A tradition for 50 years, the “powder puff” girls tackle football game in Jupiter, Florida, is being canceled for the first time thanks to—what else?—safety concerns.
Dan Frank, Jupiter High School’s principal, said “Student safety is my first priority.” The girls’ short practice time and borrowed safety equipment, he said, “put our students at risk.” After all: A girl broke her leg a few years ago.
Maybe the school should get rid of its stairs, while they’re at it.
Sitting down for a group interview, [Haley] Osborne and her friends, Caitlin Walsh, Megan Mendoza and Sophie Garcia, said their principal also made another suggestion that they found demeaning: That they play a modified kickball game where a runner might have to bob for apples at second base, or spin around at third.
“We are not in elementary school,” Mendoza said.
Frank acknowledges suggesting several alternative events, but would not be specific.
So instead of a half-century-old tradition that packed the stands, brought in $7,000, and gave the girls a night they will always remember, they will end their year with a whimper.
Members of the Class of 2016 were filled with glee recalling last year’s 50th anniversary game, which they lost 17-12 to the Class of 2015….”Remember there were three of us saying ‘Let’s all just get on Amanda,’ but no one could take her down,” one girl says to the group. Another chimes in, “One girl got hit so hard her helmet flew off.” A third adds, “It is sooo fun.”
For these young women and their moms, the risk of injury is overblown.
“The car ride to the game is more dangerous,” said Lori Walsh, Caitlin’s mother. Girls get hurt cheerleading and playing soccer and basketball, they say, so why not ban those sports, too?
Maybe she shouldn’t give the principal any new ideas.
This is almost the same as tackling!
69 Comments
Must be that I’m not American, but I have a hard time getting incensed about this one. The whole idea of a powder puff game seems rather demeaning in the first place. American high school rituals seem a trifle overblown, period, to be honest.
“After all: A girl broke her leg a few years ago.”
So – did she sue the school?
Anna
Doesn’t matter what you think. The actual women participating are pissed that their tradition is being taken away from them.
My suggestion to the women is to seek support by all the local businesses that sponsored the field. You know all the ones paying for advertising on scoreboards and fences.
Or organize their own game on another field.
“Student safety is my first priority,” Frank said in a statement.
Then ban football, soccer, hockey, and all other contact sports. I’m pretty sure that someone broke a leg in one of these sports.
Bobbing for apples can transmit contagious disease! Listeria! The metal tub can attract a lightning strike.
Just give them real powder puffs and have a makeover challenge.
What I don’t understand is, why did the principal suggest a completely different game, when tackle football can so easily be changed to touch or flag football? It’d take so much more mental energy to come up with “Kickball with silly challenges at each base” than “Yes football, no tackle,” and the latter seems like it’d be a more palatable compromise for the girls, if such a compromise was even needed.
This decision is so patronizing and demeaning. It’s fun. It’s silly, It’s empowering. It’s tradition. But I guess we must protect the weaker sex from any possibility of harm (or having fun). No one’s mentioned the long term harm and emotional scaring possible for the poor boys forced to dress as cheerleaders.
@Richard Jones–That’s a good point, and have you seen what cheerleading looks like now? Acrobatic and gymnastics moves, pyramids, and people being thrown in the air, all with no protective equipment…..if anything, it’s at least as dangerous as tackle football; in fact, it’s probably even more dangerous. So, if the boys get to be cheerleaders, there’s no reason why the girls shouldn’t get to play tackle football. However, if one girl’s helmet fell off in the game last year, that leads me to believe that the helmet was too big, which is a problem. People playing tackle football should have proper safety equipment, even if that just means, say, adding more pads to an existing helmet to make it fit.
I’m confused about how we are expected treat girls and women in general. Eighteen year old women can join the military and serve in frontline combat units, serve in warships and in submarines, and fly fighter jets …BUT…. we must protect them in college from evil college boys, have their own ride service so they are safe from bad men, and can’t play tackle football!!
“Doesn’t matter what you think. The actual women participating are pissed that their tradition is being taken away from them.”
Doesn’t matter what I think, but it might matter what the principal thinks. “Whatever the students want” should not be the only (nor even the primary) concern of an educator.
Back when I was in HS in the early 70s, we had the annual “powder puff” football game involving the girls but it was usually flag football and not tackle. Some of the male football players were also dressed like girl cheerleaders in costumes and wigs for amusement sake. In fact, in our ridiculous politically correct culture of 2016 I’m surprised to hear that boys STILL dress up as girl cheerleaders for the traditional “powder puff” games. I would think a few radical feminists would be screaming “SEXISM” and the practice of boys dressing up as female cheerleaders would have been canned years ago. But I’m glad to hear that this is still a tradition in some schools that still hold the “powder puff” games.
