(01-22-2019 12:55 AM)ruowls Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 10:26 PM)gsloth Wrote:  Concussions are a major concern in soccer. Two players going to head the same ball is a major source of injuries, particularly with concussions in youth.

Lacrosse also has a very high rate.

There are some interesting studies out there, showing particularly that girls/womens sports have higher rates than equivalent boys/mens sports. The rates between sexes come closer in line the older/more experienced the participants.

That brings up a problem with Title IX. Female athletes have a higher incidence of concussion than males for same activity type in some studies. It basically is saying being female in sport is a greater concussion risk. If they want to get rid of football, then by the same reasoning they need to get rid of female sports because it is “riskier”. Are they going to scrap Title IX because female athletes are more susceptible to concussion than males? Field hockey, ice hockey, soccer, and lacrosse all have concussion rates similar to football on the youth level with baseball and basketball not far behind. This doesn’t even count motor sports or biking or skiing. The youth sport with the greatest loss of participation and injuries requiring surgery is baseball. Are we going to ban it? Sport, like any activity has inherent risk. Life has inherent risk. Where do you draw the line on trying to avoid risk? The attack on football is out of proportion to the risk versus other youth activities. This is going to get messy due to the inherent risk in sports and people trying to make life “less risky”.

The risk of tommy john surgery, even if numerically the same as, say, CTE, carries very different implications for one's life