- Joined
- Jan 30, 2017
- Messages
- 1,073
Though I don't agree with calling it "child abuse", I certainly don't think playing football is the same as the things you listed. They're not even close, for a number of reasons.Then the expert takes his kid in his vehicle....will let him ride a bike....let him ride a dirt bike.....eat fatty food....ect.....a very dumb point of view.
Agreed they are not the same.Though I don't agree with calling it "child abuse", I certainly don't think playing football is the same as the things you listed. They're not even close, for a number of reasons.
Dirtbikes, sure that's a hobby that a percentage of the population partakes in. Vehicles on the other hand are much different. Yes they are infinitely more dangerous, part of that is the because of the volume of drivers, but unfortunately driving is a necessity for millions of americans. People drive because they have too, people play football for fun. Things like riding bikes, or in vehicles can be dangerous when an accident happens, football injuries are basically an accepted part of the game.Agreed they are not the same.
Something like riding a dirt bike is profoundly more dangerous in terms of serious injury rates. Riding in vehicles, in terms of death and serious, life changing injuries, is much more dangerous.
Is football dangerous? Yes.
Comparing children and how they play to how athletically, very fast very large adults play is silly. There is a lot to learn certainly.
Big jumps taking place with folks this guy, well extended or not.
Of course.Dirtbikes, sure that's a hobby that a percentage of the population partakes in. Vehicles on the other hand are much different. Yes they are infinitely more dangerous, part of that is the because of the volume of drivers, but unfortunately driving is a necessity for millions of americans. People drive because they have too, people play football for fun. Things like riding bikes, or in vehicles can be dangerous when an accident happens, football injuries are basically an accepted part of the game.
No question about it the insurance will be the end of it.When 110 of 111 NFL players studied had CTE, that's beyond significant.
Moreover, the more we learn about CTE, the more we learn that it's not always the major concussions that cause CTE, but more often it's the sub-concussive impacts that still cause minor capillary brain bleeds.
More than anything else, the science is coming in that for players that play, they're going to have those sub-concussive impacts and almost guarantee themselves a level of CTE.
And yes, there are a significant percentage of just former HS players who have CTE (greater than 40% iirc, I can't find the study atm), let alone former college players.
I think it's safe to say that it won't be long before Pop Warner and youth football goes away. Why? Insurance. At some point, medical science will be able to scan for the remnants of minor brain bleeds and when they do, any kid who gets scanned and has even the slightest trace won't be insurable. My eldest son who's high-functioning autistic survived a very serious car accident when he was 8.5 months old and was left with a lesion in his brain. Even though the lesion is the size of a pinpoint, he was still uninsurable for contact sports like soccer and football.
As tends to be the case, it won't be social awareness, but some systemic factor, in this case insurance, that will force the changes.
As to whether playing one's child in youth/HS football is child abuse, that's tough. I disagree that "kids will get hurt" as an inevitability. Not every kid does. That said, especially as the science improves, a legal case can be made that putting a child into a situation which statistically almost guarantees injury... well, that might be abuse.
I think Dr Omalu is right about that. Now, we can debate the appropriateness of that in light of a sanctioned league (meaning that how can a parent be prosecuted for putting their kids in an activity that it licensed through a municipality or state?), but the activity itself is inherently dangerous.
Again, it may be systemic. It may be a DA who makes clear his/her intentions and a city or cities that refuse to sanction youth football because of the...insurance. The liability of being sued by the family of an injured child.
I won't get into the legal arguments as others are better situated to do that and I don't want to make it political. I'm a systems guy and very often, things change because of systemic change, not because of social political, legal or moral pressures.
In the end, we may be seeing the end of youth football. I dunno that parents will be prosecuted for child abuse, but the liability may simply end it.
Well if the expert expects his kid to repeatedly ride his bike into a wall it would be an appropriate comparison.Then the expert takes his kid in his vehicle....will let him ride a bike....let him ride a dirt bike.....eat fatty food....ect.....a very dumb point of view.
Missing the point.Well if the expert expects his kid to repeatedly ride his bike into a wall it would be an appropriate comparison.
The issue with youth football is the cumulative damage over time to the brain. Dislocations and broken bones heal while brain damage gets worse over time.Of course.
What is concerning is serious injuries.
I have seen very few serious injuries in youth football. I have seen tons with dirt bikes and even BMX biking. All sorts of studies and stats regarding mortality and those sorts of activities.
Eliminating things that don't have to be done because of injury risk is sort of a slippery slope. To each their own of course. But accepted risk is a part of life. Each person/family should be left to make own decisions in that regard.
Of course, safety should be at the forefront with football as with other things.
Sure......but will we recognize it? Future Football will probably entail a lot of bubble wrap and 4 inches deep crumb rubber field and lots of please and thank you.Football will be played long after we are all dead and buried... and it will continue to be played even longer after that.
Infinity squared to be exact.
This is seriously going to stir up some controversy now. He does make a point...
More than anything else, the science is coming in that for players that play, they're going to have those sub-concussive impacts and almost guarantee themselves a level of CTE.
As tends to be the case, it won't be social awareness, but some systemic factor, in this case insurance, that will force the changes.
If the 111 came from random players it would be a better study. When you stack the deck by taking people who worry about having an issue but not random people who don't think there's an issue that's an issue. I'm not saying there isn't an issue but this study was stacking the deck.
Though I don't agree with calling it "child abuse", I certainly don't think playing football is the same as the things you listed. They're not even close, for a number of reasons.
Football will be played long after we are all dead and buried... and it will continue to be played even longer after that.
Sure......but will we recognize it? Future Football will probably entail a lot of bubble wrap
Agreed.The issue with youth football is the cumulative damage over time to the brain. Dislocations and broken bones heal while brain damage gets worse over time.
I understand what you are saying and I would agree to a point. When I was growing up 50 years ago there wasn't these steroidal middle schoolers like there is now. There are middle schoolers bigger than anyone in my graduating class of 120 grads.Agreed.
My issue is them looking at pro players and applying findings to youth players.
Most kids don't play for more that a couple of years....8-10 or 9-12 years old for example. The majority of kids who play youth football don't play in high school. The vast majority of kids who play in high school never smell a college football field. A small percentage of college football players play pro football.
The study showing showable effect in 110 out of 111 pro players should not be ignored of course. That is a major concern. But, it is not known what the long term affects will be even for those 110 players. End results can vary wildely. Pretending that all football is the same....that small, slow, physically weak young kids are creating impacts like grown men is silly. Applying results from a study....of guys who have played at least a decade and a half of football (safe to assume), much of it at a very high level.....meaning big, fast, strong elite athletes dealing out punishment....applying those results to kids who mostly play for a few years at a low level is silly.
I would like to see a study of kids that played a few years or played through high school. Would be interesting.
It's like comparing slap fighting with sparring a professional fighter over and over.
Always been big kids. Always been small kids.I understand what you are saying and I would agree to a point. When I was growing up 50 years ago there wasn't these steroidal middle schoolers like there is now. There are middle schoolers bigger than anyone in my graduating class of 120 grads.