TERRY COLUMN: Using your head on concussions

A short opinion piece caused a big issue in the sports world this week.

Titled “Don’t Let Kids Play Football,” the headline of the New York Times op-ed was enough to grab the country’s attention by itself.

The article is written by Dr. Bennet Omalu, a forensic pathologist who helped discover the effects of concussions in causing brain diseases and the subject of the upcoming movie “Concussion”. It lays out a simple suggestion that we treat high-impact contact sports like football, known to cause concussions and brain injuries, like we do tobacco and alcohol, restricting them to adults old enough to understand the consequences of their actions. Like with alcohol and tobacco, science has progressed enough to prove that concussions are dangerous and can cause serious long-term problems, and as we have in the past, we should progress as a society to help better the lives of our children.

The piece is focused on football, timing nicely with release of the Hollywood movie on the subject this weekend and the NFL and college football in the midst of their seasons, but also considers other sports like hockey, and fight sports like boxing and mixed martial arts just as harmful to teenagers and young kids.

Omalu credits studies that say the human brain doesn’t become fully developed until 18 to 25 years old, and that once damaged, the brain does not heal itself. His argument concludes that adults shouldn’t be allowed to make the decision to play sports for a child, given that it could result in life-altering consequences for a person that doesn’t have a full grasp of the danger involved.

At its face, it’s a credible argument from a revered source making a reasoned case for safety in our society. It’s like asking for seat belts in cars. He likens it to no longer using asbestos.

It makes sense.

But, when it comes to sports, sense isn’t always wanted.

The reaction to the article has drudged up a lot of the old arguments: that the younger generations are soft, that it’s the unathletic or those who never played sports making the argument, even that the article and the science that comes with it is part of an overarching “War on Football” that is trying to kill off the U.S.’s most popular sport.

That conclusion goes a little far. Nothing is killing off football as long as there are still millions willing to fill stadiums and watch on television. There will always be kids that want to play the sport and ways for them to play safely. And while there may be a few people that are outright looking to get rid of what they see as a barbaric sport, most people suggesting changes to youth football are just looking out for the health and safety of a younger generation.

It’s those solutions, the ones that would make the learning and development of the sport safer, that are worth looking into.

For instance, should tackle football below the high school level be substituted with flag football or a skeleton version like 7-on-7? That solution still allows kids to learn the sport and its fundamentals without the long-term effects of high impact.

In high school, should sub-varsity games have snap limits for players or restrictions on contact? Does dumbing down the sport make it less fun or instructional?

The safety of the game has changed in the past, not ruining the final product. Helmets and pads were added. Facemasks were instituted. Once those were in place, rules to prevent those safety items from being misused were instituted like facemask calls, and calls against spearing or horse-collar tackles. Chop blocks, clotheslines and head slaps were banned. Field goal posts were moved to the back of the end zones.

Alternatives to tackle football for younger ages aren’t completely out of mind and could help keep football viable for the future.

It doesn’t hurt to look into and try ways to make the game safer for the future. The only problem arises when stubbornness overrides common sense.