lax culture from an insider

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The sad thing is this issue will be argued over without anything changing until a kid is seriously injured or worse.

This is true because one or more people are using DCUM to work out their own issues by, among other things, trying to de-legitimize the accomplishments of high school student athletes. As a community we should celebrate our young people, but some just don't see it that way.

That is an idiotic and ignorant way of putting it. As a parent, I don't care one bit about whose kid makes varsity or gets some other award. That isn't the point at all. As a parent I am frankly horrified by the concept that my 8th grade son who turned 13 this week could potentially be playing against 19 year olds in 15 months as a just turned 14 year old. He is normal size and weight for his age, but that does nothing to lessen my concerns. The IAC and WCAC should consider a rule to mandate all freshman play junior varsity for two reasons. 1. Keep 9th graders safe. I should not be obliged as a parent to repeat our son one grade so that he will be more physically mature or take this risk with our child. 2. Take away the reward system for having held back 9th graders run varsity.

If the school conferences had the guts to do this, it reduces the both the risks to the kids and the rewards for this celebration of holding back grades to they can be recruited or committed as 9th graders. Being a 9th grade commit in lacrosse is a goal for a very small minority of kids who play, and is also only realistic for 2% or less of these kids to aspire to. The other 98%+ deserve a fair and safe school sport for their kids. Anyone have a huge problem with that? Or is this only about parents like me being jealous? I honestly think it will take a kid getting killed on the field to stop this out of control train. Thank god as someone noted earlier that they can't play sports as 20 year old seniors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:moms and dads,

Just to give you some perspective, in the state of Maryland, you can not turn 19 before September 1st of your senor year.

In otherwords, if your son turns 19 on September 1 or anytime thereafter - he is allowed to play in the state of Maryland. I have never even heard of a kid being 19 years old during his junior season.

I'm not sure what DC has adopted or VA private schools.

Reclassifying your kid doesnt always pay dividends.

Yes there are some kids who might be turning 19 before they graduate HS this Spring but I've watched lacrosse for a very long time. Some kids regardless of their age are just freakish athletes.

You have been watching lacrosse for a very long time, but you have also seen droves of held back kids clogging the high school leagues for only the recent couple of years. Reclassifying went vogue as a lacrosse strategy in the recent 9th grade classes and is a new territory. We have no idea how less safe lacrosse is because of this or do you, but we should all recognize the point that it is less safe because of the shift in age differences with this reclassified trend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the Doctor's Post above: You mention that the highest percentage you treat are hand, etc., while the highest percentage you refer are head injuries. This seems logical since i don't know how many patients with head injuries would normally first see an ortho surgeon. Please correct me if i am wrong. What is the % of head injury referrals for lax injuries versus hand/soft tissue that you proceed to treat? I am not quarreling with anything you say which seems reasonable and it makes sense that the more participants in lax the higher the raw number of injuries versus football which may both be in decline as well as in a reinvention mode in terms of avoiding head injuries and taking seriously those that occur (versus "got his bell rung" mentality).

Just trying to probe a little more because you have first-hand experience. Thanks for your input.

PS - I recognize this interrupts the Madlax-VLC battle. IMO this makes the sport look childish and feeds the perception of the sport by others as non-serious.

Our practice group has numerous specialists including neck and spine specialists, and we see a number of patients that are referred by or to other specialist groups. To clarify, I introduce no clinical data or conclusions here but there are researchers at Hopkins, GW and other regional university hospitals which do specialize in head trauma. Hence, we would refer a head trauma case to one of those specialist groups. I treat a lot of hand bone and tissue cases for lacrosse and note there are increased trends we have observed for head trauma for youth and high school aged participants, but that the research in this field for size or age deltas among participants is scarce thus far. If I were giving advice, I would advise parents to be cautious about what is commonly termed as playing up into higher age participant categories because of the size and strength variances.

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately many of us are not playing our kids up, other parents are playing their kids down.

The lacrosse leagues categorize kids by graduation year in HS not their age so a 2018 graduate could have been born 9/1/2000-8/31/2002. There could be a full TWO year difference in age. The schools that encourage this have many fall hold backs, making them up to 2 years older than a regular senior and 3 years older than a junior. I agree that Freshman should not play Varsity contact sports unless they went through an early puberty or are held back themselves (most are). But even if a child is a normal size they are forced to compete against kids that should already be in college or not play the sport.