In fact I’m surprised this idiotic school principal didn’t call for the banning of boys football too. I realize that concussions and CTE is the big concern with football as of late and I agree that this concern must be addressed. BUT in my opinion, there is too much over reaction to it all mostly at the youth level with parents not allowing their young sons to play football anymore. Again, it all ties in with the modern day bubble-wrapping of our youth and our over reactionary American culture. First of all, you cannot compare youth football to the NFL where the players are bigger, stronger and faster. According to a Mayo Clinic study of mid-century HS football players who are now elderly, the rate of CTE and dementia among them is no greater than that of their band and choir counterparts.
Now even though Pop Warner football is the NFL’s future labor pool, parents have got to accept the fact that there is a 99% chance that their little boy will NEVER play in the NFL! Most youth football players will never play football in college and some won’t even play HS football. So I say let your kid play and let the girls play in the traditional “powder puff” games too! The NFL’s “heads-up” program is making youth football safer and the NFL’s 360 is encouraging kids to play and be active. There’s probably a greater chance of kids suffering from obesity due to inactivity than there is from them getting dementia someday due to playing youth OR “powder puff” football.
Anna: It’s not because you are not American. I find it a bit demeaning too. And there are plenty of American high school kids who don’t pay attention to high school sports and their rituals or proms, etc.
But that apple bobbing and spinning around at third base kickball idea is particularly demeaning. It tells girls, “You are not athletes, you should just play silly games.”
I am an AD LIB recreation worker.
If I were parent, teaching a boy how to act towards women and girls-here is one thing I would do.
-To avoid condescending behaviour towards them.
Perhaps the biggest abuse we gave to females-is to treat them condescendingly BECAUSE they are women.
In Shakespeare’s time, the role of Juliet in Romeo and Juliet was played by a man.
Rope skipping was strictly a boys’ activity. They thought girls would injure themselves.
Hopscotch was played by Roman soldiers stationed in Britain 2000 years ago(I do not know whether women played it.)
On the other hand, some the roles of how male act toward women Do make partial or complete sense.
When I was 16, Mother told me about the “periods” that young adolescent girls have.
She told me not to ask ‘What is the matte with you’ if a girl decides not to swim on a hot day.’
I was told that a many will often carry heavy items for a women, because women(other factors being equal)do not have the upper body strength of women.
-For SOME games-but not others)a boy WOULD play less roughly-with a girl-or a smaller boy.)
–
> “Student safety is my first priority.”
Sigh.
This isn’t about safety – it’s about a principal who doesn’t want to be sued, or perhaps has other issues with the event he doesn’t have the guts to discuss in public. If safety really is the bottom line here, they would have no sport programs of any kind. Especially bobbing for apples! Think of the potential for drowning, sharing diseases through water contamination, etc. Maybe he would have a certified life guard on hand – and a paramedic ambulance, just in case. This all just gets sillier and sillier.
Anna
You may not like or participate in traditions but these young women do and want to continue a fifty year one. Nobody is forced to participate therefore people like you and the principal should stay out of their business.
Traditions like this are very important. Social skills. ..sense of community. …teamwork. …..memories and the list goes on.
Just because you can’t understand them doesn’t mean a thing other than you not being open minded.
There is a valid safety concern here, regarding tackling. Not from the point of view of an overwrought, lawsuit-wary principal, but from a sports science perspective. And I say this as an ex-collegiate rugby player who made one bad tackle, screwed up my collarbone, and learned from it!
Here’s the thing: Unless a person has spent some time playing football or rugby, they probably don’t know how to execute a tackle correctly. (Of course, there are certainly exceptions to this statement, such as people with combat training, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.)
Unlike their male compatriots on the football team, I’m willing to bet that these girls have barely practiced how to make a tackle that is safe for both them and the person they’re taking down, or how to accept a full-body hit and safely make contact with the ground. I’m honestly surprised that the only injury in the history of this activity has been one broken leg.
Full-contact sports require tons of practice and drills before going full-speed, full-force. Would we be OK with telling the girls to take their shoes off and do powder puff wrestling, boxing, or martial arts for the entertainment of the entire school? Probably not. It would be seriously demeaning and legitimately dangerous. Why should football be any different?
Ditch the stupid apple bobbing, make it a flag football game instead, and keep the tradition alive.
I, also, have never heard of a tackle powder puff football game! But, I see this is in Florida. I agree – just make it flag football, like I assume it is everywhere else in the country.
Tackle football is a dangerous sport. /Untrained/ tackle football, with ill-fitted protective gear, is exponentially worse.
And I may not be a radical feminist, but even I can see the blatant sexism involved in this role-reversal.
If the girls want to play football, start a proper football team, and train them how to play and give them proper protective gear.
If the boys want to be cheerleaders, let them join the squad and train.
“Or organize their own game on another field.”
