Not Much Time Left for UT to Get Back to Good (Football safety article)

#2
#2
"Amateur" meaning kids around 12-13 years old. I think at some point they probably will get rid of that, and kids will start playing in high school, maybe even as juniors and seniors in high school.
 
#3
#3
Before and during the Teddy Roosevelt administration, football players were dying on the field at the rate of 10-20 a year.

Let that sink in.

Roosevelt put together a commission to figure out ways to make football safer without losing the (already very popular) sport.

The commission did, and so the game of football morphed from something resembling rugby toward the sport we know today.

...

That's all background for this perspective: football isn't going anywhere. It will continue to evolve, and may evolve in bigger ways than we've seen in our lifetimes, but it will not go away. It won't become flag football, either.

So no worries. As long as we don't blow up the planet, our great-great-grandkids will be watching high school and college football, just as we do. Even if they think the version we watch today is archaic.

Go Vols!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4
#4
VFL-82-JP said:
Before and during the Teddy Roosevelt administration, football players were dying on the field at the rate of 10-20 a year.

Let that sink in.

Roosevelt put together a commission to figure out ways to make football safer without losing the (already very popular) sport.
Click to expand...

The difference between then and now is that back then there were ways to make the game safer so that people didn't die. That's an easier fix that trying to eliminate or substantially reduce head injuries.

Football is a collision sport. The only way to remove concussions and the associated CTE as a risk of playing the game is to make it a non-contact sport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5
#5
05_never_again said:
The difference between then and now is that back then there were ways to make the game safer so that people didn't die. That's an easier fix that trying to eliminate or substantially reduce head injuries.

Football is a collision sport. The only way to remove concussions and the associated CTE as a risk of playing the game is to make it a non-contact sport.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true, man.

There are a whole lot of proponents of "rugby-style tackling" who believe that one adjustment could largely ameliorate, if not completely eliminate, the CTE risk.

And all that is, is a single change in technique, how we teach kids to tackle.

Not saying that's the solution. And it's far from the only thing we could try without going non-contact. But it seems to be hugely promising, according to its proponents.
 
#6
#6
Don't think the cash cow will be sacrificed. :no: The KO rule makes the game a little less exciting. :bad:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
VFL-82-JP said:
I don't think that's true, man.

There are a whole lot of proponents of "rugby-style tackling" who believe that one adjustment could largely ameliorate, if not completely eliminate, the CTE risk.

And all that is, is a single change in technique, how we teach kids to tackle.

Not saying that's the solution. And it's far from the only thing we could try without going non-contact. But it seems to be hugely promising, according to its proponents.
Click to expand...

I'm all for teaching kids better tackling technique (Lord knows they need it, especially the really talented kids that lots of times don't get taught fundamentals). The problem is that while rugby and football have things in common, they are also quite a bit different.

Football is much more of a collision sport than rugby because of how the opposing teams line up pre-snap before every play and then run at each other. The WRs and the safeties, for example, can be 15 yards away from each other or more at the start of the play. The opposing sides don't really get that far apart from each other in rugby, and while there are forceful tackles they don't get these multi-yard running starts before slamming into each other. It lends itself to better form tackling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
VFL-82-JP said:
I don't think that's true, man.

There are a whole lot of proponents of "rugby-style tackling" who believe that one adjustment could largely ameliorate, if not completely eliminate, the CTE risk.

And all that is, is a single change in technique, how we teach kids to tackle.

Not saying that's the solution. And it's far from the only thing we could try without going non-contact. But it seems to be hugely promising, according to its proponents.
Click to expand...

Removing the face-mask would promote proper technique.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#10
#10
VFL-82-JP said:
I don't think that's true, man.

There are a whole lot of proponents of "rugby-style tackling" who believe that one adjustment could largely ameliorate, if not completely eliminate, the CTE risk.

And all that is, is a single change in technique, how we teach kids to tackle.

Not saying that's the solution. And it's far from the only thing we could try without going non-contact. But it seems to be hugely promising, according to its proponents.
Click to expand...

Well it’s going to have to change, and the rugby style tackling will likely have to happen.

