Kurt Warner Causes Slight Stir With Comments on Kids and Football

In the wake of NFL great Junior Seau's suicide earlier this week, there has been a run of football legends appearing on national radio and television shows to talk about the tragedy. As you could imagine, much of that discussion has revolved around head trauma in sports, mainly football.

We don't know that head trauma had anything to do with the end of Seau's life. I think it's being largely assumed that whoever ends up studying Seau's brain will find some sort of damage that can be traced to his football career, but it's a dangerous card to play until the findings are announced in a few months.

That said, it has launched a pretty wide-ranging discussion on head injuries. On Thursday's Dan Patrick Show, future Hall of Fame quarterback Kurt Warner was a guest. He told Patrick that he wasn't necessarily keen on the idea of his sons playing football.

“They both have the dream, like dad, to play in the NFL,” Warner said. “That’s their goal. And when you hear things like the bounties, when you know certain things having played the game, and then obviously when you understand the size, the speed, the violence of the game, and then you couple that with situations like Junior Seau — was that a ramification of all the years playing? And things that go with that. It scares me as a dad. I just wonder — I wonder what the league’s going to be like. I love that the commissioner is doing a lot of things to try to clean up the game from that standpoint and improve player safety, which helps, in my mind, a lot. But it’s a scary thing for me.”

Asked if he would prefer that his sons not play football, Warner answered, “Yes, I would. Can’t make that choice for them if they want to, but there’s no question in my mind.”

Warner's comments caused a firestorm of response from all over the map. One of the more notable reactions came from former Giants receiver Amani Toomer on NBC Sports Talk (completely underrated show, by the way):

"I'd definitely have my son to play football," Toomer said. "That's what the Toomer family does. We all play football. But what this reminds me of is the guy at the basketball court, who once he gets done playing takes the ball and ruins the game for everybody else. I think Kurt Warner needs to keep his opinions to himself when it comes to this. Everything that he's gotten in his life has come from playing football. He works at the NFL Network right now. For him to try and trash the game, it seems to me that it's just a little disingenuous to me."

I'd like to think Toomer knows now that he overreacted a little bit here. The fact that Warner made a lot of money and gained a lot of notoriety playing football doesn't disqualify him from having an opinion that may not make football look totally rosy. In fact, Warner is fully qualified to say what he said, and we are in a better place because he had the guts to say what was on his mind, even though he had to know he might take some heat for saying it.

ESPN commentator Merril Hoge -- a well-known advocate for concussion awareness, largely because of his own experiences -- jumped on Warner, too.

“I think it’s irresponsible and unacceptable,” Hoge said of Warner suggesting that football is a dangerous game for children. “He has thrown the game that has been so good to him under the bus. He sounds extremely uneducated.

... “Head trauma is not the issue here — it’s how head trauma is treated,” Hoge said. “The game is safer than it has ever been because we’re being proactive with head trauma. That is the biggest issue.

... “The biggest problem in our society today with our youth is obesity,” Hoge said. “You will do more damage to your son or daughter by allowing them to sit on the couch, play XBox and eat a donut, health-wise, than you will ever do if you put them on a football field and it’s in the right structure. You think of obesity and all the things that come from that — diabetes and lung and heart and joint issues, we can go on and on — the last thing we should do is discourage children from activity.”

Like Toomer, I'll give Hoge the benefit of the doubt to an extent. Guys who play football are naturally protective of the sport. It's not any different than hockey players last summer amid the Boogaard-Rypien-Belak tragedies. This might not be an easy time to be a die-hard NFL fan, but there will be productive discussions that come out of all of this.

Warner, by the way, did try to clarify his national radio comments. He appeared on ESPN Radio later Thursday.

