Gridiron football is unsafe at any age, regardless of protective equipment. We've just decided, as a culture, that children and adults suffering permanent and debilitating injuries to their brains and bodies is an acceptable price for our entertainment.
I don’t know why people refuse to understand this. The hit to the head is only the first part of the trauma. After the hit, the brain continues to jar around inside the skull, which is just as damaging and there is not a piece of protective equipment that can stop that.
TBI researcher here. Yup. It's a gladiator sport and we've decided we're ok with having sacrifices.
The only way to change the injury load is to significantly change the rules of the game.
They do now. Apparently they start full contact football around 8 years old with standard youth full contact at 13-14 in the US. Are 13 &14 year old humans children? Can they consent?
of course. thats how the football system operated before we knew what head trauma did long term. or were told the truth finally. by phd’s. have they changed? guess not, shit moves slow but not surprising.
kids can consent in theory, parents oblige and consent legally for them. problem with that? lets get a lawyer. lawyer?!
Kids can't consent. They're kids. Parents consenting for them makes them liable for the brain damage. And I just pointed out how it currently operates in response to your contention that "kids play flag football" followed by some self-congratulatory "look how much smarter I am than you, you "Ph.D." idiot". So no, we haven't learned anything. Kids as young as 6 are participating in full contact football. Did you, perhaps, play an inordinate amount of full-contact football as a child?
Your brain is suspended inside a hollow skull with fluids, there's no amount of padding short of a airbag that'll slow the impact enough to negate the forces that'll cause your brain from smushing into your skull. The best we can hope for is a g force sensor activated airbag that'll protect and indicate a concussion event. Almost as if getting into a crash consistently is bad for you, helmet or not.
Edit: especially when that helmet is a proven to be unacceptable in a lab.
Yes. We all should know this. It's not going to be something on the outside of the head that stops concussions. The hard object that is hitting the brain is the skull. Players just need to be taught to protect themselves and their opponents. It might be more effective to remove the helmets to remind them of this. But that will never happen because the helmets in football are iconic.
Go to the college section because that’s where football was mostly played 100 years ago, sort by year. What do you notice? An absolute fuckton of deaths on the field mostly from head injuries (due to recording standards, very likely not a complete list, and again limited to college). See when that number basically drops to 0 in 1937? Helmet use was growing and became mandatory in 1939.
The rules of football are not the rules of rugby. The 10-yards to reach a first down rule prioritizes not giving up a single inch and encourages hard, fast, violent hits. This was true before and after the helmet. The helmet kept people from dying.
The game will never be safe. If you want to argue it should be banned, that’s a perfectly fine argument. But removing helmets only makes things worse.
I’ve been saying for years that things would be safer (regarding CTE at least) if we went back to those old-timey leather helmets with no facemask… and I say safer (not safe) because rugby players tested for CTE have pretty significant numbers of positive tests too.
It’s complicated to some extent… at least for me personally. I played football in college (at the 1-AA level), and I stopped playing after spring ball of my junior year because during the regular season that year I got what the doctors at the hospital described as the worst concussion they’d ever seen. I never lost consciousness, but I lost two days of memory and my eggs got scrambled real bad.
Still, if I had to do it all over again knowing what I know now… I’d probably still play. The experience of running out of the tunnel with tens of thousands of people in the stands is the greatest rush I’ve ever experienced. All of the life experiences I gained, getting to travel around the country, the relationships I made… what I learned about the importance of teamwork, and what it’s like to push yourself so much farther than you think you are capable of… getting to be in a video game…
I could go on and on but hopefully some of you get the picture by now. I’ve also learned that it’s not necessarily the concussions, but the repeated sub-concussive hits… and not the straight on blows to the head, but the ones that happen while your head/brain are twisting to the side. There are definitely things that can be done to lower the risk but the risk will always be there.
That being said, I am in my mid 40s now, and starting to get terrified about the possibility/probability of CTE in my future. The next few years are going to be a crapshoot. I’m doing the best I can to take care of myself physically and mentally (living and eating healthy, and keeping my brain as active as possibly by lots of reading, learning new skills, etc).
I forget where I was going with this as my train of thought kind of derailed… but that may actually be half the point of my comment.
Edit: when I stopped playing, it was because I realized that I had already gotten so much from playing football, and the potential benefits of playing one more season just no longer outweighed the risk of further TBI… and I wasn’t raised to be a quitter, but I still think quitting at that point is probably one of the better decisions I’ve made in my life.
