The recent same-day deaths of two young football players have rekindled a debate about the sport's safety risks.

Ryan Craddock had seen his share of tragedy during two decades as a coal miner and firefighter.

Then came the toughest heartbreak of all: his own.

Craddock and his family are mourning the loss of his 13-year-old son, Cohen, who died from brain trauma last month after making a tackle during football practice at his middle school.

Cohen’s death, and the death of a 16-year-old Alabama high school player from a brain injury on the same day, have sparked renewed debate about whether the safety risks of youths playing football outweigh the benefits that the sport brings to a community.

  • @[email protected]
    2•2 months ago

    The argument that safety measures lead to increased recklessness is an interesting one. I don’t believe it in general, because reckless people don’t particularly care to research safety factors and margins. But in certain situations it’s surely true.

    • @[email protected]OP
      1•2 months ago

      I don’t believe it in general

      Here’s my proof that does exist. Please provide yours that shows it doesn’t.

      Hockey helmets, face masks, and injurious behavior

      • The introduction of mandatory head and facial protection has been effective in virtually eliminating ocular, facial, and dental injuries in youth hockey, but it has also been problematically linked with an increase in catastrophic spinal injuries. Players adopt a false sense of security when donning the equipment, leading them to take excessive and unwarranted risks because of the protection they are supposedly afforded. The addition of these protective devices has also altered how officials perceive game situations, leading them to be more lenient in administering penalties. The net result has been an increase in illegal and injurious behaviors, such as checking from behind.

      Gladiator Gear: The unintended consequences of protective equipment in gridiron football compared to rugby union

      • There is a direct risk compensation effect with protective equipment, where players – under the perception of decreased risk – will engage in riskier behaviour for a perceived higher reward. As Participant 2 stated, “I think having the increase in protective equipment, [the players] are more likely to sacrifice safety for some contact speed and physical level.”

      What is the role of protective equipment in sport-related concussion prevention?: A review and synthesis of the literature

      • In their study, Menger and colleagues (2016) found that athletes who thought their headgear prevented SRC (sports related concussions) were around 4 times more likely to exhibit aggressive playing behaviours than athletes who wore headgear but didn’t believe the headgear prevented SRC. These findings are concerning because they suggest that athletes may be putting themselves and others at an increased risk of injury when they don’t understand the role of their equipment.