Is football too dangerous to be allowed?

[gonzomax]

Brant Gumbel of Real Sports has done a couple programs showing the impact of pro football on the players after the game is over for them. The concussions and harm done to them have serious and long range implications. John Mackey was touted as a tough hard hitting football player. He is unable to communicate and is the poster boy for anti football people. It is common to have hip and knee replacement . The life of a cripple awaits.
Once you have a concussion ,you are 3 times more likely to have another.
In high school we have about a half million football injuries a year. In 1996 2 highschoolers died of heatstroke, 9 were permanently paralyzed.
Could it be made safer.? Could helmets be made better to prevent concussions. ? Ut seems there have not been great strides in protection.
By the way I have been a fan of boxing and football for many years. But, I always have had a nagging feeling that it was wrong to hurt people for amusement.

[RikWriter]

Are they forced to play football at gunpoint? If not, then it's their decision and who are you to tell them you won't "allow" it?

[GaryM]

Play with lawn darts instead! :D

[RickJay]

Great strides are being made in sports medicine and protective equipment. Look at the helmets they wore 40 years ago versus today.

Until they start forcing people to play football, I don't see a problem. You know pretty much from the first three minutes of playing football that it's going to hurt.

[Liberal]

What's wrong with getting hurt? It used to be a source of pride. And please with the "2 highschoolers died of heatstroke" statistics. That could have happened with band practice.

[Mikemike2]

When I heard questions as to whether football should be allowed as I kid, I thought it was outrageous. Since then, I don't know. Kids think they are invunerable and are making choices that will affect them negatively for the rest of their lives. I know a fair number of adults who had their backs and knees screwed up in high school, and would not have played if they fully understood the consequences.

[Moriarty]

But, I always have had a nagging feeling that it was wrong to hurt people for amusement.

I give you kudos for trying to start an interesting debate, but I just don't think this one has legs. For one thing, the object of football isn't to hurt people; it's merely a symptom of the way the game is played. For another, as has been said, participation in this violent game is voluntary. Anyone who elects to play football has tacitly accepted the risks. And not everyone who plays football is debilitated beyond the point of living a healthy life.

If we were to ban an activity because it had risk of injury, we'd be creating a mighty long list.

Riding horses? Everyone probably remembers Christopher Reeves accident. Any barn I've been to posts warnings about the inherent dangers of Equine activities. Ban it.
Hockey? Flying pucks create risks of breaking your eye socket. Ban it.
Basketball? Knee injuries are going to make it hard to walk in your old age. Ban it.
Baseball? Ray Chapman (http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Ray_Chapman_1891) died playing the game. As did a minor league coach, Mike Coolbaugh (http://www.reuters.com/article/sportsNews/idUSN2335226220070723). Ban it.
Golf? Many longtime pro's have nagging back injuries, and anyone who's ever had a back problem knows how painful that can be. Ban it.

I could go on and on. Do I need to?

[jjimm]

What's wrong with getting hurt? It used to be a source of pride. And please with the "2 highschoolers died of heatstroke" statistics. That could have happened with band practice.This one time, at band practice...

[Marley23]

Hockey? Flying pucks create risks of breaking your eye socket. Ban it.
And that's not to mention the Chris Simons of the world.

Kids think they're invulnerable, it's true - but so do athletes in general. They know the risks and "have to" ignore them. And many willingly do so, or else they wouldn't try to come back from injuries. I think greater attention is required from coaches at all levels as far as paying attention to concussions. That's the biggest thing, and I'm not sure it's taken seriously enough at any level.
And there will always advances in equipment. I hope they can keep up with the advances in training that are making players faster and stronger than ever.

[phungi]

Research has shown that concussions in youth athletes have prolonged effects, so having kids play contact sports with a risk of concussion is different than adults. Even college students, with still developing brains, are at risk.

Chris Nowinski wrote a great book: Head Games (http://concussioncrisis.com/), which I highly recommend (no relationship to the author or interest in the royalties).

I won't let my kids play football, ice hockey, lacrosse or rugby, but YMMV.

[Odesio]

Maybe I was just a rough and tumble child growing up but all sorts of activities I engaged in put me at risk of losing life or limb though those risks weren't all that high. I did suffer one concussion when I fell off my bike and hit my head on the curb. I played football through middle school and suffered minor injuries, ice hockey during those same years, and wrestled my way through high school. By far wrestling resulted in the fewest injuries of the sports I played.

I remember during football practice someone knocked me on my back and I hit my head so hard that laid on the ground with my eyes shut for fear that they might have been knocked out. I'm all for making better helmets.

When I first started playing football I had just moved to Texas. I went from living in relatively cool or mild climates, Germany and Colorado, to Texas and the first summer just about killed me. Playing football in 95+ humid weather was just plain brutal for someone not used to the climate. One practice I had to ask to take a water break to avoid passing out and I caught some shit from my team mates because I guess I was just supposed to tough it out. Incidentally we did get a water break when I asked but the coach didn't exactly do anything about me taking shit from the rest of the team for asking for it.

Despite this I don't think football is too dangerous. I think it's probably a lot safer today then it was 50 years ago.

Marc

[Raygun99]

Kids who want to crack their skulls are going to find a way to do it, so we may as well give them a consistent set of rules to do it in and supervise them by.

[BrainGlutton]

Are they forced to play football at gunpoint? If not, then it's their decision and who are you to tell them you won't "allow" it?

Careful -- that kind of argument lends itself to reductio ad absurdem. (E.g., gladiatorial combat with real swords.)

[Cyberhwk]

In 1996 2 highschoolers died of heatstroke, 9 were permanently paralyzed. That's nothing compared to the casualties you'd have in the ensuing riot if you tried to ban it. :p

With that being said, yes it could be safer, yes extra focus should be put on how football effects younger kids who are still growing and devloping.

[gonzomax]

The latest Real Sports deals with pro ball from the viewpoint of 3 wives. One has a 35 year old husband who she dresses like a child ,brushes his teeth and has to put his pain pills in his mouth. He is mentally ok but his joints have been destroyed. he is unable to ever work again.
Another wife and her football gladiator knew football was a temporary life. They both went to law school while he was playing. However he was knocked out 11 times while playing football. When he retired he became violent and crazy. She has not seen him for 2 years. He went to the streets and has been nailed for drunk driving but failed to show in court.
Earlier programs showed the early dementia and inability to take care of themselves. If you think these risks are worth taking, I suggest the risks should be more common knowledge.

[gonzomax]

http://www.hallpass.com/media/toughfootballhit.html Sport?

[gonzomax]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C0lhv6sNjA Heres more. Perhaps the HGH and steroids have made it too dangerous. Huge and fast will increase the collisions intensity.

[cinehead]

Great strides are being made in sports medicine and protective equipment. Look at the helmets they wore 40 years ago versus today.

Until they start forcing people to play football, I don't see a problem. You know pretty much from the first three minutes of playing football that it's going to hurt.

I wonder if the improvement in equipment is ironically making things worse. In a recent interview, Patriots coaches lamented how players these days don't know the basic fundamentals of the game, like how to tackle. They talked about how players would rather lay a "big hit"on an opponent rather than wrapping them up with their arms. I would theorize that if you're wearing a leather helmet, and small shoulder pads, you're going to think twice about laying "the big hit".

I've played hockey all my life. When I was a kid, the youth leagues didn't require facemasks and the pros usually didn't wear helmets. Now, in the NHL helmets are required and in youth leagues, high schools and colleges, facemasks are mandatory.

While the facemask has probably saved parents some big dental bills, there's a school of thought that it has made the game more dangerous. Even in a sport where fighting is the norm, there used to be a "gentlemen's agreement" that slap shots should be kept low. Now sticks and pucks bly higher than ever. I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on this.

[Baldwin]

Careful -- that kind of argument lends itself to reductio ad absurdem. (E.g., gladiatorial combat with real swords.)Fighting to the death with swords should be legal, if both parties are consenting adults. (Though I'll stick with rattan and a steel helmet, myself.)