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers from. A 2018 graduate could be born from 9/1/1999 to 8/31/2000. There may be parents who held there 6/1/99 to 8/31/99 which would be 2017 graduates to 2018. but that is not 2 years.

a 8/31/2002 kid would be 16 when they graduate HS. I have not yet seen any kid on my child's lacrosse teams that is that young nor had any kids who arre 13 entering HS.

sorry typo

2020 graduate could have been born 9/1/2000-8/31/2002

for

2018 they could be born 9/1/1999 to 8/31/2001

Actually multiple kids are entering HS as 13 year olds in the past because MoCo cut off use to be December 31st. They changed that about 2005 so many September, November, December kids were going to HS as 13 year olds. But most are not starting this year.

Where so you keep coming up with iyour ls 2 year spread? Following MoCo, the "official spread is 9/1/99 till 8/31/2000 for a 2018 graduate. Where is someone born in 2001 entering HS? Some 2018 kids could be born earlier than 9/1/99. but this 2 year spread you are talking about is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Two year spreads are not ridiculous. We see them at every weekend lacrosse event including ones we are going to this weekend. Tournament registrations list kids d.o.b. Look at the rosters for 8th or 9th graders sometime and get a clue. It happens all the time now. Kids start school late and then repeat a middle school grade and that gives you a two year spread between oldest and youngest 8th and 9th graders. The prior poster may have made a math error or typo, but the point is spot on. This weekend's fall club tournament season will begin with many 15 year old 8th graders playing against kids who are just turned 13 like my son. Look it up before spouting off, and you're just wrong and please stop repeating it more times than your kid did 8th grade please.

[Anonymous]

Cherish those 8th grade yearS 11:45...they go by so fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The sad thing is this issue will be argued over without anything changing until a kid is seriously injured or worse.

This is true because one or more people are using DCUM to work out their own issues by, among other things, trying to de-legitimize the accomplishments of high school student athletes. As a community we should celebrate our young people, but some just don't see it that way.

That is an idiotic and ignorant way of putting it. As a parent, I don't care one bit about whose kid makes varsity or gets some other award. That isn't the point at all. As a parent I am frankly horrified by the concept that my 8th grade son who turned 13 this week could potentially be playing against 19 year olds in 15 months as a just turned 14 year old. He is normal size and weight for his age, but that does nothing to lessen my concerns. The IAC and WCAC should consider a rule to mandate all freshman play junior varsity for two reasons. 1. Keep 9th graders safe. I should not be obliged as a parent to repeat our son one grade so that he will be more physically mature or take this risk with our child. 2. Take away the reward system for having held back 9th graders run varsity.

If the school conferences had the guts to do this, it reduces the both the risks to the kids and the rewards for this celebration of holding back grades to they can be recruited or committed as 9th graders. Being a 9th grade commit in lacrosse is a goal for a very small minority of kids who play, and is also only realistic for 2% or less of these kids to aspire to. The other 98%+ deserve a fair and safe school sport for their kids. Anyone have a huge problem with that? Or is this only about parents like me being jealous? I honestly think it will take a kid getting killed on the field to stop this out of control train. Thank god as someone noted earlier that they can't play sports as 20 year old seniors.

There is no data to support the premise that restrictions on age eliminate the challenge of disparate size. You can address that challenge directly through weight/size classification if you want to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the Doctor's Post above: You mention that the highest percentage you treat are hand, etc., while the highest percentage you refer are head injuries. This seems logical since i don't know how many patients with head injuries would normally first see an ortho surgeon. Please correct me if i am wrong. What is the % of head injury referrals for lax injuries versus hand/soft tissue that you proceed to treat? I am not quarreling with anything you say which seems reasonable and it makes sense that the more participants in lax the higher the raw number of injuries versus football which may both be in decline as well as in a reinvention mode in terms of avoiding head injuries and taking seriously those that occur (versus "got his bell rung" mentality).

Just trying to probe a little more because you have first-hand experience. Thanks for your input.

