Youth tackle football could be banned in Calif. by next year
[url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Youth-tackle-football-could-be-banned-in-Calif-12579257.php][/url]
[url=https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Youth-tackle-football-could-be-banned-in-Calif-12579257.php][/url]

KTVU had a story on this issue, this morning, and a poll.

The "State" need to stay out of our bedrooms, and the football field.

I am 100% normally opposed to this type of legislation as government overreaching into our lives.

I am 100% in favor of this legislation. Damaging children's brains because of a sport is indefensible.

This is an interesting debate on a number of levels.

Banning youth football is basically saying the risk of injury, especially head injury, is too great for youth football. Studies do show that football has a high rate of concussions relative to other youth sports. Questions is, who determines what acceptable risk is?

Concussion Rates per Sport
The below numbers indicate the amount of sports concussions taking place per 100,000 athletic exposures. An athletic exposure is defined as one athlete participating in one organized high school athletic practice or competition, regardless of the amount of time played.

Football: 64 -76.8
Boys' ice hockey: 54
Girl's soccer: 33
Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
Boys' baseball: Between 4.6 - 5
Girls' gymnastics: 7

Using the data above, let's assume I have one boy who plays football and another who plays soccer. Let's also assume both have 150 total games and practices a year.

Odds would say my football playing son would get 0.11 concussions and my soccer playing son would get 0.03 concussions per year.

On a relative basis, football has a much higher rate. But is the risk of getting 0.11 concussions an unacceptable risk? Maybe it is for me but maybe not for you.

Let's say football is banned? What's next? Ice hockey, soccer, lacrosse? Where do you draw the line?

tequila4kapp said:

---

I am 100% normally opposed to this type of legislation as government overreaching into our lives.

I am 100% in favor of this legislation. Damaging children's brains because of a sport is indefensible.

---

I'm actually glad you said this, as I was afraid this very important topic would devolve into the typical LvR trash. I'm normally 100% opposite of you on these things and yet I'm NOT 100% sure I'm for this..

We should also ban all bicycle riding while we are at it. As well as skateboarding and skiing.

I think we can see where this is going. The goal is to ban football altogether. They'll accomplish this through incrementalism. Whether for or against this type of legislation, that's where this is all headed. I'll take awhile because football is very popular. I'm not sure I buy some of the studies. I think people who do studies are predisposed one way or the other but the concussion threat is very real. I think they are taking steps already to reduce injuries with better equipment, promoting better tackling techniques, but it's probably not enough to save football in the long run. Girls soccer also has a very high risk of injury and I'm not sure how you reduce that. Lots of concussions and lots of knee and leg injuries.

UCBerkGrad said:

---

This is an interesting debate on a number of levels.

Banning youth football is basically saying the risk of injury, especially head injury, is too great for youth football. Studies do show that football has a high rate of concussions relative to other youth sports. Questions is, who determines what acceptable risk is?

Concussion Rates per Sport
The below numbers indicate the amount of sports concussions taking place per 100,000 athletic exposures. An athletic exposure is defined as one athlete participating in one organized high school athletic practice or competition, regardless of the amount of time played.

Football: 64 -76.8
Boys' ice hockey: 54
Girl's soccer: 33
Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
Boys' baseball: Between 4.6 - 5
Girls' gymnastics: 7

Using the data above, let's assume I have one boy who plays football and another who plays soccer. Let's also assume both have 150 total games and practices a year.

Odds would say my football playing son would get 0.11 concussions and my soccer playing son would get 0.03 concussions per year.

On a relative basis, football has a much higher rate. But is the risk of getting 0.11 concussions an unacceptable risk? Maybe it is for me but maybe not for you.

Let's say football is banned? What's next? Ice hockey, soccer, lacrosse? Where do you draw the line?

---

I just want to point out you guys are throwing around the term banning youth football when the ban is on tackle football. Many (most?) kids that age aren't playing tackle.

