New York Times Op-Ed Piece Calling for Banning of (tackle) High School Football

[PALbooster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/o...ight-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

Interesting NY Times Op-Ed piece by Dr. Bennet Omalu, the neuropathologist that discovered CTE in pro football players and is now the head medical examiner in San Joaquin County and teaches at UC Davis. His work is the basis of the movie Concussion staring Will Smith that is being released in theaters this month. His recommendation would essentially lead to the elimination of tackle high school football.

While there has been a lot of discussion and management of concussions, Dr. Omalu's research points more toward continued head contact (whether there are concussions or not) as the root cause of impacting brain function. In some ways too much focus on concussions seems to miss the main point that the real damage is caused by repetitive head contact.

His research has focused on the impact on NFL players and has been fairly conclusive. While he cites research on high impact sports on children, I don't think there has been research that is specifically focused on the impact of college, high school or youth football and the impact on developing CTE or other brain impairment and if this risk is meaningfully impacted if there is limited contact in practice.

I have seen some suggest that you see much less CTE in receivers and QB's (who get concussions but don't have as much routine head contact) than in defensive players and lineman. Likewise, many other sports have concussions but where they don't include continued head contact don't seem to have CTE or other long-term brain impacts. Definitely creates food for thought as we celebrate the play-off season and how continued science research may impact youth football, high school football, and football in general.

 

[ThunderRam]

Dr. Omalu also states the following:

Our children are minors who have not reached the age of consent. It is our moral duty as a society to protect the most vulnerable of us. The human brain becomes fully developed at about 18 to 25 years old. We should at least wait for our children to grow up, be provided with the information and education on the risk of play, and let them make their own decisions. No adult, not a parent or a coach, should be allowed to make this potentially life-altering decision for a child.

And I agree with it. That said, I want to know when he's going to write the same piece targeted at underage driving.

If he's truly trying to protect children under 18, then do it across the board -- don't just project an agenda towards tackle football. A much larger percentage of under 18's are permanently injured and/or killed driving cars every year. Not only do they injure/kill themselves, they cause harm to others because they lack experience and often text or drink while driving, etc.

The age of consent thing applies to driving, too. And it's an even more dangerous activity that affects a much greater number of people.

I have no problem with parents protecting their children from what they deem to be dangerous activities, especially when they aren't mature or experienced enough to understand the potential ramifications of participation. But don't do it selectively.

Most parents rush right out to get their kids licensed at 15 1/2 or 16 years old because it's not only become a teenaged rite of passage, but because it is convenient for them. However, everyday we see teen and young adult drivers killing themselves and others in senseless and avoidable accidents. Where's the outcry to get under-aged drivers out from behind the wheel until they are more mature to handle the responsibility and can provide their adult consent?

As a society, we decided that legal adults cannot handle the responsibility of drinking alcohol until they are 21 years old. But that same society seems to have no problem putting a 16 year old behind the wheel of a car -- with a cell phone in one hand no less.

Again, I just don't like seeing an agenda against one dangerous activity. Children can be equally harmed (concussed) playing soccer or driving quarter midgets at 8 years old or learning death defying tricks on skateboards, dirtbikes and BMX bikes.

Where's the targeted piece against allowing children to participate in those activities until they are 18? I'd take Dr. Olamu's concern about our children much more seriously if he wasn't so singularly focused on tackle football.

To me, focusing on tackle football while ignoring car related injuries/death (within the same age group) is akin to focusing on mouse $%^& when there's elephant $%^& everywhere. It's selective prosecution.

 

[Bluedog2]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/o...ight-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region

Interesting NY Times Op-Ed piece by Dr. Bennet Omalu, the neuropathologist that discovered CTE in pro football players and is now the head medical examiner in San Joaquin County and teaches at UC Davis. His work is the basis of the movie Concussion staring Will Smith that is being released in theaters this month. His recommendation would essentially lead to the elimination of tackle high school football.

While there has been a lot of discussion and management of concussions, Dr. Omalu's research points more toward continued head contact (whether there are concussions or not) as the root cause of impacting brain function. In some ways too much focus on concussions seems to miss the main point that the real damage is caused by repetitive head contact.

