Should Women’s High School Soccer Be Banned To Reduce Knee Injuries?
Sports have long been the greatest single cause of injury in the western world, though as a cause of accidental fatality it remains comparatively infrequent. Not all such injuries are inevitable, however, or inseparable from the sporting activity which give rise to them.
A paper in a recent British Medical Journal demonstrates that it is possible for adolescent female soccer players to avoid nearly two-thirds of the anterior cruciate ligament injuries to the knee to which they are susceptible, by the simple expedient of performing a 15-minute neuromuscular warm-up exercise before the beginning of a match.
The study was carried out with characteristic thoroughness in Sweden, where 309 clubs with adolescent female players were randomly allocated to those whose players performed the warming-up exercises under the direction of a trainer and those whose players did not. The rate of cruciate ligament injury was calculated over the following season of seven months.
Seven of 2479 players who performed the exercises had such an injury in the course of the season, while 14 of 2085 who did not perform them were injured in this way.
Assuming — as seems likely — that each player played twenty matches during the season, this means that 12,395 hours of exercise had to be performed to avoid about 8 cruciate ligament injuries, that is to say 1,565 hours per injury avoided. There is, of course, no objective method of determining whether the effort was worth it; it depends on the scale of values employed. What would the players who exercised have been doing if they had not done their exercises? Chatted about their boyfriends? This might surely seem a more agreeable way to spend fifteen minutes.
The only people competent to decide are the child and his parents/guardians (if the decision of the child is nonsensical), not political authorities.
Life is dangerous, people must adjust to this and accept this in the school, in the workplace and at home.
I remember you the writing of Cesare Beccaria about false ideas of utility:
http://www.constitution.org/cb/crim_pun40.htm
A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave’; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.
The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.
It is a false idea of utility that would give to a multitude of sensible beings that symmetry and order which inanimate matter is alone capable of receiving; to neglect the present, which are the only motives that act with force and constancy on the multitude for the more distant, whose impressions are weak and transitory, unless increased by that strength of imagination so very uncommon among mankind. Finally, that is a false idea of utility which, sacrificing things to names, separates the public good from that of individuals.
There is this difference between a state of society and a state of nature, that a savage does no more mischief to another than is necessary to procure some benefit to himself: but a man in society is sometimes tempted, from a fault in the laws, to injure another without any prospect of advantage. The tyrant inspires his vassals with fear and servility, which rebound upon him with double force, and are the cause of his torment. Fear, the more private and domestic it is, the less dangerous is it to him who makes it the instrument of his happiness; but the more it is public, and the greater number of people it affects, the greater is the probability that some mad, desperate, or designing person will seduce others to his party by flattering expectations; and this will be the more easily accomplished as the danger of the enterprise will be divided amongst a greater number, because the value the unhappy set upon their existence is less, as their misery is greater.
I was hoping this was some attempt at satire, but it doesn’t appear to be. Let’s see.
1. Got to 5% injury rate by projecting across 5 years, rather than 4. (What high schools are you talking about?)
2. Assumed you could get project on a linear basis. This ignores the possibilities that injury rates could vary based on age (girls bodies are changing rapidly at this point so that’s not at all clear). Also ignores the (high) likely hood that many girls over their high school career will be reinjured rather than brand new girls being injured each year which also impacts your injury rate.
3. Offered absolutely no comparisons. You just make a blanket statement that we wouldn’t accept this kind of injury rate elsewhere without any attempt to back that statement up and leap to the conclusion that we must therefore ban.
4. Ignore completely that whether people who aren’t you want their kids playing soccer is none of your business.
All of this is a pity. As a father of a girl who plays soccer, I worry about injuries a good bit. You had a chance to write a useful and informative article that could really help people. Pit you apparently decided not to.
It is satire. Anthony Daniels just doesn’t wink at the end to make it obvious.
I suspect that a statistical argument could be offered that demonstrates that just about any activity of any kind opens the door to health risks.
Somehow a life spent in the dark, in silence, suspended in a body-temperature sterile solution, seems hardly worth living.
Careful. You’ll be reported to Jeanette Pryor for your misogyny.
” In a world in which thousands of children die of diarrhoeal diseases, why should so many medical resources be diverted to treating what are, after all, self-inflicted injuries?”
This is a leftist meme, that we have to feel guilty about the plight of children in third world nations. I do believe that if the corrupt governments of those nations could be overcome, and the people could enjoy a free and flourishing economy, those same children would be freely choosing to play soccer, or not.
