New York to ban youth football?

[Kemp]

While we're at it, let's get rid of bicycles - a lot of people get hurt or killed in bike accidents! Or, let's get get rid of cars because peole get hurt/killed in car accidents!

 

How about we step back, take a breath and impose some simple safety rules so the games can go on. They already have weight limitations so no 10 year old kid, bigger/heavier than 99% of kids his age can play with 10 year-olds, he would need to move up into a different age/weight group. How about, no using the helmet as a weapon - you cannot spear yourself toward an opponent, head first (but if you dive toward an opponent, arms outstretched to make a tackle - this would be OK - just no helmet first). Helmets were designed to protect the head - not allow it to become a punishing weapon.

You already can't use the helmet as a weapon but it still happens regularly, so what's your point. Cars do crash but they are also a means of transportation, so your analogy seems flawed to me. If someone does spear and hurt another kid, what would be your solution? A penalty? A suspension? A banning? Really curious about your answer. I think equipment should be re-designed so that helmets and pads cause less impact. I also believe that until that time that keeping your kids out of the game is the sane thing to do. I love football and want it to stay but it is heading in a bad direction. These studies make it clear that more and more kids are getting seriously hurt at younger and younger ages. These are facts. They are not opinions. The fact that you and I did not get hurt playing as kids is anecdotal. On a side note, hockey concussions are also way up. This is because people skate faster, they are bigger and impact is therefore more forceful. Making it even worse is the equipment is now used as a lethal weapon. Scott Stevens, a great defenseman, but a true creep, purposely used his shoulder pads to injure opposing players. He handed out loads of concussions this way. When I played college hockey the pads were more leather than plastic and we got hurt far less often than players today.

[TheZone78]

Another idiot politician that thinks the masses are too dumb and stupid to decide and choose their own actions for themselves. Stop infringing on my personal liberties A$$!

 

Where's the tylenol?

[CodeMonkey]

I see where they are coming from. They are trying to protect kids from their parents boneheaded decisions. Parents should know better but they do not.

Government cannot legislate every common sense issue and at some point have to allow parents to be parents, right or wrong. What is really a shame is the fact that doctors (plural, not just one) who are the experts say it's a bad thing to allow head contact at a young age. But the parents need to live vicariously through their kids to the point of risking their kids future.

[PaattMaann]

well compared to football in other states, NY youth/school football sucks mightily anyway, so does it really matter??? haha

 

law will never pass, so no worries

[BisonMan]

This is a very interesting topic. A few points come to mind.

• The "we did X as kids and nothing happened to me" argument is, IMHO, stupid. I didn't wear helmets while biking. I didn't wear seat-belts and always sat in the front seat as a kid. I cleaned the gutters on my parents house by leaning over while on the roof of a two-story home. They were all stupid things that my parents allowed me to do out of their own ignorance and/or where common practice. That doesn't mean we should follow those practices. We know better today and act differently. Most of this is codified in law to protect kids from stupid parents...who still exist.
  
• Parents are not the final arbiters of their children's health. The law often requires parents to do things (i.e. vaccines, seat-belts, etc.) for/to their kids regardless of their personal feelings because children cannot protect themselves from stupid parents. Kids are also prevented from engaging in activities that we know are harmful (i.e. smoking) regardless of what their parents think.
  
• Football, in most cases, is not a private activity. Most youth football involves the use of tax-payer funded fields and subsidies that pay for equipment, etc. and that cost is not insignificant for some areas. The public has a right to decide how public facilities should be used and funded.
  
• If there is documented evidence that football is harmful for youth players, then society has an interest in stopping that activity. This is the one point that I don't believe has been crossed definitively. However, none of us have problems with kids not being able to engage in skydiving because the stats bear out how dangerous it is.
  
• Banning football doesn't keep kids from doing other physical activity. Football is almost unseen in most of the rest of the world and yet we lead the league in childhood obesity. Equating a single sport to youth activity is not a reasonable argument.
  
• Lastly, the "slippery slope" argument. I've been involved in public policy for many years. Every action by government is a "slippery slope". Stopping people from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is an infringement on free speech that we gladly accept but can be seen as a start of censorship on the way to "speech control", blah, blah, blah. Speeding laws will lead to a ban on cars. Anti-stalking legislation leads to street checkpoints for everyone. The list goes on and on. Every law exists on a continuum. Argue the facts of the law, not where it could "lead". All laws "lead" to totalitarianism so we should have no laws?
  

My 2 cents.

[Turbosrrgood]

ehhhh...

 

im about as anti-government as you can get without being taken away in the night, but this seems like an adequete use of governmental resources.

 

pee wee kids cant make an informed decision.

 

should be flag or 2 hand touch until let's say, freshman year of high school? or maybe the varsity team could be tackle?

 

i guess i just dont see whats wrong with outlawing something among 6 year olds?

 

Maybe we should ban kids from riding tricycles too, they've caused many a bumped head or skinned knee. Big Wheels and Radio flyers too...Actually, lets just lock all kids in a padded room until they are 18, just to be on the safe side.

