lax culture from an insider

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No shit Sherlock. Everybody know Gonzaga, etc have 205 lb freshmen... What they don't have are 14 yo freshman. At least they have the decency to play them on Varsity instead of JV, since they should be juniors.

[Anonymous]

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.

I am familiar enough with that roster to call bunk -- again -- on everything you are trying to argue. The 205 lb freshman is a strong player who was also 16 in the fall of his freshman year, which is one of the problems in the sport being debated. There are two other rostered kids at 230 pounds and at 285 pounds. Both of those kids were recruited to play football at Gonzaga and both are among the top recruits in the nation for college football. One is going to Alabama next year, and the younger boy has SEC football offers.

The CDC growth charts don't lie and are conclusively representative. To be specific to your point, 285 lb living and breathing people and 45 lb dwarfs are possible, and represent the outliers in the data. One lacrosse roster at a prep school well known for elite prep football, which they recruit for, where two prominently sized kids play lacrosse in the spring is representative of nothing and is misleading to extrapolate from. The point is plain, simple and is supported by the data you argued does not exist. There are material spreads in physical size and development between adolescents two years apart, and there are jarring differences when that spread is widened to 5 years considering 14 year olds and 19 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are only slight height difference between 18 and 20 year old males, but there is the same positive slope for weight gain between 18 and 20 which is material. But we're not debating adult physical maturity here. Without holding back kids are 13-14 as entering freshmen and 17-18 as entering seniors. If boys were 16 before they started playing varsity sports, the size difference is less. If boys were 18 before they started playing varsity sports, the size difference would mostly go away. The problem that results is kids who are 13-14 as entering freshmen are too young to safely compete with kids 5-6 years older. You believe the problem is that families of 13-14 year old freshmen don't get it and need to get on the redshirting bandwagon? As a practical matter you did completely destroy the argument for redshirting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am familiar enough with that roster to call bunk -- again -- on everything you are trying to argue. The 205 lb freshman is a strong player who was also 16 in the fall of his freshman year, which is one of the problems in the sport being debated. There are two other rostered kids at 230 pounds and at 285 pounds. Both of those kids were recruited to play football at Gonzaga and both are among the top recruits in the nation for college football. One is going to Alabama next year, and the younger boy has SEC football offers.

The CDC growth charts don't lie and are conclusively representative. To be specific to your point, 285 lb living and breathing people and 45 lb dwarfs are possible, and represent the outliers in the data. One lacrosse roster at a prep school well known for elite prep football, which they recruit for, where two prominently sized kids play lacrosse in the spring is representative of nothing and is misleading to extrapolate from. The point is plain, simple and is supported by the data you argued does not exist. There are material spreads in physical size and development between adolescents two years apart, and there are jarring differences when that spread is widened to 5 years considering 14 year olds and 19 year olds.

Umm . . . you do realize the CDC charts support red-shirting don't you? The greatest year to year changes in size are 13-15, not 18-20. The problem is that some kids are too YOUNG when they begin playing varsity. If the 205 lab freshman hadn't red shirted he'd be a 205 sophomore - and still playing. The 285 lb junior would be a 285 lb senior - and still playing. You aren't going to eliminate big kids from playing varsity high school contact sports. As the CDC charts prove, even non-red-shirt seniors are fully grown. The problem is kids being allowed to play varsity as freshman when they aren't big enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am familiar enough with that roster to call bunk -- again -- on everything you are trying to argue. The 205 lb freshman is a strong player who was also 16 in the fall of his freshman year, which is one of the problems in the sport being debated. There are two other rostered kids at 230 pounds and at 285 pounds. Both of those kids were recruited to play football at Gonzaga and both are among the top recruits in the nation for college football. One is going to Alabama next year, and the younger boy has SEC football offers.

The CDC growth charts don't lie and are conclusively representative. To be specific to your point, 285 lb living and breathing people and 45 lb dwarfs are possible, and represent the outliers in the data. One lacrosse roster at a prep school well known for elite prep football, which they recruit for, where two prominently sized kids play lacrosse in the spring is representative of nothing and is misleading to extrapolate from. The point is plain, simple and is supported by the data you argued does not exist. There are material spreads in physical size and development between adolescents two years apart, and there are jarring differences when that spread is widened to 5 years considering 14 year olds and 19 year olds.

Umm . . . you do realize the CDC charts support red-shirting don't you? The greatest year to year changes in size are 13-15, not 18-20. The problem is that some kids are too YOUNG when they begin playing varsity. If the 205 lab freshman hadn't red shirted he'd be a 205 sophomore - and still playing. The 285 lb junior would be a 285 lb senior - and still playing. You aren't going to eliminate big kids from playing varsity high school contact sports. As the CDC charts prove, even non-red-shirt seniors are fully grown. The problem is kids being allowed to play varsity as freshman when they aren't big enough.

Cmon, how many Freshman are getting major playing time on any compettive lacrosse team? We were at one of the "noted" lacrosse schools and while there were a few freshamn that made the team every year, they got very little playing time and non were starters unless one of the older kids got injured. Almost always the kids with the most playing time are the juniors and seniors for a reason, They are bigger, stronger and have more experience. It really isn't rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There are only slight height difference between 18 and 20 year old males, but there is the same positive slope for weight gain between 18 and 20 which is material. But we're not debating adult physical maturity here. Without holding back kids are 13-14 as entering freshmen and 17-18 as entering seniors. If boys were 16 before they started playing varsity sports, the size difference is less. If boys were 18 before they started playing varsity sports, the size difference would mostly go away. The problem that results is kids who are 13-14 as entering freshmen are too young to safely compete with kids 5-6 years older. You believe the problem is that families of 13-14 year old freshmen don't get it and need to get on the red-shirting bandwagon? As a practical matter you did completely destroy the argument for red-shirting.