OaktownBear said:

---

UCBerkGrad said:

---

CThis is an interesting debate on a number of levels.

Banning youth football is basically saying the risk of injury, especially head injury, is too great for youth football. Studies do show that football has a high rate of concussions relative to other youth sports. Questions is, who determines what acceptable risk is?

Concussion Rates per Sport
The below numbers indicate the amount of sports concussions taking place per 100,000 athletic exposures. An athletic exposure is defined as one athlete participating in one organized high school athletic practice or competition, regardless of the amount of time played.

Football: 64 -76.8
Boys' ice hockey: 54
Girl's soccer: 33
Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
Boys' baseball: Between 4.6 - 5
Girls' gymnastics: 7

Using the data above, let's assume I have one boy who plays football and another who plays soccer. Let's also assume both have 150 total games and practices a year.

Odds would say my football playing son would get 0.11 concussions and my soccer playing son would get 0.03 concussions per year.

On a relative basis, football has a much higher rate. But is the risk of getting 0.11 concussions an unacceptable risk? Maybe it is for me but maybe not for you.

Let's say football is banned? What's next? Ice hockey, soccer, lacrosse? Where do you draw the line?

---

I just want to point out you guys are throwing around the term banning youth football when the ban is on tackle football. Many (most?) kids that age aren't playing tackle.

---

Seems to me there are bigger problems CA needs to solve than this. The state legalizes marijuana which is likely to cause more harm to society than youth tackle football.

AEM80 said:

---

I think we can see where this is going. The goal is to ban football altogether. They'll accomplish this through incrementalism. Whether for or against this type of legislation, that's where this is all headed. I'll take awhile because football is very popular. I'm not sure I buy some of the studies. I think people who do studies are predisposed one way or the other but the concussion threat is very real. I think they are taking steps already to reduce injuries with better equipment, promoting better tackling techniques, but it's probably not enough to save football in the long run. Girls soccer also has a very high risk of injury and I'm not sure how you reduce that. Lots of concussions and lots of knee and leg injuries.

---

Will be interested to see how D1 universities keep their ADs afloat after the cash cow is gone. I'm sure field hockey and softball will be throwing some killer bake sales....You're right. Very regressive. Borderline sexist... Maybe in the case of UC, CA can impose a tax on all graduates living within the state. How about $50 for each '000 in income earned? Should pay for a lot of shin guards and seven-figure coaches' salaries in sports that have no spectators. Can't wait.

Northside91 said:

---

AEM80 said:

---

I think we can see where this is going. The goal is to ban football altogether. They'll accomplish this through incrementalism. Whether for or against this type of legislation, that's where this is all headed. I'll take awhile because football is very popular. I'm not sure I buy some of the studies. I think people who do studies are predisposed one way or the other but the concussion threat is very real. I think they are taking steps already to reduce injuries with better equipment, promoting better tackling techniques, but it's probably not enough to save football in the long run. Girls soccer also has a very high risk of injury and I'm not sure how you reduce that. Lots of concussions and lots of knee and leg injuries.

---

Will be interested to see how D1 universities keep their ADs afloat after the cash cow is gone. I'm sure field hockey and softball will be throwing some killer bake sales....You're right. Very regressive. Borderline sexist... Maybe in the case of UC, CA can impose a tax on all graduates living within the state. How about $50 for each '000 in income earned? Should pay for a lot of shin guards and seven-figure coaches' salaries in sports that have no spectators. Can't wait.

---

Well, we'll probably just return to actual amateurism in college athletics. Either way, the current cash cow is feasting on borrowed time. The media $ bubble burst is coming.

TandemBear said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

We should also ban all bicycle riding while we are at it. As well as skateboarding and skiing.

---

Boy, these sorts of comments are so tiresome.

Please cite the prevalence of CTE among active and retired cyclists. How many CTE-related cyclist suicides have you heard about? How many retired professional cyclists suffer CTE symptoms? How many have been diagnosed post-mortem with the ailment?