I’ve been reading Dalrymple for years and let me assure you that he is no leftist. I think he’s doing a Devil’s Advocate/satire piece in this instance.
Life is all about trade-offs, isn’t it? Studies also show that girls that play soccer and other high school sports are much less likely to get involved with drugs, end up pregnant, etc. As a former female high school jock, I can speak from experience – sports kept me out of trouble on many occasions. Can’t really go play a weekend tournament if you’re hung over from Friday night, can you? The risk of messed up knees was worth it for me.
I would also point out that not all girls run the same risk of knee injuries. Women and girls with a certain leg/hip ratio – long legs and wide hips (think v-shape) – are at higher risk than those with shorter legs and narrower hips. Because of the way women are built, they run a risk of knee injury in many other sports besides just soccer. If those whose anatomy put them at higher risk were ID’d and advised to do the proper warm-up exercises before engaging in sports, then the number of injuries would probably diminish.
Agree completely.
Identification of the those players structurally at greater risk, as well as proper refereeing, where illegal tackles result in suspensions, may reduce rates of injury significantly.
Having said that, I do believe ‘heading’ the ball in youth soccer should be banned.
Pity you hadn’t ‘tackled’ the issue of high school football, where sublcinical (and obvious) head injuries leading to difficulties in later life are common. I could support some legislative solution there. That is purely an American problem, however . . .
The whole controversy over high school football is far too incendiary for me to wade into. It’s one of those American “sacred cows” that seem untouchable.
But whatever, I’ve waded in, so I might as well say it: American gridiron football is stupid and should be banned if nothing else but to break the stranglehold the ridiculous sport has over the American high school and university systems.
Spoken like a good totalitarian. Kim Jong Il is looking up and smiling at you.
Sure, call me a commie. But…
When the US high school system puts more importance on football, prom night, etc. than education and when many universities are run like businesses whose profit margin depends on their football team, the “education” system has issues.
What of the stranglehold that soccer has upon the imagination of the lower classes in many European and South American countries? The individuals whose lives are frittered away on desperate dreams of becoming professional athletes? Or as Dalrymple put it recently
“All were, ex officio as it were, multimillionaires—a fact that has a disastrous effect upon young black men, who now see soccer, along with pop music, as practically the only route to success, not realizing that even in a bread-and-circuses regime, the demand for circus performers is severely limited.”
The negative effects of soccer on the culture of Europe are just as obvious as the negative effects of football upon our education system, surely. Ban all sports, now!
“What of the stranglehold that soccer has upon the imagination of the lower classes in many European and South American countries?”
It’s worse than that. As I understand it, soccer – or as everyone in the world except Americans and Canadians call it – football is the most popular sport in the world and is enthusiastically played and watched in just about EVERY country, not just Europe and South America.
And don’t make the mistake of thinking it is purely a lower class sport! Dalrymple has written on this many times. In one particularly memorable essay, he pointed out that every Member of Parliament in the British Parliament at the time he wrote the essay stated (in Who’s Who) his enthusiasm for football (soccer). If I remember correctly, each and every MP listed their favourite teams. Furthermore, each MP declined to name ANY other personal interests. Dalrymple was dubious that such uniformity could possibly be true but this is at least what the MPs wanted people to believe.
I thought this was going to be attempt at parody, likely to tied to the analogy of the nanny state deciding how big our Cokes can be. After all, where it used to be ‘fer the children’, now it’s the ‘prevention of obesity.’
Apparently, I missed the part about the Cokes and the nanny state.
1) It is.
2) Has no one here any familiarity with the work of Dr. Dalrymple?
Dalrymple is my favorite essayist, and this is definitely satire. After all, family doctors in Burlington or Boulder cannot easily transfer their services to Niger or Chad to treat diarrheal illnesses, even if no American girl ever hurt her little knees again.
Ban walking. The immobile do not injure their joints.
My personal experience is to the contrary. Sitting around leads to stiff joints and chronic pain. Use ‘em or lose ‘em.
(And yes, I understand that the plural of anecdote is not data)
On the other hand, pedestrians do tend to get in the way of drivers, so maybe you have a point there
“In a world in which thousands of children die of diarrhoeal diseases, why should so many medical resources be diverted to treating what are, after all, self-inflicted injuries?”
So Dr.Dalrymple, when are you going to give up your position at the Manhattan Institute and divert yourself to Africa and other third world areas to treat the thousands of children? Hmm, you’re NOT going? Didn’t think so….
A quick check on the common causes of diarrhea include viruses, bacteria and parasites. Perhaps the better use of funds is not on the medical treatment of diarrhea but on the public health issues of clean water, adequate food, elimination of disease carrying insects.
