Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
So Rushin, I'm curiousRushinbear said:Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
The goal of some people is no contact sports, certainly no fb. This is just another variation of steps toward that. Drip, drip, drip.
What is appropriate risk for children, or adults?Bears2thDoc said:So Rushin, I'm curiousRushinbear said:Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
The goal of some people is no contact sports, certainly no fb. This is just another variation of steps toward that. Drip, drip, drip.
Do you smoke or chew tobacco?
If not, why not?
And if not, suppose your kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you encourage them?
If your 18 y/o kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you buy them the cigarettes/dip?
There is an argument to be made that someone over 18 can make their own choices..... but someone under 18 can not. A Pop Werner age kid that see's Friday the 13th, Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre likely will have a nightmare or two and be afraid that Jason will come out of the closet.
Suppose that same kid saw this movie
Or read this https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Do you still think that 10-16 y/o kid would want to play football?
Do you think a parent that saw these would still encourage their kid to play football?
If you answered, Yes....... perhaps you should first show them both, then answer the question again.
There is plenty of science out there to be concerned.
If one isn't concerned, well... that's also concerning.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
I'll just say this. My favorite sport as a kid was sandlot tackle football. A bunch of us would get together wearing whatever we had on, which was usually an old shirt and torn jeans and old tennies or Taylors. And, we would hit as hard as we could. We laughed. Somebody got a cut. Somebody else got a twisted ankle. Somebody got conked on the head. We loved it.Bears2thDoc said:So Rushin, I'm curiousRushinbear said:Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
The goal of some people is no contact sports, certainly no fb. This is just another variation of steps toward that. Drip, drip, drip.
Do you smoke or chew tobacco?
If not, why not?
And if not, suppose your kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you encourage them?
If your 18 y/o kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you buy them the cigarettes/dip?
There is an argument to be made that someone over 18 can make their own choices..... but someone under 18 can not. A Pop Werner age kid that see's Friday the 13th, Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre likely will have a nightmare or two and be afraid that Jason will come out of the closet.
Suppose that same kid saw this movie
Or read this https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Do you still think that 10-16 y/o kid would want to play football?
Do you think a parent that saw these would still encourage their kid to play football?
If you answered, Yes....... perhaps you should first show them both, then answer the question again.
There is plenty of science out there to be concerned.
If one isn't concerned, well... that's also concerning.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
Yo Lunch.....LunchTime said:What is appropriate risk for children, or adults?Bears2thDoc said:So Rushin, I'm curiousRushinbear said:Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
The goal of some people is no contact sports, certainly no fb. This is just another variation of steps toward that. Drip, drip, drip.
Do you smoke or chew tobacco?
If not, why not?
And if not, suppose your kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you encourage them?
If your 18 y/o kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you buy them the cigarettes/dip?
There is an argument to be made that someone over 18 can make their own choices..... but someone under 18 can not. A Pop Werner age kid that see's Friday the 13th, Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre likely will have a nightmare or two and be afraid that Jason will come out of the closet.
Suppose that same kid saw this movie
Or read this https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Do you still think that 10-16 y/o kid would want to play football?
Do you think a parent that saw these would still encourage their kid to play football?
If you answered, Yes....... perhaps you should first show them both, then answer the question again.
There is plenty of science out there to be concerned.
If one isn't concerned, well... that's also concerning.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
You jumped from brain injury, to potential cancer to bad dreams.
If its concussions, ANY physical sport has risk - not just contact sports. What is an appropriate amount of risk for physical sports? Here is an example list of concussion rate per 100,000 athletic exposures:
- Football: between 64 - 76.8
- Boys' ice hockey: 54
- Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
- Girl's soccer: 33
- Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
- Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
- Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
- Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
- Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
- Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
- Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
- Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
- Girls' gymnastics: 7
- Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
- Boys' baseball: 4.6 - 5
Even non-contact sports have a significant concussion rate.
What is an appropriate cancer risk? Prop65 warning level? Smoking? Being outside?
What is an appropriate time to expose a person to something that might upset or scare them? What is appropriate level of exposure? Books? Film? In Person? What if All Quiet on the Western Front or To Kill a Mocking Bird is disturbing to an 18 year old?
You bring up a bunch of risks in response to a post that says "The goal of some people is no contact sports." But risk is a spectrum. There is no contact or non-contact sport without concussion risk. It just doesnt exist. So where is the line drawn in "protecting" children from injury? Is there an acceptable risk for you? Is it just "not the worst thing? Where on that List is an acceptable sport?
And the idea that there is no slippery slope to be argued ignores that California doesnt differentiate a warning between roasted coffee beans and something that may actually pose a significant risk.
From my perspective there are benefits that need to be part of the equation. Smoking doesnt have a lot of benefits from my perspective, but sports do. Especially sports in a team or wilderness setting. They are not comparable to smoking from my perspective. Risk of injury is not absolute or in a vacuum.
In fact, I did.Another Bear said:
Ever play tackle sandlot FB on the street? That's where boys are made into men.
LunchTime said:What is appropriate risk for children, or adults?Bears2thDoc said:So Rushin, I'm curiousRushinbear said:Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
The goal of some people is no contact sports, certainly no fb. This is just another variation of steps toward that. Drip, drip, drip.
Do you smoke or chew tobacco?
If not, why not?
And if not, suppose your kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you encourage them?
If your 18 y/o kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you buy them the cigarettes/dip?
There is an argument to be made that someone over 18 can make their own choices..... but someone under 18 can not. A Pop Werner age kid that see's Friday the 13th, Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre likely will have a nightmare or two and be afraid that Jason will come out of the closet.
Suppose that same kid saw this movie
Or read this https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Do you still think that 10-16 y/o kid would want to play football?
Do you think a parent that saw these would still encourage their kid to play football?
If you answered, Yes....... perhaps you should first show them both, then answer the question again.
There is plenty of science out there to be concerned.
If one isn't concerned, well... that's also concerning.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
You jumped from brain injury, to potential cancer to bad dreams.
If its concussions, ANY physical sport has risk - not just contact sports. What is an appropriate amount of risk for physical sports? Here is an example list of concussion rate per 100,000 athletic exposures:
- Football: between 64 - 76.8
- Boys' ice hockey: 54
- Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
- Girl's soccer: 33
- Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
- Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
- Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
- Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
- Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
- Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
- Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
- Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
- Girls' gymnastics: 7
- Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
- Boys' baseball: 4.6 - 5
Even non-contact sports have a significant concussion rate.
