Time to end it

[Fat Bruno]

Oh, was that your ass? Fortunately someone pointed that out ... and, here, I thought it was you smiling without the benefit of your moldy dentures.

 

[coyote]

Oh, was that your ass? Fortunately someone pointed that out ... and, here, I thought it was you smiling without the benefit of your moldy dentures.

That's the way to tell me! Great Brains!!

 

[AZGrizFan]

Parents in possession of this knowledge would be remiss in not considering it very seriously in making decisions for their kids. That is the issue, not legislation. A responsible parent would not need legislation.

A "responsible" parent could have figured it out without the aid of some stupid study. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that running full speed into other human beings repeatedly probably isn't good for the body in general, or the head in particular. Hence why I "never played the game". :butt:

So, this genius basically agrees with me, but doesn't agree, because, you know, watching football is all he's got left. That's the kind of muddled mudhead we need making these decisions. But, in reality, without findings like this, people DON'T KNOW these things ... or are easily gulled into ignoring their suspicions.

What. The. Actual. Fuck. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Fat Bruno]

Parents in possession of this knowledge would be remiss in not considering it very seriously in making decisions for their kids. That is the issue, not legislation. A responsible parent would not need legislation.

A "responsible" parent could have figured it out without the aid of some stupid study. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that running full speed into other human beings repeatedly probably isn't good for the body in general, or the head in particular. Hence why I "never played the game". :butt:

So, this genius basically agrees with me, but doesn't agree, because, you know, watching football is all he's got left. That's the kind of muddled mudhead we need making these decisions. But, in reality, without findings like this, people DON'T KNOW these things ... or are easily gulled into ignoring their suspicions.

What. The. Actual. f***. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Pretending to say something again? Btw, nobody says guns kill people by themselves ... they say it makes it easy for people to kill people ... and to kill more people. You know, the way your little motto makes it easier to identify you as a moron.

 

[AZGrizFan]

A "responsible" parent could have figured it out without the aid of some stupid study. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that running full speed into other human beings repeatedly probably isn't good for the body in general, or the head in particular. Hence why I "never played the game". :butt:

So, this genius basically agrees with me, but doesn't agree, because, you know, watching football is all he's got left. That's the kind of muddled mudhead we need making these decisions. But, in reality, without findings like this, people DON'T KNOW these things ... or are easily gulled into ignoring their suspicions.

What. The. Actual. f***. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Pretending to say something again? Btw, nobody says guns kill people by themselves ... they say it makes it easy for people to kill people ... and to kill more people. You know, the way your little motto makes it easier to identify you as a moron.

I'm sorry I stole your girlfriend in high school, dude. She wasn't that good, though. So you should probably thank me.

 

[Fat Bruno]

So, this genius basically agrees with me, but doesn't agree, because, you know, watching football is all he's got left. That's the kind of muddled mudhead we need making these decisions. But, in reality, without findings like this, people DON'T KNOW these things ... or are easily gulled into ignoring their suspicions.

What. The. Actual. f***. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Pretending to say something again? Btw, nobody says guns kill people by themselves ... they say it makes it easy for people to kill people ... and to kill more people. You know, the way your little motto makes it easier to identify you as a moron.

I'm sorry I stole your girlfriend in high school, dude. She wasn't that good, though. So you should probably thank me.

Oh, I do thank you, dewd ... apparently she gave you the syphilis that ate your tiny brain ... I was smart enough not to touch her.

 

[AZGrizFan]

What. The. Actual. f***. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Pretending to say something again? Btw, nobody says guns kill people by themselves ... they say it makes it easy for people to kill people ... and to kill more people. You know, the way your little motto makes it easier to identify you as a moron.

I'm sorry I stole your girlfriend in high school, dude. She wasn't that good, though. So you should probably thank me.

Oh, I do thank you, dewd ... apparently she gave you the syphilis that ate your tiny brain ... I was smart enough not to touch her.

Yep. It's confirmed. Your genes definitely came from the shallow end of the pool.

