OTish: Bipartisan bill filed in MA House to ban pre-8th grade tackle football

[QuantumMechanic]

"Under a bipartisan bill supported by 17 House members, schools and leagues would be fined $2,000 for allowing children in grade seven and below to play organized tackle football, which research suggests is more harmful to young players than previously thought."

Beacon Hill Weighs Banning Youth Tackle Football

 

[PatriotsReign]

Saw this earlier on FB. The vast majority of comments were strongly against this.

Kids get concussions and disabled playing baseball, soccer, skiing, hockey, gymnastics and boxing. We should not allow our legislators to dictate which sports they can play in my opinion

 

[Steve102]

The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

Ban football but make weed legal. That makes sense.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

Ban football but make weed legal. That makes sense.

They made weed legal for adults. Football is also legal for adults. "Regulate what children can legally do based on the fact that they're incapable of making informed choices on areas that have long-term impacts on their development and health... but generally let consenting adults conduct themselves how they like where others' rights aren't being interfered with" seems perfectly fine to me.

Frankly, I don't see what kind of ideologically consistent beliefs someone could have to be for adult drug prohibition but against regulating tackle football for kids. If you're okay with the government telling adults they can't grow and smoke their own weed, then you pretty much have to either accept you're a hypocrite or accept that banning kids from doing things at high risk of compromising their development is acceptable. If the government telling adults they can't engage in behavior where they're the only 'victim' is fine, then surely the government telling kids they can't engage in behavior where they're the only 'victim' must also be fine.

I have mixed feelings on banning tackle football at such a young age, but at a minimum I don't think it's completely without merit like I suspect most of this forum does.

 

[Drewski]

The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

Ban football but make weed legal. That makes sense.

If you're 21 and in the 8th grade, we need to have a chat.

 

[FCB02062]

Nanny state run amok.....

 

[Steve102]

They made weed legal for adults. Football is also legal for adults. "Regulate what children can legally do based on the fact that they're incapable of making informed choices on areas that have long-term impacts on their development and health... but generally let consenting adults conduct themselves how they like where others' rights aren't being interfered with" seems perfectly fine to me.

Frankly, I don't see what kind of ideologically consistent beliefs someone could have to be for adult drug prohibition but against regulating tackle football for kids. If you're okay with the government telling adults they can't grow and smoke their own weed, then you pretty much have to either accept you're a hypocrite or accept that banning kids from doing things that stunt their development is acceptable.

I have mixed feelings on banning tackle football at such a young age, but at a minimum I don't think it's completely without merit like I suspect most of this forum does.

I have a problem with the government banning sports, yes. I don't need the government to parent me or my children. I can make the decision as to whether or not my pre-highschooler can play football. I don't need Big Brother to tell me.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I have a problem with the government banning sports, yes. I don't need the government to parent me or my children. I can make the decision as to whether or not my pre-highschooler can play football. I don't need Big Brother to tell me.

Cool, so then what's with your offhand anti-weed legalization comment? Are you okay with Big Brother telling adults what they can or can't grow and ingest for themselves?

I get where your opinion is coming from in opposing this bill, but there's zero ideological consistency between being against this bill and also supporting drug prohibition. After all, shouldn't it be your decision whether or not you and your child smoke weed, and not the state's?

 

[Steve102]

Cool, so then what's with your off-hand anti-weed legalization comment? Are you okay with Big Brother telling adults what they can or can't grow and ingest for themselves?

No, I am all for legalizing it and taxing the chit out of it. Big Pharma and Big Tobacco have powerful lobbies and have demonized it.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No, I am all for legalizing it and taxing the chit out of it. Big Pharma and Big Tobacco have powerful lobbies and have demonized it.

Right on, I'm glad to hear that as while I may not 100% agree with you I do get where you're coming from and you're at least being consistent in your convictions. I guess I just don't understand the point of the initial comment re: weed, then.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Saw this earlier on FB. The vast majority of comments were strongly against this.

Kids get concussions and disabled playing baseball, soccer, skiing, hockey, gymnastics and boxing. We should not allow our legislators to dictate which sports they can play in my opinion

Right, but what are the rates of head injuries for those other sports? If 50% of kids get concussions playing football and 1% each of those other sports, there's a bit of a difference right? I'd be interested in seeing those numbers.

I'm not saying we should ban football for kids, but not sure this is the best argument against it.

 

[jboston19]

God forbid they focus on important things. Until cigarettes are completely outlawed, banning stuff like this seems asinine.

 

[FortressX]

Tony Romo has three sons. He won’t discourage Hawkins, Rivers and Jones from playing football, but the former Cowboys quarterback isn’t going to let them tackle until they are in the eighth grade.

Tony Romo doesn’t want his sons tackling until eighth grade

 

[Drewski]

Not that I can't see the "reasons" for banning tackle football in kids with the combination of a developing brain and concussions being amplified. But I'm surprised the push isn't in a different direction. The point I am going to make may lack scientific research to back it up, but here it goes.

