The fact that this even is being debated, makes my blood boil. You of course have the usual head trauma but also at that age, it can cause heart arrhythmia
While I think there is no reason for them to be playing tackle football and support the ban, “kids can get hurt” is an argument that is often used to discourage things that are actually beneficial to children. Like restricting free play, because of something like some kid might get a bump because another kid is going up the slide the wrong. Free play is good. Risk is good. Even getting a bit hurt can be good because you learn from it.
Like the classic example is allowing a kid to play with matches unattended is a bad idea because they can get burned. But teaching a child how to build a fire is a good, even though they can get burned, because they are learning something useful.
So it’s good there is a robust debate about it and where that line should be.
The difference is this for official competition. There’s a big difference between a casual game in the yard and constantly playing full contact every day for competition.
Sure, I understand that there is a difference, which is why I support the ban. I just think it’s good that there is a healthy debate on where to draw the line; I’m glad we don’t just all say “you’re right” when someone screams “but what about the children!?”
I encourage my kids to take risks all the time, I think it’s extremely important to have them learning things in life that are inherently risky, especially if they are very necessary (knife skills always comes to mind, because my mother in law freaks out when I let the kids use the sharp knives to cut their own food. Lol). And if I’m there to guide them on how to mitigate the risk, all the better.
The fact that this even is being debated, makes my blood boil. You of course have the usual head trauma but also at that age, it can cause heart arrhythmia
While I think there is no reason for them to be playing tackle football and support the ban, “kids can get hurt” is an argument that is often used to discourage things that are actually beneficial to children. Like restricting free play, because of something like some kid might get a bump because another kid is going up the slide the wrong. Free play is good. Risk is good. Even getting a bit hurt can be good because you learn from it.
Like the classic example is allowing a kid to play with matches unattended is a bad idea because they can get burned. But teaching a child how to build a fire is a good, even though they can get burned, because they are learning something useful.
So it’s good there is a robust debate about it and where that line should be.
The difference is this for official competition. There’s a big difference between a casual game in the yard and constantly playing full contact every day for competition.
Sure, I understand that there is a difference, which is why I support the ban. I just think it’s good that there is a healthy debate on where to draw the line; I’m glad we don’t just all say “you’re right” when someone screams “but what about the children!?”
Encouraging kids to dive at each other head first at full speed is way beyond that line.
When the risk is being actively encouraged, that’s a problem.
I encourage my kids to take risks all the time, I think it’s extremely important to have them learning things in life that are inherently risky, especially if they are very necessary (knife skills always comes to mind, because my mother in law freaks out when I let the kids use the sharp knives to cut their own food. Lol). And if I’m there to guide them on how to mitigate the risk, all the better.