His research has focused on the impact on NFL players and has been fairly conclusive. While he cites research on high impact sports on children, I don't think there has been research that is specifically focused on the impact of college, high school or youth football and the impact on developing CTE or other brain impairment and if this risk is meaningfully impacted if there is limited contact in practice.

I have seen some suggest that you see much less CTE in receivers and QB's (who get concussions but don't have as much routine head contact) than in defensive players and lineman. Likewise, many other sports have concussions but where they don't include continued head contact don't seem to have CTE or other long-term brain impacts. Definitely creates food for thought as we celebrate the play-off season and how continued science research may impact youth football, high school football, and football in general.

In the last 10 years, the kids are getting bigger and faster and they want to win and think nothing of getting a concussion or even getting injured... for the last several years, the ref's have been laying down 15 yarders for spearing....In line play, the kids go at each other and head contact happens...Its a rough and bang up battle in line play...How do you control it?????..You can't, line play has been changed a couple of times, so it becomes a case of arm strength on pushing and shoving and this is one of the reasons there is an increase in holding calls now and an increase in bursts of temper.

 

[nascar624]

In the last 10 years, the kids are getting bigger and faster and they want to win and think nothing of getting a concussion or even getting injured... for the last several years, the ref's have been laying down 15 yarders for spearing....In line play, the kids go at each other and head contact happens...Its a rough and bang up battle in line play...How do you control it?????..You can't, line play has been changed a couple of times, so it becomes a case of arm strength on pushing and shoving and this is one of the reasons there is an increase in holding calls now and an increase in bursts of temper.

Somewhat agree; however, I highly doubt the desire to win is any different than it was back when I played in the late 80's early 90's. As well I remember one year when half the team was juiced up. They were very big and strong. Couple guys benching almost 400 and squatting almost 500. Those are still awesome numbers by today's standard. In other words. I think it is a joke to attack tackle football when it has been around a long time and it has always been a dangerous violent sport, where injuries will happen. A couple guys from my team had concussions, so again, it has been happening for a long time. Why attack it now. There are plenty of other killers out there that harm our children besides football. I just think the whole thing is ridiculous.

 

[bella123]

Players getting bigger, faster and stronger. And precautions and attention paid to it is better and much higher now. Never remember concusuons test being given in the 80's? Pretty much a wash, and it equals out IMO.

 

[Indianpride45]

Society is I just getting plain soft. Concussions happen in all sports not just football.

 

[RunningRon]

To argue or refute evidence (even anecdotal) that trauma to the brain brought on by helmet to helmet collisions has a severely lasting negative impact is stupidity (or is it ignorance?), and casting it off as we have gone soft is simpleton-like. The reasons don't need to be told (bigger, faster, stronger) - trauma is trauma. The pendulum must swing far to the left at times to get it back to the middle -- Dr. Olamu pushed it hard, caught the attention of many and will see who meets him in the middle.....perhaps it leads to an abolishment of the game, perhaps it leads to better equipment technology, maybe improved rules or greater understanding of the human brain for which the body is a mere support system. Applaud that it is being discussed.

 

[awood1]

People have looked at me like I was green for over 2 decades on this topic, but I'll stick with my original take (with some updates).

IF you want to keep kids noodles safe, take off the face masks! The feeling of invincibility when your head is surrounded by pads and medal fades quickly when your nose starts to bleed! (Argument update; It's kind of like MMA. When it first started to gain in popularity, people were freaking out that they were using tiny 4oz gloves. However, research has shown a must greater danger in getting pounded for 12 rds repeatedly with 12oz. gloves versus getting KO'd with the same punch on a 4 oz. glove.) Kids will learn to tackle WITHOUT using their head as a weapon. They will focus on wrapping the arms and driving with the legs instead of lowering the head and nailing a kid with their helmet.

As a kid, rugby seemed like something only kiwis and psychos did somewhere overseas. Over the years, popularity has grown and I have become a casual fan. Surprisingly, the concussion studies have shown much less occurrence of concussions and the long term (CTE) trauma in rugby vs. American football. Without a lot of data to support it, I take a linear way of thinking and suggest that without a helmet rugby players are less likely to use their head as a weapon and much more skilled on proper tackling technique.