But we already have many decrying that they are “wussying” it up, and the rugby style tackling will make the hard hits be eliminated. I’m not sure the window lickers that whine about it changing are going to go for it, even if the alternative is football dies completey.
 
#11
#11
05_never_again said:
I'm all for teaching kids better tackling technique (Lord knows they need it, especially the really talented kids that lots of times don't get taught fundamentals). The problem is that while rugby and football have things in common, they are also quite a bit different.

Football is much more of a collision sport than rugby because of how the opposing teams line up pre-snap before every play and then run at each other. The WRs and the safeties, for example, can be 15 yards away from each other or more at the start of the play. The opposing sides don't really get that far apart from each other in rugby, and while there are forceful tackles they don't get these multi-yard running starts before slamming into each other. It lends itself to better form tackling.
Click to expand...

Exactly; rugby is rough but there is rarely any kind of “kill shot” type hits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
The rugby style tackling technique does two main things; instructs tackler to put his head behind the ball carrier and always wrap with your arms.
There are huge hits in rugby at every level and often players are several yards apart when the sequence begins.
What you don’t see in rugby are the plays where the tackler launches themselves at a the ball carrier with no attempt to wrap their arms. This type of play would result in an ejection for the current match and the player would be ineligible for the next match as well.
 
#14
#14
Let me suggest what 'football's' argument will be.

There is no study that conclusively/scientifically links playing football in youth sports with any mental, emotional or physiological damage to the participating individuals or, as the study cites, "In this sample of deceased tackle football players, younger age of exposure to tackle football was not associated with CTE pathological severity, but predicted earlier neurobehavioral symptom onset. Youth exposure to tackle football may reduce resiliency to late life neuropathology. These findings may not generalize to the broader tackle football population and informant‐report may have affected the accuracy of the estimated effects. "

I would agree. Abstract below.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ana.25245

I would also agree with corresponding author Ann McKee, MD, chief of Neuropathology at Boston VA Healthcare System, and Director of BU’s CTE Center. “It makes common sense that children, whose brains are rapidly developing, should not be hitting their heads hundreds of times per season.”

duh

My kids were not allowed to play for that very, logical reason.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#15
#15
VolBraniac said:
Let me suggest what 'football's' argument will be.

There is no study that conclusively/scientifically links playing football in youth sports with any mental, emotional or physiological damage to the participating individuals or, as the study cites, "In this sample of deceased tackle football players, younger age of exposure to tackle football was not associated with CTE pathological severity, but predicted earlier neurobehavioral symptom onset. Youth exposure to tackle football may reduce resiliency to late life neuropathology. These findings may not generalize to the broader tackle football population and informant‐report may have affected the accuracy of the estimated effects. "

I would agree. Abstract below.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ana.25245

I would also agree with corresponding author Ann McKee, MD, chief of Neuropathology at Boston VA Healthcare System, and Director of BU’s CTE Center. “It makes common sense that children, whose brains are rapidly developing, should not be hitting their heads hundreds of times per season.”

duh

My kids were not allowed to play for that very, logical reason.
Click to expand...

Regardless of whether or not there is a specific link, I think the end result is that kids eventually will not be allowed to play under a certain age, probably 15-16. Since they can't play until that age, that makes it more likely they will play and become good at other sports before that age, and some of those kids will stick with those other sports even when they become able to play tackle football. Some of those kids will end up being really good athletes, but they'll be playing a sport other than football. You'll end up with a smaller population of talented kids in the sport.

The kids that do play tackle football won't be able to hit until they are 15-16, and them picking the game up at a later age will probably impact the quality of play at the college and professional level. They simply won't have played the game as long as kids do today.

There almost surely will be some negative impact on the game as a result of all of this, but it isn't going to come overnight, and it isn't going to kill or almost kill the sport, IMO. The broad public awareness of concussions and football has only been around for about 5 years or so. I don't think it discourages the families of kids who are already in deep with football. It discourages the families of kids who are pretty young and haven't picked up the sport yet. I don't think we will know the impact for another decade or so.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top