If we're going to talk about injuries, I guess it's really hard to justify boxing as a sport. As far as I know, it's the only professional sport with an inherently high risk of concussion that doesn't require head protection. People want to see a knockout -- somebody deliberately concussed hard enough to knock him unconscious. Stupid, brutal excuse for a sport.

[RickJay]

Careful -- that kind of argument lends itself to reductio ad absurdem. (E.g., gladiatorial combat with real swords.)
Only if you allow it to. The law clearly states, in every jurisdiction where the law is worth respecting, that murder cannot be justified on grounds of implied consent. Even assisted suicide is usually illegal, and gladiatorial combat can't even be considered to have that level of consent.

Football, or any other contact sport, quite obviously does not structurally have the participants acquiescing to having the other players actually try to KILL them.

I don't see anything wrong with the state regulating contact sports where necessary (as it has with boxing) but in most cases sports make an effort to regulate themselves. If they fail to do so, there's a place for the state.

I've played hockey all my life. When I was a kid, the youth leagues didn't require facemasks and the pros usually didn't wear helmets. Now, in the NHL helmets are required and in youth leagues, high schools and colleges, facemasks are mandatory.

While the facemask has probably saved parents some big dental bills, there's a school of thought that it has made the game more dangerous.
I know that thought is out there, but it is wrong; in fact, it's preposterous. The facemask has not only saved a lot of dental bills, but has saved thousands of children and young adults from partial or total blindness.

Prior to the mandatory adoption of CSA-approved face shields, CHA hockey alone averaged 250-300 eye injuries per year, of which thirty to fifty resulted in permanent blindness in at least one eye. After the adoption of face shield eye injuries essentially vanished; the average number of injuries per year dropped to two or three, without exception occurring when a player was not wearing their shield. The same thing happened when CSA and UL full shields were adopted in junior hockey and NCAA hockey. There is no case I am aware of of a person properlywearing a certified face shield receiving a serious eye injury. It's impossible. (They do happen with the half-visors, which are of extremely limited value, but fortunately not permitted in minor hockey.)

http://www.safety-council.org/info/sport/hockeysafety.html

If the NHL adopted a requirement for full, certified face shields, there would be no eye injuries in the NHL. And I'm just talking the eyes, not even other forms of facial injury.

I appreciate the "there used to be a gentleman's agreement" position, but it's just not a terrible convincing one. Gordie Howe was infamous for carving up faces with his stick, and there's never been a time in modern hockey history when people tried to keep shots low. Violence in hockey, including sticks above the waist, were just as bad thirty years ago or fifty years ago as they are today, and it's easy to see if you can find tapes of old games; they're nasty as hell with the sticks.

[Dinsdale]

ISTR that contact sports like football are actually safer for little kids than teens/adults, because when the kids are small and slow, there is much less energy - and resulting injury - from contact.

I don'[t watch much football, but I'm recovering from foot surgery for arthritis right now, and must admit I winced when I saw some of the hits yesterday. Of course, I'm a big fan of letting people fuck themselves up pretty much however they wish to.

[gonzomax]

http://www.johnmackeyfund.org/ftd.htm The after effects on Mackey. He is just one of many.

[Moriarty]

Gonzomax, I don't quite understand the point of your links. Nobody is saying that football isn't a potentially violent game. But you are arguing that it is too dangerous to be allowed! There's a huge leap from one to the other.

Indeed, there was a time when football was so violent that it was threatened with banishment. Teddy Roosevelt (http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/kidscorner/football.htm) , hardly a pussy, was concerned about the brutality and demanded reform.

But that time is many, many years ago. Now, we have a strictly regulated sport that is always taking efforts to minimize the danger, be it through protective equipment, rules changes, or even training methods (water breaks during practice are no joke anymore, especially since Korey Stringer's (http://football.about.com/library/weekly/aa080101.htm) death).

Every season there is a rules committee that examines the game and passes rules to outlaw dangerous behavior. Remember the tackle that broke Terrell Owen's leg a few years ago? Now, it's called a "horse collar" and is banned by the league. So, too, is the headslap, grabbing of the facemask, blocking in the back, chop-block, late hit, helmet to helmet, hands to the face...to hear some old-timers say it, the game today is downright tame.

Are you suggesting that these changes are insufficient, and the entire game needs to be scrapped? Never mind the billion dollar industry that is at stake; do you really think that the game can never be made safe for public participation?

[Argent Towers]

If a radical change is going to be made to football (which I don't think needs to happen, but just hypothetically,) my solution would be to do away with the pads and helmets and play it like rugby.

Far from being more dangerous, rugby is actually safer because the force of someone hitting you with full pads on is much greater than someone with only shorts and a jersey hitting you. Of all the sports I played, high school rugby was by far the one in which I saw the least amount of injury.

[Charger]

When I visit family on the holidays and people insist on inhibiting our family time by having football on the television, there is a great risk of dozing off from sheer boredom and falling off the couch and getting injured. Also, the frustration of travelling a great distance to see family members only a couple of times a year only to spend that time being shushed by people who have to hear what's going on in the sacred game probably contributes to the development of ulcers. So, yeah, ban it. Please.

[gonzomax]

Football does not make it open how dangerous it really is. The former players face the league denying that concussions are a problem, even though medical evidence contradicts them. The NFL is covering it up. The players association caved into the owners.
I want the NFL to publicize how dangerous football is. I want kids to know that a pro line career will likely leave you crippled or with mental degradation.
I do not buy that every one knows how dangerous a game it is. High school and college players sure are not aware of the real physical cost a football player faces. We owe our kids that much.

[Typo Knig]

Football does not make it open how dangerous it really is. The former players face the league denying that concussions are a problem, even though medical evidence contradicts them. The NFL is covering it up. The players association caved into the owners.
I want the NFL to publicize how dangerous football is. I want kids to know that a pro line career will likely leave you crippled or with mental degradation.
I do not buy that every one knows how dangerous a game it is. High school and college players sure are not aware of the real physical cost a football player faces. We owe our kids that much.

Here's a link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012904015.html?hpid=features1&hpv=local)to a Washington Post Sunday Magazine article on that very subject, dated 03 Feb 2008 (Super Sunday). There was an on-line chat (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/01/DI2008020102149.html) with the author Monday 04 Feb 2008.

Stories like this - of players used up and thrown away in their 20s to a lifetime of disability, while owners make billions - do not help the image of the NFL.

[hawthorne]

An article in my (Australian) newspaper claimed that the life expectancy of NFL players is 52. Anyone know whether this is true? It would be pretty startling.

There was a nice thread on drug prohibition (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=287548) a while ago that I think would be useful here in thinking about this. I mentioned an economic framework for considering when individual choices might be questioned:[T]here are times when the presumption that an individual is the best judge of his own welfare starts to look shakey. With heroin use, it's possible that an individual is choosing the best way of self-medicating an unhappy life (Becker's "rational addiction story). IMHO, that's a stretch. Perhaps the individual has a "defective telescopic faculty" (Pigou's phrase) that means that they are incapable of discounting the future consistently. Or perhaps - like Ulysses - they lack self control and require someone to bind them to the mast lest they succumb to temptation.

When an activity involves costs and benefits about which there is good information that is known and understood by the individual and the individual makes decisions that are plausibly explained by whatever tastes they might have, then the case for letting them choose what they want is pretty strong.

Where the activity involves large and irreversible long-term consequences; the individual does not know importat information about the activity and makes inconsistent choices (including over time), then there's a strong case for saying that the individual is not making choices in their best interests.

At least for some people, this looks pretty much like what occurs with gambling and drugs. Of course to get from there to a case for prohibition would take several more steps.And of course there are things short of prohibition in this case that might reduce our worry that people are making bad choices - independent medicos assessing returns after concussions; rules to limit the circumstances under which painkillers can be used to allow players to play an extra couple of weeks at the cost of 20 years a cripple etc.

