If you’re like most American football fans, you saw the ads for “Concussion” during the commercial breaks of NFL games this past season.
You probably didn’t actually see the movie – just the ads. Like Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman said, we “see a concussion movie every Sunday.”
It was a lot more fun back in the old days, when announcers joked about a guy getting his “bell rung” and then waited for him to stop seeing stars so he could re-enter the game. Fans now cringe at the big hits, well aware that athletes are putting their future mental health at risk.
There’s growing research that football concussions are even more damaging to younger athletes, which prompted our latest poll on HeraldNet.com: At what age should kids be allowed to play?
Most said they are still fine with kids playing the game. Thirty percent said kids 11 and younger should be allowed. Another 28 percent said 12-14 should be the minimum age. That adds up to a solid majority who are OK with kids taking bone-jarring hits before high school.
Nineteen percent said 15-17 is the right age range to start. That would make pee-wee leagues a thing of the past. Eleven percent said 18 should be the minimum, which would end the sport in high school, but would have the benefit of ending the distasteful business of college football recruiting.
And lastly, 12 percent said they’d ban football for safety’s sake. To them I ask, what are we supposed to do with our autumn weekends without football? Tackle our honey-do lists? Some of us need a reason to get up in the morning.
So far, a lot of young people still want to play football, and hopefully science will make the game safer. Let’s hope that happens before our best athletes catch on to the science and go play video games instead.
— Doug Parry, @parryracer
Next, we want to know your opinion on a family leave bill sponsored by state Rep. June Robinson of Everett.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
