Should Responsible Programs Eliminate Tackle Football at the Youth Level

[bbtrucking.inc]

No tackling takes the fun out of the sport, therefore if we eliminate tackling, we should just eliminate the sport. And good luck with that.

Not sure I would take it that far but here is what I think. Taking tackling out of football would indeed take some of the fun out of the sport. Some kids who are gritty, hard nosed kids love contact, you take that away who knows if they'll play when they get the chance to actually tackle. Teaching proper technique is extremely important. Most teams do have dads who coach and some of those dads think they're coaching to win some huge title, but some dads also understand the importance of teaching the basics, fundamentals and how to play the game. I think keeping tackling in the game is important, just more emphasis on technique is essiential. Here's an idea. What if coaches from the high school team designated one coach to take a whole week during the first week of pass to go down to the youth fields and make sure the coaches are teaching proper technique and fundamentals. Idk, just my thoughts.

Somebody need to upgrade the game. For example, what if we put a G-force senser in the helmets, and set a limit. If a certain hit goes over the limit, it will be a big penalty or ejection or whatever. That would encourage the kids to still hit hard, but not to the head.

[PopeSnoopDogThe1st]

I wonder what the statistical difference is in head injuries are between Football and Rugby?

[PopeSnoopDogThe1st]

http://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/ ... -football/

[madpolecat]

http://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/ ... -football/

I don't think that anybody would dispute that rugby is also rough on the old noggin, but that's kind of a tangent argument...

I'm also not familiar with the ages at which youth in the UK and the rest of the world start playing rugby.

[YOU'RE TIGER BAIT]

man I cannot fathom this. we banged the heck out of each other. from like 2nd grade on. when I coached youth football we went full bore Monday, tuesday, took Wednesday off for church, went full bore Thursday and off Friday for high school games. then our games were on Saturdays.and a lot of times we'd scrimmage somebody on Tuesday or Thursday. you just can't do that these days. I remember being that age a team or b team age and we'd do bull in the ring and Oklahoma drills. it makes me grin thinking about it.

[enigmaax]

http://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/ ... -football/

I don't think that anybody would dispute that rugby is also rough on the old noggin, but that's kind of a tangent argument...

I'm also not familiar with the ages at which youth in the UK and the rest of the world start playing rugby.

This is an interesting question for me, personally, because my son (a high school freshman) is currently playing rugby. We are living in the Philippines for a year and since there was no American Football at his level, he has been involved in club rugby for the last 5 months and the high school season is just starting.

The lack of head protection remains a concern for us as parents. The positives that I will acknowledge from our limited experience are that there are very few reckless hits which seems to be because there isn’t that invincible mentality that comes with wearing body armor. Kids don’t tend to launch themselves into tackles as often and by the time contact happens in most cases, the speed has significantly been reduced. This kind of ties to what I feel like is better fundamental tackling. In just a short time my son has learned to take better angles and get a solid wrap to take kids down. Also, I think because of the rules and how the ball can keep moving after contact, there’s less inclination for runners to lower their heads when a hit is coming - getting rid of the ball is much better for trying to advance (which again means in a lot of cases that by the time a tackle actually happens, play has been slowed significantly).

Those are just a few observations in my short time. The numbers at the pro level may not support it (my initial research was kind of scary), but as we observed and learned about our local options, I’ve probably felt safer with him playing rugby than I did/do about American football.

[PopeSnoopDogThe1st]

http://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/ ... -football/

I don't think that anybody would dispute that rugby is also rough on the old noggin, but that's kind of a tangent argument...

I'm also not familiar with the ages at which youth in the UK and the rest of the world start playing rugby.

This is an interesting question for me, personally, because my son (a high school freshman) is currently playing rugby. We are living in the Philippines for a year and since there was no American Football at his level, he has been involved in club rugby for the last 5 months and the high school season is just starting.

The lack of head protection remains a concern for us as parents. The positives that I will acknowledge from our limited experience are that there are very few reckless hits which seems to be because there isn’t that invincible mentality that comes with wearing body armor. Kids don’t tend to launch themselves into tackles as often and by the time contact happens in most cases, the speed has significantly been reduced. This kind of ties to what I feel like is better fundamental tackling. In just a short time my son has learned to take better angles and get a solid wrap to take kids down. Also, I think because of the rules and how the ball can keep moving after contact, there’s less inclination for runners to lower their heads when a hit is coming - getting rid of the ball is much better for trying to advance (which again means in a lot of cases that by the time a tackle actually happens, play has been slowed significantly).

Those are just a few observations in my short time. The numbers at the pro level may not support it (my initial research was kind of scary), but as we observed and learned about our local options, I’ve probably felt safer with him playing rugby than I did/do about American football.

Thanks for your perspective and great input....

[Bigdog]

The American Academy of Pediatrics Tackles Youth Football Injuries

"Removing tackling would dramatically reduce the risk of serious injuries to players, but it would fundamentally change the sport of football," said co-author William Meehan, III, MD, FAAP, a member of the AAP Council on Sports Medicine and Fitness. "Parents and players will need to decide whether the health risks associated with tackling are outweighed by the recreational benefits of the game. The AAP encourages athletes to continue playing organized sports, while supporting coaches and officials in their work to reduce these injuries."



http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 36/5/e1419

Delaying the introduction of tackling until a certain age may reduce the risk of injury for ages when tackling is prohibited, but this could lead to even higher rates of injury when tackling is later introduced if players have their first tackling experiences when they are older, stronger and bigger, according to the AAP.