“I agree from my standpoint that everything I have gotten, and I love the game and I wouldn’t change a thing about my career,” Warner said in response to Toomer’s remarks.  “I’ve enjoyed every bit of it.  I continue to love it.  I continue to watch it, and am a big fan of the game.  But at the end of the day, you know, I’ve seen how my wife looks at this game when I’m out there getting hit.  And it’s different when you put on a parent’s hat.  And, yeah, I want my kids to play and I want them to be healthy and I’d love them to have a great long career whether that’s collegiate, whether that’s professional.  I’d love all that.  But as a parent I can’t avoid the fact that it’s a dangerous sport, and it’s a violent sport.

“And it’s not just football I’m talking about.  Any time my kids are put in harm’s way, as a parent I say, ‘I don’t want them to do that.  I don’t want them to take that chance.’  Can I protect them from anything?  No.  Am I gonna sit here and say, ‘You can’t do this.  You can’t do that, you can’t drive in a car, you can’t do all the things that are risky in life.’  Of course not.

“But my point being is that as a parent, do you think about that?  Do you think about the violence of the game when your kids play?  And, yeah, my kids are 13 years old and my son has already suffered a concussion.  Do I think about that?  Of course I think about that.  And the bottom line for me as a parent, is as much as I love the game and what it’s all about and what it’s done for me, the most important thing for me is the safety of my kids.  And so that’s my point, is that I consider it.  And it’s in my thought process.  And when they play and when they wanna play and when they talk about playing professionally, I’m very conscious of that.

“And, you know, at the end of the day, I’d love for them to play football.  If they don’t play football and never suffer an injury doing anything, I’m going to be an extremely parent as they move into the rest of their life and take care of their family and their kids.   So I don’t know why I would have to keep my comments to myself.  I’m speaking as a father.  But I love the game of football and I’ll always love it and I’m so appreciate of what it did for me.”

It might not put the toothpaste back in the tube, because he still said what he said on Dan Patrick's show.

But Warner has every right to be worried about the future of the game. When I broached the subject on Twitter Friday evening, he was kind enough to respond.

@BruceCiskie Simply being honest w/ my concerns & hope we continue 2 make strides 2 protect those playing the greatest team sport out there
— Kurt Warner (@kurt13warner) May 5, 2012

I'm not going to act like Warner's above everyone else for any reason, but he's a smart and articulate football lifer who wants this game to be great while also protecting those who choose to play it.

As a long-time football fan, I can tell you that no level of play is worth risking the long-term health of the athletes involved. Simply put, we have to work to make sure the game is as safe as it possibly can be. There are inherent risks involved in any sport -- especially those that involve contact -- but those risks should be minimized whenever possible ... even if it's at the risk of alienating some fans who believe the sport is being "wussified" or whatever you want to call it.

There are ways to make football safer without turning it into flag football. If we can focus on that, progress will be made, and conscientious people like Warner will feel better about their children taking up the game.

Travel Misadventures: Running With Scissors

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Greetings from Gate 4 at the Colorado Springs Airport, where we sit and await the arrival of a plane from the Twin Cities.

Once the plane lands, they unload the bags, stuff our bags in, leave a bunch of other bags here, and get us on board, we'll be heading to the Cities. An 11:10 flight (Mountain time) has already been pushed back to 11:49, and since the plane isn't here yet, I don't like our chances of leaving on time (even if you define "on time" in this case as being 39 minutes late).

I'm not here to bore you with stats about late flights, or drone on about the somewhat-frustrating 3-3 tie UMD settled for Saturday night.

Instead, here's a story to make you feel really safe when you fly again.

As you know, everyone who is a ticketed passenger has to go through a security check. They run your bags through the scanner, and then you take off your shoes (and belt if you have one), empty your pockets, and walk through the body scanner.

When a radio guy travels to call hockey games, he has to carry a bag full of microphone cords, headsets, and the necessary equipment to broadcast a game. Makes sense that TSA would want to go through the bag thoroughly, no matter how carefully it's packed. I've come to learn that they really don't care. They tend to let me go anyway.