 

[ordigger]

No one is holding a gun to their head making anyone play.

This same statement could've been made 50 years ago in regard to the tobacco industry. Football is in trouble as we know it. The decline has begun from participation at a young age to a drop in ratings. For football the problem is, its truly an American game....and very few countries can produce talent to play at the next level. That is not true for baseball, hockey, basketball and of course, soccer.

We won't see it but within 50 years, baseball, basketball and soccer will reign supreme. Hockey and football fading away due to safety issues.

 

[Topey711]

So, what does this have to do with either the Grizz, or FCS football? I keep checking, and the Forum heading and it doesn't say youth football on it. I guess you could reach and say that if all tackle football for anyone under 18 is banned then there won't be anyone left to play college ball.

 

[Fat Bruno]

Pretending to say something again? Btw, nobody says guns kill people by themselves ... they say it makes it easy for people to kill people ... and to kill more people. You know, the way your little motto makes it easier to identify you as a moron.

I'm sorry I stole your girlfriend in high school, dude. She wasn't that good, though. So you should probably thank me.

Oh, I do thank you, dewd ... apparently she gave you the syphilis that ate your tiny brain ... I was smart enough not to touch her.

Yep. It's confirmed. Your genes definitely came from the shallow end of the pool.

There's one no one has heard before. You've got to be the tritest old fool to post in the last 20 minutes.

 

[Umista]

Fats must be worried about girls soccer. More head injurys than boys football? So I took my girls out of soccer and put them in swiming and one fell off the diving board on to the damn concrete. The other is a champion swimmer. The girl that fell quit swiming and is now into formal spelling contests.

I'd rather both of them played football.

 

[UMGriz75]

Well, at the risk of entering into something on egriz that likely cannot be civil, no matter what ...

It's been a long time ago in our sport, nearly 25 years, but there was a concern about concussions in children. We established a study, including pediatric neurologists, sport specialists, the neuropathology specialist at that time from the NIH, and officials with deep knowledge of the sport and rule implications based on long experience in the sport.

These are questions we felt we had to answer.

1) Was there an inherent risk?
2) Were children more susceptible to the risk?
3) Was that risk such that as parents became more aware and educated, that they would view the sport negatively and reduce the participation pool?
4) Was the risk of lower juniors participation a risk to the ability to field competitive collegiate teams nationally and internationally?
5) If there was a risk, could it be minimized by changes in the rules and still preserve the fundamental purpose of the sport (the "Central Test")?
6) What should those rule changes be?
7) Would the rule changes be effective and reassure parents?
8) Could we keep the sport growing at the junior level by demonstrating competent evaluation and response to parental concerns, and preserve and grow the athlete pool at the collegiate level?
9) Did we change the rules?

The answers were "yes," except for #6, in which we spent the better part of 18 months devising the changes. Everyone was happy, and the kids were safer.

Much like the "targeting" rule change in football, none of the changes impacted the inherent purpose or practice of the sport; but they reassured parents, and did make the sport safer for the kids. Mission accomplished.

 

[Fat Bruno]

Fats must be worried about girls soccer. More head injurys than boys football? So I took my girls out of soccer and put them in swiming and one fell off the diving board on to the damn concrete. The other is a champion swimmer. The girl that fell quit swiming and is now into formal spelling contests.

I'd rather both of them played football.

Given your inability to think logically, I think you would rather they played football, and that you played too much of it, too early.

 

[Fat Bruno]

Well, at the risk of entering into something on egriz that likely cannot be civil, no matter what ...

It's been a long time ago in our sport, nearly 25 years, but there was a concern about concussions in children. We established a study, including pediatric neurologists, sport specialists, the neuropathology specialist at that time from the NIH, and officials with deep knowledge of the sport and rule implications based on long experience in the sport.

These are questions we felt we had to answer.