[Moriarty]

An article in my (Australian) newspaper claimed that the life expectancy of NFL players is 52. Anyone know whether this is true? It would be pretty startling.

I don't have a site I can link to, but the current issue of Sports Illustrated (the one with Brady and Strahan on the cover) has a story on the battle between retired players and the union (specifically, union chief Gene Upshaw, an able bodied former offensive lineman who played in the Super Bowl in 3 decades), that specifically refutes that statistic, claiming that studies show that former players have a life expectancy at the national average.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I want kids to know that a pro line career will likely leave you crippled or with mental degradation.

Likely? Really? How about "possibly" instead? I'll have to call you on a cite for that one...I just don't believe that because you play pro football that leaves it "likely" to be crippled or mentally degraded.
I'll concede that it perhaps increases the risk of that happening, but...

[gonzomax]

Define likely as opposed to possibly. Play pro football and you will come out hurt.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/09/01/IN183821.DTL

[gonzomax]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/sports/football/02concussions.html?pagewanted=3&ei=5089&en=cecc72e8c4ebf740&ex=1328072400&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

This is about Ted Johnson and Belichick. The NFL loves its players.

[gonzomax]

http://www.concussioncrisis.com/6-15-07_Strzelczyk.pdf Medical view of concussions in football.

[Marley23]

Define likely as opposed to possibly. Play pro football and you will come out hurt.
I would say "possibly" is something that could happen, and "likely" is something that has around a 50-50 chance of happening. You'd also need to define "crippled."

[gonzomax]

60 percent does not make it to likely. I do think that is too low a number anyway. I guess you are in charge of defining likely. Please do.

[Marley23]

60 percent does not make it to likely. I do think that is too low a number anyway. I guess you are in charge of defining likely. Please do.
I've been reading this thread with interest and have been surprised at how many articles back you up. (I've read a few of them, not all.) Your attitude is confusing me. 60 percent is obviously more than 50-50, so by that standard I'd say injury is likely.

[gonzomax]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/SPG6JNM6MN1.DTL

Heres a team . Find if that meets likely .30 out of 45 so far.

[spifflog]

The complete pussification of America continues. You should take a trip to a third world country and see what workers are doing to make that pair or jeans you're wearing before you bemoan what people do on a football field.

When adult men make the decision to play pro football, that is their decision to make. As adults, they have that right. Millions of men have played football in college and high school without lasting injury. Like any decisions made in life, we must all look at the consequences. Pro athletes are willing to make that decision, and take that risk. Who are "we" to decide what they can and cannot do?

What about the benefits of playing football? I stayed in shape, developed a team concept, and playing football kept me out of trouble. It also paid my way into college, which would have been very difficult without the scholarship.

[Sunrazor]

There are players who deliberately deliver hits meant to injure opponents, and anyone convicted of doing so should be banned from the sport. Blocking originally meant getting in the way so the opponent couldn't complete his assigned task. It doesn't have to mean bone-crushing jolts.

But before we ban players who play for blood and coaches who scream for it, let's first ban hockey players who deliberately pick fights and eject those who participate. I'm all for bringing civility and sportsmanship back into professional athletics, but Hell will freeze before it actually happens.

Boxing? That's the most pathetic excuse for athleticism ever. I don't know how anyone can defend a sport, the object of which is to inflict a brain-damaging injury.

[Odesio]

There are players who deliberately deliver hits meant to injure opponents, and anyone convicted of doing so should be banned from the sport. Blocking originally meant getting in the way so the opponent couldn't complete his assigned task. It doesn't have to mean bone-crushing jolts.


When I was a defensive tackle how was an offensive lineman supposed to block me from doing my job (namely getting the guy with the ball)? He darn well better charge into me as hard as he can otherwise I'm going to run him over and get the QB or tackle the RB as he attempts to run through a hole that never appeared. Blocking for some positions require bone crushing jolts.



Boxing? That's the most pathetic excuse for athleticism ever. I don't know how anyone can defend a sport, the object of which is to inflict a brain-damaging injury.

It's fun to watch?

Marc

[gonzomax]

I have been a fan of boxing and football for many years. But, I recognize the dangers ,think it should be made safer and believe it should be made clear how dangerous they are. Kids should know. I also know they will ignore it. I would have, but telling meets a small measure o
responsibility .

[spifflog]

I have been a fan of boxing and football for many years. But, I recognize the dangers ,think it should be made safer and believe it should be made clear how dangerous they are. Kids should know. I also know they will ignore it. I would have, but telling meets a small measure o
responsibility .


I think you mean well, Gomax, but it's a rough and tumble world out there. The least of our worries as a society should be banning a game that millions of people play without injury, to prevent some intelligent adults from themselves. Life is about risk. And adults manage or accept the day-to-day risks inherent in life.

If one wants to live in a cocoon and live a timid life, so be it. If you don't want to play football, don't. If you don't want to box, don't. But trying to manage life for others is nonsense.

[Philster]

Careful -- that kind of argument lends itself to reductio ad absurdem. (E.g., gladiatorial combat with real swords.)

And the latter is worthy of being banned because.....>please fill in the blank<

[CJJ*]

And the latter (gladiatorial combat with real swords) is worthy of being banned because.....>please fill in the blank<
...it debases the society that condones it. Numerous activities (low-wage employment, prostitution, sale of body parts) are banned for this very reason regardless of the consensual nature of the relationship. Even if--based on the consent of all involved--no one is forcibly harmed by the activity, it is still legitimate to wonder if condoning a practice leads to an overall damage to society. I should stipulate right away that this is an argument that is very easy to abuse--witness the history of Jim Crow laws and current anti-homosexual legislation. However, in its proper place, I don't think it's utterly illegitimate to consider social factors in deciding whether or not to ban an activity.

History shows that gladiatorial contests produce at least one clear, detrimental effect on society: They require and sustain a severely-oppressed class to provide the gladiators, a fact proven by history (please spare me the stories of "voluntary" gladiators in the Coliseum; these were rarities--the stuff of cheap novels--and Roman writers usually considered such individuals were as "naturally" of an inferior class). And in studying the development of such contests in Rome, we see a secondary effect: The increasing tolerance for bloodlust in all classes, a fact writers in the empire noted frequently. Of course, if you want to easily militarize your citizenry, you may consider this a positive effect, but I'm not sure we universally support that goal in the United States.

It is to football's credit that it works to avoid these two effects: Dangerous as it is, football players are paid high enough that it mitigates the danger of a permanent lower class becoming their sole source. On the other hand, the high percentage of minority football players--a crude determinant of socio-economic status in America--says there is some social force at work. As for militarizing the population, well, how often does our media use football analogies (and other sports' metaphors) in discussing foreign policy, political struggles, and the like?

These are certainly not strong enough reasons to ban football, but they are something to think about.

[Odesio]

History shows that gladiatorial contests produce at least one clear, detrimental effect on society: They require and sustain a severely-oppressed class to provide the gladiators, a fact proven by history (please spare me the stories of "voluntary" gladiators in the Coliseum;


There's something to be said for drawing false parallels between history and contemporary times. Gladiators were slaves. We don't have slaves in our society so comparisons between gladiators in Rome circa 50 CE and potential gladiators in the United States in 2007 would be somewhat tenuous.


And in studying the development of such contests in Rome, we see a secondary effect: The increasing tolerance for bloodlust in all classes, a fact writers in the empire noted frequently. Of course, if you want to easily militarize your citizenry, you may consider this a positive effect, but I'm not sure we universally support that goal in the United States.


The Romans were pretty damned bloodthirsty long before the gladiatorial games become the spectacles that we're all familiar with. You might want to argue that the rise of gladiatorial games shortly before the first Punic War led to a more bloodthirsty Roman who was just gnashing his teeth to sink his blade into the enemy but you'd have a tough row to hoe.


As for militarizing the population, well, how often does our media use football analogies (and other sports' metaphors) in discussing foreign policy, political struggles, and the like?