Positive slope yes, but much steeper slope between 13-15. So between 18-20 there is about a 10 lb difference for an average boy (about 7% lighter at 18), between 13-15 there is a 25 lb difference (more than 20% lighter). It's up to parents to decide whether to red-shirt or not, but that decision is usually made a very young age. If your DS turns out to be a 120 lb freshman you'd have to be a special type of idiot to allow him to play varsity. If your DS is a 150 lb freshman he could probably handle it.

Even if you find the CDC charts mystifying, a little common sense goes a long way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have a clue. We are on a travel lacrosse team and have yet to see all these 15 year old phenoms you hate. Yes there may be a few kids who started late and then repeat a grade. Most are just held back one year. My DS just turned 14 and is in 8th grade. He has an August birthday. Being in private, they would not let him start. Cutoff was June 1.

Give your kid some vitamins and maybe he will grow more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I am familiar enough with that roster to call bunk -- again -- on everything you are trying to argue. The 205 lb freshman is a strong player who was also 16 in the fall of his freshman year, which is one of the problems in the sport being debated. There are two other rostered kids at 230 pounds and at 285 pounds. Both of those kids were recruited to play football at Gonzaga and both are among the top recruits in the nation for college football. One is going to Alabama next year, and the younger boy has SEC football offers.

The CDC growth charts don't lie and are conclusively representative. To be specific to your point, 285 lb living and breathing people and 45 lb dwarfs are possible, and represent the outliers in the data. One lacrosse roster at a prep school well known for elite prep football, which they recruit for, where two prominently sized kids play lacrosse in the spring is representative of nothing and is misleading to extrapolate from. The point is plain, simple and is supported by the data you argued does not exist. There are material spreads in physical size and development between adolescents two years apart, and there are jarring differences when that spread is widened to 5 years considering 14 year olds and 19 year olds.

Umm . . . you do realize the CDC charts support red-shirting don't you? The greatest year to year changes in size are 13-15, not 18-20. The problem is that some kids are too YOUNG when they begin playing varsity. If the 205 lab freshman hadn't red shirted he'd be a 205 sophomore - and still playing. The 285 lb junior would be a 285 lb senior - and still playing. You aren't going to eliminate big kids from playing varsity high school contact sports. As the CDC charts prove, even non-red-shirt seniors are fully grown. The problem is kids being allowed to play varsity as freshman when they aren't big enough.

Cmon, how many Freshman are getting major playing time on any compettive lacrosse team? We were at one of the "noted" lacrosse schools and while there were a few freshamn that made the team every year, they got very little playing time and non were starters unless one of the older kids got injured. Almost always the kids with the most playing time are the juniors and seniors for a reason, They are bigger, stronger and have more experience. It really isn't rocket science.



the "problem" being addressed here is the alleged problem of enormous size mismatches caused by allowing 19 year olds to play varsity. The CDC charts show that even at the 97% the average weight difference is about 4 lbs. Between 14-15 the average weight difference is 14 lbs.

If kids don't play there is no issue, but wouldn't they be better off on a JV squad where they could play more against kids who are the same size?

[Anonymous]

At the highest level, lacrosse clubs are organized by birth year, not class year, so red-shirting is a non-factor

http://www.uslacrosse.org/rules/age-eligibility-guidelines.aspx

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Very well aware about Landon as DS was a recent graduate. You are talking about 6 kids of around a class of 75. Typically, you will find that the age range goes from June 1 of one year till about the end of May for the following year. Kids with Birthdays June 1 or later will be in the younger class. Some parents will push their kids to be in the older class but not many. In all our years there, there was one kid 2 years older than his class. He wasn't held for athletics. The spread between the oldest and youngest kid was 16 months. By junior year it made absolutely no difference in the size or the athelticism of the youngest kid. The kids that were good athletes were good athletes.

[Anonymous]

For what it's worth, non-athletes are also typically held back a year if transferring into a private school (boys, girls, coed) from a public school due the academic rigor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Very well aware about Landon as DS was a recent graduate. You are talking about 6 kids of around a class of 75. Typically, you will find that the age range goes from June 1 of one year till about the end of May for the following year. Kids with Birthdays June 1 or later will be in the younger class. Some parents will push their kids to be in the older class but not many. In all our years there, there was one kid 2 years older than his class. He wasn't held for athletics. The spread between the oldest and youngest kid was 16 months. By junior year it made absolutely no difference in the size or the athelticism of the youngest kid. The kids that were good athletes were good athletes.

Landon does not accept 75 9th graders. They accept about 20. 6 out of 20 went to 8th grade. Many of these kids have fall birthdays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Very well aware about Landon as DS was a recent graduate. You are talking about 6 kids of around a class of 75. Typically, you will find that the age range goes from June 1 of one year till about the end of May for the following year. Kids with Birthdays June 1 or later will be in the younger class. Some parents will push their kids to be in the older class but not many. In all our years there, there was one kid 2 years older than his class. He wasn't held for athletics. The spread between the oldest and youngest kid was 16 months. By junior year it made absolutely no difference in the size or the athelticism of the youngest kid. The kids that were good athletes were good athletes.

Landon does not accept 75 9th graders. They accept about 20. 6 out of 20 went to 8th grade. Many of these kids have fall birthdays.

The PP stated that 6 of the 8th graders were repeating 8th grade at Landon. Landon has approximtely 75 8th graders . So 6 of the 75 were on the older side. Landon actually has a larger freshman class than usual.

[Anonymous]

Be safe out there

http://www.stalbansschool.org/page.aspx?pid=768

[Anonymous]

That was 1991.