OT: California moves closer to becoming first state to ban tackle football for kids under 12
- Thread starter BROTHERSKINNY
- Start date
- Status
It’s not necessarily a bad thing to have the kids start with flag and move to tackle later. I don’t know if 12 years old is the correct age or maybe 10. The biggest issue in all youth sports is proper training and teaching correct methods.
It’s easier for a high school coach to teach an athletic kid who never played before compared to fixing a kid who has played for 5 years and was taught incorrectly.
It’s easier for a high school coach to teach an athletic kid who never played before compared to fixing a kid who has played for 5 years and was taught incorrectly.
Maybe I can get the political posts down by discussing the low gasoline prices in NJ and the record high domestic oil production.that is not happening, shitting is encouraged on most streets in CA
I think you might be a little off base. At least in my experience with my son.
I know things have changed in the past 20 years but there was waaaay to much hitting drills in Pop Warner (starting at age 8). Lots of helmet-to-helmet contact. In his experience (and I observed), there was less hitting in practice in high school and even less in college.
As for skills, football does seem like the one sport where good athletes just pick it up and excel even in high school.
Yes pretty boy Gavin Newsome is wealthy, narcissistic , a manipulator and doesn’t try to hide it. The general public is beneath him but still the voting public would re elect him again somehow believing his policies work.
Some will cry that this is liberal California but I know a couple of youth coaches who are most definitely not leftists and both agree that tackle football should happen at later ages. One advocates for 7th and 8th grade should be when tackling should happen. So I guess that's around 12-13, right?
And why is that? Only for one simple reason. Only going to take one incident to change your bright and cheery outlook😜
Ultimately, I don't have a strong opinion about it. Thanks for your insights.
There are many …. It is what politics has always been. Manipulation, narcissism, hood winking the public … starts at the lowest levels and the more $$$$ the better the chance to become one of those.
I'll withhold comment on people posting political nonsense here other than say if it's so important, go to the CE board. Follow the rules.
Now back to the subject. If tackle football were banned to over 12 when I played, most of my football career highlights wouldn't have happened.😆
Now back to the subject. If tackle football were banned to over 12 when I played, most of my football career highlights wouldn't have happened.😆
The list on both extremes of the political spectrum runs long. But we understand your biases. Enjoy.
For the rest - back to the subject - seeing the brain science of this still in its relative nascent stages. This may be a good rule as brains are still developing at the young age.
Low? LOLz
Maybe compared to California
But Nothing like there was the years pre JB
Per Gas Buddy, yeah prices still remain high. You have to throw out the COVID era prices because it’s an unfair comparison but on 1/12/20, gas was $2.58 per gallon on avg in NJ. Today the NJ avg is around $2.95, I believe.
Now do 2019
It’s silly to try to “win” your point when we all know it was lower then compared to now
2019 started with gas prices around 2.30 but rose to almost 2.90 by April, before dropping down to around 2.55 where it bounced around a few cents here or there until COVID when prices started to bottom out.
sounds like you're talking about Trump
my playground career would have been over before it started because organized football had benches for those with my football skills 😁
LOL. I am simply providing facts and actually agreeing with you. Gas prices are still higher than they were a few years ago. So I wouldn't be spiking the ball on "low gas prices" like the poster was saying.
Rubbed dirt in the wounds and walked one mile to school uphill in the snow and barefoot while pulling a sled full of classmates.
We have to try to avoid these grumpy old man arguments. This isn't the 50s and 60s thankfully. Neither the 1950s nor the 1850s. Science has advanced and we're more aware of the dangers of head injuries and how they impact child development.
You may have been lucky to lose a tooth but kids out there have had worse and more serious lifelong effects from severe injuries.
Not sure if this was mentioned, but they did change the proposed bill this week from the original first paragraph below to what's in the new italicized second paragraph. It softens the bill slightly.
"On and after January 1, 2026, a youth sports organization that conducts a tackle football program, or a youth tackle football league, shall not allow a person younger than 12 years of age to be a youth tackle football participant through the organization or league."
"If passed, the ban would be gradually phased in, prohibiting children under 6 starting in 2025, under 10 in 2027 and those under 12 in 2029."
"On and after January 1, 2026, a youth sports organization that conducts a tackle football program, or a youth tackle football league, shall not allow a person younger than 12 years of age to be a youth tackle football participant through the organization or league."
"If passed, the ban would be gradually phased in, prohibiting children under 6 starting in 2025, under 10 in 2027 and those under 12 in 2029."
wait you need to be a redneck by being offended that the government thinks it can tell me wehn my sone can play tackle football?
Puberty blockers are fine, can cut your cock off but can't play football.
If so, I'm damn glad to be a redneck
No Obama , Clinton’s , Bushes, Biden, Trump… all of them…anyone using John’s Hopkins Medical ? Great example of what this country has become.
Many parents would let their young kids smoke cigs, drive and buy guns too, so sometimes you have to regulate.
I understand that, and there’s definitely two sides of the coin. It’s just that with everything California has going on negatively, I figured they would have a lot more priorities to fix than this.
One thing has nothing to do with the other. Seems reasonable to me, with no down side. Aspiring football players aren’t going to pursue swimming instead due to this were it to pass.
They were able to clean up the one area of San Francisco, because the president of China was coming in, and they admitted that’s why they did it.
You’re going to tell me that they can’t continue to do that to San Francisco, and Los Angeles as well, and that does that doesn’t take priority over this law?
How many kids will this be affecting versus how many people are negatively affected by the shit holes that both San Fran and LA have become
I’m saying that passing one law doesn’t have anything to do with another unless constrained by resources. How many billions would this football law cost the taxpayers of California (no need to answer) ?
- Status