If we played soccer we'd just use soccer metaphors instead. There are also non military applications of football metaphors. "You gotta take that ball and run with it" can be used in a wide variety of situations.

Marc

[Harmonious Discord]

The question of should football be banned was a question in 1904. I ran across a reference to a bill that was being sponsored to ban the sport on microfiche. I looked for bills and references to it but found nothing about the bill. I did later find a reference to Theodore Roosevelt and his part in the banning. The article I first read was sponsored by three states, and I don't remember the exact ones. One was Wisconsin. The sponsors would have banned it's playing in these three states, and guaranteed that non of these states would take advantage to gain by it. The reason of the three state bill was a student had been severely injured or died playing.


http://www.northwestern.edu/about/history/timeline1949/index.html

[kunilou]

When my son was 16, he collapsed during football practice from heat stroke. After he had been to the emergency room and the IV fluids, it turned out that instead of running one set of drills and then coming off the field for two sets (what the coaches told the players to do) he was running all three sets and not taking any breaks.

You can ban football, but you can't ban stupid.

[gonzomax]

I think you mean well, Gomax, but it's a rough and tumble world out there. The least of our worries as a society should be banning a game that millions of people play without injury, to prevent some intelligent adults from themselves. Life is about risk. And adults manage or accept the day-to-day risks inherent in life.

If one wants to live in a cocoon and live a timid life, so be it. If you don't want to play football, don't. If you don't want to box, don't. But trying to manage life for others is nonsense.
This is not business as usual. Players get hurt for our enjoyment. Baseball players get hurt but it is not a normal thing . There are injury reports for every football game. They very rarely empty. Players get carted off regularly.
It is by far the most dangerous of our games. Huge hits are part of the fans interest. We reward a player who can regularly cream another player.

[Broomstick]

Millions of men have played football in college and high school without lasting injury.
I have a friend who is about 50. He played football for Purdue all through college. He has had multiple surgeries on both knees. He needs new knees, actually, as they have deteriorated to the point he has this weird, rolling limp of a staggering walk. He has other, long-standing injuries and debilities from his college football. Maybe "millions" of men have played football without lasting injury, but clearly there is a sub-set suffering long-lasting and serious problems. Apparently, the higher up the ladder you go from high school to college to pro the larger that sub-group becomes.

[interface2x]

Players get hurt for our enjoyment. Baseball players get hurt but it is not a normal thing . If getting hurt were the point of the game, I might agree with you. But since this is merely incidental to the type of game it is, I don't see it that way. A game where no players are hurt is going to be just as entertaining as one where a ton of them do. As far as I'm concerned, they're grown men making their own decisions about their lives, so I'm not one to tell them how to live.

And while baseball players may not get hurt in the game, I can assure you that it also does a number on many players' bodies as they get older. It's just a fact of life when you continue straining your body almost to the breaking point throughout adulthood. Eventually, parts of it will break.

[Manda JO]

I think that "should we allow children to play football" is a completely different question than "should we allow adults to play football" and people are conflating the two hear and arguing at cross purposes.

I have no knowledge or opinion about pro sports, but I will say that IME as a high school teacher, if football is the worst offender, it's not by a wide margin. I have 2-3 students in a boot or on crutches at any given time, and I swear Ultimate Frisbee is the worst offender (possibly because they play it in the dark), followed by volleyball and soccer. You can blow your knee out playing anything. At least the football and hockey kids wear pads and helmets.

[spifflog]

This is not business as usual. Players get hurt for our enjoyment. Baseball players get hurt but it is not a normal thing . There are injury reports for every football game. They very rarely empty. Players get carted off regularly.
It is by far the most dangerous of our games. Huge hits are part of the fans interest. We reward a player who can regularly cream another player.


No you are missing the point entirely.

Players play for THEIR enjoyment. Frankly, the spectators enjoyment is neither her nor their for the players. They are playing for either their love of the game, or in order to make a living.

And stop with the hyperbole. There are many, many games in which players do not get injured. Have you actually been to a game? Players do not get carted off regularly. In fact, I'd argue it's rare to see the cart go out onto the field. And on the rare occasions when it does, how often do you hear later on that the player is fine, but it was a precaution to take him and get him checked out? Frequently.

Huge hits are a part of fan interest. We reward hard hits OK. So what? If this game is too physical and tough for your sensibilities than turn it off. Don't watch it. Speed and crashes are a part of fan interest in auto racing. Is that next on your list?

Football players and their families understand the risk, and accept it. Understand that fact. Those men that freely and of their own accord make the conscious choice to play this great game do so with the knowledge that injury is a possible outcome. They feel that the camaraderie, the desire to get in better shape to play better, the life long relationships built from the game, the enjoyment of competition and the ability to give some these young men something to focus on in lieu of potentially harmful activities such as gangs and drugs outweighs the potential for injury. There are many positive factors of this game which you refuse to accept.

What part of the fact that football is not being forced on any of these players don't you understand?

[spifflog]

I have a friend who is about 50. He played football for Purdue all through college. He has had multiple surgeries on both knees. He needs new knees, actually, as they have deteriorated to the point he has this weird, rolling limp of a staggering walk. He has other, long-standing injuries and debilities from his college football. Maybe "millions" of men have played football without lasting injury, but clearly there is a sub-set suffering long-lasting and serious problems. Apparently, the higher up the ladder you go from high school to college to pro the larger that sub-group becomes.


OK.

My father was a bricklayer all his life. He has a bad back. Should we outlaw the construction business? Life isn't easy, the while collar crowd's viewpoint not withstanding.

I understand that a portion of the players suffer injuries. My shoulder will never be the same from division I football. But that was my choice to play. I presume a guy smart enough to attend Purdue was smart enough to know that footwall wasn't volleyball.

[spifflog]

My apologizes Broomstick. Now that I re-read my last post to you, it reads quite snarky - which was not my intent.

I endeavored to state that in the continuum of life in the our country right now (not to mention the world at large), many, many people use up their bodies in blue collar work to support their families. I think our collective energizes are better spent mitigating that, than attacking a sport which is forced upon no one.

[Broomstick]

My father was a bricklayer all his life. He has a bad back. Should we outlaw the construction business?
Please point to where in that post I suggested anything of the sort. Because I didn't. Please do not read more into my posts than is actually there.

I understand that a portion of the players suffer injuries. My shoulder will never be the same from division I football. But that was my choice to play. I presume a guy smart enough to attend Purdue was smart enough to know that footwall wasn't volleyball.
Oh, certainly.

What I want to make sure of is
1) everyone playing really is informed of the long-term risks and consequences of that choice.
2) that steps are taken to eliminate the worst risks (this is why they have helmets and jock straps, right?)
3) proper provision is made for those who are permanently injured due to the inherent risks of the game. Industry, after all, is held accountable for on-the-job injuries and deaths, since football is an industry as well it should be held to at least the same standard.

Nowhere is that "outlaw the game". I understand that injuries are a real risk in sports - I screwed up my knee playing high school soccer and it still gives my issues from time to time, I have a permanent knot on one leg due to a horse kicking me across a corral, and scars from wiping out on my bicycle - but using people up to the point they are completely disabled by 30 and then tossing them aside is not right. If it can be determined that a certain percentage of people will emerge from the game that bad off then, to my mind, the NFL has to make provision for at least their medical care and stop whining about the cost - the money is there, it's greed that gets in the way.

[Broomstick]

My apologizes Broomstick. Now that I re-read my last post to you, it reads quite snarky - which was not my intent.

I endeavored to state that in the continuum of life in the our country right now (not to mention the world at large), many, many people use up their bodies in blue collar work to support their families. I think our collective energizes are better spent mitigating that, than attacking a sport which is forced upon no one.
Well, no one forced your father to be a bricklayer, did they?

ANY job that carries an inherent risk of injury, debility, or death should make provision for those it harms (according to me). Businesses pay worker's comp for that very reason, yes? My former employer had insurance for those who had to travel for their job specifically to cover injuries arising from that. The heavy industry near where I live - steel mills, chemical plants, etc. - spend a LOT of money on workers injured on the job. Why should professional football - which is also an employer and an industry - not do the same?