I hear you brother. I've had several concussions. Not all from sport. But the last few were from rugby. Had one, not 'that bad' but knew enough about the subject that I took the required time off. Then got another, took the time off. Then another, again 'not that bad.' It's not just getting your bell rung anymore. It's a recovery process. I hung up my spikes. But like you said, the friends along the way. Traveled the world playing ball on tour. Played on the national mall in DC. I wanted to keep those memories ya know. I know you know.
I think you're right just with kids and bicycle helmets. A lot more kids and up in the hospital now because of helmet laws. Also, here in Seattle we got rid of them because they are so racist.
There aren’t any independent studies that indicate it has a statistically significant effect on reducing sub-concussive impacts (their primary purpose) in adults either
Pop Warner football is often the only boy-specific activity available in disinvested, poor communities. Boy scouts really can't be arsed to assist troops running in poor areas (girl scouts does this better at an institutional level), and there are not a ton of other activities. Pop Warner is seen as adequately boyish and macho and the coaches are pretty good about coaching the boys towards teamwork and fair play and trying hard.
I moved from a wealthy area of the country to three badly "left behind" places in a row, and Pop Warner football was wildly popular in all of them. I had never even seen it before, and I couldn't believe that people would let their kids play football at 10 years old. But after a while I kind of got it, the alternative was their boys sitting at home watching TV all day or getting in trouble on the street, so they enrolled them in Pop Warner.
But man do we need better activities for kids in poorer places.
The game is designed to smash your heads together. These won't help during an Oklahoma Drill either.
At least in rugby it isn't the point to smash your heads together. There's no illusion that the headgear will stop a concussion, It's there for the small bumps.
Upvote. ~~The study is valid.~~ EDIT: The study is not valid it compares soccer to ruby. Not gridiron.
I would, however, challenge the methods (reporting bias) in that study as it's done on existing publications of reported injuries. I know, first hand from playing rugby (collegiate) and football (high school), that getting your 'bell rung' is celebrated in football (i.e. not reported) and taken seriously in Rugby. As a rugby ref and coach there was mandated reporting even in the 90s.
To be clear, both sports are dangerous. But only one of them it's the default state to smash heads, and in the other, it's cause something went wrong.
My reporting bias claim stands on it's own without my personal experience added. You both don't know what reporting bias is nor how rugby is played.
Go on now lad, attack me some more. Get those internet points. I was fecking agreeing with the study. Edit: The science article is about football. Ya know, soccer. you realize that right?
Yes, when I was presented with new evidence, by challenging my own bias about what 'football' is, realizing that the article was about a different sport, I then changed my analysis of the journal article. Changing a position based on new evidence is kind of a science thing.
I wonder if the concussion rate has to do with the low tackling. Rugby doesn't stop like Football, so a person could easily get kicked in the head pretty hard.
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is the one big difference between rugby and American football.
The passing game puts receivers and quarterbacks in a unique position to get hit either blindsided, making catches in vulnerable positions, and the space that allows defenders to routinely build up speed before making the hits.
Most concussions come from getting slammed to the ground from what I heard before. With not stopping between plays, they probably do play through more concussions than modern football where they are pretty cafeful to diagnose them.
Oh who's got the anecdotal evidence now? You heard? Slammed to the ground? You have no idea about which you speak. Stopping between plays? Which plays? Which ruby are you talking about.
Ahh the %1 commenter tag makes sense. Farm that engagement.
Uh, in football they stop between plays. You are being very vindictive here. I also am not countering presented data with my anecdotes and make sure to lable my information as such.
You then use an ad hominem attack instead of proving your point.
Anecdotal, but I played 2 years of rugby and 8 years of football. The only real concussion (i.e. had severe enough symptoms afyer a hit it was clearly a concussion), was in rugby. It was from a knee and another head (my own teammate's) slamming into my head.
But football head hits were different. I never lost consciousness like that rugby hit, primarily because I played OL/DL but shit I HATED Oklahoma drills, or lining up in the open-field when doing bag drills with offense going "50%". Never 50%, clsoer to 80% and you'd get rocked by RBs because you're flat footed while they're moving at 80%. Those sub-concussive hits that just rattle you enough to make things dizzy for a few seconds add up, and they happened multiple times a practice. Always made me uncomfy. I don't understnad how anyone plays LB or FB. It seems like all those guys do is get their heads rattled every single play.