My position about "football and concussions" has always been about "risk/reward" and how the safety equipment skews the calculus for the player. It is my opinion that a football player (namely a defensive player) with a helmet on will take risks with their body to hit the offensive player that they wouldn't take if they weren't wearing a helmet. One of the examples I always go back to, even though it wasn't a hit to the head, is the TJ Ward hit on Gronk that blew out his knee.

TJ Ward literally turns his body into a missile/projectile to make that hit. Would he be so willing to do that if he wasn't wearing a helmet? I would argue he wouldn't be.

So while my take may seem counter intuitive, I am of the opinion that the safety equipment (specifically the helmet) actually increases exponentially, the risks a defending player will take to layout that massive hit (and the sudden stop to the offensive player that comes with it which causes many of the concussions).

I grew up out of the country watching Rugby (Football was for a Monday morning in late January/Early February). While the game dynamics are different (i.e. yards don't matter like they do in football and the defensive player is always in front of the offensive player is passing the ball backward) the hits are still there. There just aren't many "projectile" type hits to blindsided players because, in part there aren't helmets and the "protection" they give the defender.

The majority of rugby injuries are spinal cord injuries (from the scrum collapsing on the Hooker)...that isn't to say there aren't concussions, but they are a lesser issue.

If it were me I would

1. Get rid of helmets thus leading to less "riskier" projectile hits (because now the defender will feel it too).
2. Spend time truly, truly, truly (did I mention truly) teaching proper, fundamental tackling which would teach you not to either A, use your head as a weapon or B, aim for the head.

Something is going to have to give if football is going to live into the future. Maybe a return to more "basic roots" could help that.

Just my 2, potentially sacrilege, cents.

 

[fnordcircle]

Can't say I'm in favor of this, but debate the topic on its merits don't try some ****ing stupid ass 'WHY DO YOU CARE ABOUT FOOTBALL WHILE AL QAEDA IS STILL OUT THERE' argument, Jesus.

 

[captain insano]

The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

Ban football but make weed legal. That makes sense.

the state is so f--ked up. once it becomes a santuary state im out.

 

[RobertWeathers]

This state drives me insane.

 

[Adam Seward]

The writing has been on the wall for a while.

NE pro football star -> convicted of murder -> proven to have extreme CTE -> legislation introduced to reduce CTE during childhood development

 

[BradyFTW!]

Not that I can't see the "reasons" for banning tackle football in kids with the combination of a developing brain and concussions being amplified. But I'm surprised the push isn't in a different direction. The point I am going to make may lack scientific research to back it up, but here it goes.

My position about "football and concussions" has always been about "risk/reward" and how the safety equipment skews the calculus for the player. It is my opinion that a football player (namely a defensive player) with a helmet on will take risks with their body to hit the offensive player that they wouldn't take if they weren't wearing a helmet. One of the examples I always go back to, even though it wasn't a hit to the head, is the TJ Ward hit on Gronk that blew out his knee.

TJ Ward literally turns his body into a missile/projectile to make that hit. Would he be so willing to do that if he wasn't wearing a helmet? I would argue he wouldn't be.

So while my take may seem counter intuitive, I am of the opinion that the safety equipment (specifically the helmet) actually increases exponentially, the risks a defending player will take to layout that massive hit (and the sudden stop to the offensive player that comes with it which causes many of the concussions).

I grew up out of the country watching Rugby (Football was for a Monday morning in late January/Early February). While the game dynamics are different (i.e. yards don't matter like they do in football and the defensive player is always in front of the offensive player is passing the ball backward) the hits are still there. There just aren't many "projectile" type hits to blindsided players because, in part there aren't helmets and the "protection" they give the defender.

The majority of rugby injuries are spinal cord injuries (from the scrum collapsing on the Hooker)...that isn't to say there aren't concussions, but they are a lesser issue.

If it were me I would

1. Get rid of helmets thus leading to less "riskier" projectile hits (because now the defender will feel it too).
2. Spend time truly, truly, truly (did I mention truly) teaching proper, fundamental tackling which would teach you not to either A, use your head as a weapon or B, aim for the head.

Something is going to have to give if football is going to live into the future. Maybe a return to more "basic roots" could help that.

Just my 2, potentially sacrilege, cents.

What you're describing is a textbook case of risk compensation: as people feel safer and more protected, they 'compensate' for this sense of safety by engaging in riskier behavior. It's a well-established and widely observed phenomenon that definitely applies to football. Also applies and is commonly seen with cars and the steady adoption of safety features there. The safer people feel, the more recklessly they drive.

Risk compensation - Wikipedia

 

[ALP]

I have a problem with the government banning sports, yes. I don't need the government to parent me or my children. I can make the decision as to whether or not my pre-highschooler can play football. I don't need Big Brother to tell me.

you may not need it, but there are def parents out there that do...so how do you propose to protect those kids?