I like the Footloose choice! Do a game off school property and carry on the tradition if it means that much to them.
Did anyone see the photo of the female athletes from the original story that want to play in this game? They look like they could take a tackle. If they are confident in their abilities to ask that this fundraiser continue they should still play it, do it somewhere else. Screw the school, they don’t know everything.
Isn’t there a waiver they can sign to continue playing vs. modifying the game now, 50 YEARS later, with all of our safety and protective equipment advances and awareness of concussions?
We had a color war with a bunch of games for our senior year. One senior broke a leg on the massive homemade water slide down our high school hill that turned into a mudslide run (so much fun!) The ambulance came and he was covered in mud. His scream was like nothing I’ve ever heard. Most of us broke bones and heeled. We never thought to ban the activity itself as the danger. Powderpuff football is no different. Our middle school has female kickers on the football team. There’s a Disney show called “Bella and the Bulldogs” about a female quarterback for a football team who is an exceptional athlete and leads the team.
“Unless a person has spent some time playing football or rugby, they probably don’t know how to execute a tackle correctly.”
So a skilled female soccer player who can time a clean slide tackle can’t master a basic football tackle within a week?
An ice hockey player?
Martial arts?
These views of female athletes and their capabilities are really shocking.
How about Rhonda Rousey?
I bet she could tackle without much *training*.
Our ski club has kids breaking legs/collarbones/concussions every year-more boys than girls because they tend to show off on the expert trails, yet they all keep skiing. A teacher even broke a leg. I’m utterly shocked it’s not banned yet.
But powerpuff football is. It IS insulting to these athletes.
Teacher JR makes a really valid point. Not only is it likely that many of the girls participating would not have trained to execute a safe tackle (football tackles would be considered egregious personal fouls in pretty much any other sport) but they will be wearing helmets and body armour that could inflict serious injury. It would be better if they played without equipment, as in rugby, but there would still be the risks JR mentions. If the point is to dress up like the boys, dress up like the boys and play non-contact…or play a contact sport with the right equipment and training.
One broken leg in fifty years. With how many players each year? For those saying they have no training do the math.
You don’t need training to go out and play a fun game of tackle football one time maybe twice if you return as graduates. These young ladies know what they are doing and are willing to accept the risk. They have done their own risk assessment for fifty years and should not be subjected to the paranoid fears of wimps that are not even going to be playing.
Untrained boys have been playing tackle football in parks for fun for as long as there has been football. THIS game has been going on for 50 years and the worst thing noted as happening is a single broken leg. Yes, there is a very small possibility of something going really wrong and a kid being seriously injured, but that is true for either gender in a regular football game with the boys playing ball and the girls cheerleading.
If the kids want to do it and their parents consent, I don’t see a problem with this any more than any other football game or other school sporting event.
I think the problems the principal notes are actually valid. It takes more than a week to learn how to play football properly, and if you’re doing it with borrowed equipment rather than fitted equipment, risk of injury increases substantially. A risk he didn’t mention, but should have, is that there is probably a much wider disparity in skill levels, with some girls almost good enough to play varsity, down to some who have only the vaguest idea of what the rules are. Putting them on the field together is a bit risky.
The problem-solving, however, is atrocious.
“Ban it” is a solution, but it’s clearly not the best one.
Rather, if it takes more than a week to learn how to play properly, then spend more than a week preparing. If the use of borrowed equipment is an injury risk, get dedicated equipment.
In other words, if it’s not safe enough, make it safer until it IS safe enough.
“Untrained boys have been playing tackle football in parks for fun for as long as there has been football.”
They have. But if they try to move their game to the school, they’ll find that it is not allowed as a school-sanctioned event. When P.E. classes do football, tackling is right out. In fact, if the class is co-ed, touch football is out, too… it’s flags or no football.
We couldn’t even play baseball in P.E. class. Baseballs are hard and cause injuries.
@Lollipoplover –
I specifically said that I was speaking about *most* individuals, not *all* individuals, and agreed that exceptions would certainly exist for people trained in combat arts or other full-contact activities. These girls are clearly athletic and I do not doubt that any of them, if they wanted to, could learn to play football. If girls want to play on the school’s regular football, wrestling, or hockey team, or start a girls’ team for any of those, I’m all for it.
However, women in full-contact sports are still the exception, not the rule. And as far as whether or not someone could master a tackle within a week? I doubt it. “Bella and the Bulldogs” aside (it’s fiction, you know), rugby and football teams practice tackling drills all season long. Thinking back to my athletic days, it took some of our players quite a while to really get comfortable slamming themselves full-speed at another human being. It’s harder than it looks, and requires mastering that part of your brain that says, “This might really hurt.”
