I'm afraid I can't link the article here, but I just read an item wherein the California Legislature is considering a ban on tackle football in the state for those under 12 years of age, citing health concerns. Flag football would take it's place. Tackle football would still be allowed for those over 12.

The bill is at its first stage in the legislature. It has a long way to go.

(Minor error in the article: The state senate has 40 members, not 50.)

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-10/california-youth-tackle-football-ban-state-assembly-vote

Quote:

---

The proposed law is striking in its brevity. Sure, the single sentence is a bit rambling, but California Assembly Bill 734 leaves no doubt about its directive:

"On and after January 1, 2026, a youth sports organization that conducts a tackle football program, or a youth tackle football league, shall not allow a person younger than 12 years of age to be a youth tackle football participant through the organization or league."

. . .

AB 734 was introduced last year by Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) not to be confused with former House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) and cleared its first hurdle Wednesday when a legislative committee voted 5 to 2 for the measure to be considered by the 80-member Assembly as early as next week.

The bill also would need to pass the 50-member Senate before reaching the desk of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

. . .

An amendment to AB 734 approved by the committee Wednesday stipulates that implementation of the bill would be phased in. Children under age 6 would be prohibited from playing tackle football beginning in 2025, followed by children under age 10 in 2027 and children under age 12 in 2029.

---

I recall pick-up tackle football games growing up in Berkeley. They always started out as touch football then got rougher and were never more than 4v4 because that's all the guys we could round up. Of course, no pads or helmets. Midpoint of the field or three complete passes was a first down. Pass rush on three alligators. Games were at Live Oak Park or Codornices Park. Those games probably stopped around age 12 when we got big enough that collisions really hurt. Games were at Live Oak Park or Codornices Park. Did anyone ever have as much fun?

Do the gen z and gen alpha cohorts even care about football/baseball/basketball?

This would simply eliminate "Pee-Wee" and "Junior Pee-Wee" ball. Not a big deal in and of itself IMHO. 7th and 8th graders would still be allowed to participate in youth football. In my experience this is where a surprising amount of local reputation is established that tends to carry into HS. Virtually all of the guys who skip the frosh team and go straight to JV or varsity were Pop Warner "stars." Schools like DLS actively scouted and recruited from these teams.

Ironically I think this could lead to greater participation in football all up. Think its not a bad idea overall from a health/safety and expansion of the sport's popularity. I'm sure there will be cries about the wussification of America but a good move overall.

NWBear90 said:

---

Ironically I think this could lead to greater participation in football all up. Think its not a bad idea overall from a health/safety and expansion of the sport's popularity. I'm sure there will be cries about the wussification of America but a good move overall.

---

if the kids want to play, let them play. Those early years don't have the physical impact, anyway.

Rushinbear said:

---

NWBear90 said:

---

Ironically I think this could lead to greater participation in football all up. Think its not a bad idea overall from a health/safety and expansion of the sport's popularity. I'm sure there will be cries about the wussification of America but a good move overall.

---

if the kids want to play, let them play. Those early years don't have the physical impact, anyway.

---

It's not about the physical impact on the body, but rather the impact of subconcussive hits on the brain.

I remember, back in the late 90s, reading an article in the NEJM discussing subconcussive impacts on the brains of amateur soccer players.* Basically, the results were that the cumulative effect of subconcussive hits was comparable to that of concussive hits. Just about every study in the twenty-five years since then has pretty much confirmed the original findings: accumulated subconcussive hits result in the same damage to the brain as concussions.

As most people now know, concussions lead to brain damage, including chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Unfortunately, at present, CTE can only be diagnosed postmortem after a dissection and examination of the brain. As such, it's impossible to determine whether young people (whose brains are still growing) can accumulate the p-tau proteins that lead to CTE from subconcussive hits. That said, there is certainly some evidence of high school aged athletes (read football players) who developed CTE. What's unclear is whether these athletes only accumulated the p-tau proteins in high school or earlier (i.e., during pop warner football).

While I tend to be of the mind that parents should make the decision whether to enroll their kids in tackle football, at some point I do think that the government may have a role to play in protecting children from unnecessary brain damage that could result from playing tackle football. Whether that's at ages <12 or some other age is where the salami gets sliced. I doubt the legislature is basing the age limit for playing tackle football on a review of the scientific literature, because (frankly) I doubt there's been sufficient study of the difference of tackle football on 12 year old brains versus on 11 year old brains. Rather, I suppose the legislature is trying to step in and protect kids but is choosing some arbitrary number that seems more or less reasonable.**

Of course, there are likely to be those in opposition to the laws on the ground that it's a furthering of the "nanny state." However, the state does have an interest in preventing brain damage (a la CTE) to its citizens, as some of the symptoms tend to be behavioral problems, over aggression, and other expressions of mental health problems. If the state can cut down on the numbers of the mentally ill walking around by preventing damage to developing brains through the proscribing participation in tackle football before a certain age, then that would seem like a good idea. However, the question then becomes "at what age should the cutoff be made?" Ultimately, I doubt there will ever be widespread agreement no matter what age is selected.