None that I know of.

Now substitute the word "cyclist" with "skateboarding, skiing, soccer, lacrosse, tennis, badminton," etc. and you probably get the same results.

No, it's football that's doing the damage, so it needs to be addressed.

---

Many other things should be addressed first. Why not ban alcohol? Much more of a societal detriment than pre highschool tackle football. It's like the government knows best... The market already has resulted in a reduction of kids playing football.

And about soccer? I played 12+ years in Holland. Not heading balls is a joke. Headed many balls never had a concussion. I guess US soccer might as well quit and try checkers...

My wife works in pedriatics in the hospital and has seen more head injuries from skate boarders than football...Just calculate what the % injury is there...

In summation parents should decide what their kids should play or not play and be responsible for the consequences not the government. The government should fix 1 in six bridges in the state that are in major disrepair...

Go Bears!

Goobear said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

We should also ban all bicycle riding while we are at it. As well as skateboarding and skiing.

---

Boy, these sorts of comments are so tiresome.

Please cite the prevalence of CTE among active and retired cyclists. How many CTE-related cyclist suicides have you heard about? How many retired professional cyclists suffer CTE symptoms? How many have been diagnosed post-mortem with the ailment?

None that I know of.

Now substitute the word "cyclist" with "skateboarding, skiing, soccer, lacrosse, tennis, badminton," etc. and you probably get the same results.

No, it's football that's doing the damage, so it needs to be addressed.

---

Many other things should be addressed first. Why not ban alcohol? Much more of a societal detriment than pre highschool tackle football. It's like the government knows best... The market already has resulted in a reduction of kids playing football.

And about soccer? I played 12+ years in Holland. Not heading balls is a joke. Headed many balls never had a concussion. I guess US soccer might as well quit and try checkers...

My wife works in pedriatics in the hospital and has seen more head injuries from skate boarders than football...Just calculate what the % injury is there...

In summation parents should decide what their kids should play or not play and be responsible for the consequences not the government. The government should fix 1 in six bridges in the state that are in major disrepair...

Go Bears!

---

I doubt bridge engineers are being reassigned to study CTE in youth football. They can and should tackle that regardless of what goes on with football.

California legislators love to ban things they think are "bad" for us. There is a bill out there to ban plastic drinking straws in restaurants, or more precisely wait people offering straws without being asked. Doing so can result in a fine and time in jail. When straws are outlawed only outlaws will have straws.

dajo9 said:

---

Disagree. Legalizing marijuana reduces the amount of problems in society.

---

I am talking one issue relative to other. It's not even close. There are signs at the freeway all over in CA that driving under the influence of pot is an offense. My friend got in an accident because of a stoned driver. Tackle football pre high school does not get unsuspecting participants into accidents. Hence pot has more societal impact.

Tackle Football for youths is horrendous knowing what we know now, and the victims are completely unsuspecting unless people are telling them about it. Furthermore, the victims can hardly comprehend the nature if the damage being done.

If youth football is banned, where will DeLaSalle recruit from?

ayetee11 said:

---

If youth football is banned, where will DeLaSalle recruit from?

---

Nobody is gonna ban youth football. They are talking about banning tackle football, aka Pop Warner. The reality is that in most parts of the country participation rates for high school football are already in serious decline. The parents that don't want their kids playing that sport are having an effect. And that effect will only grow over time. At the younger (below high school) level), similar effects are also being seen. In my community, the percentage of kids at the 10-13 yr range that play organized league tackle football vs. organized league flag football is probably only 10% vs. 90%.

So it's not clear to me that it really matters if the Calif Legislature passes a law on this. Over time football is going to lose some of its dominance - socially and economically. Regardless of what politicians do.

And BTW, football is not even close to the most dangerous high school sport. That would be pole vaulting.

The skateboard analogy is a bad one. Kids can skate on their free time with helmets. Kids would also be allowed to go to a park on their free time and play tackle football. We are talking about organized sports.