Here’s a quote from the original article: “[The principal] told them tackle powder-puff might be brought back under certain conditions: Instead of two weeks practice, there could be two months so the girls are better trained. Instead of using pads and helmets from the boys’ team and a local youth league, football uniforms designed for girls could be purchased, along with specific insurance for the game.”
This makes it clear that the cancellation is clearly about sports safety, not about paternalistic views of women’s capabilities. The equipment and training concerns are real. Young women are generally smaller than their male peers at this age, and therefore much of the existing equipment will be too large for the female athletes, which explains the helmet that popped off in a previous game. Likewise, eight weeks’ worth of football practice would adequately train the girls in football fundamentals and ensure that they’re executing the tackles safely and correctly.
I’ll wager that when this activity started 50 years ago, it was a hilarious, gender-bending, “look at those silly girls doing boy things like football, and look at those silly boys doing girl things like cheerleading.” It was an activity that ultimately reinforced the status quo. Now that women have begun to come into their own in nearly all athletic endeavors, let’s stop treating them like the “silly girls” of a half-century ago, and begin treating them with respect as the serious athletes they are.
Yeah, isn’t boy safety a priority too? Especially with what we now know about concussions?
Cheerleading is the most dangerous sport of all, according to the most recent report from the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research at the University of North Carolina, accounting for half of all catastrophic injuries to female athletes.
“This makes it clear that the cancellation is clearly about sports safety, not about paternalistic views of women’s capabilities.”
No, it does not. One broken leg in 50 years- this is not about the safety of powderpuff football.
They offered them modified kickball and bobbing for apples instead. If that doesn’t show paternalistic views, I must be missing something (or perhaps because I’m female and smaller, it must take me longer to figure it out).
Shouldn’t the school be worried about the BOYS doing cheerleading given the catastrophic injuries?
.
‘But that apple bobbing and spinning around at third base kickball idea is particularly demeaning. It tells girls, “You are not athletes, you should just play silly games.”‘
Doesn’t the powder puff game also say “You are not athletes, you should just play silly games”? I thought its main appeal was laughing at the girls because they’re not really football players. That plus a good dose of sexual objectification on the side. Of course, my only experience of this phenomenon is from watching “Friday Night Lights”. . .
TeacherJR: “I’ll wager that when this activity started 50 years ago, it was a hilarious, gender-bending, “look at those silly girls doing boy things like football, and look at those silly boys doing girl things like cheerleading.” It was an activity that ultimately reinforced the status quo. Now that women have begun to come into their own in nearly all athletic endeavors, let’s stop treating them like the “silly girls” of a half-century ago, and begin treating them with respect as the serious athletes they are.”
Yes! That was exactly my point. I’m not really any kind of feminist, let alone a radical one, but this a tradition that deserves to die.
@Lollipoplover –
The broken leg is not the only injury, simply the worst one. The original article states that girls regularly come away from the PP game with bruises and sprains. Modern female athletes, just like males, are larger, stronger, and faster than their predecessors 50 years ago. The game has clearly come a long way from the cross-dressing, play-pretend football that characterized PP games earlier in the century, and the school has acknowledged that.
The cheerleading study you reference cites catastrophic injuries (death, disability, etc.) arising from “gymnastic-like stunts.” Do you think the boy cheerleaders are going to be doing all sorts of flips, throws, catches, and pyramids? Not likely. Why not? Because they’re not trained to do those things, and the cheerleading coach knows better than to have the kids attempt to execute complex and dangerous maneuvers after two weeks of practice. The worst that’ll probably happen to them is a hamstring pull from trying a Rockette kick.
It sounds like there is some tension at the school over whether the powder-puff game is supposed to be a farcical activity or a serious athletic endeavor. That, in my opinion, is why the principal offered a silly alternative. Upon realizing that no, the girls actually wanted to play football, he suggested proper training and adequate safety gear. The school is clearly willing to treat the girls as seriously as they’re asking to be treated. If we wouldn’t let boys play in a school-sanctioned, full-contact sporting event with inadequate training and protective gear, why would we let girls do it?
Wow so many fearful people and narrow minded ones as well.
This is not a farce nor is it a serious competition. It is a year end fun repeat fun event.
It is also the seniors playing. Many of them adults of age to enlist for combat.
Again the ladies are the ones that want to play and have accepted the risk. This is a fun football game not Russian freaking roulette. Anyone saying they know what’s best for these ladies needs a Gibbs slap in the back of the head.
One broken leg, big deal. And I will bet anyone that the player who got that injury would play again without reservation. Bruises and sprains are not injuries they are life.
“The broken leg is not the only injury, simply the worst one. The original article states that girls regularly come away from the PP game with bruises and sprains.”
Which is pretty damn convincing evidence that it is NOT a dangerous activity.