What is an appropriate cancer risk? Prop65 warning level? Smoking? Being outside?
What is an appropriate time to expose a person to something that might upset or scare them? What is appropriate level of exposure? Books? Film? In Person? What if All Quiet on the Western Front or To Kill a Mocking Bird is disturbing to an 18 year old?
You bring up a bunch of risks in response to a post that says "The goal of some people is no contact sports." But risk is a spectrum. There is no contact or non-contact sport without concussion risk. It just doesnt exist. So where is the line drawn in "protecting" children from injury? Is there an acceptable risk for you? Is it just "not the worst thing? Where on that List is an acceptable sport?
And the idea that there is no slippery slope to be argued ignores that California doesnt differentiate a warning between roasted coffee beans and something that may actually pose a significant risk.
From my perspective there are benefits that need to be part of the equation. Smoking doesnt have a lot of benefits from my perspective, but sports do. Especially sports in a team or wilderness setting. They are not comparable to smoking from my perspective. Risk of injury is not absolute or in a vacuum.
My guess? 10th or so. I never saw anyone knocked out, but you do get knocked woozy, on occasion.GivemTheAxe said:LunchTime said:What is appropriate risk for children, or adults?Bears2thDoc said:So Rushin, I'm curiousRushinbear said:Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
The goal of some people is no contact sports, certainly no fb. This is just another variation of steps toward that. Drip, drip, drip.
Do you smoke or chew tobacco?
If not, why not?
And if not, suppose your kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you encourage them?
If your 18 y/o kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you buy them the cigarettes/dip?
There is an argument to be made that someone over 18 can make their own choices..... but someone under 18 can not. A Pop Werner age kid that see's Friday the 13th, Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre likely will have a nightmare or two and be afraid that Jason will come out of the closet.
Suppose that same kid saw this movie
Or read this https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Do you still think that 10-16 y/o kid would want to play football?
Do you think a parent that saw these would still encourage their kid to play football?
If you answered, Yes....... perhaps you should first show them both, then answer the question again.
There is plenty of science out there to be concerned.
If one isn't concerned, well... that's also concerning.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
You jumped from brain injury, to potential cancer to bad dreams.
If its concussions, ANY physical sport has risk - not just contact sports. What is an appropriate amount of risk for physical sports? Here is an example list of concussion rate per 100,000 athletic exposures:
- Football: between 64 - 76.8
- Boys' ice hockey: 54
- Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
- Girl's soccer: 33
- Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
- Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
- Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
- Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
- Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
- Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
- Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
- Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
- Girls' gymnastics: 7
- Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
- Boys' baseball: 4.6 - 5
Even non-contact sports have a significant concussion rate.
What is an appropriate cancer risk? Prop65 warning level? Smoking? Being outside?
What is an appropriate time to expose a person to something that might upset or scare them? What is appropriate level of exposure? Books? Film? In Person? What if All Quiet on the Western Front or To Kill a Mocking Bird is disturbing to an 18 year old?
You bring up a bunch of risks in response to a post that says "The goal of some people is no contact sports." But risk is a spectrum. There is no contact or non-contact sport without concussion risk. It just doesnt exist. So where is the line drawn in "protecting" children from injury? Is there an acceptable risk for you? Is it just "not the worst thing? Where on that List is an acceptable sport?
And the idea that there is no slippery slope to be argued ignores that California doesnt differentiate a warning between roasted coffee beans and something that may actually pose a significant risk.
From my perspective there are benefits that need to be part of the equation. Smoking doesnt have a lot of benefits from my perspective, but sports do. Especially sports in a team or wilderness setting. They are not comparable to smoking from my perspective. Risk of injury is not absolute or in a vacuum.
Where would rugby fall on that list?
No really it's not....Rushinbear said:My guess? 10th or so. I never saw anyone knocked out, but you do get knocked woozy, on occasion.GivemTheAxe said:LunchTime said:What is appropriate risk for children, or adults?Bears2thDoc said:So Rushin, I'm curiousRushinbear said:Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
The goal of some people is no contact sports, certainly no fb. This is just another variation of steps toward that. Drip, drip, drip.
Do you smoke or chew tobacco?
If not, why not?
And if not, suppose your kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you encourage them?
If your 18 y/o kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you buy them the cigarettes/dip?
There is an argument to be made that someone over 18 can make their own choices..... but someone under 18 can not. A Pop Werner age kid that see's Friday the 13th, Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre likely will have a nightmare or two and be afraid that Jason will come out of the closet.
Suppose that same kid saw this movie
Or read this https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Do you still think that 10-16 y/o kid would want to play football?
Do you think a parent that saw these would still encourage their kid to play football?
If you answered, Yes....... perhaps you should first show them both, then answer the question again.
There is plenty of science out there to be concerned.
If one isn't concerned, well... that's also concerning.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
You jumped from brain injury, to potential cancer to bad dreams.
If its concussions, ANY physical sport has risk - not just contact sports. What is an appropriate amount of risk for physical sports? Here is an example list of concussion rate per 100,000 athletic exposures:
- Football: between 64 - 76.8
- Boys' ice hockey: 54
- Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
- Girl's soccer: 33
- Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
- Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
- Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
- Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
- Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
- Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
- Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
- Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
- Girls' gymnastics: 7
- Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
- Boys' baseball: 4.6 - 5
Even non-contact sports have a significant concussion rate.
What is an appropriate cancer risk? Prop65 warning level? Smoking? Being outside?
What is an appropriate time to expose a person to something that might upset or scare them? What is appropriate level of exposure? Books? Film? In Person? What if All Quiet on the Western Front or To Kill a Mocking Bird is disturbing to an 18 year old?
You bring up a bunch of risks in response to a post that says "The goal of some people is no contact sports." But risk is a spectrum. There is no contact or non-contact sport without concussion risk. It just doesnt exist. So where is the line drawn in "protecting" children from injury? Is there an acceptable risk for you? Is it just "not the worst thing? Where on that List is an acceptable sport?
And the idea that there is no slippery slope to be argued ignores that California doesnt differentiate a warning between roasted coffee beans and something that may actually pose a significant risk.
