Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's not play stupid any more than necessary, shall we. Because you know damned well what the point is but obviously you rather play games than provide a single shred of evidence to support your specious argument i.e., that the government mandated the use of helmets.
Are you seriously suggesting that high school football players in your state may play without a helmet if they like?
They certainly can't here in Texas, which long ago adopted the NCAA rules as the state rules. Most other states adopted the standards of the National Federation of High Schools Association. In any event, the use of helmets was made mandatory by states, whether they wrote their own rules or adopted those of the NCAA or NFHS.
I'm confused by this entire debate. I thought the goal of a sport was to play a game, score points and win, plus build leadership, confidence, good sportsmanship and team work skills--not to see who can rack up the most injuries, or better yet, put kids at risk of life threatening injury. I didn't realize that playing a game should be worth dying over, or suffering a permanent disability. Accidents will always happen, and injuries will always occur, but if you can minimize injury, or the severity of injury, with better equipment or better understanding of prevention and treatment, OF COURSE you should do it. How that translates into government interference is a leap I'm not getting. Better equipment and better information/education doesn't impact the game itself--it just changes the outcome when when a kid is hurt.
To a point I would agree, but I've known quite a few coaches who were thoroughly clueless when it came to understanding the severity or consequences of certain injuries as your story underscores. As a result they will often put a key player back in a game rather than really taking time to access the injury. These new studies may give coaches a new understanding that a kid who took a hard hit may have problems that are not easy to detect, it might also help to change how teams practice by minimizing the types of tackles and blocks that can cause such injuries.
I agree. Not to hijack, but my kids did gymnastics and it was the same thing. Many of the coaches in club gymnastics especially did not know squat about injuries. The high school coaches were better, IMO.
I agree. Not to hijack, but my kids did gymnastics and it was the same thing. Many of the coaches in club gymnastics especially did not know squat about injuries. The high school coaches were better, IMO.
I don't think coaches purposefully put kids back in games because they don't care if they're hurt--I agree that some of them just don't understand injuries well enough. Better training and education helps everyone.
Are you seriously suggesting that high school football players in your state may play without a helmet if they like?
They certainly can't here in Texas, which long ago adopted the NCAA rules as the state rules.
Is the NCAA the government? No.
Is the Texas University Interscholastic League which governs public schools sports the government? No.
Have you produced a single state or federal statute mandating what equipment should or should not be worn by high school or college football players? No.
Stillkit, I don't play mental masturbation games with trolls. Go play mind **** with someone else, we're done.
Even in the 80's we were taught the proper techniques to minimize injury. Form tackle = Facemask in the chest and drive your helmet into running back's chin. Grab both thighs and lift the runner off the ground. Drop them on their back with the full force of your body on top of them.
Yes, you can go to youtube and see instructional videos of how to do it. There is the textbook way and the real life way. Both are equally safe. One just hurts the runner more.
Thanks --I left a big point out though. The other issue is that youth sports used to revolve around community organized teams composed of kids with lots of different levels of ability--it was more social and fun. The big push now is for elementary school aged kids to join select teams with tryouts at a younger and younger age. The playing is more aggressive and competitive, with longer seasons--some kids practice year round--etc. I'm not trying to bash select team sports, but they do increase the risk of injury, because the kids are playing longer and harder at younger ages. We kept our boys out of those programs.
I agree with your assessment. My nephew started football last year and he was supposed to come stay with us for the summer to help with our lawn business and make some money to save for a car, but he decided he wanted to play football instead. He had conditioning 4 days/week in the summer, then right before school they went to 6 days/week. I believe football season is now over (we went to his first game back in September, I think it was) but just yesterday he was complaining about being sick and not being able to go to conditioning...so obviously they are still keeping at it. This is nuts, IMO. It's too much for these young kids, he was 15 last summer, just turned 16 right after Christmas.
I am currently pregnant and if we have a boy, I'm gonna put my foot down and say no football. While I realize a concussion or brain injury can happen in daily life and with any sport, the chances of it happening with football are much greater. The chance of it happening repeatedly is too great for my comfort. Also, the amount of time and energy they have to put into conditioning and practice is over-the-top. I know my nephew wants a scholarship and that's all fine and dandy, but there are other ways to get a scholarship for college that don't require brain damage.
All that being said, I don't think the gov't needs to interfere. It's up to the parents and the child as well as the school.
There is a bill in the Colorado legislature to require coaches to take free online training in how to identify concussions in kids ages 11 - 19. Coaches would be required to remove teens from play immediately if they have concussion-like symptoms and could only play them again with written medical clearance. This is in response to a death on the playing field of a high school.
The governemt will step in if coaches, parents, etc don't do the right thing voluntarily. Plus, there do need to be some standards. It can't all be up to "common sense", as there is really no such thing.
Is the Texas University Interscholastic League which governs public schools sports the government? No.
Have you produced a single state or federal statute mandating what equipment should or should not be worn by high school or college football players? No.
Stillkit, I don't play mental masturbation games with trolls. Go play mind **** with someone else, we're done.
You're not paying attention. Those standards were ACCEPTED BY THE STATES AS THE STATE STANDARD.
It makes little difference who wrote them. They ARE the state standards and CAN be enforced by the states. In fact, let your local coach send his team out to play without helmets and see what happens.
Now...why do you think the states adopted those standards and gave them the force of law? Did they just wake up one day and say, "Hey! Let's do something about football!"
No. They did it in response to public pressure, to address a perceived problem. That's how government works
And, that is exactly where this debate over helmets is headed. Sit back and watch. No decent politician is going to let this opportunity pass without offering up legislation to "protect the kids." Too many people are already demanding "something be done!"
And, never forget the process of incrementalism. Once it's established that the legislature or congress can do that, then it's open season on the "safety" aspects of shoulder pads, leg pads, shoes, turf, playing time, coaches training, schedules. The list of things which can be made "safer" for "the children" is limited only by the imagination.
Trace the path of seat belt laws as an example, from it's inception as a "problem" which needs to be addressed, through voluntary compliance, to forced compliance, to today's standard of seat belt use by every person in the car and a ticket not only for the person without a belt, but for the driver too. See the progression? Throw in the imposition of child restraint's and those torture machines called "booster seats," and you can see how what started out as just an idea has become not only a major avenue of government intrusion into our private lives, but a major source of revenue too.
There is a bill in the Colorado legislature to require coaches to take free online training in how to identify concussions in kids ages 11 - 19. Coaches would be required to remove teens from play immediately if they have concussion-like symptoms and could only play them again with written medical clearance. This is in response to a death on the playing field of a high school.
The governemt will step in if coaches, parents, etc don't do the right thing voluntarily. Plus, there do need to be some standards. It can't all be up to "common sense", as there is really no such thing.
"Common sense" dictates the states should decide where to spend their time in creating legislation pertaining to their individual education/extra curricular programs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
--I left a big point out though. The other issue is that youth sports used to revolve around community organized teams composed of kids with lots of different levels of ability--it was more social and fun. The big push now is for elementary school aged kids to join select teams with tryouts at a younger and younger age. The playing is more aggressive and competitive, with longer seasons--some kids practice year round--etc. I'm not trying to bash select team sports, but they do increase the risk of injury, because the kids are playing longer and harder at younger ages. We kept our boys out of those programs.