 

What's wrong with outlawing something like this? I'll tell you, someone wanting to make decisions for other people based on their own controversial opinion. Let the parents and their kids make their own decisions.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Turbosrrgood

[peterpan]

ehhhh...

 

im about as anti-government as you can get without being taken away in the night, but this seems like an adequete use of governmental resources.

 

pee wee kids cant make an informed decision.

 

should be flag or 2 hand touch until let's say, freshman year of high school? or maybe the varsity team could be tackle?

 

i guess i just dont see whats wrong with outlawing something among 6 year olds?

 

Im sorry but its simply not possible for the first bold to be true if the second bold is also going to be true.

 

The fact that an idividual as dumb as this politican has made his way into the NY Congress is a very scary thought and just another reason to leave NYS.

 

I actually fell out of two trees as a kid. Weird, huh? Think I would have learned my lesson the first time.

 

Suffered a concussion both times. First time, I was hanging on a branch and it broke. Hit the back of my head on a rock wall. Never forget the sound I heard--like a baseball unwinding at super speed past my ears. The second time, I literally fell out of a tree and hit the back of my head (again!) on a branch. Much more of a mild concussion. Should we ban tree climbing?

 

Played tight end as a pee wee. Don't ever recall hurting anything that didn't feel fine within a few hours.

 

CUT DOWN ALL THE TREESSSSSSS

Edited February 14, 2013 by peterpan

[CodeMonkey]

I was going to make a point of the state prohibiting consumption of alcohol by a minor to protect the kids. But it seems these states allow under age drinking in non alcohol-selling premises with parental consent. Note that NY is among them so if NY won't protect kids from alcohol damage if the parents think it's OK why would they for football.

 

Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming

[Fan in San Diego]

I see your point. Just don't buy it.

 

There simply comes a point when human beings should be human beings and not part of some regulated collective. This term "public" is a dangerously loaded word. When we give up rights simply because something is public we will end up giving up more.

 

You are saying because a kid might hurt himself on "public" property the public has a right to prevent him from performing the activity that might cause the injury. That's a slippery slope if I ever did see one.

 

For your safety or for our safety is the slipperiest slope that exists in America. We have lost many personal freedoms in the name of safety. If society really wants to be safe, then ban cars, cigarette's, cigars, motorcycles, alcohol, sex and every other thing known to cause human health issues. The question is, where do you draw the line of personal freedom and choice versus public safety. When California banned 3 wheel vehicles I knew then that we were starting down this slippery slope. Click it or ticket is another good example. Red light cameras is another example, although I suspect they are merely revenue generators in the name of safety.

[Turbosrrgood]

I was going to make a point of the state prohibiting consumption of alcohol by a minor to protect the kids. But it seems these states allow under age drinking in non alcohol-selling premises with parental consent. Note that NY is among them so if NY won't protect kids from alcohol damage if the parents think it's OK why would they for football.

 

Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming

 

While I agree that this is an example of why laws like the one suggested should never be passed, I think you are misrepresenting the law in suggesting that kids are somehow allowed to be legally harmed by alcohol.

 

Actually there are plenty of child neglect laws that would protect kids against damage of any kind, including alcohol. Allowing a teenager to have a glass of wine at a religious dinner for instance, is not the same as a kid going to the hospital with alcohol poisoning or suffering any proven harm. The law IS however, a good example of letting parents make reasonable decisions for their family as opposed to having some politicians make the decision for them.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Turbosrrgood

[Nanker]

If it can save just one life - they should ban all athletics.

Think of the children.

[CodeMonkey]

While I agree that this is an example of why laws like the one suggested should never be passed, I think you are misrepresenting the law in suggesting that kids are somehow allowed to be legally harmed by alcohol.

 

Actually there are plenty of child neglect laws that would protect kids against damage of any kind, including alcohol. Allowing a teenager to have a glass of wine at a religious dinner for instance, is not the same as a kid going to the hospital with alcohol poisoning or suffering any proven harm. The law IS however, a good example of letting parents make reasonable decisions for their family.

You raise an interesting point. If a parent allows a kid to drink alcohol to the point of physical damage and they can be arrested for that, could the same case be made for a kid that suffers a brain injury (concussion) from playing tackle football with parental consent? Could child protective laws already on the books come into play here as well?

Edited February 14, 2013 by CodeMonkey

[Turbosrrgood]

You raise an interesting point. If a parent allows a kid to drink alcohol to the point of physical damage and they can be arrested for that, could the same case be made for a kid that suffers a brain injury (concussion) from playing tackle football with parental consent? Could child protective laws already on the books come into play here as well?

 

Yeah that very well could happen. It wouldn't surprise me at all if someone tried that, I'm sure the laws could be twisted to serve that purpose. I would of course be deeply disappointed to see it though.

 

One scenario I could see is if a child got injured playing, while using hand me down equipment provided by the parent. An older helmet for instance, might be considered unsafe compared to newer ones, even if it is approved and allowed by rule.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Turbosrrgood

[The Wiz]

Yeah that very well could happen. It wouldn't surprise me at all if someone tried that, I'm sure the laws could be twisted to serve that purpose. I would of course be deeply disappointed to see it though.