So, if sub-concussive hits really are what add up the damage that cause CTE, rugby always felt like the safer option. But you certainly aren't in the clear from major brain trauma.
~~Upvoted,~~ ~~but it's important to understand the reporting bias in that study.~~
Edit: You have no data. You should be downvoted for making a guess.
Put more clearly by ai:
>Rugby vs. Football Reporting Differences World Rugby's long-standing awareness efforts may lead to more complete reporting in rugby, while similar efforts in football started later with more limited influence.
There's also more bias. When you play a rugby game, 30 people are on the field for 80 minutes. When you play football, well I'm not going to do the math, but a player in on the field for less time.
Anyway. My point is not that one sport is safer than the other, it's as I said above, the mechanics of football, IMO, are more dangerous. That extra yard can make or break a game. It's not the same in rugby.
I read the paper linked by the other fella here. Having read scientific papers, and having discussed this specific issue with my peer group and asking about reporting bias. Which is a very normal thing to ask about in any paper. Why are you so defensive? Your whole argument is "hear about football cause of money. <sic>"
This is probably going to sound stupid, but would it be feasible to use some kind of magnet repulsion on helmets to reduce direct impacts, basically making impacts more "slippery"?
I’m in northern CA. Most youth leagues have switched to flag football. Football is one of those sports, where if you are a great athlete, you can become a professional. It’s not something like baseball or basketball which are much more skill oriented. I knew multiple people in HS who got D1 football scholarships who didn’t even start playing football until freshman year.
Playing tackle football as a child provides no benefit at all, but in the south, that would be heresy and they would run me out of town. Football in the south is like a religion and none of these studies will stop parents from putting their children in tackle football.
actuatedarbalest | a day ago
Gridiron football is unsafe at any age, regardless of protective equipment. We've just decided, as a culture, that children and adults suffering permanent and debilitating injuries to their brains and bodies is an acceptable price for our entertainment.
ChronicBitRot | 21 hours ago
I don’t know why people refuse to understand this. The hit to the head is only the first part of the trauma. After the hit, the brain continues to jar around inside the skull, which is just as damaging and there is not a piece of protective equipment that can stop that.
diablosinmusica | a day ago
Might as well start putting lead in gas again.
GrumpyJenkins | 23 hours ago
Paint too. I feel like my kids missed out on those tasty chips.
healywylie | 10 hours ago
As a painter, I’d
Love to only paint something once in my lifetime lol. And it would be bullet proof.or made of bullets?
lolnaender | 23 hours ago
It’s still in *piston engines* thank you for the correction.
diablosinmusica | 22 hours ago
No, jet fuel is kerosene based. Lead was added to prevent knocking, which turbines can't do.
lolnaender | 22 hours ago
Thanks for catching that yeah it’s used in piston engine aircraft.
dirkdigglerdonedry | 22 hours ago
Interesting
gathmoon | 22 hours ago
Only piston engines.
GrungeDuTerroir | 6 hours ago
TBI researcher here. Yup. It's a gladiator sport and we've decided we're ok with having sacrifices. The only way to change the injury load is to significantly change the rules of the game.
healywylie | 10 hours ago
Yes I’ve urged many youth to engage in dangerous activities for MY enjoyment.🙄
gravity_surf | 22 hours ago
theres a waiver. just like any other dangerous job.
Boring_and_sons | 22 hours ago
Kids can't consent.
gravity_surf | 21 hours ago
i was referring to the nfl. adults can consent.
Boring_and_sons | 20 hours ago
How do you get adult players without having children players?
Shiny_Chimchar | 20 hours ago
This is why we have 35+ year old O linemen still playing football. The kids aren’t as good now
gravity_surf | 20 hours ago
kids play flag. mr phd
Boring_and_sons | 20 hours ago
They do now. Apparently they start full contact football around 8 years old with standard youth full contact at 13-14 in the US. Are 13 &14 year old humans children? Can they consent?
And that's Dr. Ph.D. to you /s.
gravity_surf | 20 hours ago
of course. thats how the football system operated before we knew what head trauma did long term. or were told the truth finally. by phd’s. have they changed? guess not, shit moves slow but not surprising.
kids can consent in theory, parents oblige and consent legally for them. problem with that? lets get a lawyer. lawyer?!