From my perspective there are benefits that need to be part of the equation. Smoking doesnt have a lot of benefits from my perspective, but sports do. Especially sports in a team or wilderness setting. They are not comparable to smoking from my perspective. Risk of injury is not absolute or in a vacuum.
Where would rugby fall on that list?
Rugby is safer than fb overall: fewer knees, heads, ankles. More shoulders. I think it's because there's no first down in rugby. That last yard or two doesn't matter, except near the goal. So, the runner doesn't need to give everything before going down and the tackler doesn't need to keep him from doing so. Also, the runner needs to think about going down in a defensive posture so as to keep the ball free to be picked up again for continuing play by his side. And, players learn proper tackling, from coaching or bitter experience.
There's one hazard for Locks and Back Row. To be strong and effective, the scrum has to be bound real tight. The Locks and Back Row have their heads between the inside hips of the Props/Hooker and Locks, respectively. And, with their heads in there, they have to pull everything together with their hands and arms. For the Locks and Back Row, that means pulling these guys' hips tight with your head between them. You can hear the seams of your skull creaking when you do it. Until you get used to it, you wonder if your skull will split and your brains come splooting out. Didn't happen to me and never saw it happen, but it made me wonder.
Time to start a youth league! The Asphalt Youth Tackle Football League...and no helmets!Rushinbear said:In fact, I did.Another Bear said:
Ever play tackle sandlot FB on the street? That's where boys are made into men.
If you are in the business of finding concussions, you will define concussion in such a way as to maximize the number of incidents which fall into your definition. This pamphlet doesn't even define concussion.Bears2thDoc said:No really it's not....Rushinbear said:My guess? 10th or so. I never saw anyone knocked out, but you do get knocked woozy, on occasion.GivemTheAxe said:LunchTime said:What is appropriate risk for children, or adults?Bears2thDoc said:So Rushin, I'm curiousRushinbear said:Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
The goal of some people is no contact sports, certainly no fb. This is just another variation of steps toward that. Drip, drip, drip.
Do you smoke or chew tobacco?
If not, why not?
And if not, suppose your kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you encourage them?
If your 18 y/o kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you buy them the cigarettes/dip?
There is an argument to be made that someone over 18 can make their own choices..... but someone under 18 can not. A Pop Werner age kid that see's Friday the 13th, Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre likely will have a nightmare or two and be afraid that Jason will come out of the closet.
Suppose that same kid saw this movie
Or read this https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Do you still think that 10-16 y/o kid would want to play football?
Do you think a parent that saw these would still encourage their kid to play football?
If you answered, Yes....... perhaps you should first show them both, then answer the question again.
There is plenty of science out there to be concerned.
If one isn't concerned, well... that's also concerning.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
You jumped from brain injury, to potential cancer to bad dreams.
If its concussions, ANY physical sport has risk - not just contact sports. What is an appropriate amount of risk for physical sports? Here is an example list of concussion rate per 100,000 athletic exposures:
- Football: between 64 - 76.8
- Boys' ice hockey: 54
- Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
- Girl's soccer: 33
- Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
- Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
- Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
- Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
- Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
- Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
- Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
- Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
- Girls' gymnastics: 7
- Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
- Boys' baseball: 4.6 - 5
Even non-contact sports have a significant concussion rate.
What is an appropriate cancer risk? Prop65 warning level? Smoking? Being outside?
What is an appropriate time to expose a person to something that might upset or scare them? What is appropriate level of exposure? Books? Film? In Person? What if All Quiet on the Western Front or To Kill a Mocking Bird is disturbing to an 18 year old?
You bring up a bunch of risks in response to a post that says "The goal of some people is no contact sports." But risk is a spectrum. There is no contact or non-contact sport without concussion risk. It just doesnt exist. So where is the line drawn in "protecting" children from injury? Is there an acceptable risk for you? Is it just "not the worst thing? Where on that List is an acceptable sport?
And the idea that there is no slippery slope to be argued ignores that California doesnt differentiate a warning between roasted coffee beans and something that may actually pose a significant risk.
From my perspective there are benefits that need to be part of the equation. Smoking doesnt have a lot of benefits from my perspective, but sports do. Especially sports in a team or wilderness setting. They are not comparable to smoking from my perspective. Risk of injury is not absolute or in a vacuum.
Where would rugby fall on that list?
Rugby is safer than fb overall: fewer knees, heads, ankles. More shoulders. I think it's because there's no first down in rugby. That last yard or two doesn't matter, except near the goal. So, the runner doesn't need to give everything before going down and the tackler doesn't need to keep him from doing so. Also, the runner needs to think about going down in a defensive posture so as to keep the ball free to be picked up again for continuing play by his side. And, players learn proper tackling, from coaching or bitter experience.
There's one hazard for Locks and Back Row. To be strong and effective, the scrum has to be bound real tight. The Locks and Back Row have their heads between the inside hips of the Props/Hooker and Locks, respectively. And, with their heads in there, they have to pull everything together with their hands and arms. For the Locks and Back Row, that means pulling these guys' hips tight with your head between them. You can hear the seams of your skull creaking when you do it. Until you get used to it, you wonder if your skull will split and your brains come splooting out. Didn't happen to me and never saw it happen, but it made me wonder.
Rugby tops the list.
Here is a reference, not "the" reference....
https://completeconcussions.com/2018/12/05/concussion-rates-what-sport-most-concussions/
I'm sorry Rushin....Rushinbear said:If you are in the business of finding concussions, you will define concussion in such a way as to maximize the number of incidents which fall into your definition. This pamphlet doesn't even define concussion.Bears2thDoc said:No really it's not....Rushinbear said:My guess? 10th or so. I never saw anyone knocked out, but you do get knocked woozy, on occasion.GivemTheAxe said:LunchTime said:What is appropriate risk for children, or adults?Bears2thDoc said:So Rushin, I'm curiousRushinbear said:Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
The goal of some people is no contact sports, certainly no fb. This is just another variation of steps toward that. Drip, drip, drip.
Do you smoke or chew tobacco?
If not, why not?
And if not, suppose your kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you encourage them?
If your 18 y/o kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you buy them the cigarettes/dip?
There is an argument to be made that someone over 18 can make their own choices..... but someone under 18 can not. A Pop Werner age kid that see's Friday the 13th, Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre likely will have a nightmare or two and be afraid that Jason will come out of the closet.