Perhaps, given the high rate of injury inherent to the game (permanent or not) players should receive medical coverage from the NFL for life. Of course, many players will leave the game relatively intact - some bad knees or back, but not that much different from some other workers. That's fine. Some will leave really messed up, but will be cared for - that's fine, too. And if the NFL is held responsible for those left crippled then I would expect to see some changes that could prevent unnecessary injuries of that sort and will give the NFL and coaches more incentive to hold back those players who really do need some time to heal up before returning to the game they love.

[gonzomax]

I would not allow my son to play tackle football in high school. He was 140 lber and could run well. I would not sign. There are better sports with a much less chance of injury.
There is no other sport that has injuries as a clear and obvious part of the game as football. You can get hurt playing any sport. Baseball players die or get severely hurt every year. It is rare and not a clear and obvious part of the game.
Getting carted off ,is not just the wooden back brace. The special device they have for driving players to the locker room is called the injury cart.Football is the only sport that needs to haul the injured off as part of the game.

[Sunrazor]

When I was a defensive tackle how was an offensive lineman supposed to block me from doing my job (namely getting the guy with the ball)? He darn well better charge into me as hard as he can otherwise I'm going to run him over and get the QB or tackle the RB as he attempts to run through a hole that never appeared. Blocking for some positions require bone crushing jolts.
I've taken hits that made my nose snotty, and I'm proud that I got back up and went back to take more (I wasn't big enough in high school to deliver hits like that, but I could take 'em all day.) So I understand blocking. But I also understand aiming a shoulder at a taped-up knee in the hope that said knee can be seriously damaged enough to take the player out of the game, maybe out for the season. That's what I'm talking about. My objection is to the win-at-all-costs attitude that condones deliberately injuring opponents. I watched it happen in high school and college, and you can't regulate against it. It comes from an attitude from the team's coaching staff and leadership.

I understand that boxing is "fun to watch" for some people. People still enjoy cock fighting, dog fighting and all manner of blood sport. People will pack a stadium to watch a garishly-dressed man torture a large, frightened dumb animal to death. Were it still legal, I'm sure a promoter could pack a stadium with people screaming at the tops of their lungs while men slashed at each other with knives until one of them was dead. The fact that blood sport is "fun to watch" for some people doesn't make it right, and it certainly isn't a sign of a durable civilization.

[Ellis Dee]

Football is the only sport that needs to haul the injured off as part of the game.What about NASCAR?

[CJJ*]

There's something to be said for drawing false parallels between history and contemporary times. Gladiators were slaves. We don't have slaves in our society so comparisons between gladiators in Rome circa 50 CE and potential gladiators in the United States in 2007 would be somewhat tenuous.
Yes, gladiators were slaves. Where, exactly, did they get these gladiatorial slaves? Was the society designed to have slavery as an institution? Did gladiatorial contests (not exclusively, but in part) perpetuate the slave system? These are the questions which are relevant to determining the social forces raised by gladiatorial spectacles, and if similar social forces can be caused by the professionalization of American football.

There is no direct comparison between the class of Roman gladiators and current-day professional football player. But that doesn't mean the same forces aren't at work, albeit to a lesser degree now than then.
The Romans were pretty damned bloodthirsty long before the gladiatorial games become the spectacles that we're all familiar with. You might want to argue that the rise of gladiatorial games shortly before the first Punic War led to a more bloodthirsty Roman who was just gnashing his teeth to sink his blade into the enemy but you'd have a tough row to hoe.
Not really. Republican gladiatorial games were definitely brutal, but they served two main purposes: (1) advertisment for political families/candidates, and (2) allowing spectators to "come to terms with" mortality and death; this, in fact, is why they were typically stagted as funeral games.

With the empire, the first of these purposes is gone. As for the second, there was great expansion of gladiatorial games during the Empire; the mere fact that there was no permanent facility at Rome for staging such games until the construction of the Coliseum is evidence of that. Also, Augustus allowed gladiatorial games to be put on outside of the funereal context, and removed restrictions on time of year. Evidence of Roman-style gladiatorial contests can be found in every corner of the empire, and there is no doubt they were used to Romanize newly-conquered areas, which were usually the source of new recruits to guard the frontiers.
If we played soccer we'd just use soccer metaphors instead. There are also non military applications of football metaphors. "You gotta take that ball and run with it" can be used in a wide variety of situations.
This is true. But to put it glibly, there are times when we select the metaphor, and times when it selects us. Football is a game that rewards action and direct physical confrontation. It's popular use as a metaphor for life can be fairly said to bias judgement in favor of these goals.

Again, this is not at all a reason to ban football. Just something to think about.

[spifflog]

Well, no one forced your father to be a bricklayer, did they?

ANY job that carries an inherent risk of injury, debility, or death should make provision for those it harms (according to me). Businesses pay worker's comp for that very reason, yes? My former employer had insurance for those who had to travel for their job specifically to cover injuries arising from that. The heavy industry near where I live - steel mills, chemical plants, etc. - spend a LOT of money on workers injured on the job. Why should professional football - which is also an employer and an industry - not do the same?

Perhaps, given the high rate of injury inherent to the game (permanent or not) players should receive medical coverage from the NFL for life. Of course, many players will leave the game relatively intact - some bad knees or back, but not that much different from some other workers. That's fine. Some will leave really messed up, but will be cared for - that's fine, too. And if the NFL is held responsible for those left crippled then I would expect to see some changes that could prevent unnecessary injuries of that sort and will give the NFL and coaches more incentive to hold back those players who really do need some time to heal up before returning to the game they love.

Broomstick, we are clearly arguing different points. You are arguing that the NFL should provide health care for it's players. While I think that's up to the NFL and the Players Union to hack out, I'm willing to agree that they should get sufficient health care.

I was discussing what the actual subject of the thread was. "Should football be banned." And my answer to the actual question posed is, "no."

[Broomstick]

More like, we're arguing different facets of the problem.

I would not support a ban on football. I would, however, support changes that mitigated some of the inevitable damage arising from the game. You do not support a ban, either, but apparently (correct me if I'm wrong) would not support making the NFL responsible for the consequences of that damage a condition for continued legality of the sport.

[Odesio]

.
There is no direct comparison between the class of Roman gladiators and current-day professional football player. But that doesn't mean the same forces aren't at work, albeit to a lesser degree now than then.


Apples and oranges. You're trying to compare a social underclass that was owned to an underclass that has certain rights and liberties.


Not really. Republican gladiatorial games were definitely brutal, but they served two main purposes: (1) advertisment for political families/candidates, and (2) allowing spectators to "come to terms with" mortality and death; this, in fact, is why they were typically stagted as funeral games.


You tried to make the connection between bloodthirsty Romans and their gladiatorial games.


And in studying the development of such contests in Rome, we see a secondary effect: The increasing tolerance for bloodlust in all classes, a fact writers in the empire noted frequently. Of course, if you want to easily militarize your citizenry, you may consider this a positive effect, but I'm not sure we universally support that goal in the United States.


Romans were pretty darn bloodthirsty before the gladiatorial games became the spectacle we all know and love. If you wish to assert that the gladiatorial games somehow caused Roman bloodlust or the militarization of their culture you'll have to make a much better case.


With the empire, the first of these purposes is gone. As for the second, there was great expansion of gladiatorial games during the Empire; the mere fact that there was no permanent facility at Rome for staging such games until the construction of the Coliseum is evidence of that.


They were already lusty for blood before the Empire. Ask Carthage, Spain, or the Latin allies. I'm not sure the Empire was any more bloody minded than the Republic.


This is true. But to put it glibly, there are times when we select the metaphor, and times when it selects us. Football is a game that rewards action and direct physical confrontation. It's popular use as a metaphor for life can be fairly said to bias judgement in favor of these goals.


I can't think of many goals in life that can be attained without action or direct confrontation of some sort be in physical or otherwise.