PS - I recognize this interrupts the Madlax-VLC battle. IMO this makes the sport look childish and feeds the perception of the sport by others as non-serious.

Our practice group has numerous specialists including neck and spine specialists, and we see a number of patients that are referred by or to other specialist groups. To clarify, I introduce no clinical data or conclusions here but there are researchers at Hopkins, GW and other regional university hospitals which do specialize in head trauma. Hence, we would refer a head trauma case to one of those specialist groups. I treat a lot of hand bone and tissue cases for lacrosse and note there are increased trends we have observed for head trauma for youth and high school aged participants, but that the research in this field for size or age deltas among participants is scarce thus far. If I were giving advice, I would advise parents to be cautious about what is commonly termed as playing up into higher age participant categories because of the size and strength variances.

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately many of us are not playing our kids up, other parents are playing their kids down.

The lacrosse leagues categorize kids by graduation year in HS not their age so a 2018 graduate could have been born 9/1/2000-8/31/2002. There could be a full TWO year difference in age. The schools that encourage this have many fall hold backs, making them up to 2 years older than a regular senior and 3 years older than a junior. I agree that Freshman should not play Varsity contact sports unless they went through an early puberty or are held back themselves (most are). But even if a child is a normal size they are forced to compete against kids that should already be in college or not play the sport.

I am not sure where you are getting your numbers from. A 2018 graduate could be born from 9/1/1999 to 8/31/2000. There may be parents who held there 6/1/99 to 8/31/99 which would be 2017 graduates to 2018. but that is not 2 years.

a 8/31/2002 kid would be 16 when they graduate HS. I have not yet seen any kid on my child's lacrosse teams that is that young nor had any kids who arre 13 entering HS.

sorry typo

2020 graduate could have been born 9/1/2000-8/31/2002

for

2018 they could be born 9/1/1999 to 8/31/2001

Actually multiple kids are entering HS as 13 year olds in the past because MoCo cut off use to be December 31st. They changed that about 2005 so many September, November, December kids were going to HS as 13 year olds. But most are not starting this year.

Where so you keep coming up with iyour ls 2 year spread? Following MoCo, the "official spread is 9/1/99 till 8/31/2000 for a 2018 graduate. Where is someone born in 2001 entering HS? Some 2018 kids could be born earlier than 9/1/99. but this 2 year spread you are talking about is ridiculous.

You are NOT aware that parents hold their children back 1 year to gain size and speed advantage in sports. So a normal parent will enroll their child in K when they are 5 by September 1st. But many parents will wait until they are 6, which is allowed. This was put in place because some kids are not emotionally or academically ready for K.

At Mater Dei many kids will repeat a grade when they enroll. So they go to 6th grade at their home school then they go to 6th grade again at MD... or many just go to MD for 8th grade, they go to 8th grade at their home school and then repeat 8th grade at MD. Then go to HS a year later than they should have.

Landon had 6 kids (who already attended 8th grade somewhere else) repeat 8th grade at Landon this year. So the kids that were born in September are almost 2 years older than kids born in the summer that did not hold their kids back.

http://deadspin.com/why-rich-lacrosse-parents-are-making-their-kids-repeat-1570381983

Kids in MoCo could actually be born October 1999 and be sophomores because of the change in the enrollment age in 2005. A hold back in a private school born October 1999 could still be in 8th grade. But this is unusual because the cutoff use to be December and MoCo moved the cutoff back to September but they did it gradually.

[Anonymous]

A prior poster does not believe there is data proving adolescent boys two years older are larger sized? Really? And we can't address this through weight classes in lacrosse like in youth football or wrestling. What we can do is end the idiocy of 14 year old freshmen on the field with kids 5+ years older than they are and the plain stupidity of 15 year old 8th graders among 13 year olds, then on down all through the youth levels. At this rate, a kid can be seriously injured because parents are still standing for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A prior poster does not believe there is data proving adolescent boys two years older are larger sized? Really? And we can't address this through weight classes in lacrosse like in youth football or wrestling. What we can do is end the idiocy of 14 year old freshmen on the field with kids 5+ years older than they are and the plain stupidity of 15 year old 8th graders among 13 year olds, then on down all through the youth levels. At this rate, a kid can be seriously injured because parents are still standing for it.