1) Was there an inherent risk?
2) Were children more susceptible to the risk?
3) Was that risk such that as parents became more aware and educated, that they would view the sport negatively and reduce the participation pool?
4) Was the risk of lower juniors participation a risk to the ability to field competitive collegiate teams nationally and internationally?
5) If there was a risk, could it be minimized by changes in the rules and still preserve the fundamental purpose of the sport (the "Central Test")?
6) What should those rule changes be?
7) Would the rule changes be effective and reassure parents?
8) Could we keep the sport growing at the junior level by demonstrating competent evaluation and response to parental concerns, and preserve and grow the athlete pool at the collegiate level?
9) Did we change the rules?

The answers were "yes," except for #6, in which we spent the better part of 18 months devising the changes. Everyone was happy, and the kids were safer.

Much like the "targeting" rule change in football, none of the changes impacted the inherent purpose or practice of the sport; but they reassured parents, and did make the sport safer for the kids. Mission accomplished.

Obviously, the mission was not accomplished as this study demonstrates, nor did it ever accomplish even close to the necessary diminution of concussions. The problem with these kinds of partially successful measures is that they just give a false sense of security and encourage another generation of damaged minds. And those damaged minds run into the tens of thousands given how many kids play foot ball. Of course, the last place you're going to get a rational or objective discussion of this issue is on a fan board.

 

[GrizGuy]

And so the complete emasculation of men will continue.

You know - America used to produce men. Men who played football in leather helmets. They won World Wars and made America great.

We are moving toward gender-integrated professional flag football.

No, we're not. Jeeze, let's see if we can have an adult discussion about a legit issue. A real man doesn't need to literally destroy his brain to prove his manliness. For chrissakes, it's worth a discussion at least. If nobody cared about the young people playing the game, we wouldn't get research and potential equipment improvements like this story indicates are being pursued: http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailtracy/2016/02/04/nfl-cte-football-concussions-injuries-helmet-vicis-zero1-super-bowl/#3e9e7ab759c5

 

[SoldierGriz]

And so the complete emasculation of men will continue.

You know - America used to produce men. Men who played football in leather helmets. They won World Wars and made America great.

We are moving toward gender-integrated professional flag football.

No, we're not. Jeeze, let's see if we can have an adult discussion about a legit issue. A real man doesn't need to literally destroy his brain to prove his manliness. For chrissakes, it's worth a discussion at least. If nobody cared about the young people playing the game, we wouldn't get research and potential equipment improvements like this story indicates are being pursued: http://www.forbes.com/sites/abigailtracy/2016/02/04/nfl-cte-football-concussions-injuries-helmet-vicis-zero1-super-bowl/#3e9e7ab759c5

I have no problem with this issue. I applaud the equipment advances. Our military is leading the way on much of this advancement to prevent TBI. I just question what we are doing to the young men in our softened society. Trust me ---I have led young men for dozens of years. Let's just say....they are not getting tougher. We value this "manliness" you speak of far less today than in the past.

Since this is a football discussion...I'll bow out of this conversation as frankly my point is not germane to the OP.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Well, at the risk of entering into something on egriz that likely cannot be civil, no matter what ...

It's been a long time ago in our sport, nearly 25 years, but there was a concern about concussions in children. We established a study, including pediatric neurologists, sport specialists, the neuropathology specialist at that time from the NIH, and officials with deep knowledge of the sport and rule implications based on long experience in the sport.

These are questions we felt we had to answer.

1) Was there an inherent risk?
2) Were children more susceptible to the risk?
3) Was that risk such that as parents became more aware and educated, that they would view the sport negatively and reduce the participation pool?
4) Was the risk of lower juniors participation a risk to the ability to field competitive collegiate teams nationally and internationally?
5) If there was a risk, could it be minimized by changes in the rules and still preserve the fundamental purpose of the sport (the "Central Test")?
6) What should those rule changes be?
7) Would the rule changes be effective and reassure parents?
8) Could we keep the sport growing at the junior level by demonstrating competent evaluation and response to parental concerns, and preserve and grow the athlete pool at the collegiate level?
9) Did we change the rules?