Suppose that same kid saw this movie
Or read this https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Do you still think that 10-16 y/o kid would want to play football?
Do you think a parent that saw these would still encourage their kid to play football?
If you answered, Yes....... perhaps you should first show them both, then answer the question again.
There is plenty of science out there to be concerned.
If one isn't concerned, well... that's also concerning.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
You jumped from brain injury, to potential cancer to bad dreams.
If its concussions, ANY physical sport has risk - not just contact sports. What is an appropriate amount of risk for physical sports? Here is an example list of concussion rate per 100,000 athletic exposures:
- Football: between 64 - 76.8
- Boys' ice hockey: 54
- Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
- Girl's soccer: 33
- Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
- Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
- Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
- Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
- Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
- Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
- Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
- Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
- Girls' gymnastics: 7
- Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
- Boys' baseball: 4.6 - 5
Even non-contact sports have a significant concussion rate.
What is an appropriate cancer risk? Prop65 warning level? Smoking? Being outside?
What is an appropriate time to expose a person to something that might upset or scare them? What is appropriate level of exposure? Books? Film? In Person? What if All Quiet on the Western Front or To Kill a Mocking Bird is disturbing to an 18 year old?
You bring up a bunch of risks in response to a post that says "The goal of some people is no contact sports." But risk is a spectrum. There is no contact or non-contact sport without concussion risk. It just doesnt exist. So where is the line drawn in "protecting" children from injury? Is there an acceptable risk for you? Is it just "not the worst thing? Where on that List is an acceptable sport?
And the idea that there is no slippery slope to be argued ignores that California doesnt differentiate a warning between roasted coffee beans and something that may actually pose a significant risk.
From my perspective there are benefits that need to be part of the equation. Smoking doesnt have a lot of benefits from my perspective, but sports do. Especially sports in a team or wilderness setting. They are not comparable to smoking from my perspective. Risk of injury is not absolute or in a vacuum.
Where would rugby fall on that list?
Rugby is safer than fb overall: fewer knees, heads, ankles. More shoulders. I think it's because there's no first down in rugby. That last yard or two doesn't matter, except near the goal. So, the runner doesn't need to give everything before going down and the tackler doesn't need to keep him from doing so. Also, the runner needs to think about going down in a defensive posture so as to keep the ball free to be picked up again for continuing play by his side. And, players learn proper tackling, from coaching or bitter experience.
There's one hazard for Locks and Back Row. To be strong and effective, the scrum has to be bound real tight. The Locks and Back Row have their heads between the inside hips of the Props/Hooker and Locks, respectively. And, with their heads in there, they have to pull everything together with their hands and arms. For the Locks and Back Row, that means pulling these guys' hips tight with your head between them. You can hear the seams of your skull creaking when you do it. Until you get used to it, you wonder if your skull will split and your brains come splooting out. Didn't happen to me and never saw it happen, but it made me wonder.
Rugby tops the list.
Here is a reference, not "the" reference....
https://completeconcussions.com/2018/12/05/concussion-rates-what-sport-most-concussions/
Again, I never saw a concussion in 13 years of play. I saw getting your bell rung. I saw woozy. I never saw knocked cold. I never saw stumbling/falling down.
And, if you think that kids go into these sports unaware of the risk, you gotta be ________ . You think even a little kid seeing his big brother/sister getting knocked around in a pee wee game doesn't get the idea that he could get hurt, if he played? Even if the parents didn't tell him? If so, you're probably on a different mission.
2th, what I'm asking is whether there's a definition of concussion useful to day-to-day assessment of players, in situ, if you will. We can't have players going through dialysis on the sidelines to see if there's tau floating around in there or if the NF-L is higher than it should be. And, by the time excessive levels of amyloid-beta peptides are discovered, it's probably too late anyway. I still haven't seen a definition or definitions of behaviors during play or an interruption of it. Everything, as useful and advanced as it is, is clinic and lab oriented. Of course, by the time we get them there, we're free to admin some pretty sophisticated tests which cost a bunch. Fine, but by what measures do we triage them?Bears2thDoc said:Yo Lunch.....LunchTime said:What is appropriate risk for children, or adults?Bears2thDoc said:So Rushin, I'm curiousRushinbear said:Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
The goal of some people is no contact sports, certainly no fb. This is just another variation of steps toward that. Drip, drip, drip.
Do you smoke or chew tobacco?
If not, why not?
And if not, suppose your kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you encourage them?
If your 18 y/o kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you buy them the cigarettes/dip?
There is an argument to be made that someone over 18 can make their own choices..... but someone under 18 can not. A Pop Werner age kid that see's Friday the 13th, Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre likely will have a nightmare or two and be afraid that Jason will come out of the closet.
Suppose that same kid saw this movie
Or read this https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Do you still think that 10-16 y/o kid would want to play football?
Do you think a parent that saw these would still encourage their kid to play football?
If you answered, Yes....... perhaps you should first show them both, then answer the question again.
There is plenty of science out there to be concerned.
If one isn't concerned, well... that's also concerning.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
You jumped from brain injury, to potential cancer to bad dreams.
If its concussions, ANY physical sport has risk - not just contact sports. What is an appropriate amount of risk for physical sports? Here is an example list of concussion rate per 100,000 athletic exposures:
- Football: between 64 - 76.8
- Boys' ice hockey: 54
- Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
- Girl's soccer: 33
- Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
- Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
- Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
- Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
- Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
- Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
- Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
- Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
- Girls' gymnastics: 7
- Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
- Boys' baseball: 4.6 - 5
Even non-contact sports have a significant concussion rate.
What is an appropriate cancer risk? Prop65 warning level? Smoking? Being outside?
What is an appropriate time to expose a person to something that might upset or scare them? What is appropriate level of exposure? Books? Film? In Person? What if All Quiet on the Western Front or To Kill a Mocking Bird is disturbing to an 18 year old?
You bring up a bunch of risks in response to a post that says "The goal of some people is no contact sports." But risk is a spectrum. There is no contact or non-contact sport without concussion risk. It just doesnt exist. So where is the line drawn in "protecting" children from injury? Is there an acceptable risk for you? Is it just "not the worst thing? Where on that List is an acceptable sport?
And the idea that there is no slippery slope to be argued ignores that California doesnt differentiate a warning between roasted coffee beans and something that may actually pose a significant risk.