* Granted, the study was of college aged athletes, but no one is certain what the minimum amount of force is necessary to be considered sufficient to begin the accumulative concussive impact on preteen brains.

** Technically, if the legislature were to pass a law prohibiting tackle football on the basis of protecting still-developing brains, then the age cutoff would be closer to 25, which is about when the brain becomes fully developed. Obviously, this would kill not just high school football, but also college football, and even the NFL. As a result, such a law is unlikely ever to pass.

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

NWBear90 said:

---

Ironically I think this could lead to greater participation in football all up. Think its not a bad idea overall from a health/safety and expansion of the sport's popularity. I'm sure there will be cries about the wussification of America but a good move overall.

---

if the kids want to play, let them play. Those early years don't have the physical impact, anyway.

---

It's not about the physical impact on the body, but rather the impact of subconcussive hits on the brain.

I remember, back in the late 90s, reading an article in the NEJM discussing subconcussive impacts on the brains of amateur soccer players.* Basically, the results were that the cumulative effect of subconcussive hits was comparable to that of concussive hits. Just about every study in the twenty-five years since then has pretty much confirmed the original findings: accumulated subconcussive hits result in the same damage to the brain as concussions.

As most people now know, concussions lead to brain damage, including chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Unfortunately, at present, CTE can only be diagnosed postmortem after a dissection and examination of the brain. As such, it's impossible to determine whether young people (whose brains are still growing) can accumulate the p-tau proteins that lead to CTE from subconcussive hits. That said, there is certainly some evidence of high school aged athletes (read football players) who developed CTE. What's unclear is whether these athletes only accumulated the p-tau proteins in high school or earlier (i.e., during pop warner football).

While I tend to be of the mind that parents should make the decision whether to enroll their kids in tackle football, at some point I do think that the government may have a role to play in protecting children from unnecessary brain damage that could result from playing tackle football. Whether that's at ages <12 or some other age is where the salami gets sliced. I doubt the legislature is basing the age limit for playing tackle football on a review of the scientific literature, because (frankly) I doubt there's been sufficient study of the difference of tackle football on 12 year old brains versus on 11 year old brains. Rather, I suppose the legislature is trying to step in and protect kids but is choosing some arbitrary number that seems more or less reasonable.**

Of course, there are likely to be those in opposition to the laws on the ground that it's a furthering of the "nanny state." However, the state does have an interest in preventing brain damage (a la CTE) to its citizens, as some of the symptoms tend to be behavioral problems, over aggression, and other expressions of mental health problems. If the state can cut down on the numbers of the mentally ill walking around by preventing damage to developing brains through the proscribing participation in tackle football before a certain age, then that would seem like a good idea. However, the question then becomes "at what age should the cutoff be made?" Ultimately, I doubt there will ever be widespread agreement no matter what age is selected.

* Granted, the study was of college aged athletes, but no one is certain what the minimum amount of force is necessary to be considered sufficient to begin the accumulative concussive impact on preteen brains.

** Technically, if the legislature were to pass a law prohibiting tackle football on the basis of protecting still-developing brains, then the age cutoff would be closer to 25, which is about when the brain becomes fully developed. Obviously, this would kill not just high school football, but also college football, and even the NFL. As a result, such a law is unlikely ever to pass.

---

oh, did i mention concussions? what evidence do you have of concussions and little kids? lotta talk by "experts;" what are we hearing from the kids and their own parents (not parental spokespersons)?

HearstMining said:

---

I recall pick-up tackle football games growing up in Berkeley. They always started out as touch football then got rougher and were never more than 4v4 because that's all the guys we could round up. Of course, no pads or helmets. Midpoint of the field or three complete passes was a first down. Pass rush on three alligators. Games were at Live Oak Park or Codornices Park. Those games probably stopped around age 12 when we got big enough that collisions really hurt. Games were at Live Oak Park or Codornices Park. Did anyone ever have as much fun?

---

Severe head trauma can cause redundancy.

