Revise Final

There are people who are for the opinion that tackling football for the kids should be allowed to continue, despite the overwhelming evidence of concussions at tender age. These opinions support the idea that recreational football is more important than personal health. The point for those opposing the idea is that preparing kids early for tackling will make them be less vulnerable to injuries when they grow up, because they would be experienced. This paper analyses weaknesses of those who do not support banning of tackling football in kids who play recreational football and therefore discredit the whole idea.

It is pointless to oppose a clear point of argument. Considering that everyone for the idea, why should we let our kids continue to injure themselves for the sake of recreation? The idea of coaches claiming that killing the game is pointless, and then admitting that there is real concern regarding injuries. It is pointless to continue with the game. Comment by Robert Martinez II: ?? Comment by Robert Martinez II: evidence to support this claim?

The American Pediatrics association seems much focused on the game rather than the health status of the kids. Their point of argument is that the game rules need to be changed, and even stricter. The truth is, these rules concerning tackling football are already in existence, and then it means these rules would not save kids from the injury. Training of coaches and players is really necessary, but would it stop the kids from injuring themselves? Comment by Robert Martinez II: Capitalize: APA Comment by Robert Martinez II: What is APA’s claim? Cite it.

The point that coaches should be putting across is that recreational football is not a must. The game need to be enjoyed, and injuries need to avoid as much as possible. Rules are always there player follows these rules is not practical. The other point about making rules be tougher, is that this only applies in mature people. Kids under the age of 14 do not understand what rues are. All they want is to play and enjoy themselves. These rules will not make them safe in any way. It will only just make them hate the game. Rules should be applied in tackling football at advanced age, where players understands the implications of tackling. Comment by Robert Martinez II: Subject/verb error. Comment by Robert Martinez II: to be avoided

Coaches argue that banning tackling football for kids is being insensitive, and that there are other games like hockey and boxing which are equally injury prone is not being mature. Two wrongs cannot make a right what coaches and teachers would say is that all games that exposes our students, especially kids to injuries need to ban all together. They would first support the whole idea of banning tackling football for kids under the age of 14, and then become ambassadors for change to other risky games. The other argument that states that kids should be allowed to play tackling football, and introducing this game at teenage stage will make injuries worse because players will have to learn how to avoid tackles is not an holistic way to approach this issue.

Their point is, we should allow kids to injure themselves as they learn, so as to enable them to become hardy. The point is, most of these kids will never become professionals’ footballers. Why then should we subject them to injuries, which will affect their lives and yet it is just a recreational game? At the age of 14, kids would have matured enough to understand the rules of the game, and whether to pursue the game professionally or not. At this stage tackling should be allowed.