Did you mischaracterize the PP on purpose or are you just slow?

"There is no data to support the premise that restrictions on age eliminate the challenge of disparate size."

All 19 year old boys are not bigger than all 16, 17, 18 year old boys. In almost all instances 19 year old boys are bigger (or at least the same size) than they were at age 16, but some boys aren't even big at 19 while others are big at 16. Most (not all boys) complete puberty by age 17, so it comes as no surprise that there is no data to support the premise that restrictions on age eliminate the challenge of disparate size.

[Anonymous]

That is a dim analysis. There is an enormous difference between the average 15 and 13 year old. There is an enormous physical and developmental difference between boys who are 19 and kids who are 16 or 17, and it is a comical difference between a 19 year old and a 14 year old. Nothing you wrote makes any sense or holds and point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is a dim analysis. There is an enormous difference between the average 15 and 13 year old. There is an enormous physical and developmental difference between boys who are 19 and kids who are 16 or 17, and it is a comical difference between a 19 year old and a 14 year old. Nothing you wrote makes any sense or holds and point.

You aren't very bright. There is no point in continuing to try to enlighten you. Good luck in your quest to eliminate "red shirting" I'm sure the powers that be will be impressed by the strength of your arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a dim analysis. There is an enormous difference between the average 15 and 13 year old. There is an enormous physical and developmental difference between boys who are 19 and kids who are 16 or 17, and it is a comical difference between a 19 year old and a 14 year old. Nothing you wrote makes any sense or holds and point.

You aren't very bright. There is no point in continuing to try to enlighten you. Good luck in your quest to eliminate "red shirting" I'm sure the powers that be will be impressed by the strength of your arguments.

www.cdc.gov/growthcharts

Please enlighten us all on how wrong the CDC and WHO statistics is for growth curves of boys. Maybe they're not as bright as you either. The fact is your daddy eyes on lacrosse players have been fooling you. There are enormous differences physically between adolescent boys two years apart in every decile of the data. Boys are not done growing height wise on average until 19, and carry a lot of weight growth between 16 and 19. There is no way anyone's eyes could look at this data and agree that the spread between 14 and 19 is unsafe for the kids. Grab a Bud Light and call it a day pal, you're done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is a dim analysis. There is an enormous difference between the average 15 and 13 year old. There is an enormous physical and developmental difference between boys who are 19 and kids who are 16 or 17, and it is a comical difference between a 19 year old and a 14 year old. Nothing you wrote makes any sense or holds and point.

You aren't very bright. There is no point in continuing to try to enlighten you. Good luck in your quest to eliminate "red shirting" I'm sure the powers that be will be impressed by the strength of your arguments.

www.cdc.gov/growthcharts

Please enlighten us all on how wrong the CDC and WHO statistics is for growth curves of boys. Maybe they're not as bright as you either. The fact is your daddy eyes on lacrosse players have been fooling you. There are enormous differences physically between adolescent boys two years apart in every decile of the data. Boys are not done growing height wise on average until 19, and carry a lot of weight growth between 16 and 19. There is no way anyone's eyes could look at this data and agree that the spread between 14 and 19 is unsafe for the kids. Grab a Bud Light and call it a day pal, you're done.

My God you are dense.

Here's an actual lacrosse roster for you to consider:

http://www.gonzaga.org/page.aspx?pid=490

You'll see a 205 lb freshman, a 230 lb sophomore a 285 junior and a 165 lb senior -- according to your data this is impossible because none of these living breathing student athletes are "average" -- how dumb can one person be? Please stop before you embarrass yourself further. Also, note that the 285 lb player would still be out there to play against you fragile snowflake even under a no red shirt rule.

[Anonymous]

http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set2clinical/cj41c071.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set2clinical/cj41c071.pdf

What's really interesting about this chart is that it shows very little difference between 18 and 20 year olds - which pretty much destroys any argument that red-shirting is to blame for mismatches in size among players. To the contrary, the chart provides a compelling case FOR red shirting. How so? The chart shows that if boys were 15-16 years old before they began playing varsity sports, the size difference would largely go away. The problem results from boys who are too YOUNG, not boys who are too OLD.