@Donna –
It’s simple statistics. If you do a somewhat dangerous activity just once, there’s a good chance you’ll come out fine. But if you do it frequently, and without proper protective gear or training, the injuries will start piling up. The girls are spending an hour at most playing the game, so there aren’t many chances for injuries to accrue. However, that doesn’t mean that the activity is inherently harmless, like you suggest.
If the regular football team played a season’s worth of games with only two weeks of practice and inadequate, ill-fitting protective gear, we all would be angry that the school was not doing its duty to protect the kids from reasonable harm. So why does doing it for one game make it OK?
“‘[The principal] told them tackle powder-puff might be brought back under certain conditions: Instead of two weeks practice, there could be two months so the girls are better trained. Instead of using pads and helmets from the boys’ team and a local youth league, football uniforms designed for girls could be purchased, along with specific insurance for the game.’
This makes it clear that the cancellation is clearly about sports safety, not about paternalistic views of women’s capabilities.”
No, it makes it clear that the school has no desire to have the game played so they have put conditions in place that ensure that it will never occur while still making themselves look open to the possibility. I not that the school is not offering to purchase the required girl uniforms. Even if it was, the female players are not going to train for two months as if they are going to play for a full season of football in order to play one game.
Does the boys’ team practice for two months prior to playing their first game? I know that our local high school teams absolutely do not. They would have to practice for the entirety of summer vacation to make this happen. I can’t even say for certain that the local, nationally-ranked, college football team gets in two full months of practice before the first game. Maybe, but I doubt it since I don’t recall them starting practice in early July.
If you think thats demeaning, in Canada in the off-season they have mixed ice hockey games. For every 2 goals a guy scores they have to let a girl score a goal…
@Donna –
In my neck of the woods, high school football teams don’t officially have two months of practice, because the rules say that coach-led practices can only begin after a specific date. But they definitely have a few hours of practice at least five days a week for that one official month. However, there are easily two months of practice if you also count the unofficial (wink-wink) practice and conditioning that occurs over the summer, where Coach just happens to drop by the weight room or the park where they players are working out ‘on their own.’
“If you do a somewhat dangerous activity just once, there’s a good chance you’ll come out fine. But if you do it frequently, and without proper protective gear or training, the injuries will start piling up.”
EXACTLY! You just provided the single best piece of argument against yourself. They all only play once. There is no accruing of injuries nor any increased risk for any individual person because it is a career of a single game. Maybe two as it sounds like it may be a game between the juniors and the seniors so I am sure that some ladies play both years.
And they have been playing the game for 50 years. In that time, the school as a whole has only accrued a single broken leg. That’s it for meaningful injuries. Sorry, bruises and sprains do not count as meaningful injuries. Considering I broke my ankle walking down stairs a few months ago, I’m not even overly upset about the single broken leg.
“If the regular football team played a season’s worth of games with only two weeks of practice and inadequate, ill-fitting protective gear,”
Obviously, you only attended or teach at well-off schools. I’ve seen many high school kids out there playing in ill-fitting protective gear because it is what the school has and there ain’t no money to get no more.
And we are talking about a one game season. As I said previously, unless you can show that the boys team practices for two months prior to the first game of the season, I call BS on that needing to be the standard to engage in a single game. It certainly doesn’t happen around here. Not even at the college level.
“Which is pretty damn convincing evidence that it is NOT a dangerous activity.”
If that’s the conclusion you’re looking to come away with, maybe.
When I was ten, the major hobby was jumping bikes over things with the aid of large ramps. Never got hurt. Must not be dangerous.
By sixteen, a fun hobby was car surfing. Never got hurt. Must not be dangerous.
At nineteen, I enlisted; never got hurt. Military service isn’t dangerous, either!
On the other hand, a student who attended the small option-school middle school my daughter did (only 60 students per grade) was killed while walking on a sidewalk, and another was killed in a plane crash, both before even making it to high-school graduation.
If year-after-year there are Powder Puff players coming away with sprains, despite playing for less than two hours per calendar year, that’s evidence that its dangerous.
The solution is to make it less dangerous. That’s why the boys who play more than one game per year get proper gear, it’s why they’re taught “head’s up football”.
“Does the boys’ team practice for two months prior to playing their first game? I know that our local high school teams absolutely do not.”
Typically, it’s more. Football practice starts in the spring, then is off for a couple of months in the summer, then “football camp” starts again in late summer about a month before school starts. The marching band has the same schedule, but fewer contact drills; between them, the football field is occupied for most of the daylight hours. YMMV, of course.
“In my neck of the woods, high school football teams don’t officially have two months of practice, because the rules say that coach-led practices can only begin after a specific date.”
So even the association that controls high school football doesn’t believe that two months of practice is necessary to engage in a single football game. But for some reason it is absolutely necessary for the girls. And that isn’t at all sexist or paternalistic. Got it.