Boring_and_sons | 19 hours ago
Kids can't consent. They're kids. Parents consenting for them makes them liable for the brain damage. And I just pointed out how it currently operates in response to your contention that "kids play flag football" followed by some self-congratulatory "look how much smarter I am than you, you "Ph.D." idiot". So no, we haven't learned anything. Kids as young as 6 are participating in full contact football. Did you, perhaps, play an inordinate amount of full-contact football as a child?
Drewdrops79 | 19 hours ago
Yeah, this is why I just don't watch it anymore.
garathnor | 15 hours ago
id love to divert the trillions we spend on sports each year to something else but every time i suggest it people go "but muh sports!"
sports is the original brain rot
championstuffz | a day ago
Color me surprised /s
Your brain is suspended inside a hollow skull with fluids, there's no amount of padding short of a airbag that'll slow the impact enough to negate the forces that'll cause your brain from smushing into your skull. The best we can hope for is a g force sensor activated airbag that'll protect and indicate a concussion event. Almost as if getting into a crash consistently is bad for you, helmet or not.
Edit: especially when that helmet is a proven to be unacceptable in a lab.
PUfelix85 | a day ago
Yes. We all should know this. It's not going to be something on the outside of the head that stops concussions. The hard object that is hitting the brain is the skull. Players just need to be taught to protect themselves and their opponents. It might be more effective to remove the helmets to remind them of this. But that will never happen because the helmets in football are iconic.
FlyingStealthPotato | 20 hours ago
Helmets aren’t just iconic, they were made mandatory for a reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gridiron_football_players_who_died_during_their_careers
Go to the college section because that’s where football was mostly played 100 years ago, sort by year. What do you notice? An absolute fuckton of deaths on the field mostly from head injuries (due to recording standards, very likely not a complete list, and again limited to college). See when that number basically drops to 0 in 1937? Helmet use was growing and became mandatory in 1939.
The rules of football are not the rules of rugby. The 10-yards to reach a first down rule prioritizes not giving up a single inch and encourages hard, fast, violent hits. This was true before and after the helmet. The helmet kept people from dying.
The game will never be safe. If you want to argue it should be banned, that’s a perfectly fine argument. But removing helmets only makes things worse.
cityshepherd | 22 hours ago
I’ve been saying for years that things would be safer (regarding CTE at least) if we went back to those old-timey leather helmets with no facemask… and I say safer (not safe) because rugby players tested for CTE have pretty significant numbers of positive tests too.
It’s complicated to some extent… at least for me personally. I played football in college (at the 1-AA level), and I stopped playing after spring ball of my junior year because during the regular season that year I got what the doctors at the hospital described as the worst concussion they’d ever seen. I never lost consciousness, but I lost two days of memory and my eggs got scrambled real bad.
Still, if I had to do it all over again knowing what I know now… I’d probably still play. The experience of running out of the tunnel with tens of thousands of people in the stands is the greatest rush I’ve ever experienced. All of the life experiences I gained, getting to travel around the country, the relationships I made… what I learned about the importance of teamwork, and what it’s like to push yourself so much farther than you think you are capable of… getting to be in a video game…
I could go on and on but hopefully some of you get the picture by now. I’ve also learned that it’s not necessarily the concussions, but the repeated sub-concussive hits… and not the straight on blows to the head, but the ones that happen while your head/brain are twisting to the side. There are definitely things that can be done to lower the risk but the risk will always be there.
That being said, I am in my mid 40s now, and starting to get terrified about the possibility/probability of CTE in my future. The next few years are going to be a crapshoot. I’m doing the best I can to take care of myself physically and mentally (living and eating healthy, and keeping my brain as active as possibly by lots of reading, learning new skills, etc).
I forget where I was going with this as my train of thought kind of derailed… but that may actually be half the point of my comment.
Edit: when I stopped playing, it was because I realized that I had already gotten so much from playing football, and the potential benefits of playing one more season just no longer outweighed the risk of further TBI… and I wasn’t raised to be a quitter, but I still think quitting at that point is probably one of the better decisions I’ve made in my life.
Seven-Prime | 21 hours ago
I hear you brother. I've had several concussions. Not all from sport. But the last few were from rugby. Had one, not 'that bad' but knew enough about the subject that I took the required time off. Then got another, took the time off. Then another, again 'not that bad.' It's not just getting your bell rung anymore. It's a recovery process. I hung up my spikes. But like you said, the friends along the way. Traveled the world playing ball on tour. Played on the national mall in DC. I wanted to keep those memories ya know. I know you know.
hustl3tree5 | 20 hours ago
A lot of people watch and play football for the hard hits
teacher_59 | 23 hours ago
I think you're right just with kids and bicycle helmets. A lot more kids and up in the hospital now because of helmet laws. Also, here in Seattle we got rid of them because they are so racist.