Common sense!
I should have never been allowed to play junior peewees and peewees.
I can't even begin to emphasize how ****ed up my knees are today at 42 and how many guys I know from those teams who are just not all their more than likely from "running the gauntlet" or a whole host of other drills that were only in place to stroke the egos of early 40 something 90s pedo bros trying to live vicariously through 9 year olds and achieve that 8-0 season.
And don't even get me started about weigh ins.
Forcing 9-10 year olds to get fully naked in front of elderly weigh in folk in order to make sure you're of the right weight and the undies might put you over.
It's not like this is some whole agenda either.
The science is peer reviewed and it all says don't let kids that age smash heads together in a helmet twice the size of their head.
Good for California.
Doubt any of the red states will do this which will only widen the tard gap between our states and the red states.

There was an article on this subject in Rolling Stone recently, focusing on CTE among kids who only played through high school.

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

NWBear90 said:

---

Ironically I think this could lead to greater participation in football all up. Think its not a bad idea overall from a health/safety and expansion of the sport's popularity. I'm sure there will be cries about the wussification of America but a good move overall.

---

if the kids want to play, let them play. Those early years don't have the physical impact, anyway.

---

It's not about the physical impact on the body, but rather the impact of subconcussive hits on the brain.

I remember, back in the late 90s, reading an article in the NEJM discussing subconcussive impacts on the brains of amateur soccer players.* Basically, the results were that the cumulative effect of subconcussive hits was comparable to that of concussive hits. Just about every study in the twenty-five years since then has pretty much confirmed the original findings: accumulated subconcussive hits result in the same damage to the brain as concussions.

As most people now know, concussions lead to brain damage, including chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Unfortunately, at present, CTE can only be diagnosed postmortem after a dissection and examination of the brain. As such, it's impossible to determine whether young people (whose brains are still growing) can accumulate the p-tau proteins that lead to CTE from subconcussive hits. That said, there is certainly some evidence of high school aged athletes (read football players) who developed CTE. What's unclear is whether these athletes only accumulated the p-tau proteins in high school or earlier (i.e., during pop warner football).

While I tend to be of the mind that parents should make the decision whether to enroll their kids in tackle football, at some point I do think that the government may have a role to play in protecting children from unnecessary brain damage that could result from playing tackle football. Whether that's at ages <12 or some other age is where the salami gets sliced. I doubt the legislature is basing the age limit for playing tackle football on a review of the scientific literature, because (frankly) I doubt there's been sufficient study of the difference of tackle football on 12 year old brains versus on 11 year old brains. Rather, I suppose the legislature is trying to step in and protect kids but is choosing some arbitrary number that seems more or less reasonable.**

Of course, there are likely to be those in opposition to the laws on the ground that it's a furthering of the "nanny state." However, the state does have an interest in preventing brain damage (a la CTE) to its citizens, as some of the symptoms tend to be behavioral problems, over aggression, and other expressions of mental health problems. If the state can cut down on the numbers of the mentally ill walking around by preventing damage to developing brains through the proscribing participation in tackle football before a certain age, then that would seem like a good idea. However, the question then becomes "at what age should the cutoff be made?" Ultimately, I doubt there will ever be widespread agreement no matter what age is selected.

* Granted, the study was of college aged athletes, but no one is certain what the minimum amount of force is necessary to be considered sufficient to begin the accumulative concussive impact on preteen brains.

** Technically, if the legislature were to pass a law prohibiting tackle football on the basis of protecting still-developing brains, then the age cutoff would be closer to 25, which is about when the brain becomes fully developed. Obviously, this would kill not just high school football, but also college football, and even the NFL. As a result, such a law is unlikely ever to pass.

---

oh, did i mention concussions? what evidence do you have of concussions and little kids? lotta talk by "experts;" what are we hearing from the kids and their own parents (not parental spokespersons)?

---

Hence, my first footnote. The study in the NEJM on subconcussive hits was done on college-aged athletes. Similar studies tend to be focused on athletes of that age or older, as well. There could be studies on younger athletes, but for obvious reasons, they're rather difficult to design. That said, there have been some studies within the recent past that focused on the impact of subconcussive hits on youth brains. Their results are similar to those of the previous studies in college aged (and older) athletes.

It's not so much "talk by 'experts'" as it is studies by researchers. The researchers aren't necessarily claiming to be experts. Rather, they're presenting their findings and drawing conclusions from them. The vast majority of the findings all lead to the same conclusion: accumulated subconcussive hits to the brain cause brain damage similar to concussions.

It's up to us, as reasonable people, to determine what we do with all that collected data and analyses. Sure, we could ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. We could also scoff at the results produced by all these eggheaded academics who are probably anti-athletics. Or we can pay attention and figure out a course of action that can chart a middle ground allowing us to keep contact sports while also minimizing risk of brain damage.

