Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No football at our house. Period. Full Stop. No argument. My boys will not play football. The risk of serious injury, including brain injury is too great.

Yeah, I'm with ya. What is a parenting problem for these parents is that they already said he could play and let him have a taste. He liked it and now they are saying "no". So, I get ya about the issues with football and I said "no" myself. The reasons these parents offer for the "no" are all a bit crazy now that he had a taste and liked it.

Totally different parenting problem now.

OP here. Let me clarify what we agreed to and not agreed to. He insisted on playing football, and we said no, he kept asking, and so we said we'll let him for practice with the team and get some conditioning done, to get a feel for it, and play scrimmage, but never actually getting into games. That part is over, and we want him to stop as we agreed. But now he says he cannot leave the team, they need him, so on. As we understand they have enough reserves to replace, so this is not a problem. This being the freshman/JV team, we did not think the risk of injuries were as serious as some of the other poster above said, if we had known that we would have never let him even start.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No football at our house. Period. Full Stop. No argument. My boys will not play football. The risk of serious injury, including brain injury is too great.

Yeah, I'm with ya. What is a parenting problem for these parents is that they already said he could play and let him have a taste. He liked it and now they are saying "no". So, I get ya about the issues with football and I said "no" myself. The reasons these parents offer for the "no" are all a bit crazy now that he had a taste and liked it.

Totally different parenting problem now.

OP here. Let me clarify what we agreed to and not agreed to. He insisted on playing football, and we said no, he kept asking, and so we said we'll let him for practice with the team and get some conditioning done, to get a feel for it, and play scrimmage, but never actually getting into games. That part is over, and we want him to stop as we agreed. But now he says he cannot leave the team, they need him, so on. As we understand they have enough reserves to replace, so this is not a problem. This being the freshman/JV team, we did not think the risk of injuries were as serious as some of the other poster above said, if we had known that we would have never let him even start.

That's really not the way high school sports works. Either you are on the team or you aren't. Now you might not be good enough to play and then sit on the bench, but that's the coaches choice. Why would the coach want a kid who is just using the team to work out for a few weeks?

Frankly since you've let him get this far (aren't the first games in 2 days?) I'd let him play this season. You can then have a more rational discussion for next year. But given his general lack of follow though on other activities, chances are he will have lost interest by next year anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No football at our house. Period. Full Stop. No argument. My boys will not play football. The risk of serious injury, including brain injury is too great.

Yeah, I'm with ya. What is a parenting problem for these parents is that they already said he could play and let him have a taste. He liked it and now they are saying "no". So, I get ya about the issues with football and I said "no" myself. The reasons these parents offer for the "no" are all a bit crazy now that he had a taste and liked it.

Totally different parenting problem now.

OP here. Let me clarify what we agreed to and not agreed to. He insisted on playing football, and we said no, he kept asking, and so we said we'll let him for practice with the team and get some conditioning done, to get a feel for it, and play scrimmage, but never actually getting into games. That part is over, and we want him to stop as we agreed. But now he says he cannot leave the team, they need him, so on. As we understand they have enough reserves to replace, so this is not a problem. This being the freshman/JV team, we did not think the risk of injuries were as serious as some of the other poster above said, if we had known that we would have never let him even start.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No football at our house. Period. Full Stop. No argument. My boys will not play football. The risk of serious injury, including brain injury is too great.

Yeah, I'm with ya. What is a parenting problem for these parents is that they already said he could play and let him have a taste. He liked it and now they are saying "no". So, I get ya about the issues with football and I said "no" myself. The reasons these parents offer for the "no" are all a bit crazy now that he had a taste and liked it.

Totally different parenting problem now.

OP here. Let me clarify what we agreed to and not agreed to. He insisted on playing football, and we said no, he kept asking, and so we said we'll let him for practice with the team and get some conditioning done, to get a feel for it, and play scrimmage, but never actually getting into games. That part is over, and we want him to stop as we agreed. But now he says he cannot leave the team, they need him, so on. As we understand they have enough reserves to replace, so this is not a problem. This being the freshman/JV team, we did not think the risk of injuries were as serious as some of the other poster above said, if we had known that we would have never let him even start.

Anonymous wrote:Against parents wish the kid pursues football and long behold he gets a permanent injury which would require a life-long treatment, I am scared of a situation like that so I can understand OP's concern. Also I am sure I would feel very much resentful toward the kid in one sense that "against our suggestions you pursue this sports and now we have to care for you the rest of our/your life?" I know as a parent I love my kid, but when I am forced into a situation without any choice by the kid, I wonder if I can stop resenting about the whole situation without losing that love for the child. Hypothetically speaking, OP's son could get a injury that may require this life-long treatment and I am not sure I would be able to support such treatment, provided that I have other kid and say our income/insurance will not guarantee the level of care he needs. Also, I wonder what happens to him after we passed. I don't want to burden/inconveniences the siblings for the care of the injured son (i.e., giving up education, dream job, or even marriage). Who would want to marry the injured son when you know it that you will become a primary care for the son (realistically speaking, if no incentive would you want to marry him?) That sort of concerns.

Anyway, I know that it is his choice but I will be very firm about what I can/cannot do up front. I feel for you OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No football at our house. Period. Full Stop. No argument. My boys will not play football. The risk of serious injury, including brain injury is too great.

Yeah, I'm with ya. What is a parenting problem for these parents is that they already said he could play and let him have a taste. He liked it and now they are saying "no". So, I get ya about the issues with football and I said "no" myself. The reasons these parents offer for the "no" are all a bit crazy now that he had a taste and liked it.

Totally different parenting problem now.

Anonymous wrote:No football at our house. Period. Full Stop. No argument. My boys will not play football. The risk of serious injury, including brain injury is too great.

Anonymous wrote:No way in hell I'd let my son play football. Honestly, the research speaks for itself. Right now all a teen can think about is being a cool football player and enjoying the thrill of playing. The risk of permanent neurological damage and deterioration is too high.