Marc

[gonzomax]

I would be satisfied if the NFL made it clear to all players what the risks are. I also want them to take medical responsibility for the players that got hurt helping billionaire owners get richer. You should pay for what happens to people who take risks working for you. Owners always fight against the responsibility.
They should guarantee contracts. When you sign for 6 years ,if you get hurt or cut ,the contract is voided. That is wrong. They have the player under contract but the owner is not locked in. The Players Union sucks.

[phungi]

I would be satisfied if the NFL made it clear to all players what the risks are. I also want them to take medical responsibility for the players that got hurt helping billionaire owners get richer. You should pay for what happens to people who take risks working for you. Owners always fight against the responsibility.
They should guarantee contracts. When you sign for 6 years ,if you get hurt or cut ,the contract is voided. That is wrong. They have the player under contract but the owner is not locked in. The Players Union sucks.
Taking it one step further, the NFL should make it clear to youth athletes what the risks are. They have concussion management programs in place that are mandatory, but do not perform any type of public service announcements to educate kids (high school down to Pee Wee). It is great that Ray Lewis reads to kids or Peyton Manning volunteers to build a playground... educate kids, parents, coaches, etc about the dangers of the game, the proper equipment and techniques, and the need for trained observers at games (beyond an EMT) and appropriate concussion testing and management programs.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Some people find contact sports more enjoyable to play than other, less manly, sports, it's as simple as that. Personally, I'd rather die earlier than live a life where all enjoyment has been sucked out of it in the name of perceived safety, but obviously, YMMV.

[bump]

I actually hurt my knee playing high school football - full MCL tear and partial ACL tear. My doctor warned me every year what the risks were, and I knew what they were; I don't remember having any real illusions that I could get hurt, especially when enough others on the various teams got hurt often enough in practice, etc...

I didn't play my senior year because of the knee injury the year before- didn't want to take chances with it. That being said, I'm glad I played, and would do it again, if I went back in time and had it to do over.

I think there is some merit to the argument that there should be more communication of risks, but the main thing I think might reduce some of the debilitating injuries like the OP was talking about would be coordinated and serious work from coaches, school administrators and others to reduce the peer pressure to play hurt, or come back quickly after a serious injury, or to downplay the severity of an injury.

You wouldn't believe the degree of crap that players get; instead of being a situation where the injured are honored for having been hurt in the team's cause, they're treated almost like they let the team down by getting hurt, by many of the players and sometimes even the coaching staff.

In high school especially, people look to the pros and college players for examples- I got a lot of "well player X had the same injury and he came back 6 weeks later. Why can't you?" from other players. My thinking was that if I was getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to play football, then I'd think about it, but otherwise, it was stupid. Then, the year afterward, I caught shit for not playing and got some of that "you can't talk football; you're not on the team" stuff from some players (predominantly the guy who was the 2nd string behind me the year before).

I think if there was a change in "tone from the top" about injured players in the college and pro ranks, it would filter down to the high school ranks, and attitudes would eventually change.

[Leaper]

I suggest the OP never watch rugby, if the stereotypical snide British comments (re: football) are to be believed.

[Broomstick]

In high school especially, people look to the pros and college players for examples- I got a lot of "well player X had the same injury and he came back 6 weeks later. Why can't you?" from other players. My thinking was that if I was getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to play football, then I'd think about it, but otherwise, it was stupid. Then, the year afterward, I caught shit for not playing and got some of that "you can't talk football; you're not on the team" stuff from some players (predominantly the guy who was the 2nd string behind me the year before).

I think if there was a change in "tone from the top" about injured players in the college and pro ranks, it would filter down to the high school ranks, and attitudes would eventually change.
There's also an odd sort of pressure from "sports medicine" types.

I used to work with a sports medicine specialist - I mentioned my high school injury and he was appalled that I hadn't gone back to participating the following year (my decision - my knee didn't feel right, it didn't feel stable). He went on about the incompetence of my attending physician and how I should have been back playing within two months. I just didn't get it - I was able to get back into most of my other sports quite rapidly as none of them put as much strain on the knees, I avoided surgery, what was the big deal? So I took longer than average to heal, or longer than he thought I should have. Why push to get me back into soccer? Was there no benefit to extending the recovery and not re-exposing myself to injury? He had this real drive to get me back into competing IMMEDIATELY. If I had had such a drive it might have been different, but while I enjoyed soccer I wasn't married to the game. The biggest loss to me was that I had to give up jumping horses because I just wasn't stable enough in the saddle - but that going to end in a matter of months when I went off to college anyhow.

I know too many high school athletes who now have life-long problems and chronic issues due to injuries and I can't help but wonder if some of them were pushed back into play sooner than ideal. My knee bothers me a couple times a year, but other than those few days I can do all I did before (including riding horses in jump position again) and I've never re-injured it despite my inclinations to play hard.

[Ellis Dee]

They should guarantee contracts. When you sign for 6 years ,if you get hurt or cut ,the contract is voided. That is wrong. They have the player under contract but the owner is not locked in. The Players Union sucks.This is a gross oversimplification.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

I suggest the OP never watch rugby, if the stereotypical snide British comments (re: football) are to be believed.

There's big hits in both games:

Rugby big hit (http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=uRtjoJEY74I&rel=0&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i.ytimg.com/vi/uRtjoJEY74I/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskIhYwdU-ePx2sS3HYZXEITN&)

Football big hit (http://youtube.com/watch?v=C0Y9wt3XkHo&feature=related)

This one's best, though. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=p0es54AW_0g&feature=related)

:D

[shiftless]

To play in the Pros, and to earn the kind of money the NFL pays, players are expected to push the envelope of what a person can endure. That's what they can endure on the field and off. Good on Real Sports for showing the costs. I hope these facts are made more public; not because I want the sports stopped but because everyone should have the information to make an informed choice.

Right now, kids are only shown the hot athletes at the top of their game. They look great, life is grand. Who wouldn't want to do that?

[spifflog]

I would be satisfied if the NFL made it clear to all players what the risks are. I also want them to take medical responsibility for the players that got hurt helping billionaire owners get richer. You should pay for what happens to people who take risks working for you. Owners always fight against the responsibility.
They should guarantee contracts. When you sign for 6 years ,if you get hurt or cut ,the contract is voided. That is wrong. They have the player under contract but the owner is not locked in. The Players Union sucks.


The average NFL football player is a grown, college educated man, making about $1.5M per year. If have to wet nurse people like this, we might as well shut down the county. God knows what we'd have to do with an 18 year old high school dropout making $25K a year working construction.

Seriously GONZOMAX, do people take individual responsibly anywhere in your world?

The players make a ton of money in the NFL. Like any other union in the country, the members can bargain for what benefits they want. If they want increased benefits, they should work with their leadership to get it.

God knows if I was making $1.5M per, playing a game I love, I'd think my union sucked too. :rolleyes:

[CJJ*]

Apples and oranges. You're trying to compare a social underclass that was owned to an underclass that has certain rights and liberties.
Yes I am, but as I stated, "There is no direct comparison between the class of Roman gladiators and current-day professional football player." You seem to be implying because there isn't an exact match the analogy doesn't hold ("apples and oranges"); to clarify, I'm saying there are social forces at work in the professionalization of sports (I'll even limit that to rough contact sports) similar to the forces that perpetuated gladiatorial competiton.

To be clear, that does not mean professional football and gladiatorial games are equivalent. But they are not "apples and oranges" either. We can tuss out the differences--that's what forums like this are for--but to simply claim there is no correlation is, IMO, naive.
You tried to make the connection between bloodthirsty Romans and their gladiatorial games.

Romans were pretty darn bloodthirsty before the gladiatorial games became the spectacle we all know and love. If you wish to assert that the gladiatorial games somehow caused Roman bloodlust or the militarization of their culture you'll have to make a much better case.

