Did you know that football is the #1 high school sport in the United States? Maybe not for long though. There are imposers who want to ban football from being a high school sport because it causes too many concussions. I disagree with this idea because if a student wants to play, they should be aware of anything that could happen. Also, there is the same chance of getting injured in any other sport. Not just football. If we ban football from being a sport, players would have no practice for the future.
High school students have little time to practice outside of school, unless they give up their entire weekend. About 65% of a child's day is spent at school. If they were to play for a little league team, they would not get as much …show more content…
Football just happens to be one of them. People always talk about how dangerous football is, but so is any other sport. According to the Head Case Company, there is a 50% or higher chance of getting a concussion in ice hockey, soccer, lacrosse, wrestling, and of course football. Therefore, to prevent concussions, we would have to ban almost all sports, which would not be fair.
The opposing claim is understandable, as it comes from the parent's point of view. It would be heart-breaking if their child got severely injured. To be specific, one in five high school athletes will sustain a sports concussion during the season. Would you like to see your child laying in a hospital bed unannounced? Not to mention, football requires a lot of expensive equipment. This hints that football is a very dangerous sport. Therefore, it makes total sense to be against football.
Football is a very dangerous sport, but if you want to play, you will take the chances. There is no reason to ban football if people actually want to play it. That would lead to too much conflict. I understand the opposing claim, but honestly, it shouldn't depend on a rule whether a child can play football or not. It is just as threatening as any other sport. Why ban just one sport and not the
High school students have little time to practice outside of school, unless they give up their entire weekend. About 65% of a child's day is spent at school. If they were to play for a little league team, they would not get as much …show more content…
Football just happens to be one of them. People always talk about how dangerous football is, but so is any other sport. According to the Head Case Company, there is a 50% or higher chance of getting a concussion in ice hockey, soccer, lacrosse, wrestling, and of course football. Therefore, to prevent concussions, we would have to ban almost all sports, which would not be fair.
The opposing claim is understandable, as it comes from the parent's point of view. It would be heart-breaking if their child got severely injured. To be specific, one in five high school athletes will sustain a sports concussion during the season. Would you like to see your child laying in a hospital bed unannounced? Not to mention, football requires a lot of expensive equipment. This hints that football is a very dangerous sport. Therefore, it makes total sense to be against football.
Football is a very dangerous sport, but if you want to play, you will take the chances. There is no reason to ban football if people actually want to play it. That would lead to too much conflict. I understand the opposing claim, but honestly, it shouldn't depend on a rule whether a child can play football or not. It is just as threatening as any other sport. Why ban just one sport and not the