 

One scenario I could see is if a child got injured playing, while using hand me down equipment provided by the parent. An older helmet for instance, might be considered unsafe compared to newer ones, even if it is approved and allowed by rule.

Isn't that the point of parents signing the waiver when they sign their kids up to play sports? Not saying there wouldn't be a parent to try.

[Kemp]

 

 

For your safety or for our safety is the slipperiest slope that exists in America. We have lost many personal freedoms in the name of safety. If society really wants to be safe, then ban cars, cigarette's, cigars, motorcycles, alcohol, sex and every other thing known to cause human health issues. The question is, where do you draw the line of personal freedom and choice versus public safety. When California banned 3 wheel vehicles I knew then that we were starting down this slippery slope. Click it or ticket is another good example. Red light cameras is another example, although I suspect they are merely revenue generators in the name of safety.

Which personal freedoms have we lost? You said there are many. Should 5 year-olds be allowed to drive? Should 3 year-olds be allowed to have alcohol? Many parents are idiots. The fact that they can produce a kid does not make them wise. Society needs some constraints. Slippery slope arguments are always weak to me.

[keepthefaith]

ehhhh...

 

im about as anti-government as you can get without being taken away in the night, but this seems like an adequete use of governmental resources.

 

pee wee kids cant make an informed decision.

 

should be flag or 2 hand touch until let's say, freshman year of high school? or maybe the varsity team could be tackle?

 

i guess i just dont see whats wrong with outlawing something among 6 year olds?

 

I'd argue it's the high schoolers that are more likely to be injured because it's a much faster harder game at that age so let them play tackle until they weigh 100 pounds. After that, touch only. We should probably outlaw kids riding in cars too. Many are injured in accidents and they can't make their own decision to go with their parents or not.

Edited February 14, 2013 by keepthefaith

[PaattMaann]

Which personal freedoms have we lost? You said there are many. Should 5 year-olds be allowed to drive? Should 3 year-olds be allowed to have alcohol? Many parents are idiots. The fact that they can produce a kid does not make them wise. Society needs some constraints. Slippery slope arguments are always weak to me.

 

yes 5 year olds should be allowed to drive, if they can pass a road tet

 

and yes 3 year olds should be allowed to have alcohol - if they are old enought to breathe, they are old enough to booze!!

 

 

but seriously....what personal freedoms have we lost? well in new york we are currently losing a historically protected constitutional freedom, we have lost numerous freedoms in the name of national safety (read the Patriot Act), we are losing the right to privacy more and more each day (not just by our own choices such as facebook and other social networking sites where we share way to much - but to things such as publishing pistol permit holders addresses in the newspaper, companies getting access to phone numbers and shopping records, etc.)....im not saying all or some are good or bad, simply stating they are freedoms we are losing, and losing more every day, all in the name of "safety"...some of these changes may in fact have made us safer or are making us safer, and some may be over stepping their bounds

 

we are still one of the only countries that continues to punish people for crimes against themselves (possession/use of drugs for instance) - not to mention, the drug/substance that ACTUALLY kills more people than everything else combined is perfectly legal and funds every major political campaign (Tobacco/cigarettes)

 

this country is, and has been, changing for some time now at the hands of the government- and not necessarily to the benefit of the people who they are supposed to be representing

 

(side note: I still love America and all of our freedoms....simply making observations)

[Just in Atlanta]

Which personal freedoms have we lost? You said there are many. Should 5 year-olds be allowed to drive? Should 3 year-olds be allowed to have alcohol? Many parents are idiots. The fact that they can produce a kid does not make them wise. Society needs some constraints. Slippery slope arguments are always weak to me.

 

I'd list freedoms lost--but if you don't see that we're losing freedoms exponentially, which we are, you'd never admit to anything. I could say NY banned yellow shirts, and you'd probably "yeah but."

 

5 year olds can't drive--because they're five!--and would harm others.

 

Giving a 3 year old alcohol could be construed as child abuse--because their bodies can't handle it. I'd also say there comes a point when a parent should be allowed to give their kid a beer if that is his world view.

 

Letting a kid play a game with other kids is a personal choice.

 

Yes, many parents are idiots. And your solution to that is empowering even bigger idiots (politicians) to take all of our freedoms away?

 

If you want constraints in your life, great. Please don't force your world view of what you think ought to be constrained down my throat through some douchebag politician. Assuming my future kid wants to play, I will be letting him play, regardless of what you, or Assemblyman Benedetto, believe.

[CodeMonkey]

Giving a 3 year old alcohol could be construed as child abuse--because their bodies can't handle it.

Some, like many doctors for example, would say that a 5 year olds body (head particularly) can't handle wearing a football helmet and pads and letting them play tackle football.

Edited February 14, 2013 by CodeMonkey

[Just in Atlanta]

Some, like many doctors for example, would say that a 5 year olds body (head particularly) can't handle wearing a football helmet and pads and letting them play tackle football.

Doctors also say kids should exercise every single day and floss twice daily. Should we mandate that too?