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!

[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]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

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 died playing the game. As did a minor league coach, Mike Coolbaugh. 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

This one time, at band practice...

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Atomicktom

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, 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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[Cyberhwk]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

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]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

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/s...keysafety.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 , 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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Here's a link to a Washington Post Sunday Magazine article on that very subject, dated 03 Feb 2008 (Super Sunday). There was an on-line chat 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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

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/articl...1/IN183821.DTL

[gonzomax]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/02/sp...syahoo&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]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/articl...PG6JNM6MN1.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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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 .

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]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

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*]

Originally Posted by Philster

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]

Originally Posted by CJJ*

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/hi...949/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]

Originally Posted by spifflog

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]

Originally Posted by spifflog

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]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

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.