"It's this paradox," says pediatrician Greg Landry, MD, FAAP, "that makes it so important for leagues to teach proper tackling technique and skills to avoid and absorb tackles, even if no tackling occurs throughout the seasons."

[enigmaax]

Bigdog - I find it interesting in a few articles I came across previously that since the NFL reduced practice contact, there’s been a school of thought that QBs are actually at more risk. The belief is that offensive linemen can’t appropriately develop the skills that they need without the real contact, so O-line performance has suffered. This of course leads to more hits on QBs. Not sure how valid it is, but found your post interesting in that there are perhaps downstream impacts that aren’t obvious on the surface.

[Seabee_0586]

I like the way Burg is set up. Starts at 5th grade and is ran very well. NO dads! Very good instruction on fundamentals and low emphasis on winning. All intermural with 4 teams of 13-14 kids. As far as big concussive type hits I watched every game played at Burg pee wee this season. There was only one hit that I can remember all season that was really hard. It was a peel back block on a QB scramble which was called as an illegal hit by the ref (ref is the only person who didn't like it) everyone else went ooohhhh!. Other than that I don't recall any. maybe other posters on here saw some I missed. I think 5th grade is about right to start. JMHO

Burg kids come to green and play until they are able to play tackle for their home school green is a feeder system for the burg and ironton

[MTSWNGRVSG]

The schools in the MAC play flag football or they do not play until Jr. High.

[cbolt]

The link above from the Dayton Daily News indicates they have no soccer and they don't play any kind of football until jr high. Funny how the coach emphatically stated not having soccer was a big big big help

[The Flush]

I think it is the irresponsible programs that need to elimiate youth tackle football.

[Bigdog]

I played peewee football, jr high and high school and div 2 college football as a lineman I don't have brain damage. I played with a lot of teammates who did the same most of them are ok. Many of us have had health issues but not one would I say is connected to pee wee football. We don't have brain damage. i knew guys in college that took a lot of steroids......


https://dopinglinkki.fi/en/info-bank/do ... nges-brain

[madpolecat]

It's very easy to use one's self (or an individual one knows) as an example and assume that is the standard...

Example: I know a guy who played two years of midget football, two of junior high, four of high school, three of college, and nine of semi-pro. He's in his mid-40s, still lifts weights, has no knee problems, has never had an orthopedic surgery, and has no early-onset dementia.

You could say he's either lucky or gifted, but he wouldn't be anywhere near representative of guys who have played that much football

[enigmaax]

It's very easy to use one's self (or an individual one knows) as an example and assume that is the standard...

Example: I know a guy who played two years of midget football, two of junior high, four of high school, three of college, and nine of semi-pro. He's in his mid-40s, still lifts weights, has no knee problems, has never had an orthopedic surgery, and has no early-onset dementia.

You could say he's either lucky or gifted, but he wouldn't be anywhere near representative of guys who have played that much football

Good point. There’s no saying it will impact every single person that plays. But what if your kid IS one of the people severely impacted? Was it worth it? And I’m not one of those people who thinks you should never do anything out of fear, but there are reasonable risks and stupid risks. I think it is up for debate as to where youth football falls on this one.

Also, people who say, “I played and I’m okay.” The ability to determine damage isn’t even at the point yet where a person CAN know until they’re dead and have their brain examined. Even at that, the full impacts are still being uncovered.

[Paladin]

This is a classic case of Neanderthals vs. modern man. Unwilling to change and unbelieving of science. Here is a case where parents will vote with their feet to pull out their kids unless precautions are taken. You will have hard heads willing to shrink participation in order to maintain their testosterone level rather than use due diligence and err on the side of caution as a pragmatic approach . You still get to keep football. You'll be reading about how they "wussified" the game years into the future. This is more a reflection of our disgusting political problem today, but involves something valuable to us all -- our kids health.

Caution would indicate flag football first and limited tackle at Jr. Hi. Then H.S, college and Pros as is. Keeping the game transcends selfish immorality with other people's kids at risk if they wish to sacrifice their own. It's basically a no brainier.

[Bigdog]

Not according to the American Pediatricians


Delaying the introduction of tackling until a certain age may reduce the risk of injury for ages when tackling is prohibited, but this could lead to even higher rates of injury when tackling is later introduced if players have their first tackling experiences when they are older, stronger and bigger, according to the AAP.

"It's this paradox," says pediatrician Greg Landry, MD, FAAP, "that makes it so important for leagues to teach proper tackling technique and skills to avoid and absorb tackles, even if no tackling occurs throughout the seasons."



https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap ... uries.aspx

[Bigdog]

http://www.sportscapp.com/2016/03/25/19 ... -football/

[enigmaax]

Not according to the American Pediatricians


Delaying the introduction of tackling until a certain age may reduce the risk of injury for ages when tackling is prohibited, but this could lead to even higher rates of injury when tackling is later introduced if players have their first tackling experiences when they are older, stronger and bigger, according to the AAP.

"It's this paradox," says pediatrician Greg Landry, MD, FAAP, "that makes it so important for leagues to teach proper tackling technique and skills to avoid and absorb tackles, even if no tackling occurs throughout the seasons."



https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap ... uries.aspx

The part you quoted was NOT part of their official recommendation. It was stated as pure speculation when it comes to cause and effect, but used as a way to emphasise the importance of proper precautions/technique at whatever age tackling is a part of the game.

In fact, the last statement in the quote about instruction recognizes that technique can be taught without full impact being part of the game.