Better_Goose_431 | 21 hours ago
There aren’t any independent studies that indicate it has a statistically significant effect on reducing sub-concussive impacts (their primary purpose) in adults either
AliMcGraw | 13 hours ago
Pop Warner football is often the only boy-specific activity available in disinvested, poor communities. Boy scouts really can't be arsed to assist troops running in poor areas (girl scouts does this better at an institutional level), and there are not a ton of other activities. Pop Warner is seen as adequately boyish and macho and the coaches are pretty good about coaching the boys towards teamwork and fair play and trying hard.
I moved from a wealthy area of the country to three badly "left behind" places in a row, and Pop Warner football was wildly popular in all of them. I had never even seen it before, and I couldn't believe that people would let their kids play football at 10 years old. But after a while I kind of got it, the alternative was their boys sitting at home watching TV all day or getting in trouble on the street, so they enrolled them in Pop Warner.
But man do we need better activities for kids in poorer places.
Seven-Prime | a day ago
The game is designed to smash your heads together. These won't help during an Oklahoma Drill either.
At least in rugby it isn't the point to smash your heads together. There's no illusion that the headgear will stop a concussion, It's there for the small bumps.
/flameon
Tll6 | 23 hours ago
In rugby the training is to tackle with shoulders rather than leading with the head in football but the rate of concussion is higher in rugby
Epidemiology of head injuries among football and rugby players — A systematic review with meta-analysis
Edit: Edit: this isn’t valid, it’s a comparison of football (soccer) and rugby, not American football
More relevant studies: Rugby has more reported concussions but the reporting guidelines are more rigorous in rugby
no difference in hospitalizations
Seven-Prime | 23 hours ago
Upvote. ~~The study is valid.~~ EDIT: The study is not valid it compares soccer to ruby. Not gridiron.
I would, however, challenge the methods (reporting bias) in that study as it's done on existing publications of reported injuries. I know, first hand from playing rugby (collegiate) and football (high school), that getting your 'bell rung' is celebrated in football (i.e. not reported) and taken seriously in Rugby. As a rugby ref and coach there was mandated reporting even in the 90s.
To be clear, both sports are dangerous. But only one of them it's the default state to smash heads, and in the other, it's cause something went wrong.
Tll6 | 21 hours ago
Yeah my bad, I forgot the rest of the world calls soccer football
diablosinmusica | 22 hours ago
Yup! I was right! Anecdotes over data!
Seven-Prime | 22 hours ago
My reporting bias claim stands on it's own without my personal experience added. You both don't know what reporting bias is nor how rugby is played.
Go on now lad, attack me some more. Get those internet points. I was fecking agreeing with the study. Edit: The science article is about football. Ya know, soccer. you realize that right?
diablosinmusica | 22 hours ago
You have brought nothing but anecdotes to counter actual data but ad hominem attacks.
You then accuse me of attacking you for pointing out you are using anecdotes to counter data.
Seven-Prime | 22 hours ago
Fact: You presented no data. Fact: The data (someone else) presented does not relate to the two sports in the artical.
diablosinmusica | 21 hours ago
You are a liar. You were arguing another point before. Again, I do not have more time to play with you today.
Seven-Prime | 21 hours ago
Yes, when I was presented with new evidence, by challenging my own bias about what 'football' is, realizing that the article was about a different sport, I then changed my analysis of the journal article. Changing a position based on new evidence is kind of a science thing.
Thanks for the W.
diablosinmusica | a day ago
Rugby has a higher statistical chance of concussions than football. You just hear more about football because of the money involved.
Edit: Downvotes for the truth? On a science sub? Okay.
Tll6 | 23 hours ago
Yup.
Epidemiology of head injuries among football and rugby players — A systematic review with meta-analysis
Edit: this isn’t valid, it’s a comparison of football (soccer) and rugby, not American football
More relevant studies: Rugby has more reported concussions but the reporting guidelines are more rigorous in rugby
no difference in hospitalizations
Seven-Prime | 22 hours ago
That is a study between soccer and rugby. Not American football.
Tll6 | 21 hours ago
Damn good catch. My American mind didn’t think of that
diablosinmusica | 23 hours ago
Thank you for the data.