From my perspective there are benefits that need to be part of the equation. Smoking doesnt have a lot of benefits from my perspective, but sports do. Especially sports in a team or wilderness setting. They are not comparable to smoking from my perspective. Risk of injury is not absolute or in a vacuum.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Stick to yogurt sticks and peanut butter sandwiches.
Concussions are A component, Subconcussive hits are B THROUGH Z components.
Mechanisms of injury in the development of CTE
American Football involves repetitive head trauma causing the brain to experience acceleration and deceleration forces (14, 17, 18), leading to coup/countercoup injuries. This can manifest in varying severity from concussions, or concussions of lesser magnitude (sub-concussion) to loss of consciousness (19). Over time, improperly managed brain trauma with inadequate recovery periods allow chronic inflammatory processes to lay the framework for CTE (14). Indeed, brain trauma without concussion can also lead to CTE (20, 21). It is believed that repetitive brain trauma leads to CTE through tau oligomerization following axonal deformation and microtubular destabilization......but I don't expect you to understand that.
You may want your kid or someone else's kid to get hit hundreds or thousands of times in the head AND/OR BODY and roll the dice on them as to whether they can tie their shoe or communicate well at some point in the future, but I'm not sure that kid would choose that if he/she and parents were given all the info.
As for your last comment....
In 2017, out of 111 dead ex-NFL players brains, 110 had CTE...so you're correct....not absolute.
BTW, Cheerleading accounts for over half of all the catastrophic injuries in sports.
I save you from my feelings of your other comments.
Cheers!!
2th, ok, I get it. Err on the side of caution, but it seems like extreme caution - fraught with uncertain symptoms attributable to a host of other behaviors/conditions. What percentage of kids know what day it is before they even take the field? I'm not trying to be flip, here. It just seems that we're casting our nets so widely that any given "professional" could conclude on the desired diagnosis almost at will.Rushinbear said:2th, what I'm asking is whether there's a definition of concussion useful to day-to-day assessment of players, in situ, if you will. We can't have players going through dialysis on the sidelines to see if there's tau floating around in there or if the NF-L is higher than it should be. And, by the time excessive levels of amyloid-beta peptides are discovered, it's probably too late anyway. I still haven't seen a definition or definitions of behaviors during play or an interruption of it. Everything, as useful and advanced as it is, is clinic and lab oriented. Of course, by the time we get them there, we're free to admin some pretty sophisticated tests which cost a bunch. Fine, but by what measures do we triage them?Bears2thDoc said:Yo Lunch.....LunchTime said:What is appropriate risk for children, or adults?Bears2thDoc said:So Rushin, I'm curiousRushinbear said:Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
The goal of some people is no contact sports, certainly no fb. This is just another variation of steps toward that. Drip, drip, drip.
Do you smoke or chew tobacco?
If not, why not?
And if not, suppose your kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you encourage them?
If your 18 y/o kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you buy them the cigarettes/dip?
There is an argument to be made that someone over 18 can make their own choices..... but someone under 18 can not. A Pop Werner age kid that see's Friday the 13th, Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre likely will have a nightmare or two and be afraid that Jason will come out of the closet.
Suppose that same kid saw this movie
Or read this https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Do you still think that 10-16 y/o kid would want to play football?
Do you think a parent that saw these would still encourage their kid to play football?
If you answered, Yes....... perhaps you should first show them both, then answer the question again.
There is plenty of science out there to be concerned.
If one isn't concerned, well... that's also concerning.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
You jumped from brain injury, to potential cancer to bad dreams.
If its concussions, ANY physical sport has risk - not just contact sports. What is an appropriate amount of risk for physical sports? Here is an example list of concussion rate per 100,000 athletic exposures:
- Football: between 64 - 76.8
- Boys' ice hockey: 54
- Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
- Girl's soccer: 33
- Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
- Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
- Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
- Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
- Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
- Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
- Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
- Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
- Girls' gymnastics: 7
- Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
- Boys' baseball: 4.6 - 5
Even non-contact sports have a significant concussion rate.
What is an appropriate cancer risk? Prop65 warning level? Smoking? Being outside?
What is an appropriate time to expose a person to something that might upset or scare them? What is appropriate level of exposure? Books? Film? In Person? What if All Quiet on the Western Front or To Kill a Mocking Bird is disturbing to an 18 year old?
You bring up a bunch of risks in response to a post that says "The goal of some people is no contact sports." But risk is a spectrum. There is no contact or non-contact sport without concussion risk. It just doesnt exist. So where is the line drawn in "protecting" children from injury? Is there an acceptable risk for you? Is it just "not the worst thing? Where on that List is an acceptable sport?
And the idea that there is no slippery slope to be argued ignores that California doesnt differentiate a warning between roasted coffee beans and something that may actually pose a significant risk.
From my perspective there are benefits that need to be part of the equation. Smoking doesnt have a lot of benefits from my perspective, but sports do. Especially sports in a team or wilderness setting. They are not comparable to smoking from my perspective. Risk of injury is not absolute or in a vacuum.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Stick to yogurt sticks and peanut butter sandwiches.
Concussions are A component, Subconcussive hits are B THROUGH Z components.
Mechanisms of injury in the development of CTE
American Football involves repetitive head trauma causing the brain to experience acceleration and deceleration forces (14, 17, 18), leading to coup/countercoup injuries. This can manifest in varying severity from concussions, or concussions of lesser magnitude (sub-concussion) to loss of consciousness (19). Over time, improperly managed brain trauma with inadequate recovery periods allow chronic inflammatory processes to lay the framework for CTE (14). Indeed, brain trauma without concussion can also lead to CTE (20, 21). It is believed that repetitive brain trauma leads to CTE through tau oligomerization following axonal deformation and microtubular destabilization......but I don't expect you to understand that.
You may want your kid or someone else's kid to get hit hundreds or thousands of times in the head AND/OR BODY and roll the dice on them as to whether they can tie their shoe or communicate well at some point in the future, but I'm not sure that kid would choose that if he/she and parents were given all the info.
As for your last comment....
In 2017, out of 111 dead ex-NFL players brains, 110 had CTE...so you're correct....not absolute.
BTW, Cheerleading accounts for over half of all the catastrophic injuries in sports.