“unless you can show that the boys team practices for two months prior to the first game of the season”
Boys who don’t have two years’ of organized football experience by the time they get to high school don’t make the Varsity team, probably don’t make the JV team, and are probably less than 50/50 to make the freshman team. (Obviously, my experience is with big-school teams, my state also offers 8-man football for the smaller schools which have only 30-40 students in each class. They might need to take anybody they can get. I don’t know.
“I can’t even say for certain that the local, nationally-ranked, college football team gets in two full months of practice before the first game. Maybe, but I doubt it since I don’t recall them starting practice in early July.”
Late-March or April. Major college football programs have ALREADY HAD over a month of practice for games that start in September.
Google “spring football practice (team)” to get the dates.
I am willing to wager that most people in here supporting this as a dangerous event have never played football even once.
And James if you consider bruises and sprains qualifiers for danger than you just confirmed to me how much of a wimp you are.
So many people commenting against this. None of them ever played a team sport. If they did they would understand better.
Steve
Don’t lump all Canada in that. We have a mixed league with no such BS rule.
“Late-March or April. Major college football programs have ALREADY HAD over a month of practice for games that start in September.”
Yes. They practice for a month or so (again, not two months) and then they play a nice exhibition game (Ours was a couple weeks ago. Ludacris popped in to sing a few ditties as pregame entertainment). And then they take 3 months off practice. Now at this level, I expect that they all work out on their own during this time (and the other off months of the year), but the team itself will not be back together until August, about a month before the first game. Your point?
“If you think thats demeaning, in Canada in the off-season they have mixed ice hockey games. For every 2 goals a guy scores they have to let a girl score a goal…”
In these parts, hockey is considered a game for girls, and the schools don’t even offer teams for boys, just for girls.
We have to import “men” from Canada to have players for the local WHL major-junior team.
“Yes. They practice for a month or so […] but the team itself will not be back together until August, about a month before the first game. Your point?”
How many months is 1 month + 1 month?
“Does the boys’ team practice for two months prior to playing their first game?”
The point is “yes” (again, ignoring the fact that nearly all players who play at this level have YEARS of experience and training, before they even join the team.)
In my youth, we played in non-scholastic leagues during the summer. The junior-high and high-school coaches weren’t allowed to have team meetings with their school-team players over the summer, but… they were also the coaches of the summer-league teams. We played on the junior-high and high-school fields, and used the junior-high and high-school locker rooms. Some of the equipment was coming from the junior-high and high-schools, too.
But other than the league football practices and the league football games, absolutely no football during the summer.
“Boys who don’t have two years’ of organized football experience by the time they get to high school don’t make the Varsity team, probably don’t make the JV team, and are probably less than 50/50 to make the freshman team.”
That is mostly true, at least as far as varsity, in a large, competitive school. I’ve known many kids who make JV having never or rarely played organized football before. And in many of the millions of small towns around the US, it probably isn’t even true for Varsity. Lots of places don’t have pop warner football leagues feeding into their high school team and there are limited options for little kids to really play.
But every single person who has ever played football had a first game ever. It may have been at age 8 or 10 or 12 or 14. Whatever level that was, were they required to practice for 2 months prior to playing that game? Are pop warner kids required to practice for 2 months prior to playing games?
“How many months is 1 month + 1 month?”
And what is the meaning of non-consecutive?
I would venture to guess that the principal here would not be okay with the girls practicing for a month in September, a month again in April and then playing a game. But then the principal doesn’t want them to play the game at all.
“In my youth, we played in non-scholastic leagues during the summer. The junior-high and high-school coaches weren’t allowed to have team meetings with their school-team players over the summer, but… they were also the coaches of the summer-league teams. We played on the junior-high and high-school fields, and used the junior-high and high-school locker rooms. Some of the equipment was coming from the junior-high and high-schools, too.
But other than the league football practices and the league football games, absolutely no football during the summer.”
Again, I am sure that is absolutely true in many large populations areas with competitive football teams. Not all places have summer leagues. Not all places are even all that interested in football.
“And what is the meaning of non-consecutive? ”
What is the relevance of non-consecutive? You’re just bringing it up now, for some reason.
“Not all places are even all that interested in football.”
It doesn’t take two months of football training to not play football.
(BTW, the experience I described above was obtain in a small coastal town on the Southern Oregon Coast, population maybe 8,000 at the time.)
There’s also the huge divide between “organized football before the full dangers of chronic head injury were known”, and “organized football after the full dangers of chronic head injury were known”. They spend a LOT more time teaching proper tackling technique nowadays.
http://usafootball.com/headsup
Even the Mona Lisa has cracks. Everyone gets hurt eventually.
Football is s contact sport, and there is a lot that can and should be done to make it less hazardous, especially with repeated head & knee injuries. Even so, they should let them play and have fun.
