Football and kids

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

This whole thread reads as what we here at CP like to call "the pansification of society"

I don't think there's anything pansy about trying to protect your kids brain from long term damage.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

so football has a concussion rate of 64 to 77 concussions per 100,000 athletic events - so how many athletic events would we be talking about if one kid started playing football at the earliest possible age and played right thru to university.

12 yrs of playing x 5 months of football games/practice (AE's) x 5 AE's per week = 1,200 AE's....... so I think that equates to about 1 chance per 1200 that seems like risk management to me......I wonder what the numbers look like for activities like skateboarding or bicycling?

for those of you that are considering not allowing your kids to play certain sports, it will be interesting to see how your kids react to that over time as thier peer group has influence over them.

for the record, I think concussions in kids are scary things, as how do you tell a 10 yr old to sit in a dark room and do nothing for some period of time.......but I sometimes think the risk is a little overblown.......

You may be right that the risk is overblown at times, but all it takes is one serious head injury to change someone's life. My brother suffered a severe concussion after getting jumped and his personality changed because of the concussion. He is now really short tempered and has really poor impulse control. I also worked with a guy who suffered a severe concussion from a car accident and his memory was really poor (I always had to remind him of things I had spoke with him about from the previous day) and he also had poor impulse control and had a really short fuse too. Of course these head injuries were a result of everyday life and not sport, but the risk is still there when playing sport. Often, a parent's job is to protect their children from risk even when the risk factor may seem trivial.

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I can't believe they counted cheerleading as a sport and there are that many concussions involved.

I suspect the cheerleading they are counting is the competitive cheerleading, complete with throws, flips and tumbling. I can definitely see that having that many concussions.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

This whole thread reads as what we here at CP like to call "the pansification of society"

The pansification would be if peopel were lobbying to take hitting out of these sports.

Lobbying for teaching kids how to protect themselves properly in game is not pansification, it's good sense.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

so football has a concussion rate of 64 to 77 concussions per 100,000 athletic events - so how many athletic events would we be talking about if one kid started playing football at the earliest possible age and played right thru to university.

12 yrs of playing x 5 months of football games/practice (AE's) x 5 AE's per week = 1,200 AE's....... so I think that equates to about 1 chance per 1200 that seems like risk management to me......I wonder what the numbers look like for activities like skateboarding or bicycling?

for those of you that are considering not allowing your kids to play certain sports, it will be interesting to see how your kids react to that over time as thier peer group has influence over them.

for the record, I think concussions in kids are scary things, as how do you tell a 10 yr old to sit in a dark room and do nothing for some period of time.......but I sometimes think the risk is a little overblown.......

I don't think it is overblown in pro football. We are starting to see the evidence that it is pretty common and serious problem for ex-players.

It probably isn't too big of an issue for the 8-12 year olds. My concern is more about if they play now, they might play in high school too, and where does it really start to become an issue and a problem. The way you break down those stats is interesting in that it still seems a rare occurrence to even get a concussion. But, any pro team probably suffers a concussion injury once a week (pure WAG), and has to be way higher than 1 in 1000 players get concussions over an nfl career. I'd think that number would be in the neighborhood of one in 2 or 3. Or maybe there is something about the repeated less than concussive blows to the heads that contributes to the long term issues.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don't think it is overblown in pro football. We are starting to see the evidence that it is pretty common and serious problem for ex-players.

It probably isn't too big of an issue for the 8-12 year olds. My concern is more about if they play now, they might play in high school too, and where does it really start to become an issue and a problem. The way you break down those stats is interesting in that it still seems a rare occurrence to even get a concussion. But, any pro team probably suffers a concussion injury once a week (pure WAG), and has to be way higher than 1 in 1000 players get concussions over an nfl career. I'd think that number would be in the neighborhood of one in 2 or 3. Or maybe there is something about the repeated less than concussive blows to the heads that contributes to the long term issues.

