Wasn't this poll question or something very similar to it asked before?
Yes, but I'd be a nazi about keeping him out, and teaching him to keep himself out, when/if he showed concussion symptoms, whatever the coach said.
I would let him play, but I think that's only because I never played football myself. I know absolutely nothing firsthand about its effects and for that reason, it would be hypocritical to keep him from playing. however, based on people ive spoken to, and stories i've read, I would not encourage him to play. For example, every little kid plays tee-ball, even if they don't specifically ask to play, because playing tee-ball is just something you do. but for football, he would have to specifically ask, maybe even try to persuade me, to allow it. concussions are a pretty scary thing, and its one of those things that never really gets better, which is scary.
Forget it, no way.
Prohibiting a child from participating in a sport that they want to play especially post-HS is very "helicopter parent". My parents never forced me or my siblings to join or quit anything and I will never do that my kids.
We should strive to keep thy name, of fair repute and spotless fame...
(Also, I'm not a dude)
The kid doesn't know any better early on, and can't make that kind of decision. By the time the kid gets to college, the collisions sustained by playing the previous 6 years may have already started taking their toll.
They could also get hit by a bus on their way to chess practice. There is risk in everything and a parent will never be able to protect a child from all risk. I would like to keep my children from resenting me for not letting them play a favorite sport that all their friends are playing because "they might get hurt".
In that situation...would that be checkmate?
Banned from BlackShoeDiaries since 2008. Crime: Slander/Defamation of Character Judgement: Guilty
I would like to keep my children from resenting me for not letting them play a favorite sport that all their friends are playing because "they might get hurt".
There's a double standard there. You're trying to keep their feelings from "getting hurt" in the present by letting them play football, while criticizing people who don't let their children play football for trying to protect them from getting physically hurt. Who's running the show in your house?
The average life expectancy of American males is 75. If you played football for 4 years in the NFL, that number drops to 55. I would really like to see some statistics for college-only players.
Regardless of feelings, I think it is abhorrent for a parent to prohibit a child from playing a school sanctioned sport because of what might happen.
You don't have to agree, it's obvious you don't. You're not going to change my mind.
Bucksfan, would you not let your child swim because of the possibility of drowning? What about riding a bike, they could certainly attain a head injury from that? I too find it abhorrent if one won't their child play a sport because of what could happen. If we lived our lives in fear of the multitude of what if scenarios, we as a society would get nothing done. Would you ever let your child drive? Because automobiles kill far more people in the US than football does.
You are being a bit extreme for the case of being extreme here. Drowning in a pool or getting into a car accident are things that can happen if you swim\drive. Hitting your head thousands of times a season is something that WILL happen when you play football. Even the kid who doesn't see the field unless he's in the up by 30, down by 30, 30 seconds to go club will endure a multitude of head to head collisions. Anyone who blames concussions is missing the point of the problem. It isn't the concussions (which like drowning and car accidents CAN but won't always happen). The bigger problem (and the one I'd have with deciding if my son can play ball or not) is the evidence that is out there about the impact (no pun intended) sub concussive hits have. Chris Henry's death was a turning point for brain research because here was a guy who's erratic and eventually wreck less behavior might be attributed to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CE) and he was never diagnosed with a concussion. He was 26 when he died-so this isn't the case of some battle hardened lineman in the 70's like Mike Webster (who's brain study ultimatley kicked off this new approach). This was a guy in the modern NFL, void of the scarlet letter that is a concussion diagnosis who STILL got diagnosed with CE. Now the dude was off his rocker, but part of it could have been from the fact that his brain was damaged.
The hits that don't cause the concussions are the bigger killers here dudes, I voted yes here but its time to open our eyes and see the real problem. Let the kid know "If you bang your head against something a lot of times for a few years, you might end up hurting yourself in the long term". Helmet safety can only do so much but no matter how you cut it, a helmet won't stop concussive or sub concussive hits from affecting the brain. Its a dangerous game and people need to know more than just the "Well its football" side of the coin. There's more science to it than that.
Do I come off as arrogant? Shame on me, I was hoping it would be more obvious.
I think not allowing a kid who wants to play a game that teaches accountability, comradary, work ethic, and dedication fits out generation of soft parents. I wonder sometimes if this mentality would have won us WWII.
It's the kids choice. If you want to play a sport where injuries are rare, then football isn't for you. Letting them play often weeds out the ones who know it isn't for them. You don't have to get a concussion to figure it out. I've seen Jr. high kids quit playing after getting the wind knocked out of them.
Dustin Fox was our leading tackler as a corner.... because his guy always caught the ball.
I see this as the beginning of some serious development/change in headgear and how players are monitored. It is a shame that at the same time the VA is dealing with IED concussion injuries (that have many commonalities to the case of Junior Seau), college and pro ball are also dealing with similar concussion injuries, and it appears they are not talking to each other.
A report on NPR last night discussed the presence of a protien that may be a marker, pre concussion, to certain individuals who may have more of a succeptability to concussion and experience greater side effects.
Bottom line is, this may be less of an issue here in the future. How we deal with the damage that is done is going to be a challenge.
Jim "DooDah" Day
It is hard to play dirty against a man who picks you up.
I will certainly let my children play any sport they find interest in, including footbal. With the large number of kids who have played pee-wee (midget), HS and college ball for DECADES compared to the relative few reported life altering injuries the risk is extremely low.
Absolutely. Just like at the number of cases that have risen up and compare that to the number of players who have gone through the league and I don't see this as a huge problem. Also look at the players who have filed these lawsuits and the time in which the were playing, and look at the rules of the NFL they were playing under along with the eqipment they were using compared to now.
I have three boys, twins at age 6 and another four year old, and they love playing so I'm not going to be the one to tell them "No" unless they become injury prone. Knock on wood.
I like to believe that my best hits border on felonious assault.
Yes but not without telling him what he's eposed to. Concussions aren't the main problem. The constant sub concussive hits are this issue. I wouldn't expect my future 11 year old son to understand the science behind it but it can be explained so a kid knows what is at risk.
The only sports my kid wouldn't be allowed to play are soccer and gymnastics. That is a fact. Football will be encouraged from birth.
Is there a reason not to allow him/her to play soccer? Maybe, a future punter/place kicker?
Because this is 'Murrica, and 'Murrica didn't get to be the best country in the world by not using its hands
haha "Dey took errr JERBS!!!"
I have personally never understood this mentality. I thought Americans wanted to be the best at everything.
Soccer players use their hands a TON! Even on the ball.
The evolution in helmets has come a long way. I said once before in a similar thread, if you want to take concussions out of football, go back to an open face soft shell helmet. No one will lead with their heads. Worst you'd see is black eyes, busted lips, and broken noses. I'm sure a strudy would come out 20 years from now saying that deviated sceptums are causing men to die in their sleep between the ages of 68-88. lol
We have to change the culture of the game. That has to start with coaches and support from the parents. As coaches we need to step up the level of instruction and get rid of the old teaching model for form tackling.
Every other skill in football has evolved over time, but not tackling...the most physical part of the game.
Keeping your head out of the tackle is a systematic approach that involves truly understanding the mechanics of delivering a take-down blow that removes the head and neck from harm's way...It can be done....It is being done here in Southern CA.
We must re-educate our kids at the youth level before they get to high school and they build of years of bad habits that may lead to poor form and injury....