The answers were "yes," except for #6, in which we spent the better part of 18 months devising the changes. Everyone was happy, and the kids were safer.

Much like the "targeting" rule change in football, none of the changes impacted the inherent purpose or practice of the sport; but they reassured parents, and did make the sport safer for the kids. Mission accomplished.

Obviously, the mission was not accomplished as this study demonstrates, nor did it ever accomplish even close to the necessary diminution of concussions. The problem with these kinds of partially successful measures is that they just give a false sense of security and encourage another generation of damaged minds. And those damaged minds run into the tens of thousands given how many kids play foot ball. Of course, the last place you're going to get a rational or objective discussion of this issue is on a fan board.

Which fits right in with YOUR agenda, since the last thing YOU appear to want is a rational or objective discussion. You immediately shit on anyone who's opinion differs from your own with insults, put downs and personal attacks. Frankly, I wonder how you're still here posting and not banned.

 

[PhxGriz]

No one is holding a gun to their head making anyone play.

I hear football is still worse than this!

 

[OmegaGRIZ]

Pretending to say something again? Btw, nobody says guns kill people by themselves ... they say it makes it easy for people to kill people ... and to kill more people. You know, the way your little motto makes it easier to identify you as a moron.

I'm sorry I stole your girlfriend in high school, dude. She wasn't that good, though. So you should probably thank me.

Oh, I do thank you, dewd ... apparently she gave you the syphilis that ate your tiny brain ... I was smart enough not to touch her.

Yep. It's confirmed. Your genes definitely came from the shallow end of the pool.

His pool is empty, typical douche trying to force things on other people.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Fat Bruno]

Well, at the risk of entering into something on egriz that likely cannot be civil, no matter what ...

It's been a long time ago in our sport, nearly 25 years, but there was a concern about concussions in children. We established a study, including pediatric neurologists, sport specialists, the neuropathology specialist at that time from the NIH, and officials with deep knowledge of the sport and rule implications based on long experience in the sport.

These are questions we felt we had to answer.

1) Was there an inherent risk?
2) Were children more susceptible to the risk?
3) Was that risk such that as parents became more aware and educated, that they would view the sport negatively and reduce the participation pool?
4) Was the risk of lower juniors participation a risk to the ability to field competitive collegiate teams nationally and internationally?
5) If there was a risk, could it be minimized by changes in the rules and still preserve the fundamental purpose of the sport (the "Central Test")?
6) What should those rule changes be?
7) Would the rule changes be effective and reassure parents?
8) Could we keep the sport growing at the junior level by demonstrating competent evaluation and response to parental concerns, and preserve and grow the athlete pool at the collegiate level?
9) Did we change the rules?

The answers were "yes," except for #6, in which we spent the better part of 18 months devising the changes. Everyone was happy, and the kids were safer.

Much like the "targeting" rule change in football, none of the changes impacted the inherent purpose or practice of the sport; but they reassured parents, and did make the sport safer for the kids. Mission accomplished.

Obviously, the mission was not accomplished as this study demonstrates, nor did it ever accomplish even close to the necessary diminution of concussions. The problem with these kinds of partially successful measures is that they just give a false sense of security and encourage another generation of damaged minds. And those damaged minds run into the tens of thousands given how many kids play foot ball. Of course, the last place you're going to get a rational or objective discussion of this issue is on a fan board.

Which fits right in with YOUR agenda, since the last thing YOU appear to want is a rational or objective discussion. You immediately shit on anyone who's opinion differs from your own with insults, put downs and personal attacks. Frankly, I wonder how you're still here posting and not banned.

Yeah, because we're going to get a rational discussion from some infantile head case who thinks it's ok to damage 8 year old kid's brains as long as no one is "holding a gun to their head!!!!! Sorry, buddy, but I have to admit that I don't attempt to hold rational discussions with people that demented. Yours was not an opinion; it was a disgusting blurt from a defensive fan who cares about nothing but his piss soaked arm chair, his beer and his smudged copy of Football for Dummies.