The data was not pleasant to review. so we accept the current narrative? which cannot be proven either.
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 28, 2018 14:52:15 GMT -6
I’m not a youth football fan by any means and I’m not saying it’s imperative to the game to have it BUT stuff like this just makes it easier for people to not let their kids ever play the game. I know you know everyone on this board knows what football is all about and how the positives out weigh the negatives but there are still threads all about getting kids to play, dealing with parents, etc etc. These kinds of stories only add more ammo to the anti-football movement. We all see the posts where cheerleading, soccer, lacrosse, Hell kids riding bikes have higher injury rates that football but it seems football is regularly brought up as this monstrosity that will destroy your brain! I have to point out that there are so many conflicting parts here though. Ultimately, it isn't about acute injuries that make up an "injury rate" stat, but rather the overall activity being performed. The "injury rate" from eating Mcdonalds Chicken Nuggets, fries, and a coke- short of choking risk, is quite slight. Doing so repeatedly...well we know where that leads don't we? @grad17 you are correct that nothing is "proven". Very little if anything is ever considered proven. It is still not "proven" that smoking causes health ailments. We just have mountains of evidence to suggest it. Having seen evidence first hand (as I mentioned above) of reduced reaction times, visual memory, motor speed etc as tested by the IMPACTS testing system as the season goes on...well, I would say that nothing is proven but evidence is starting to mount that suggests it. It is not simply the "wussification of 'Merica" as so many like to spout here on the board.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jan 28, 2018 15:13:32 GMT -6
Bobblehead Football is a sick joke imo. But not to the kids who play it. Although they do laugh a lot. But not by law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2018 15:20:45 GMT -6
I’m not a youth football fan by any means and I’m not saying it’s imperative to the game to have it BUT stuff like this just makes it easier for people to not let their kids ever play the game. I know you know everyone on this board knows what football is all about and how the positives out weigh the negatives but there are still threads all about getting kids to play, dealing with parents, etc etc. These kinds of stories only add more ammo to the anti-football movement. We all see the posts where cheerleading, soccer, lacrosse, Hell kids riding bikes have higher injury rates that football but it seems football is regularly brought up as this monstrosity that will destroy your brain! I have to point out that there are so many conflicting parts here though. Ultimately, it isn't about acute injuries that make up an "injury rate" stat, but rather the overall activity being performed. The "injury rate" from eating Mcdonalds Chicken Nuggets, fries, and a coke- short of choking risk, is quite slight. Doing so repeatedly...well we know where that leads don't we? @grad17 you are correct that nothing is "proven". Very little if anything is ever considered proven. It is still not "proven" that smoking causes health ailments. We just have mountains of evidence to suggest it. Having seen evidence first hand (as I mentioned above) of reduced reaction times, visual memory, motor speed etc as tested by the IMPACTS testing system as the season goes on...well, I would say that nothing is proven but evidence is starting to mount that suggests it. It is not simply the "wussification of 'Merica" as so many like to spout here on the board. But that is not up to politicians or a governing body to decide, that is up to parents and their children to decide. It is not up to you or I to decide to what is right for others. The minute we surrender that right? You and I are the walking dead. To take it further, we are still acting on apparent not hard facts. And told the other apparent cant be true.
|
|