@TeacherJR – ‘that doesn’t mean that the activity is inherently harmless, like you suggest.’
No one suggests that the game is ‘inherently harmless’ and to suggest that that is a reasonable standard for any activity is absurd.
“If you do a somewhat dangerous activity just once, there’s a good chance you’ll come out fine. But if you do it frequently, and without proper protective gear or training, the injuries will start piling up.”
Please explain how properly fitted protective gear in football would help prevent a broken leg. Are there special new leg pads that prevent athletes from landing wrong and breaking anything? I’ve seen several broken legs among athletes- 2 in soccer (ankles- uneven field) and 1 in baseball (bad slide). My daughter’s classmate also just broke her arm badly last night doing cartwheels inside her house. Is there some new super protective gear for football and male only sports that holds superpowers?
Guaranteed with more training on how to tackle, block and hit the occurrence of injuries will rise. The more one trains for something, the more serious it becomes and the more intense it becomes.
It will go from a fun exhibition to a serious game.
Morons need to leave it alone.
“The broken leg is not the only injury, simply the worst one. The original article states that girls regularly come away from the PP game with bruises and sprains.”
Bruises? Seriously? How many sports DON’T cause bruises on a regular basis?
How many bruises and sprains and broken legs happen to the boys during regular football practice and games? I worked in a high school (1200 students) for 6 years – we had at least two broken limbs and three concussions in football during that time. We also had at least one boy break his leg in baseball, a girl broke an arm during a basketball game and my daughter got a concussion during gymnastics.
Fifty games and one broken limb – pretty good record for HS football.
“Bruises? Seriously? How many sports DON’T cause bruises on a regular basis?”
Golf
Horse racing (although if someone does get unhorsed, the injuries can be very severe.)
Fencing
swimming
crew
badminton
track and most field events
football (if you’re the kicker)
bowling
archery
beach volleyball
I’m sure there are more.
James your a joke.
Golf…..back, hip, knee and tendons in general are regular injuries
Horse riding of any sort can lead to long term problems with the back and lower body
Fencing, crew and swimming tend to lend themselves to soft tissue injuries such as sprains, strains and pulls
If you need more than you are as simple as I figure you are.
Every sport has it’s inherent risk of injury. Either accept the risk and play or don’t accept the risk and don’t play. But don’t expect others to change because you are a coward.
“Bruises? Seriously? How many sports DON’T cause bruises on a regular basis?”
I don’t even play a sport and routinely have bruises. Bumping into furniture, walking my hyper dogs, walking into poorly placed displays in grocery stores…I am not the most graceful person and my legs and arms show it!
This is a *friendly* game. Fundraiser. For fun.
This isn’t the Hunger Games and they don’t need months of training to compete. I have a feeling these seniors would wear their bruises like badges of honor, not injuries or safety hazards.
What is tackle football? Is it rugby? In which case, if they were playing the All Blacks, the Springboks or any Samoan high school, they might be in danger. Otherwise, if it’s just girl on girl, let them play.
If it’s just gridiron, where they get to wander around in that ridiculous armour, I could see tripping up bring a hazard, but not much else.
As to cheerleading, that’s a sport, being aerial and acrobatic, that requires real skill, so of course the boys can only do on-the-ground stuff. Unless they are actual cheerleaders, some of the best of whom are boys.
@lollipoplover – I hear you! My beat bruises also come from furniture, or just tripping over my feet.
“What is tackle football? Is it rugby?”
No, although both modern games spring from the same roots, football (sometimes called gridiron football to distinguish it from the “football” that Americans call “soccer”) is a distinct variant. The gameplay in rugby is largely focused on running away from the other team’s players, but football typically features running directly at them. Rugby features ongoing play, whereas football has more-or-less constant stoppages.
A major difference, of course, is that football players are armored over their entire bodies, while rugby players wear shorts and shirts. It is suggested that the armor actually leads to more injuries, because players who are cocooned take more risks with their bodies. (Although another reason for the difference in injury numbers is that far more American athletes play football than rugby. As you know, the United States is not really a world power in rugby, despite being far larger than the teams that tend to dominate international play… the teams from New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa having won all but one of the sport’s World Cups. Maybe there’s some kind of advantage to being from the Southern hemisphere?
The risk of injury comes from running directly into opposing players (largely chronic head injury, which the sport has been forced to address of late as scientific study has demonstrated the effects to be ongoing and serious, but mostly from being caught or pinned between players and twisted in ways the human body ought not to be twisted. Ligament tears, broken bones, and dislocations. There have been a few cases of spinal injury, and a few cases of heat-related illness causing death in the sport’s long history.
As to powderpuff tradition being “demeaning”- has it occurred to anyone that the kids, of both sexes, involved, are taking part BECAUSE THEY DECIDED IT WOULD BE FUN? No one is being forced to do anything!