On this trip, I traveled with a duffel bag-type thing for the gear. Carried a headset, a mic to get crowd noise with, and the equipment that I plug into to do the game. Since it was so light, I threw my pack of movies that I always bring on the road into it. I ran it and my laptop bag through the scanner, walked through the body scanner, and went to wait for my stuff.

When the TSA lady pulled the gear bag out and asked me if it was mine, I said it was. No worries. I actually think the process is working well when they look through that bag.

I gasped audibly when she pulled a pair of scissors out of the front pocket of the bag, a pocket I didn't even know existed.

And these weren't small scissors out of a sewing kit or something. These were big ones. Adult size scissors.

She ran them through some kind of check, then re-scanned the bag. After that, I picked up the bag, and was shocked again.

Why?

Because she gave me back the scissors.

Aghast, I went to the TSA website, wondering what's allowed and what isn't. Oddly, scissors are permitted, as long as they are "metal with pointed tips and blades shorter than four inches."

This blade isn't shorter than four inches.

Maybe I just look like a nice guy or something. After all, I've always been told looks can be deceiving.

UPDATE/CLARIFICATION/CORRECTION: After I got home Sunday evening, I measured the blade of the scissors. They were less than four inches, and therefore legal. As my wife correctly pointed out, they could still do some serious damage.

Knowing that these things are actually legal might be more disturbing than thinking the TSA agent just let me keep them out of the goodness of her heart.

Widening Field a Bad Idea

Player safety has become a hot-button issue in the NFL, as well as the NHL. For football fans, the league's decision to make some changes to how illegal hits are dealt with -- as well as the general definition of an illegal hit -- has brought up some questions about the game's future.

While many of the people crowing about the league trying to take hitting out of the sport are just misguided, and the thought that the NFL is "wussifying" football is generally cringe-inducing, reality is that the league is studying ways to make football less dangerous.

There is an acknowledgment from most proponents of these safety measures that nothing the league does will fully prevent the possibility of players being stretchered off fields with potentially serious injuries. The game is just too fast and too violent to do that.

Instead, the NFL is spending their time and energy trying to make things as safe as possible.

One of the potential measures was reported by former NFL general manager-turned CBS commentator Charlie Casserly on Sunday's NFL Today.

... as part of the league’s ongoing effort to enhance player safety, the NFL will consider the possibility of widening the field and the hash marks.  The thinking is that opening up the field could make the game safer.

While player safety continues to be a noble and important cause, it's not likely that this measure will be passed without resistance.

As Mike Florio notes on PFT, we've already heard thoughts from a Pro Bowl safety that indicate this isn't a terribly good idea.

Steelers safety Troy Polamalu, who gradually become the most outspoken player against the league’s stance on illegal hits, is now blaming the shift to wide-open offense.

“The game has evolved in a sense that, of course, people are bigger and faster now, but it’s also evolved in a sense that it’s not eight guys in the box every down and two guys in the backfield,” Polamalu said, per the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.  “When you start spreading teams out and you start getting space and distance — and you’ve got to get that burst to make that hit — that’s why you’re seeing a lot more hits than normal.  It’s because of the way offenses are playing.”

Polamalu might be wrong to go after the commissioner like he has over the league's stance, but his point is an interesting one.

The fact that you have more room for guys to run around isn't going to make the game safer. Even if it does, that improved safety will only last until the players become faster and more capable of covering that extra ground quicker. Once that happens, the game will become even more violent and dangerous than it is right now.

Not only will widening the field not make the game safer, but it won't make the game any better. As proven in college hockey, a bigger playing surface doesn't always equate to more exciting or wide-open action. The logic in hockey is a bit different, because by widening the playing surface, you're taking players (and, as a result, the puck) farther away from the goal. But in the end, making a football field wider doesn't mean you're going to make football better.

Just ask the CFL. After all, if the wider field meant people would like the product more, they'd probably have more than eight teams in the CFL, and they'd probably have more than a crappy TV deal on NFL Network in the United States.