This idea is what the documentary Head Games suggests (as they refer to them as pre-concussive blows).

[Temporary_User]

Originally Posted by MattyC

The pansification would be if peopel were lobbying to take hitting out of these sports.

Lobbying for teaching kids how to protect themselves properly in game is not pansification, it's good sense.

Overall it was a joke. But the majority of this thread is about taking kids out of contact sports and into gentler or safer sports.
I don't think I'll be having kids so I haven't been following how more dangerous the game has gotten since I was a kid and played. Kids are getting bigger though. The equipment is also getting better.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...mets-1.2421805

A Calgary high school football team is the first in Canada to go high-tech in order to better detect concussions. As part of a pilot project funded by the University of Alberta, all players on the Ernest Manning High School football team had sensors installed in their helmets that measure the impact of hits. So far, they've caught more concussions than other local teams have reported all year.

This is a great technology and once costs come down will be able to prevent players from going back in after a big hit.

I'm sure hockey and other sports will follow suit


Perhaps one reason I wouldn't want my kid to grow up playing football is the difference in culture I experienced. I can really only comment on football and hockey as they were the two sports I grew up playing, but I knew people on my football team taking steroids as young as 14-15. The coaches knew it too because there is no mistaking a roid rage on the practice field. I never saw anything like that in hockey.

Granted hockey is more of a family sport than football is. I would go to football after school on my own, not a single parent would go to football practice, yet every parent would drive their kids to hockey and typically stay and watch till the end.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

so football has a concussion rate of 64 to 77 concussions per 100,000 athletic events - so how many athletic events would we be talking about if one kid started playing football at the earliest possible age and played right thru to university.

12 yrs of playing x 5 months of football games/practice (AE's) x 5 AE's per week = 1,200 AE's....... so I think that equates to about 1 chance per 1200 that seems like risk management to me......I wonder what the numbers look like for activities like skateboarding or bicycling?

for those of you that are considering not allowing your kids to play certain sports, it will be interesting to see how your kids react to that over time as thier peer group has influence over them.

for the record, I think concussions in kids are scary things, as how do you tell a 10 yr old to sit in a dark room and do nothing for some period of time.......but I sometimes think the risk is a little overblown.......

It depends on the definition of athletic event as well as how concussions are monitored. I will see if I can find the article later but there was a junior hockey team that had roughly a quarter of the players reporting symptoms during the season.

I can't link to many journal articles but here is one that is online for free... it has numbers that are much higher than what your numbers are by the way (football 22.9 per 10,000 or 229 per 100,000 AE in competition/games)... to factor practices in artificially makes the number seem lower than what the reality suggests to be the case

http://www.udel.edu/PT/PT%20Clinical...oncussions.pdf

[bubbsy]

when i learned to play football, when tackling was introduced, the first thing we learned was how to take a hit. mind you, i did have multiple joint and ligament injuries playing tackle football, even just pickup.

i won't be putting my son in tackle football for sure. football is an amazing game, but i think the game, especially at the child/youth level can be enjoyed being played as 2-hand touch or flag football (i much prefer 2-hand touch).

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Temporary_User

Overall it was a joke. But the majority of this thread is about taking kids out of contact sports and into gentler or safer sports.
I don't think I'll be having kids so I haven't been following how more dangerous the game has gotten since I was a kid and played. Kids are getting bigger though. The equipment is also getting better.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...mets-1.2421805

This is a great technology and once costs come down will be able to prevent players from going back in after a big hit.

I'm sure hockey and other sports will follow suit


Perhaps one reason I wouldn't want my kid to grow up playing football is the difference in culture I experienced. I can really only comment on football and hockey as they were the two sports I grew up playing, but I knew people on my football team taking steroids as young as 14-15. The coaches knew it too because there is no mistaking a roid rage on the practice field. I never saw anything like that in hockey.