As for US Soccer, by all appearasnces it seems they have quit.

This doesn't have to be comparative. If you see a problem, fix it.

ayetee11 said:

---

If youth football is banned, where will DeLaSalle recruit from?

---

Don't make me come over there and give you a concussion.

Grigsby said:

---

UCBerkGrad said:

---

This is an interesting debate on a number of levels.

Banning youth football is basically saying the risk of injury, especially head injury, is too great for youth football. Studies do show that football has a high rate of concussions relative to other youth sports. Questions is, who determines what acceptable risk is?

Concussion Rates per Sport
The below numbers indicate the amount of sports concussions taking place per 100,000 athletic exposures. An athletic exposure is defined as one athlete participating in one organized high school athletic practice or competition, regardless of the amount of time played.

Football: 64 -76.8
Boys' ice hockey: 54
Girl's soccer: 33
Boys' lacrosse: 40 - 46.6
Girls' lacrosse: 31 - 35
Boys' soccer: 19 - 19.2
Boys' wrestling: 22 - 23.9
Girls' basketball: 18.6 - 21
Girls' softball: 16 - 16.3
Boys' basketball: 16 - 21.2
Girls' field hockey: 22 - 24.9
Cheerleading: 11.5 to 14
Girls' volleyball: 6 - 8.6
Boys' baseball: Between 4.6 - 5
Girls' gymnastics: 7

Using the data above, let's assume I have one boy who plays football and another who plays soccer. Let's also assume both have 150 total games and practices a year.

Odds would say my football playing son would get 0.11 concussions and my soccer playing son would get 0.03 concussions per year.

On a relative basis, football has a much higher rate. But is the risk of getting 0.11 concussions an unacceptable risk? Maybe it is for me but maybe not for you.

Let's say football is banned? What's next? Ice hockey, soccer, lacrosse? Where do you draw the line?

---

Concussion rates are useless CTE is mostly caused by the repetitive blows to the head. So while you may get a concussion in other sports you aren't crashing your head 25+ times per game, or the countless times in practice.

---

Headers in soccer are specifically pointed to for that type of damage, especially for girls.

Should girls soccer headers be banned?

TandemBear said:

---

... How many CTE-related cyclist suicides have you heard about? ...

None that I know of.

Now substitute the word "cyclist" with "skateboarding, skiing, soccer, lacrosse, tennis, badminton," etc. and you probably get the same results.

No, it's football that's doing the damage, so it needs to be addressed.

---

Terrible argument.

"This is what I have heard about, so its THE problem."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314081533.htm

https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/14/health/brain-damage-dementia-cte-soccer-football-study/index.html

Now, does the lack of exposure of womens soccer contribute to not following up on players after death to look for CTE? Does mens already significantly higher suicide rate contribute to higher CTE related suicide in football players vs women athletes?

How many women athlete deaths have you heard of in the last year. Or 5 years. or 10 years. I cant even name a single female athlete that has been the subject of a nightly news story for dying... or anything.

Does that mean that they are not dying, or dont exist, or dont get injured, or could it be that a bias makes the NFL story more compelling and gives football a tighter focus.

We all pretend to be enlightened, but very few people care about womens soccer compared to the NFL, especially outside of the WC. Womens sports injuries just are not interesting. That is why no one is trying to blanket ban stunting in Cheerleading, despite it insanely dangerous. Instead the do "no three person tall" rules, and injured women and girls become jokes, and the fact that cheer is dangerous as hell becomes a trivial pursuit question.

But yeah, if you haven't heard of it, must not be an issue.




As an aside, how many veterans brains are looked at for CTE. You get banged around a lot.

dajo9 said:

---

BearinOC said:

---

I am absolutely against this. Let's not coddle our kids by legislation. Let's not limit my parental right.

What happened to the courage and spirt of America. Another example of California legislator overreaching.

---

Giving kids concussions is the spirit of America? lol

---

The point is let the parents be the decesion makers not the government.