They were already lusty for blood before the Empire. Ask Carthage, Spain, or the Latin allies. I'm not sure the Empire was any more bloody minded than the Republic.
The evidence is clear gladiatorial contests expanded greatly during the Empire, lost their religious significance, and were part and parcel of the Romanization process. I'm not sure you can measure how "bloody-minded" a society is, but if you don't believe me, how about the opinion of an eye-witness (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Seneca's_letter_describing_gladiators)?
I can't think of many goals in life that can be attained without action or direct confrontation of some sort be in physical or otherwise.
You're twisting my words; I'm specifically talking about physical confrontation, not generic "action". Conflict is a part of life, physical confrontation (usually) is not. How many people did you have to knock down to earn a college degree? Write a book? Open a business? The fact that we naturally equate "action" with "physical confrontation" seems to prove the point that the sports metaphor is seizing us, not the other way around.

[gonzomax]

The average NFL football player is a grown, college educated man, making about $1.5M per year. If have to wet nurse people like this, we might as well shut down the county. God knows what we'd have to do with an 18 year old high school dropout making $25K a year working construction.

Seriously GONZOMAX, do people take individual responsibly anywhere in your world?

The players make a ton of money in the NFL. Like any other union in the country, the members can bargain for what benefits they want. If they want increased benefits, they should work with their leadership to get it.

God knows if I was making $1.5M per, playing a game I love, I'd think my union sucked too. :rolleyes:
In my world people make choices with all the information. The truth of football injuries is not widely known. The future effects on your body are not aired. The ruthless cutting of players with nothing owed them is not known. An informed decision is what is in my world.
The owners are making billions. They have fought responsibility to the players over and over. They suppress the long term concussion effects endlessly. They are fundamentally dishonest.
The union has caved to the owners over and over. Upshaw has a war within the association. He went along with suppressing the concussion ramifications.
A player makes his decision with incomplete and distorted information. Ergo his responsibility is somewhat diminished.

[Moriarty]

Taking it one step further, the NFL should make it clear to youth athletes what the risks are. They have concussion management programs in place that are mandatory, but do not perform any type of public service announcements to educate kids (high school down to Pee Wee). It is great that Ray Lewis reads to kids or Peyton Manning volunteers to build a playground... educate kids, parents, coaches, etc about the dangers of the game, the proper equipment and techniques, and the need for trained observers at games (beyond an EMT) and appropriate concussion testing and management programs.

I don't think there is any disagreement in this thread about the fact that football is a violent, and potentially dangerous, game. But at some point this need to educate becomes absurd.
Down to pee-wee? Have you ever seen pee-wee football? For one thing, "leagues" are limited by weight class. Unlike in the professional ranks, nobody is going to be hit by someone who outweighs them by 50 pounds. Typically, it's a bunch of kids running around with helmets as big as their bodies. The collisions simply aren't that violent.
Suggesting that the NFL players run around warning these kids about the dangers of what they are doing is like sending Major Leagues baseball players to little league games to warn kids about the dangers of being beaned by a 90 mph fastball. At that stage of development, the danger is not applicable.

Having said that, I do readily concede that their is a social strain (indicative of earlier societies) that emphasizes physical competition to an extent that some people feel pressured to sacrifice their bodies. Nagging injuries and discomforts often result.

Hell...I've laced up my sneakers tight, after twisting an ankle, to finish playing a game of pickup basketball. I now have chronic tendinitis in my right ankle, and can't run without pain (I'm not yet 30).

But should the NBA have publicized the risk of ankle injuries? Do they owe me this public service? As has been said upthread, anybody who plays football knows it can be violent. Do we really need to educate the public about this (obvious) fact?

People in this thread, however, are conflating this argument with the travesties of having played pro football. These two things don't equate. Seeing a pro football player, worn down by decades of abuse at the highest levels of the game, doesn't mean that any kid who straps on some pads is exposing themselves to the risks of permanent injury. If we want to make this stretch, do we need to warn teenagers who get their driving learner's permit about the fate of the late Nascar dreiver, Dale Earnhardt, Sr.? Sure...same action, but in a completely different context.

And I'm pretty confident that those who do play in the NFL have a good handle on the risks of playing in that league. Given their extreme dedication to the sport, it's pretty clear they simply don't care. Now, if you want to make a separate argument about whether the league should be providing greater benefits to its former players, we can delve into that discussion, and discuss how much money the league is providing its vets. But we're in a thread that hasn't raised that as the issue to debate, so it's a hijack to the topic at hand.

[ralph124c]

What does oSHA have to say about the football work environment?

[spifflog]

In my world people make choices with all the information. The truth of football injuries is not widely known. The future effects on your body are not aired. The ruthless cutting of players with nothing owed them is not known. An informed decision is what is in my world.
The owners are making billions. They have fought responsibility to the players over and over. They suppress the long term concussion effects endlessly. They are fundamentally dishonest.
The union has caved to the owners over and over. Upshaw has a war within the association. He went along with suppressing the concussion ramifications.
A player makes his decision with incomplete and distorted information. Ergo his responsibility is somewhat diminished.

I'm baffled; and with all due respect you are incredibly naive and sheltered. As you stated previously, you wouldn't allow your kid to play football, so I'll presume you haven't been around the game and the men who play it.

Do you really think that pro football players who have been playing in an organized fashion for at least 12 years don't know that it's violent? Nobody knows how violent football is better than the guys who play it! I played at the division I level. I think I know that we were hitting each other pretty hard. If someone had come to the practice field to tell us that football is rough and that we could get hurt we would have laughed them off campus. Hell most of our coaches were beaten up. Our offensive coordinator had fingers pointing in all directions due to breaks and dislocations! So I think we knew the consequences of playing the game. Are we going to tell race car drivers that they are driving really fast and that cars can get into an accident?

You are naive to think that football players are a bunch of idiots who don't know that they are in a violent and potentially dangerous sport.

I do think that the players should pressure their union leadership for better health care. But that is their business.

[Ellis Dee]

I do think that the players should pressure their union leadership for better health care. But that is their business.From what I can tell, players have the ultimate health insurance: free top-notch care. It's not like the Colts were sitting around hoping and waiting for Marvin Harrison to find a good enough HMO to get him back on the field this past season. It's the retired players -- who by being retired aren't in the union anymore -- who need the health insurance.

[phungi]

Down to pee-wee? Have you ever seen pee-wee football? For one thing, "leagues" are limited by weight class. Unlike in the professional ranks, nobody is going to be hit by someone who outweighs them by 50 pounds. Typically, it's a bunch of kids running around with helmets as big as their bodies. The collisions simply aren't that violent.
Suggesting that the NFL players run around warning these kids about the dangers of what they are doing is like sending Major Leagues baseball players to little league games to warn kids about the dangers of being beaned by a 90 mph fastball. At that stage of development, the danger is not applicable.
Perhaps down to the level of Pee Wee is getting extra-cautious, but parents should know that their kids are being prepared for and indoctrinated into a sport that has serious long-term risks.


Would parents make different decisions if they knew their kids' cognitive abilities could be permanently altered from 2 or more concussions?

(Ref1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17762745?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) , Ref2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16094159?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) , Ref3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12383362?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1))

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

Hopefully not, otherwise all enjoyment would be sucked out of their child's life, and they'd grow up boring, and possible commit suicide at the age of 20 from being over-sheltered and generally wrapped in cotton wool.

Guess what: kids like playing violent games. Are we going to police parks, now? The games kids play on their own pale in comparison to the regulated confines of refereed sports. We used to play caveman football, basically anything went - eye gouging, sliding tackles, spear tackles, whatever, as long as the ball didn't cross your line.

[gonzomax]

That is where the real dangers start. Kids sometimes pay the rest of their lives to play pee wee and grade school, high school etc. The violence is integral to football. You try to physically impose your will on an opponent. I played a lot of football growing up and I am lucky I never sustained a serious injury. In my time we talked about a football knee. (also trick knee)That was before the time of scoping out a knee. Scars were long and ugly for knee operations. Those problems we were aware of. Getting your brain permanently damaged was not in the calculations.
Many of my friends are former college players. Their attitude. It is part of the game man up to it. These are high school and college players. Play hurt and hit them hard. It wont happen to me .