Granted hockey is more of a family sport than football is. I would go to football after school on my own, not a single parent would go to football practice, yet every parent would drive their kids to hockey and typically stay and watch till the end.

The reason I responded is I DO think there's a big pansification going on in general (aka moving hitting up to Bantam in hockey which I think is dangerous but thats another discussion), but parents looking for ways to protect their kids better by giving them knowledge on how to protect themselves within the way the game is played is not part of that IMO. Neither is parents taking their kids away from contact sports, that's their porogative, whatever the reasons are. I would much rather parents take their kids out of a contact sport then leave them in but try to change the rules to suit their own issues with the physicality involved.

I've always said if a parent doesn't want their kids to participate in potentially dangerous sports, then there are plenty of non-contact options for any physical sport. That's not a slight to them or a GTFO attitude (ok maybe a little bit), it's just about them changing their own situation to suit their needs rather than trying to change it for everyone. Because not everyone wants change in these things. There are inherent risks involved in any sport, even non-physical ones, and as long as the kids and parents are educated and aware of the risks, I don't see how they have any grounds to complain or try to change parts of the game to accomodate them personally.

[M*A*S*H 4077]

I know when I coach high school football we spend a lot of time on proper form tackling and how to take a hit. And throughout the season if we see a kid lowering his head on a tackle or turning his body sideways as he is getting hit, we jump on it immediately. There's no faster way to get hurt than lowering your head on a tackle.

I think part of the issue is that the pros have basically forgotten how to properly form tackle. Or they don't care to do it. Everyone wants to lay the knockout hit on each other and kids who look up to these players want to emulate them on the field.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

As a coach, I can pretty confidently state that the reason for a lot of injuries is because of the old school mentally when it comes to hitting. Coaches love the big hit. But they don't spend a lot of time on safe or heads up tackling technique that protects the neck and back and head of the tackler for example. they spend way to much time on scheme and reads.

If we coach our kids properly then we can change the game.

I agree with this. As a soccer coach I spent a lot of practices teaching safe, proper slide tackles.

I had a parent actually give me crap about it because the kids were getting hurt at my practices, nothing major just scrapes and bruises but no other coach actually practiced tackling so it was a foreign concept to the parents and they were wondering why I was doing it.

"If no other coach they've had actually practiced tackling, how are they expected to know how to do it properly?"

Tackling, be it in football, soccer or rugby is a two-person deal. You have to learn how to do tackle safely and how to be tackled properly.

If a guy hits you and he has no idea what hes doing then you're both going to get hurt.

If you get hit and you've never been hit before, same deal. Someone's going to get hurt.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

I had a parent actually give me crap about it because the kids were getting hurt at my practices, nothing major just scrapes and bruises but no other coach actually practiced tackling so it was a foreign concept to the parents and they were wondering why I was doing it.

.

You need to explain the difference between hurt and injuried to you parents.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

You need to explain the difference between hurt and injuried to you parents.

Ha! And I was coaching teenagers at the time. 14-16 year olds.

I had run the exact same drills with 10-12 year olds and they were as enthusiastic as pigs in mud, but run it with the teenagers and its all; "Owie! I cant run because I have a scrape on my shin!!"

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Locke

Ha! And I was coaching teenagers at the time. 14-16 year olds.

I had run the exact same drills with 10-12 year olds and they were as enthusiastic as pigs in mud, but run it with the teenagers and its all; "Owie! I cant run because I have a scrape on my shin!!"

Soft soccer players......who would have thunk it..........

[simmonjam1]

I think it boils down to good coaching. The younger the kids get involved the better in my opinion. Minor football starts at the Atom level; Grades 4 and 5. It's best to teach them how to hit and how to take a hit when they are smaller where they don't have the physical strength of a high schooler.

My son has played football for 5 years now. This year was his first season in high school football. You can definately tell which kids have been playing minor football compared to the kids who are playing organized football for the first time.

My son received a stinger once. He knew exactly where he screwed up when he got it and learned from that.