FullofLovingSpite | 23 hours ago
I wonder if the concussion rate has to do with the low tackling. Rugby doesn't stop like Football, so a person could easily get kicked in the head pretty hard.
RemarkableBeach1603 | 21 hours ago
One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is the one big difference between rugby and American football.
The passing game puts receivers and quarterbacks in a unique position to get hit either blindsided, making catches in vulnerable positions, and the space that allows defenders to routinely build up speed before making the hits.
diablosinmusica | 22 hours ago
Most concussions come from getting slammed to the ground from what I heard before. With not stopping between plays, they probably do play through more concussions than modern football where they are pretty cafeful to diagnose them.
Seven-Prime | 22 hours ago
Oh who's got the anecdotal evidence now? You heard? Slammed to the ground? You have no idea about which you speak. Stopping between plays? Which plays? Which ruby are you talking about.
Ahh the %1 commenter tag makes sense. Farm that engagement.
diablosinmusica | 22 hours ago
Uh, in football they stop between plays. You are being very vindictive here. I also am not countering presented data with my anecdotes and make sure to lable my information as such.
You then use an ad hominem attack instead of proving your point.
Seven-Prime | 22 hours ago
I'm countering the presented data because it's not about American football. Breaking news: Rugby is more dangerous than soccer.
diablosinmusica | 21 hours ago
You are a liar. You were countering with anecdotes. You are now changing what you meant. I don't have any more time to play with you today.
CheesypoofExtreme | 36 minutes ago
Anecdotal, but I played 2 years of rugby and 8 years of football. The only real concussion (i.e. had severe enough symptoms afyer a hit it was clearly a concussion), was in rugby. It was from a knee and another head (my own teammate's) slamming into my head.
But football head hits were different. I never lost consciousness like that rugby hit, primarily because I played OL/DL but shit I HATED Oklahoma drills, or lining up in the open-field when doing bag drills with offense going "50%". Never 50%, clsoer to 80% and you'd get rocked by RBs because you're flat footed while they're moving at 80%. Those sub-concussive hits that just rattle you enough to make things dizzy for a few seconds add up, and they happened multiple times a practice. Always made me uncomfy. I don't understnad how anyone plays LB or FB. It seems like all those guys do is get their heads rattled every single play.
So, if sub-concussive hits really are what add up the damage that cause CTE, rugby always felt like the safer option. But you certainly aren't in the clear from major brain trauma.
Seven-Prime | 22 hours ago
~~Upvoted,~~ ~~but it's important to understand the reporting bias in that study.~~
Edit: You have no data. You should be downvoted for making a guess.
Put more clearly by ai:
>Rugby vs. Football Reporting Differences World Rugby's long-standing awareness efforts may lead to more complete reporting in rugby, while similar efforts in football started later with more limited influence.
There's also more bias. When you play a rugby game, 30 people are on the field for 80 minutes. When you play football, well I'm not going to do the math, but a player in on the field for less time.
Anyway. My point is not that one sport is safer than the other, it's as I said above, the mechanics of football, IMO, are more dangerous. That extra yard can make or break a game. It's not the same in rugby.
diablosinmusica | 22 hours ago
What are you basing this off of? I bet dollars to pesos that you're going to come up with anecdotal evidence over scientific data.
Seven-Prime | 22 hours ago
I read the paper linked by the other fella here. Having read scientific papers, and having discussed this specific issue with my peer group and asking about reporting bias. Which is a very normal thing to ask about in any paper. Why are you so defensive? Your whole argument is "hear about football cause of money. <sic>"
Ya know what. I take back my upvote.
diablosinmusica | 22 hours ago
So, you come up with more anecdotes. On a science sub.
dec0y | 22 hours ago
This is probably going to sound stupid, but would it be feasible to use some kind of magnet repulsion on helmets to reduce direct impacts, basically making impacts more "slippery"?
healthywenis | 22 hours ago
Absolutely mind boggling that parents allow their children to play a game where there is so much trauma to the head.
ScottyBLaZe | 17 hours ago
I’m in northern CA. Most youth leagues have switched to flag football. Football is one of those sports, where if you are a great athlete, you can become a professional. It’s not something like baseball or basketball which are much more skill oriented. I knew multiple people in HS who got D1 football scholarships who didn’t even start playing football until freshman year.
Playing tackle football as a child provides no benefit at all, but in the south, that would be heresy and they would run me out of town. Football in the south is like a religion and none of these studies will stop parents from putting their children in tackle football.