[Shodan]

My nephew is a starting tackle in the NFL*. Before that, he played four years in college. He stated, repeatedly, that "it is not if you get hurt; it's WHEN" and that was in school. The idea that they don't know the risks is ludicrous.

These are adults. They know the risks going in, and they receive significantly more compensation than can be expected for other kinds of occupations. If they are smart, they invest their money and prepare to do something other than party after they retire. If they are not smart, well, as mentioned, they are adults, and no one is responsible for baby-sitting them.

Regards,
Shodan

*Did I mention he is going to be in the Pro Bowl?

[phungi]

There is a great quote in Chris Nowinski's book:"I always related concussion to boxing. When I played, I didn't know they even existed in the NFL. If you would have sat me in a room and said "You cannot leave here until you guess the one mystery injury that could end your career," I'd still be in that room. I never thought concussions were part of football" - Former NFL player Merril HogeIf this topic is interesting, you should read Head Games...

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

phungi and gonzomax, what's your problem? Everyone knows there's a risk of permanent injury or death in all contact sports, yet people still play it anyway. Why? Because it's fun.

You're beginning to sound like you have an ulterior motive. Do you like any sports?

[phungi]

phungi and gonzomax, what's your problem? Everyone knows there's a risk of permanent injury or death in all contact sports, yet people still play it anyway. Why? Because it's fun.

You're beginning to sound like you have an ulterior motive. Do you like any sports?
I love football, watching it, that is.. I enjoy basketball, soccer, and hockey as well. I just don't want my kids playing contact sports with high risk of concussion.

No ulterior motive other than the NFL explaining the health risks inherent in playing football... have they EVER made a statement that they endorse mandatory pre-season testing for their athletes, so school and college programs should as well? Have they EVER mentioned return-to-play guidelines for concussed athletes? The answer is no.

[Moriarty]

Have they EVER made a statement that they endorse mandatory pre-season testing for their athletes, so school and college programs should as well? Have they EVER mentioned return-to-play guidelines for concussed athletes?

Yes (http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=3131596)

[phungi]

Yes (http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory?id=3131596)

On the contrary, this is a news piece reporting the commissioner making concussion testing mandatory for all NFL teams, and requiring all trainers to attend a summit meeting.

There has never been a "position statement" released by the NFL making suggestions or recommendations on concussion management. There has certainly been nothing in the form of a public service announcement or educative piece for high school or youth athletes.

[imthjckaz]

There are inherent risks in any prolonged physical activity, the body can only take so much wear and tear.
I don't think I had to be told by any of my coaches that getting my bell rung was a definite possibility, most kids already know that.
That's why you wear a helmet.

There are risks in any sport or physical activity, and if you're ignorant of that fact then that's on you if your the participant or the parents of young athletes.

My kids knew that playing sports had risks, because I told them.
I didn't need the NFL, MLB, NBA or the NHL to tell me what the risks are.



The only way football could be made safer is by having all they players wear pink skirts and prance around on their tippy toes.


It's football for crying out loud!

[Moriarty]

On the contrary, this is a news piece reporting the commissioner making concussion testing mandatory for all NFL teams, and requiring all trainers to attend a summit meeting.

There has never been a "position statement" released by the NFL making suggestions or recommendations on concussion management. There has certainly been nothing in the form of a public service announcement or educative piece for high school or youth athletes.

My link shows that the NFL is leading by example. I don't expect them to try and coerce behavior out of organizations that they have no control over, but I do think it is disingenuous to say that the league has never endorsed mandatory prescreening of their athletes, or has made no strides in how it deals with concussed athletes, and I think it is naive to think that the enormity of influence that the NFL has on football at all levels will not be applicable in this case.

From the linked article: "At no time should competitive issues override medical issues," Goodell said last week. "Safety comes first."

Is that not an endorsement of safety?

[phungi]

My link shows that the NFL is leading by example. I don't expect them to try and coerce behavior out of organizations that they have no control over, but I do think it is disingenuous to say that the league has never endorsed mandatory prescreening of their athletes, or has made no strides in how it deals with concussed athletes, and I think it is naive to think that the enormity of influence that the NFL has on football at all levels will not be applicable in this case.

From the linked article: "At no time should competitive issues override medical issues," Goodell said last week. "Safety comes first."

Is that not an endorsement of safety?
If you follow the history of the NFL's research program, and all the controversy surrounding their "findings" (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2636795), Goodell's comments take on a somewhat laughable and optimistic tone.

[gonzomax]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8017cc67&template=without-video&confirm=true

2007 NFL article showing that the connection between concussions and future health problems is currently under study. The attitude is dismissive . I think they know better.

[unwashed brain]

This is not business as usual. Players get hurt for our enjoyment. Baseball players get hurt but it is not a normal thing . There are injury reports for every football game. They very rarely empty. Players get carted off regularly.
It is by far the most dangerous of our games. Huge hits are part of the fans interest. We reward a player who can regularly cream another player.
Give me a break - nobody enjoys it when football players get hurt. Big hits are celebrated, getting up from a big hit is celebrated - injuries are not.

Football is the only sport that needs to haul the injured off as part of the game.
Pretty sure I've seen baseball players carted off the field and basketball players carried off.

I would be satisfied if the NFL made it clear to all players what the risks are.
It's all laid out in their contract. Additionally, I'm pretty sure all rookies have to go through seminars that cover all of this. On top of that - they don't live in a vacuum. On top of that, they have a relatively good idea of what's in store for them from all of their prior experience playing football.

Regarding all of your linked articles....I bet a lot of former smokers say "Damn, I wish the warning label said it would happen to ME." Fact is, nobody ever thinks it will.

[Antinor01]

Would parents make different decisions if they knew their kids' cognitive abilities could be permanently altered from 2 or more concussions?

Hopefully not, otherwise all enjoyment would be sucked out of their child's life, and they'd grow up boring, and possible commit suicide at the age of 20 from being over-sheltered and generally wrapped in cotton wool.

Is that what you were answering? Are you honestly saying that the only way a person can have enjoyment is by risking their cognitive ability and that overwise they would probably kill themselves? Good grief, that just boggles my mind. (thankfully it won't give me a concussion)

[gonzomax]

Give me a break - nobody enjoys it when football players get hurt. Big hits are celebrated, getting up from a big hit is celebrated - injuries are not.


Pretty sure I've seen baseball players carted off the field and basketball players carried off.


It's all laid out in their contract. Additionally, I'm pretty sure all rookies have to go through seminars that cover all of this. On top of that - they don't live in a vacuum. On top of that, they have a relatively good idea of what's in store for them from all of their prior experience playing football.

Regarding all of your linked articles....I bet a lot of former smokers say "Damn, I wish the warning label said it would happen to ME." Fact is, nobody ever thinks it will.
Baseball players do get hurt. A player gets hurt at every football game. If injuries were integral to baseball I would question it too. If you really believe baseball and other sports are just as dangerous as football ,we will never find common ground.

[unwashed brain]

Baseball players do get hurt. A player gets hurt at every football game. If injuries were integral to baseball I would question it too. If you really believe baseball and other sports are just as dangerous as football ,we will never find common ground.
Players do not get hurt at every football game. Every time you use the word "every" when arguing something that you cannot back up, your argument fails. In general, avoid absolutes.
Injuries are not integral to football. Football can be played injury-free.
Where did I ever imply that "baseball and other sports are just as dangerous as football?"

You seem to be reframing what I said to suit your point of view instead of replying to my comments.

[gonzomax]

EVERY To some degree. I am aware of absolutes .
Easy. We were talking about football and you said you have seen baseball players and basketball players get carted off. The implication is clear. They are as dangerous as football. If not that ,what is the point. I have seen people get hurt on bikes. I know you can get hurt in any sport. Does that mean football isn't dangerous.?