I save you from my feelings of your other comments.
Cheers!!
Hey, 2th, enough of the snark.And, it wouldn't hurt to actually reply to someone's answers to you, rather than going off on a new tack of your own.Bears2thDoc said:
Hey Rush.....and anyone else that feels this is over reacting.....
If you haven't already, I implore you to read this:
https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
If you feel it's too long to keep your attention, scroll down to the last 7-8 paragraphs and read them.
Go Bears!
I'm sorry, I thought they were rhetorical questions, my bad.Rushinbear said:Hey, 2th, enough of the snark.And, it wouldn't hurt to actually reply to someone's answers to you, rather than going off on a new tack of your own.Bears2thDoc said:
Hey Rush.....and anyone else that feels this is over reacting.....
If you haven't already, I implore you to read this:
https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
If you feel it's too long to keep your attention, scroll down to the last 7-8 paragraphs and read them.
Go Bears!
Not my questions until the hormone one and it appears that I was unclear. If you do not allow contact sports, how will teenagers get rid of all those feelings brought on by massive hormonal changes? No one can expect that it will do any good to tell them just not to feel that way (although it seems that's what's being expected). What are the "hundreds of ways", even just a few.Bears2thDoc said:I'm sorry, I thought they were rhetorical questions, my bad.Rushinbear said:Hey, 2th, enough of the snark.And, it wouldn't hurt to actually reply to someone's answers to you, rather than going off on a new tack of your own.Bears2thDoc said:
Hey Rush.....and anyone else that feels this is over reacting.....
If you haven't already, I implore you to read this:
https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
If you feel it's too long to keep your attention, scroll down to the last 7-8 paragraphs and read them.
Go Bears!
Sure fair statement....
- What is appropriate risk for children, or adults? The appropriate risk is one that is taken with all known dangers are offered up for informed consent. On the topic of concussion risk, there is known medical knowledge that is readily available describing the risks. Simply stating that one can get concussed is NOT informed consent.
- What is an appropriate cancer risk? Prop65 warning level? Smoking? Being outside? I can not answer this question to your satisfaction as it wanders out of my wheel house. I can speak to oral cancer specifically, but that wasn't the question.
- So where is the line drawn in "protecting" children from injury? Again, this is a broad question that extends outside my wheel house. I am well versed, in mild traumatic head trauma, that includes concussion and oral-facial trauma. So in those instances, using all known and medically accepted modes of injury prevention and not exacerbating injury are recommended. Which includes post injury monitoring and following recommended treatment.
- Is there an acceptable risk for you? Of course.
- Is it just "not the worst thing? No, the worst thing is always catastrophic injury or death. However, I use critical thinking, reasonable protocol and science to limit the risk
- Where on that List is an acceptable sport? All those sports are acceptable.
- how will they get rid of all the pent up hormones that rage around their bodies every day? Well actually there are hundreds of ways to do that without subjecting oneself to mild traumatic brain trauma.
- You gonna admonish them not to feel like that? I wouldn't use the term "admonish". I would teach kids that violence is never the answer. I try my best to teach kids to respect others. For example, using a stair railing as a skateboard feature is not acceptable when other people are on the stairs.
- Where would rugby fall on that list? I answered this previously...on top.
- You think even a little kid seeing his big brother/sister getting knocked around in a pee wee game doesn't get the idea that he could get hurt, if he played? If the kid never saw another get hurt, I would say yes, that kid would also feel like he would not get hurt. In your personal example, you saw teammates and opposing players get hurt, but you, as well as them, had not been taught that they actually did get hurt. That wasn't your fault then, but it could be your fault now because you have the information to know better, it's just that you may not accept the information as valid. I believe that is referred to as willful disregard, sometimes referred to as negligence.
- Even if the parents didn't tell him? Yes, of course. Clearly caution is learned behavior.
- by what measures do we triage them? This question related to concussion. All 50 states have concussion laws on the books that relate to mandatory actions that are in place. Each of these laws require the coaches, trainers and parent supervisors of organized youth sports to learn and follow.
- What percentage of kids know what day it is before they even take the field? I thought this was a rhetorical question. If not, I do not have the information at hand to answer it accurately. I would think most, if they weren't suffering the effects of a concussion.
I hope that satisfies you, Rush.
I'm very sorry I didn't initially take the questions seriously.
Please go out and enjoy the nice day.
Cheers!!
Go Bears!!!
I thought I would answer every question posed to me as, I didn't want to appear having favoritism....Rushinbear said:Not my questions until the hormone one and it appears that I was unclear. If you do not allow contact sports, how will teenagers get rid of all those feelings brought on by massive hormonal changes? No one can expect that it will do any good to tell them just not to feel that way (although it seems that's what's being expected). What are the "hundreds of ways", even just a few.Bears2thDoc said:I'm sorry, I thought they were rhetorical questions, my bad.Rushinbear said:Hey, 2th, enough of the snark.And, it wouldn't hurt to actually reply to someone's answers to you, rather than going off on a new tack of your own.Bears2thDoc said:
Hey Rush.....and anyone else that feels this is over reacting.....
If you haven't already, I implore you to read this:
https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
If you feel it's too long to keep your attention, scroll down to the last 7-8 paragraphs and read them.
Go Bears!
Sure fair statement....
- What is appropriate risk for children, or adults? The appropriate risk is one that is taken with all known dangers are offered up for informed consent. On the topic of concussion risk, there is known medical knowledge that is readily available describing the risks. Simply stating that one can get concussed is NOT informed consent.
- What is an appropriate cancer risk? Prop65 warning level? Smoking? Being outside? I can not answer this question to your satisfaction as it wanders out of my wheel house. I can speak to oral cancer specifically, but that wasn't the question.
- So where is the line drawn in "protecting" children from injury? Again, this is a broad question that extends outside my wheel house. I am well versed, in mild traumatic head trauma, that includes concussion and oral-facial trauma. So in those instances, using all known and medically accepted modes of injury prevention and not exacerbating injury are recommended. Which includes post injury monitoring and following recommended treatment.
- Is there an acceptable risk for you? Of course.
- Is it just "not the worst thing? No, the worst thing is always catastrophic injury or death. However, I use critical thinking, reasonable protocol and science to limit the risk
- Where on that List is an acceptable sport? All those sports are acceptable.
