good info on concusion research

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/03/health/main591184.shtml

So a company that wants to sell monitoring equipment funds a study, and the study finds that having a monitoring system might help prevent injury.

I'm not saying the study is bogus, but it seems a little less than objective to me. Connect the dots.

I say we appoint a committee to decide.....................

A none biased one.

We could use the league as a test bed:)

In another thread, someone said a college in the northeast was studying former NFL players' brains after they passed on to see the effects of footbal on their brains. That person said we may not like the results of that study. I'm certain that study will be negative toward football. You don't get federal grant money from research which concludes "Don't worry about it boys. You'll be fine. Play ball."

When are we going to get a "like" button?

I have a back ground in the medical field as well as a back ground in safety. After all that is what I get paid to do. It sometimes takes an outside source, another set of eyes so to speak to see things differently. So naturally I am only making some personal observations from the past six man football season and only want to voice my opinion in ways to improve the overall safety of the game and the well being of all the athletes. I do believe that parents, coaches and athletes should be OPEN to suggestions on ways we can improve the safety of the game and provide a safe and enjoyable playing experience for all high school athletes. It is only suggested that the UIL should do a study to see if there is an issue with injuries on these onside kickoffs. I also wanted to know if others have observed what I have and what their thoughts were on the matter. This past year I have seen 3 injuries from onside kicks and fortunately they have ended up being minor. I have made a few of my own observations and one being teams onside kick the ball even when they were winning in the game. An onside kick leaves the player recovering the ball defenseless and open to cheap shots. Why not reduce the number of times this happens by only allowing onside kicks when a team is losing. This will cut back on a lot of onside kicks and therefore reducing any chances of obtaining an injury. Like suggested above (lifegatesports)in getting the referee’s to call the play dead a little quicker might just solve the problem in itself. We all have grown to love the game of football and know it is a contact sport. Statistics from the CDC do show that high school athletes account for an estimated 2 million injuries, 500,000 doctor visits, and 30,000 hospitalizations annually with football having the highest injury rate (4.36 injuries per 1,000 athletes). Research also shows that catastrophic head injuries are 3.28 times more common in high school football players than in college players, because their brains are younger. If it means changing a rule or two to benefit a players health then we should ALL be for it. I love to watch high school football and I am just concerned with what some of these players will have to deal with when they move on from high school football (Lingering knee, head, back, injuries). There is a risk involved in anything we do in life. However I do think it is up to all of us to do everything within our power to make football as safe as possible for all.

@coachjdjones – I guess what I am trying to say is that these are high school students (Young Adults), and not the NFL (Pro’s) The Pro’s are paid well and have the best medical staff there is. The young students have their whole life ahead of them. Who is going to be their 1, 5, 10 years from now or the rest of their lives if they have one of those lingering injuries that follows them out of high school? There is nothing wrong with making the game as safe as possible without taking away from the integrity of the game.

Guess we will play sixman two below football now. Where does it stop!!!!

You make the assumption that it was federal grant money funding the study. Do you know who funded it?

Even if it was federal money, that is no indication whatsoever that the outcome is not biased. Ever heard of the East Anglia University study on global warming?

I think you misunderstood me Rainman. I was saying that the results of the study would be hostile to football. 100% certain. The grants are controlled by the pencilneck liberal educational types who are hostile to anything that has a winner and loser in it. They won't fund anything that is neutral or positive about football in that study. Therefore, the researchers will say that football is more dangerous than swimming in the containment ponds at a damaged Japanese nuclear plant. It's simple economics. Researchers live for grants and their studies will contain results that keep the grants rolling in.

My bad.

It is sad when supposed objective research is contaminated by political pressure.

Or,
when a supposed fan
has a kid that gets injured once.

If you don't want to see cheap shots, hire a coach that will bench a player for taking them. Rule changes like the one being suggested will make the game better for sissys, and worse for true players. It is the coach's responsibility to make sure his players act in a sportsman manner. If he doesn't, or can't, control his players he needs to find another line of work.

Well said Cowboy! Need more people like you.

Jedi, think about that for a little while..............................