As for the parents and kids, surely you're familiar with the difference between anecdotal evidence and experimental data. While anecdotal evidence absolutely has a place, it cannot replace or drown out experimental data. Sure, some kids may have never observed any significant impact from subconcussive hits, but that doesn't mean (1) they are the rule or (2) they won't experience them in the future.

Keep in mind, at least with respect to CTE, there is currently no way to test for it except by dissecting a brain. Obviously, dissecting a brain usually means the person to whom the brain belonged has died.* Thus, absent parents donating the brains of their deceased youth athletes for such research, it's not really feasible to determine whether preteen kids can develop CTE.

However, one symptom of CTE is cognitive change. At least one study on football players under the age of 14 has found that players who suffered subconcussive hits underwent changes to cognitive processing by the end of football season. (See, https://academic.oup.com/braincomms/article/4/2/fcab286/6462184.) While this is one study, it does seem to confirm what some previous studies have also found for youth athletes in contact sports. Obviously, more research in the area could provide more data and better analysis. In the meantime, however, given how much data has already been accumulated on the impact of subconcussive hits on the brain, it may behoove reasonable people to put in place some checks to prevent children from excessively engaging in activities that could result in brain damage.

*I suppose it could be possible to dissect parts of brains that have been removed from a living patient (e.g., as part of a lobectomy).

Governor Gavin says no, will not sign

Bobodeluxe said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

I recall pick-up tackle football games growing up in Berkeley. They always started out as touch football then got rougher and were never more than 4v4 because that's all the guys we could round up. Of course, no pads or helmets. Midpoint of the field or three complete passes was a first down. Pass rush on three alligators. Games were at Live Oak Park or Codornices Park. Those games probably stopped around age 12 when we got big enough that collisions really hurt. Games were at Live Oak Park or Codornices Park. Did anyone ever have as much fun?

---

Severe head trauma can cause redundancy.

---

That clears up some things for me.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

I recall pick-up tackle football games growing up in Berkeley. They always started out as touch football then got rougher and were never more than 4v4 because that's all the guys we could round up. Of course, no pads or helmets. Midpoint of the field or three complete passes was a first down. Pass rush on three alligators. Games were at Live Oak Park or Codornices Park. Those games probably stopped around age 12 when we got big enough that collisions really hurt. Games were at Live Oak Park or Codornices Park. Did anyone ever have as much fun?

---

Severe head trauma can cause redundancy.

---

Okay, I'm starting to get it now.

Anarchistbear said:

---

Governor Gavin says no, will not sign

---

Of course he won't sign. He's running for president in 2028; he's not going to let anyone bash him as the governor who signed a bill banning kiddie football.

BearSD said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Governor Gavin says no, will not sign

---

Of course he won't sign. He's running for president in 2028; he's not going to let anyone bash him as the governor who signed a bill banning kiddie football.

---

This is not the first time this bill has come up. It was not signed before. Generally they stop these bills getting to the governor so he does not have to deal with it. But this was getting a lot of attention already - the session just opened. They are probably not going to pass single payor this year (every year since the mid 90's), a new tax on wealth or other politically ending bills. But somewhere someone who is paid a lot of money to get them a bill is smiling.

Big C said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

I recall pick-up tackle football games growing up in Berkeley. They always started out as touch football then got rougher and were never more than 4v4 because that's all the guys we could round up. Of course, no pads or helmets. Midpoint of the field or three complete passes was a first down. Pass rush on three alligators. Games were at Live Oak Park or Codornices Park. Those games probably stopped around age 12 when we got big enough that collisions really hurt. Games were at Live Oak Park or Codornices Park. Did anyone ever have as much fun?

---

Severe head trauma can cause redundancy.

---

Okay, I'm starting to get it now.

---

Nice catch and those games may be the explanation for my career trajectory. But it was worth it.
One alligator . . . two alligators . . . three alligators.

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/21/1225764834/california-governor-sacks-effort-to-limit-tackle-football-for-kids

WalterSobchak said:

---

This would simply eliminate "Pee-Wee" and "Junior Pee-Wee" ball. Not a big deal in and of itself IMHO. 7th and 8th graders would still be allowed to participate in youth football. In my experience this is where a surprising amount of local reputation is established that tends to carry into HS. Virtually all of the guys who skip the frosh team and go straight to JV or varsity were Pop Warner "stars." Schools like DLS actively scouted and recruited from these teams.

---

or alternatively the good players decided to go play at the best program and well not Northgate, Concord, YV, Mt Diablo etc

My eldest played 3 years of pop warner and 4 years of HS football. The only concussion he got was during school when he tried to play Marco Polo on the blacktop and collided with another kid who zigged when my son zagged.

They should do it for all sports where concussions are a concern for those under 12.