Unpopular opinion ahead:
I’m pretty shocked this is still allowed anywhere.
It ended at my school in 1989, mercifully the year I would have played.
Quite frankly, in my experience it was more akin to a sorority hazing than an athletic event, with girls ganging up rather violently on whichever girl from the, “In crowd,” was on the outs that week.
I don’t know if it was demeaning, but I’d say it was on the edge, and the attitude of the guys watching was similar to the crowd at, oh, say-women’s mud wrestling.
Perhaps it was different elsewhere, but I doubt it.
Full disclosure-I also won’t let my sons play tackle football. The risk of brain injury and death may be small, but I see no reason to take it. Every once in a while, a principal gets something right.
@ Meg, I’m sure James will rush in to correct me, but I believe the principal banned only girls playing football. I didn’t see anything about boy’s football being eliminated at this school. So if you’re relating this story to the safety of your sons, this principal didn’t get it *exactly* right.
“I’m sure James will rush in to correct me”
You are correct.
@Beth, I wasn’t relating, just acknowledging that I’m somewhat biased against kids playing football in general.
Powderpuff is additionally problematic for me for the reasons I mentioned.
I think the principal did the right thing in getting rid of it, although apple bobbing is a dumb substitute.
In this country we do so much or better yet stop doing so much because someone might get sued. Can’t we come up with some waivers for people to sign so they can’t sue others.
My daughter swims competitively. At our local park district at the indoor pool she couldn’t practice because there wasn’t a life guard on duty. It was ok for people over 18 to swim with no lifeguard, but my daughter who is 1000 times a better swimmer than most in that pool couldn’t be there. It drove me nuts. I would have gladly signed any wavier they put in front of me so she could swim.
The reason high school football teams practice for a month or more before the first game is not for safety. It’s to win. Wining it the goal of high school and college football. Any safety hat happens is a side effect or a forced issue. The more you practice the better you get as a team and coaches want winning teams (players usually do as well). Caches haven’t historically been to concerned with player safety. The term walk it off wasn’t coined by a yoga instructor. Football coaches have historically done lots of insanely unsafe things to toughen up players. Hours of practice in extreme heat without water or breaks. Water was a reward for the end f practice. You vomit then walk it off. You pass out then you probably should show up for the next practice because you aren’t getting on the field since you’re clearly not tough enough. Take a bad tackle and hurt your head, walk it off. It’s only been in the last handful of years that school coaches have been changing these techniques and in general it hasn’t been voluntary, it’s been a forced issue. Forced by parents and undeniable medical information that shows they aren’t being safe. Safety is definately not a top concern of coaches, wining is.
High school students with no previous playing time in football most definitely can and do make the team all over the country. Athletic aptitude and the strong desire to take a beating and keep on ticking, are needed far more than experience playing football on a team is. The girls, volunteering, to play this once a year game, have athletic aptitude, many play lots of other sports.They aren’t clueless, nonathletic people being forced on to a field.
Football, baseball, soccer and other rough sports are played in our PE classes all the time, including the girls or co-ed classes. Wrestling is often a PE class in itself for both girls and boys. I can’t imagine where some of you live the teens are treated as such delicate flowers that they can’t do contact activities in PE, particularly as voluntary elective courses.
Cuts, bruises and sprains (sometimes even broken bones) are part of just about any sport, including, tennis, bowling, swimming, horseback riding, golf, archery. You’re either naive to the sport or attempting to be obtuse to the realities of them if you think these don’t occur with them.
With the worst injury in 50 years being a single broken leg, followed by bruises and sprains, the game is pretty freaking safe! A week of practice (particularly when it’s with people who are already athletes) is plenty of practice to get the team cohesion, learn the plays, figure out what strengths each player has and to build up enough mental “winning” energy.
If the equipment not fitting just right was truly the concern it could easily be remedied by getting proper fitting equipment. I have doubts that the equipment really wasn’t fitting right because the complete lack of injuries says it must have been doing it’s job pretty well. If money was the obstacle to that, surely asking the businesses sponsoring it to put a little extra in for proper equipment wouldn’t be impossible. Safety seems to be the excuse rather than an actual issue. This principle clearly thought the game was an unimportant fluff piece and doesn’t understand football much. If it had been a tradition that the boys baseball /soccer/wrestling team take on the the football team in a single football game every year, it would never have been halted for these reasons.
A power puff football game is only demeaning to the players if they don’t want to play it or it is treated as a silly game. These girls want to do his and it is far from a silly, fluffy game to them. They look forward to the intensity and contact of it. Changing it to flag or touch would be just as deeming as canceling it for the reason they did.
What happened to the good old days of getting your bell rung and the team trainer waving smelling salts under your nose?
Now you get your bell rung and you’re sent for a full work up at the hospital.