Science vs. Emotion

It happens all the time. A person suffers a major injury, we find a way to blame someone or something, and we clamor for a rules change.

These campaigns are always well-intentioned, but they aren't always well-executed.

Such is the case with two recent movements in sports. Both are the result of injuries, both have some serious pros behind them, and both are bad ideas.

We'll start in college hockey, where there is a call for half-shields in place of full face masks on players.

Why? Well, there are some who feel the players would be safer if they didn't wear full protection over their faces. The theory is that if everyone wore a half-shield, they'd magically stop getting sticks up and hitting people in the head.

Of course, if you've watched 20 NHL games in your life, you know this is stupid.

Science also seems to disagree.

This study lumped partial face protection and full face protection in together, though the evidence shows a partial face shield is closer to having no protection than full protection. The number of concussions in each case wasn't statistically significant -- 4 with none, 5 with half, 2 with full --but the real difference is in facial injuries. 52 injuries with no face protection, 45 with half protection, and only 16 with full protection.

That theory I was talking about? It's rooted in emotion. While that isn't always a bad thing, it's not a good thing in this case.

Instead of protecting college hockey players, we're going to open them up to more serious injuries. If the half-shield plan passes, it will only last until an unsuspecting Yale defender is turned into Ian Laperriere.

Do we need to let that happen to someone? Why bother?

It's not a safety improvement. It's an emotional reaction to headshots, but what the people having the reaction don't realize is that those headshots are happening in the NHL, where the players wear half-shields. Guys still get high-sticked in the face, they still get hit in the face by elbows, and they still block shots and passes with their faces. In none of those cases will a half-shield offer more protection than a full face mask.

If you want the college game to be bloodier, vote for this!

Elsewhere in sports, emotions are taking over in California. There, a young pitcher's life flashed before his eyes, when a batted ball came flying at him faster than he could protect himself from it.

Now, his family and others are going to bat, trying to get the state government to ban metal bats.

Assembly Bill 7, which will be considered this week by the state senate, would impose a two-year moratorium on the use of metal bats in high school baseball in California.

... Sandberg's team and the entire league voluntarily switched to wood bats after the accident. Community members were selling "Got Wood?" T-shirts, with the proceeds going to help pay Sandberg's medical bills. California assemblyman Jared Huffman, who represents Marin County, authored the bill to ban the metal bats just weeks after the March 11 accident.

Of course, it's not that simple.

Mike May, spokesman for the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association, said he's been devoting almost all of his time to defending the metal bat since Sandberg's accident. May has been plying lawmakers and members of the media with one study after another to show that accidents like Sandberg's are no more likely with metal bats than with wooden ones.

"We just want the decision in California to be made on facts and data, not emotions," May told FanHouse.

The metal bats of today are safer than those of a few years ago, May said, because of standards in place since 2003 to regulate the Ball Exit Speed Ratio (BESR) off metal bats.

"Many people don't realize that the baseball bat of 1980 can't be used today," May said. "People think bats have gotten more juiced up, and frankly it's the opposite."

May also said that the NCAA is adopting a standard to further weaken metal bats in 2011, with the National Federation of State High School Associations adopting it in 2012.

The next step is to engineer the metal bats to have a smaller sweet spot, but the science is there.

Meanwhile, a move to ban wooden bats makes the sport more expensive, at a time when we don't need to be doing that ... in any sport. The science is questionable, the change would be costly, and it's a story (rightfully) full of emotion.

(Give the California Legislature credit. This proposed ban is only for two years. It's not meant to be permanent, even if that's what would eventually happen.)

No one wants to see a kid debilitated by an injury, but we have better things to legislate than things that will not necessarily improve safety in sports.

Letting emotion get in the way of sound decisions based on science is not good. It doesn't help anyone, and it leaves us wondering in ten years what the hell we were thinking.