A thought on pop warner and head injuries

[Holger]

Originally Posted by VINMAN

I always played hockey, and as a goaltender. When I started out we still were using the flat facemasks, which hurt like a mother when you got hit. Once we went to full masks with cages, throat protectors, full chest and arm protection, it opened up a whole new world. I went from always being slightly fearful of getting hit, to practically being fearless. So yeah, better equipment usually means taking bigger risks.

.

LOL, it is my work to get in front of the golie to irritate and hide the puck (or ball while playing inline hockey). The puck always seems to find the way to places where one protector ends and the other one does not yet start.

[jyl]

Youth Football Concussion Study Criticizing Limits On Contact Practices As 'Shortsighted' Generates Controversy | MomsTeam

Results in this study:

Injury rate is 1.76 concussions per 1,000 exposures (1 exposure = 1 game or practice).

Injury rate in games is >6. Which is 26X higher than injury rate in practices.

Injury rate in 11-12 y/o players is 3X injury rate in younger players.

Most concussions caused by head to head contact.

Injuries concentrated in certain positions (QB RB LB etc). Article characterizes these as skill positions. I wonder if it isn't more that the hits these players take are less predictable. Anyway, this seems very different than the speculation above that the marginal players are the ones getting injured.

Study was 468 kids in Pop Warner football, over 1 season, 20 suffered concussions.

Article then discusses debate over whether low-contact practices are good or bad. Interesting debate. One side says that since injuries are overwhelmingly in full-contact game exposures, it would be better for practices to be full-contact too. Other side says that's nuts.

Either way, injury rate of over 6 concussions per 1,000 game exposures seems high. If kid plays one of the higher risk positions, injury rate per game exposures appears to be far higher (like over 20?).

I am fairly sure I would encourage (edit: require) my 8-12 y/o kid to find a different physical activity.

[jyl]

Larger study of youth football injury rate was done a year later by a consultant hired by USA Football (NFL).

See table 3 here http://m.ojs.sagepub.com/content/3/7/2325967115594578.full.pdf

NFL initially claimed that "Heads Up Football" program reduced injury rate, later admitted that it didn't.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/sports/football/nfl-concussions-youth-program-heads-up-football.html

Concussions were 12.7% of all reported injuries. Concussion injury rate was much higher for older players (11-15 y/o) than for younger (5-10), much higher in games than in practices.

I'm not sure how much I trust a study conducted by the NFL's consultant, but anyway there's more data for you.

(I didn't know there was organized tackle football for 5 year olds. Wow.)

[jyl]

Concussions are no joke. One of my friends has a high school age son who hasn't been able to attend school for over a year due to repeated concussions sustained over a period of a couple years. All kinds of neurological problems, including vision.

[Joe Bob]

Originally Posted by Holger

LOL, it is my work to get in front of the golie to irritate and hide the puck (or ball while playing inline hockey). The puck always seems to find the way to places where one protector ends and the other one does not yet start.

I am one of the few that wear a full helmet when calling balls and strikes, I also wear a flack jacket when in the umpire position in football (behind the linebackers).

I;m old but not stupid. I value by eyesight and equilibrium.

As to repeated concussions, that is time to quit.

AGAIN, the helmet is for protection NOT a weapon. The coaches are teaching them wrong and that coach should be fired.

[berettafan]

Originally Posted by jyl

Youth Football Concussion Study Criticizing Limits On Contact Practices As 'Shortsighted' Generates Controversy | MomsTeam

Results in this study:

Injury rate is 1.76 concussions per 1,000 exposures (1 exposure = 1 game or practice).

Injury rate in games is >6. Which is 26X higher than injury rate in practices.

Injury rate in 11-12 y/o players is 3X injury rate in younger players.

Most concussions caused by head to head contact.

Injuries concentrated in certain positions (QB RB LB etc). Article characterizes these as skill positions. I wonder if it isn't more that the hits these players take are less predictable. Anyway, this seems very different than the speculation above that the marginal players are the ones getting injured.

Study was 468 kids in Pop Warner football, over 1 season, 20 suffered concussions.

Article then discusses debate over whether low-contact practices are good or bad. Interesting debate. One side says that since injuries are overwhelmingly in full-contact game exposures, it would be better for practices to be full-contact too. Other side says that's nuts.

Either way, injury rate of over 6 concussions per 1,000 game exposures seems high. If kid plays one of the higher risk positions, injury rate per game exposures appears to be far higher (like over 20?).

I am fairly sure I would encourage (edit: require) my 8-12 y/o kid to find a different physical activity.

This seems to support my hypothesis.

[onewhippedpuppy]

With my son I have seen a pronounced difference in how tackling is taught just with him moving to a school sponsored team and being coached by a high school coach, any leading with the head is strictly forbidden. He has never been injured playing football and never had concussion like symptoms, and since he started playing tackle at 7 he has always been a LB on defense and a FB or RB on offense, typically playing both ways for full games and leading the team in tackles. Actually he has had very few injuries on any of his past tackle teams, the only season ending injury on his team this year happened to one of his teammates playing kick ball at recess.

I guess I'm old school in that everything involves risk and reward, and I think the rewards of playing football and other sports are worth the risk. Like I said previously, if the parents want to be afraid of something, be afraid of teens driving. On average six kids aged between 16-19 die every day in car accidents. THAT is a risk worth being afraid of, but I also won't prohibit my kids from driving.