New information about hits to the head in football are getting a little scary. You don’t need a diagnosed concussion to be subject to brain damage. Brain trauma can lead to a brain disease of ever increasing debility.
As someone who loves football, played it in high school, recognizes the experience of extreme emotional exitement and character building, I’m quite saddened by all the new research in football brain injuries.
You can’t play football without using your head as a weapon. When you hit or tackle, you need to lead with your head. When you ram yourself forward, you’ll most often lead with your head. If you are any good, you will suffer head knocks numerous times in the game.
I don’t have a son, but if I did, for the first time in my life I’m prepared to say that I would discourage his participation in football . The health, the long term health of your brain is the most vital resource that any individual has.
Having gone this far, I feel compelled to bite the bullit and call for the elimination of football as we know it. Flag football just won’t cut it.
Boxing will go before football, but my dad and I both remarked, while watching a game last season, that it really is a wonder that people don’t get killed in the NFL.
I can’t see it being banned in the next 20 years, but then again I can’t imagine having an ashtray on my desk at work. 30 years ago I probably would have, whether I smoked or not. It’s hard to anticipate social revolution.
There’s no way that it would be banned – the political fallout on ending the most popular sport in the US would get any attempt rescinding in a month (if that long). The sport merely has to take action to reduce the risk and some are fairly simple to implement (e.g., helmets padded on the outside and requiring players to keep their mouthguards in their mouths)
Everyone gets to pick their poisons. All sports (and most professions) have long term negative physical effects: worn-out joints, backs, poor eyesight. I don’t see how the brain is any different, provided folks are reasonably informed of the risks.
My grandfather was an amateur boxer, and speaking as someone whose only real memories of him are his long, slow decline due to Parkinson’s Disease, I’d give that an unqualified “Yes, ban it.”
Football? I don’t think it should be banned. But I’d think twice before letting my stepson play.
These are legitimate concerns, but honestly, when did anyone think getting hit and thrown to the ground 20 times a game was not, in fact, dangerous to your brain?
Then don’t participate in violent sports, many people don’t. I enjoyed my time playing various rough sports. I’ve torn ligaments, dislocated stuff, gotten plenty of cuts and bruises and, who knows, maybe a little brain damage. I’d do it again in an instant if I wasn’t so old and feeble.
Football is sort of a special case because the equipment implies a certain amount of protection and the professionals are constantly pushed to hit harder. It is worth millions of bucks to deliver those bone crushing hits. So, I think they need to reign in some of the excess somehow but that is far from banning the whole sport.
I would rather see a return to the old leather helmuts.
There was some talk ago about boxing and how boxing gloves allowed the boxer to hit harder with more force to the opponents head because his hands were protected . Doesn’t help the brain, but helps the bruising and cuts to the face.
I’d rather have a scarred face than a scarred brain.
If football players didn’t wear helmuts they would suffer localized superficial impact pain when using their head as a ram , thereby self limiting the g forces applied to their head. Extreme g forces is what causes brain injury.
Brain injury is not a problem for rugby players.
Leather helmuts would at least minimize superficial injuries such as gashes to the head, similar to the purpose of hockey helmuts .
You could make that argument against skiing, car racing, parachuting, hang gliding, or any inherently dangerous recreational activity. Do you think that it applies equally?
Because I’m going skiing in the trees whether you like it or not.
Nope. I’m a pretty firm believer in letting people hurt or kill themselves however they please, providing they don’t take any unwilling participants with them. Educate people so they know what they’re getting into and let them make that choice.
The difference between having an ash tray in your office and football is that your smoking in a public building impacts other people in a negative way and they can’t easily escape from it.
Football, last I checked, is something people participate in of their own choice. Swimming is one of the most dangerous things children do on a regular basis, with drowning always being in the top 5 causes of childhood death. Lots of things are dangerous, you can’t ban everything that is dangerous. I’m a little shocked that no one in this thread is a bit disgusted with the idea that our government should have the right to prohibit us from doing something that hurts no one else just because it’s somewhat dangerous.
I understand the need, in a society, to prohibit activities that are recklessly dangerous to others. I even understand the need to prohibit activities like climbing certain mountains in bad weather because rescue efforts can endanger emergency personnel and thus the risk is borne by more than just the mountain climber. Football doesn’t really fall under any of these scenarios.
True, but the downside for the sport is that cuts require lots of down time before a fighter can box again.
The MMA gloves are a decent comprimise between gloves and bare knuckle, but what’s more effective than the equipment is their knockout stoppage. When you’re visible out of of, you’re done. There’s no ten count. That said, I don’t care if boxing or football changes a thing. And no they shouldn’t be banned, but that’s not really a risk.
I’m with you man. Like any other organized sport, football is something that the players participate in voluntarily, in full knowledge of the rules and risks, performed inside a controlled environment using all possible safety equipment. Attempting to ban activities simply because potentially unfavorable consequences exist is ludicrous. If you’re going to apply that standard to the insanely small population of people who are genuinely at risk for the unfavorable consequences of playing football professionally, you may as well go ahead and either ban ALL activities or require that all people everywhere live in bubbles and are not allowed to leave their homes.
And yes, I am aware that the article cited in the OP discusses football players down to the high school level, but there are only a handful that will go on to play in college and exponentially less who will go on to the NFL. Clearly the real risk only applies to that extremely small number of players that go on to play in the NFL and only a tiny percentage of that limited population end up exhibiting the worst of the long-term effects.
My point is, there’s plenty of stuff that’s WAY higher on the list of dangerous activities that may need to be banned before professional football comes up.
I wouldn’t want it banned because I don’t think that’s the governments place. I wouldn’t be bothered in the slightest if football just went away though.