Now, helicopter mom is going to freak the F out when little Timmy comes to the sidelines with broken nose or needing to stitch his eyebrow shut, but the reality is a few stitches is an easier fix on soft flesh then putting together scrambled eggs between the ears (besides, chicks dig scars!) Much like wrestlers have lumps of busted cartilage where their ears used to be as a calling card, a few eye scars and a slightly off center nose would be the "badge of honor" for playing football. IMHO a "masculine" face is a fair trade for being able to recall my kids name and home address as an adult.

So we can A.) Keep making rules to keep contact to a minimum in hopes that equipment R&D will be the magic pill to cure our concussion ills OR B.) Accept that stitches are > permanent brain damage, take the helmets (or at least the face masks) off and let boys be boys without the danger of being vegetables later.

 

[nascar624]

To argue or refute evidence (even anecdotal) that trauma to the brain brought on by helmet to helmet collisions has a severely lasting negative impact is stupidity (or is it ignorance?), and casting it off as we have gone soft is simpleton-like. The reasons don't need to be told (bigger, faster, stronger) - trauma is trauma. The pendulum must swing far to the left at times to get it back to the middle -- Dr. Olamu pushed it hard, caught the attention of many and will see who meets him in the middle.....perhaps it leads to an abolishment of the game, perhaps it leads to better equipment technology, maybe improved rules or greater understanding of the human brain for which the body is a mere support system. Applaud that it is being discussed.

Don't believe anyone is refuting or arguing known facts of the seriousness and dangers of helmet to helmet contact. I will disagree with regards to saying the danger is more pronounced now than say 10, 20 or 30 years ago due to (Bigger, Faster, Stronger.) My counter argument is we also have better equipment now than existed 20 or 30 years ago. I have also personally trained HS football players for the last 20 years, so I see exactly how big, strong and fast they are and there is not any trend pointing to a disparity between today's athletes and the athletes I played against 25 plus years ago.

There is always going to be the "Man-child" running around out there and there is always going to be the kids that use performance enhancing drugs, just like a number of players used them 25 years ago when I was playing. And there were serious injuries after helmet to helmet contact back than just like now. The biggest difference is the fact the dangers are more well known and back than it was just "shake it off" mentality. Not saying change is not needed, but I am alarmed at the attack on football specifically when there is a number of other activities that could be deemed just as dangerous as football. Let's be fair, don't just attack football, attack all the dangerous activities out there that can harm are youth.

 

[1315]

Tackling technique in rugby is very different based on how critical it is to advance the LOS. In other words, there are no first downs in rugby. My college premiere (D1) rugby player explained it in oh-so-simple terms. In FB, the goal of a tackle is to impede forward progress (i.e. the line to gain.) Therefore, the tacklers head routinely must be in front or (literally) ahead of the ball carrier's efforts to gain a new set of downs. In rugby, there is no such incentive to have a violent collision to stop forward progress, so almost all tackling is with the head behind the body, or to the side of the ball carrier, and rarely head on or "heads up" which the NFL is promoting as safer but that's a fallacy. It's all about moving the ball, very methodically at times, without losing possession. There's little stripping or punching out (look up "knock on"), head or neck tackling. Essentially you wrap up. Also, once progress is impeded (again, the position on the field is of very little consequence until at the goal line) the ball becomes free but NOT in the possession of the defender, nor available to the D. A crushing hit that sends the ball back cannot be recovered by the D (again, see knock on) so the rules essentially limit the incentive for violent collisions as they provide little benefit. The opposite is true in FB, i.e. get possession back or more commonly, impede progress to a first down. Turnovers happen from your own knock on, scrums or line-outs (might as well look up ruck while you're at it) and those things have no trauma- except to ears in scrums and that's why you see the forwards with electrical tape wrap or those "aviator" caps.

Get rid of the first down markers, maybe give 10 downs to score and introduce "knock on" rules to de-incentivize fumbles, then maybe less CTE ...but that's called rugby.