- how will they get rid of all the pent up hormones that rage around their bodies every day? Well actually there are hundreds of ways to do that without subjecting oneself to mild traumatic brain trauma.
- You gonna admonish them not to feel like that? I wouldn't use the term "admonish". I would teach kids that violence is never the answer. I try my best to teach kids to respect others. For example, using a stair railing as a skateboard feature is not acceptable when other people are on the stairs.
- Where would rugby fall on that list? I answered this previously...on top.
- You think even a little kid seeing his big brother/sister getting knocked around in a pee wee game doesn't get the idea that he could get hurt, if he played? If the kid never saw another get hurt, I would say yes, that kid would also feel like he would not get hurt. In your personal example, you saw teammates and opposing players get hurt, but you, as well as them, had not been taught that they actually did get hurt. That wasn't your fault then, but it could be your fault now because you have the information to know better, it's just that you may not accept the information as valid. I believe that is referred to as willful disregard, sometimes referred to as negligence.
- Even if the parents didn't tell him? Yes, of course. Clearly caution is learned behavior.
- by what measures do we triage them? This question related to concussion. All 50 states have concussion laws on the books that relate to mandatory actions that are in place. Each of these laws require the coaches, trainers and parent supervisors of organized youth sports to learn and follow.
- What percentage of kids know what day it is before they even take the field? I thought this was a rhetorical question. If not, I do not have the information at hand to answer it accurately. I would think most, if they weren't suffering the effects of a concussion.
I hope that satisfies you, Rush.
I'm very sorry I didn't initially take the questions seriously.
Please go out and enjoy the nice day.
Cheers!!
Go Bears!!!
The rugby on top was responsive to me but I think it came coterminously with my estimate...from experience.
I get that there are mandatory actions for coaches et al. As I said at the last, they are in response to observed behaviors that are so general that different people could interpret them as they see fit. I was hoping for a more coherent (fuller enunciated) list/model. It seems that any delay in verbal response to a question or unsteadiness afoot gets a kid relegated to the concussion protocols and a week under a microscope.
Do you think that contact should be removed from fb? Or that fb should be eliminated altogether?
On the getting hurt one, you think that kids seeing pee wee and above cannot get the idea on their own that you can get hurt doing that?
In the end, I think you and I have a very different way of addressing this question. And, by the way, I hope that, by reading my answer on tau and NF-L, your estimate that I wouldn't understand was dispelled. And, that is as far as my equanimity will go.
My hs field was Underhill Field. On the east coast.Bears2thDoc said:I thought I would answer every question posed to me as, I didn't want to appear having favoritism....Rushinbear said:Not my questions until the hormone one and it appears that I was unclear. If you do not allow contact sports, how will teenagers get rid of all those feelings brought on by massive hormonal changes? No one can expect that it will do any good to tell them just not to feel that way (although it seems that's what's being expected). What are the "hundreds of ways", even just a few.Bears2thDoc said:I'm sorry, I thought they were rhetorical questions, my bad.Rushinbear said:Hey, 2th, enough of the snark.And, it wouldn't hurt to actually reply to someone's answers to you, rather than going off on a new tack of your own.Bears2thDoc said:
Hey Rush.....and anyone else that feels this is over reacting.....
If you haven't already, I implore you to read this:
https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
If you feel it's too long to keep your attention, scroll down to the last 7-8 paragraphs and read them.
Go Bears!
Sure fair statement....
- What is appropriate risk for children, or adults? The appropriate risk is one that is taken with all known dangers are offered up for informed consent. On the topic of concussion risk, there is known medical knowledge that is readily available describing the risks. Simply stating that one can get concussed is NOT informed consent.
- What is an appropriate cancer risk? Prop65 warning level? Smoking? Being outside? I can not answer this question to your satisfaction as it wanders out of my wheel house. I can speak to oral cancer specifically, but that wasn't the question.
- So where is the line drawn in "protecting" children from injury? Again, this is a broad question that extends outside my wheel house. I am well versed, in mild traumatic head trauma, that includes concussion and oral-facial trauma. So in those instances, using all known and medically accepted modes of injury prevention and not exacerbating injury are recommended. Which includes post injury monitoring and following recommended treatment.
- Is there an acceptable risk for you? Of course.
- Is it just "not the worst thing? No, the worst thing is always catastrophic injury or death. However, I use critical thinking, reasonable protocol and science to limit the risk
- Where on that List is an acceptable sport? All those sports are acceptable.
- how will they get rid of all the pent up hormones that rage around their bodies every day? Well actually there are hundreds of ways to do that without subjecting oneself to mild traumatic brain trauma.
- You gonna admonish them not to feel like that? I wouldn't use the term "admonish". I would teach kids that violence is never the answer. I try my best to teach kids to respect others. For example, using a stair railing as a skateboard feature is not acceptable when other people are on the stairs.
- Where would rugby fall on that list? I answered this previously...on top.
- You think even a little kid seeing his big brother/sister getting knocked around in a pee wee game doesn't get the idea that he could get hurt, if he played? If the kid never saw another get hurt, I would say yes, that kid would also feel like he would not get hurt. In your personal example, you saw teammates and opposing players get hurt, but you, as well as them, had not been taught that they actually did get hurt. That wasn't your fault then, but it could be your fault now because you have the information to know better, it's just that you may not accept the information as valid. I believe that is referred to as willful disregard, sometimes referred to as negligence.
- Even if the parents didn't tell him? Yes, of course. Clearly caution is learned behavior.
- by what measures do we triage them? This question related to concussion. All 50 states have concussion laws on the books that relate to mandatory actions that are in place. Each of these laws require the coaches, trainers and parent supervisors of organized youth sports to learn and follow.
- What percentage of kids know what day it is before they even take the field? I thought this was a rhetorical question. If not, I do not have the information at hand to answer it accurately. I would think most, if they weren't suffering the effects of a concussion.
I hope that satisfies you, Rush.
I'm very sorry I didn't initially take the questions seriously.
Please go out and enjoy the nice day.
Cheers!!
Go Bears!!!
The rugby on top was responsive to me but I think it came coterminously with my estimate...from experience.
I get that there are mandatory actions for coaches et al. As I said at the last, they are in response to observed behaviors that are so general that different people could interpret them as they see fit. I was hoping for a more coherent (fuller enunciated) list/model. It seems that any delay in verbal response to a question or unsteadiness afoot gets a kid relegated to the concussion protocols and a week under a microscope.
Do you think that contact should be removed from fb? Or that fb should be eliminated altogether?
On the getting hurt one, you think that kids seeing pee wee and above cannot get the idea on their own that you can get hurt doing that?
In the end, I think you and I have a very different way of addressing this question. And, by the way, I hope that, by reading my answer on tau and NF-L, your estimate that I wouldn't understand was dispelled. And, that is as far as my equanimity will go.
- If you do not allow contact sports, how will teenagers get rid of all those feelings brought on by massive hormonal changes? I'm sorry I thought I addressed this. Maybe I wasn't clear. I am not opposed to contact sports, hence I do not wish to abolish them. One does not require contact sport participation to "get rid of those feelings.". I truly hope you don't think it does either.
- Do you think that contact should be removed from fb? No
- Or that fb should be eliminated altogether? No
- On the getting hurt one, you think that kids seeing pee wee and above cannot get the idea on their own that you can get hurt doing that? Again, I thought I answered that. However, to elaborate...yes, they may get it on their own, however, most young kids believe there is a Santa Claus initially. At some point that kid realizes that the concept of flying deer pulling a fat guy in a red suit is pure fiction. That is, that knowledge becomes acquired over time. For me personally, I always was a wide receiver or a DB during my youth (not official as in HS or college) but I had speed and I had some hands, though I was on the small side (think Vinnie Strang). I started playing in pickup touch and flag games at Under Hill in HS and college. I never had an issue as a DB. As a WR, crossing routes had never been an issue for me......until I got hit by Jeff Moye. From then on, only Outs, Flys and Posts. Inspector Harry Callahan once said, "a man's gotta know his limitations."
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
Holy moly. You sure have thin skin.Bears2thDoc said:Yo Lunch.....LunchTime said:What is appropriate risk for children, or adults?Bears2thDoc said:So Rushin, I'm curiousRushinbear said:Flag fb in pads. Tackling will happen when the bars don't come loose (maybe a result of coaches/players wedging them in tighter, just like flags are tucked in tight).tenplay said:
Many of us do not want our children and grandchildren playing traditional tackle football because of the huge risks of permanent brain and other forms of physical injury. In Canada a new safer form of football is being played more widely. What do you think? It retains all of the skills and equipment of football but greatly lessens the risk of permanent injuries.
TackleBar
The goal of some people is no contact sports, certainly no fb. This is just another variation of steps toward that. Drip, drip, drip.
Do you smoke or chew tobacco?
If not, why not?
And if not, suppose your kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you encourage them?
If your 18 y/o kid or grandkid wanted to smoke or chew, would you buy them the cigarettes/dip?
There is an argument to be made that someone over 18 can make their own choices..... but someone under 18 can not. A Pop Werner age kid that see's Friday the 13th, Halloween or Texas Chainsaw Massacre likely will have a nightmare or two and be afraid that Jason will come out of the closet.
Suppose that same kid saw this movie
Or read this https://www.gq.com/story/the-concussion-diaries-high-school-football-cte
Do you still think that 10-16 y/o kid would want to play football?
Do you think a parent that saw these would still encourage their kid to play football?
If you answered, Yes....... perhaps you should first show them both, then answer the question again.
There is plenty of science out there to be concerned.
If one isn't concerned, well... that's also concerning.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!
You jumped from brain injury, to potential cancer to bad dreams.
If its concussions, ANY physical sport has risk - not just contact sports. What is an appropriate amount of risk for physical sports? Here is an example list of concussion rate per 100,000 athletic exposures:
- Football: between 64 - 76.8
- Boys' ice hockey: 54
- Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
- Girl's soccer: 33
- Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
- Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
- Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
- Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
- Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
- Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
- Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
- Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
- Girls' gymnastics: 7
- Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
- Boys' baseball: 4.6 - 5
Even non-contact sports have a significant concussion rate.
What is an appropriate cancer risk? Prop65 warning level? Smoking? Being outside?
What is an appropriate time to expose a person to something that might upset or scare them? What is appropriate level of exposure? Books? Film? In Person? What if All Quiet on the Western Front or To Kill a Mocking Bird is disturbing to an 18 year old?
You bring up a bunch of risks in response to a post that says "The goal of some people is no contact sports." But risk is a spectrum. There is no contact or non-contact sport without concussion risk. It just doesnt exist. So where is the line drawn in "protecting" children from injury? Is there an acceptable risk for you? Is it just "not the worst thing? Where on that List is an acceptable sport?
And the idea that there is no slippery slope to be argued ignores that California doesnt differentiate a warning between roasted coffee beans and something that may actually pose a significant risk.
From my perspective there are benefits that need to be part of the equation. Smoking doesnt have a lot of benefits from my perspective, but sports do. Especially sports in a team or wilderness setting. They are not comparable to smoking from my perspective. Risk of injury is not absolute or in a vacuum.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Stick to yogurt sticks and peanut butter sandwiches.
Concussions are A component, Subconcussive hits are B THROUGH Z components.
Mechanisms of injury in the development of CTE
American Football involves repetitive head trauma causing the brain to experience acceleration and deceleration forces (14, 17, 18), leading to coup/countercoup injuries. This can manifest in varying severity from concussions, or concussions of lesser magnitude (sub-concussion) to loss of consciousness (19). Over time, improperly managed brain trauma with inadequate recovery periods allow chronic inflammatory processes to lay the framework for CTE (14). Indeed, brain trauma without concussion can also lead to CTE (20, 21). It is believed that repetitive brain trauma leads to CTE through tau oligomerization following axonal deformation and microtubular destabilization......but I don't expect you to understand that.
You may want your kid or someone else's kid to get hit hundreds or thousands of times in the head AND/OR BODY and roll the dice on them as to whether they can tie their shoe or communicate well at some point in the future, but I'm not sure that kid would choose that if he/she and parents were given all the info.
As for your last comment....
In 2017, out of 111 dead ex-NFL players brains, 110 had CTE...so you're correct....not absolute.
BTW, Cheerleading accounts for over half of all the catastrophic injuries in sports.
I save you from my feelings of your other comments.
Cheers!!