 

[RunningRon]

Wasn't pointing out anyone here refuting -- just making a statement that this is not something you can argue or refute - yet people do time and again in other outlets despite the clear evidence. Lasting head trauma occurs in high level head impacts associated with football. If Dr. Olamu is attacking football unless he brings up other sports too, you might as well be saying don't bring it up. It's not an attack, it's simply research findings that clearly need to extend to other areas of athletic endeavors.

 

[Indianpride45]

To argue or refute evidence (even anecdotal) that trauma to the brain brought on by helmet to helmet collisions has a severely lasting negative impact is stupidity (or is it ignorance?), and casting it off as we have gone soft is simpleton-like. The reasons don't need to be told (bigger, faster, stronger) - trauma is trauma. The pendulum must swing far to the left at times to get it back to the middle -- Dr. Olamu pushed it hard, caught the attention of many and will see who meets him in the middle.....perhaps it leads to an abolishment of the game, perhaps it leads to better equipment technology, maybe improved rules or greater understanding of the human brain for which the body is a mere support system. Applaud that it is being discussed.

Not casting anything off, ignoring, or refuting anything. Simple fact is concussions happen in every sport always have always will. To single out football is comical to be frankly honest. While I do think it's important to recognize and understand head injuries to advocate banning football over it? That's ridiculous. And yes we are getting soft as a society if that's the case. I mean really do even 10% of high school players ever get a concussion? I doubt the number is that high at 10%. I do think kids who get head injuries should be benched and if it's a recurring issue maybe even banned. But to ban a sport? Naw I'm not buying that.

 

[PALbooster]

Can't download the link, but there is an interesting podcast (a little long - 14 minutes) on ESPN Mike & Mike show (can find on the ESPN site) from Dr. Julian Bailes who is Dr. Omalu's colleague (played by Alec Baldwin in the movie) and participated in the same research and is head of Neurosurgery for a large health system in Chicago and a team doctor for Northwestern's football team.

I think he has an interesting perspective on how risk increases for CMT as players progress in their football careers going from minimal or almost no risk in youth football to low risk in high school to progressively higher risk in college and pro's. He thinks about it with regard to the number of hits with the head a year. He estimates Mike Webster and many pros had 100,000 cumulative hits to the head where a youth football players in a typical year with proper coaching will have less than 100 and a high school player depending on position will have 600-800 etc.

With regard to the dialogue above it is important to distinguish concussions (which are a related but separate and important issue) from continued head contact. Concussions can and do happen in every sport across many walks of life and have a separate set of issues than repeated head contact that you see in boxing, football, hockey and a few other contact sports. As noted above even Rugby has much less cumulative head contact than football or hockey. A concussion does not necessarily put you at greater risk for CTE.

Regardless of your personal feelings (we are being soft, etc.) I do think that if you love the sport you have to acknowledge the issues that are out and be open minded and willing to look at the scientific facts as they evolve and deal with them responsibility. What will kill the sport is coaches that ignore these issues and continue practices that have been demonstrated to be unsafe. What will allow the sport to continue and prosper is that those that acknowledge the issues as they evolve and continue efforts to make sure that this is a sport that is acceptably safe for youth, high school, and college age kids to play without inordinate worry and risk about long-term brain health and safety.



Dr. Julian Bailes, NFL
Neurologist Dr. Julian Bailes covers the risks involved in playing football as a child, the recent changes aimed at improving youth football's safety and when in life the risk for brain injury increases.

 

[ThunderRam]

I heard that discussion on Mike and Mike this morning. I think it speaks volumes that two experts in the field can't even agree. Also, I thought Mike Greenberg made an excellent analogy regarding nutrition. The experts are constantly changing their opinions on what is the healthiest way to eat seemingly year after year, despite all of the study and research that's been done for centuries.

In the end, many people are going to engage in confirmation bias and gravitate towards the side they want to believe in. But the fact is, even the experts disagree.

I'll circle back to my original point of contention, which is not which expert is right, but rather the selective prosecution toward football (and other high impact sports) and the insistence of not allowing children to participate until they reach the age of consent while ignoring far more dangerous activities such as driving. The age of consent applies to that activity too, but parents have no problem making that decision for their children -- and it seems that Dr. Olamu tacitly agrees since he hasn't authored anything about it.