Apparently many people here are not familiar with the Doctor’s writings or biography. He indeed did serve as a Doctor in Zimbabwe as a young man, though it was in good circumstances. His clientele as a government doctor in England were decided downclass; they were prisoners.
Actually, his clientele while practicing in Birmingham (UK) was split between an inner city hospital and a nearby prison. I believe he worked in the prison two days a week and the hospital the rest of the time.
While I don;t read the BMJ, it seems the articles selected for review here always seem to point to some need for coercive legislation, or restrictions in the provision of testing or services.
This is a trend beginning in American journals as well, but the English are much farther down that road of nanny statism and the rationalization of rationing.
I have noticed that in Canada, physicians are much more likely to play population economics with individual patients than America docs, even those employed by capitated organizations like Kaiser, but they are pikers compared to the UK docs.
No doubt the Libyan bomber got the best public medical care available in the UK, and his kool aid drinking docs really believed he had only three months to live, before he was transferred to Libya and lived an additional 3-4 years.
So far Dr. Darymple has written here(and elsewhere) the same lefty bansturbator opinion about:
1. Cannabis.
2. Vets getting adequate pain meds.
3. Girls playing soccer.
No-one here has yet been convinced, and it’s unlikely that anyone will, no matter how this tedious, debunked proposition of banning things to save the world is dressed up and how often it is belaboured.
You obviously haven’t read much by this author and don’t know anything about him.
You should be embarrassed. Such intellectual shallowness coupled with such strong opinion is something I find far more common among left wing types, which belies your monicker.
I think that’s Dalrymple’s point much of the time. He reveals that no one side of the debate has a monopoly on being the “smart” ones, “clear thinking” or the like. So many reactions here from people who take themselves so seriously; reminds me of lefty blog comment threads, and equally unbearable. Apparently, that whole “happy warrior” idea hasn’t taken root quite as substantially as reported.
@Liz:
“So Dr. Dalrymple, when are you going to give up your position at the Manhattan Institute and divert yourself to Africa and other third world areas to treat the thousands of children? Hmm, you’re NOT going? Didn’t think so….”
Actually, Dr. Dalrymple (or Dr. Tony Daniels, as that’s his real name) has spent years treating people in third-world countries. After that, he spent his career in England treating patients in prison hospitals and inner-city clinics. So your criticism, I think, is incorrect.
I’ll say that, while Dalrymple is one of my favorite writers alive today, I’m not in total agreement with his argument here (it does seem like a very un-Manhatten Institute-esque argument, doesn’t it?). He is right about girls having a significantly higher risk of ACL tears playing soccer. I have a good friend who is a phys. ed. teacher and trainer at a tiny school in Western NYS, and he sees these injuries in girls in abundance.
Is the answer to ban girls’ soccer? No, I don’t think so. My friend the trainer/physiologist says much of it stems from the types of knee movements that come with soccer, but perhaps more importantly, with overstress of the joint. Many soccer girls today play for their school, play travel league soccer, and have other strenuous knee-related activities (cheerleading, dance, etc.) that they’re doing, sometimes all in the same season. He says the overstress is a recipe for ACL injuries. Just food for thought for those parents who have soccer girls at home.
You usually don’t see this level of subtlety-impairment outside of the comments section of the Daily Kos.
And Liz, Dalrymple has worked as a physician in Africa. Consider a few seconds of Google time before unleashing your next retort, it can help.
A brilliant, and dare I say it, modest proposal to end the epidemic of sports injuries by ending the practice of those sports which are obviously too dangerous for the State to permit. At least for children. Because after all, we don’t have the right to endanger the children!
Another attempt to complete control of our lives. The concept of minding their own business never occurs to these clowns.
In a related story, former NFL players are suing the league for sustained head injuries. Apparently they didn’t know that hitting other large men with their bodies over years caused damage while they cashed their million-dollar checks.
All contact sports carry risks, if you don’t like it, don’t let your kid play sports, but don’t tell other people that sports should be banned. Conservatives and Libertarians (i.e. “the right”) are supposed to stand for individual freedom, which includes the freedom to take risks.
If I were to give my true feelings about this article and its author, it would not be allowed. So I’ll just quote Bugs Bunny; “What a maroon.”
Paul
That was brilliant. Anymore insights?
Are you aware of the meaning of the word ‘satire’?
Sounds like the author is thinking that if sports are banned all of the unemployed orthopedic surgeons could move to Africa and treat childhood diarrhea.
For some reason this brought back childhood memories of my mother telling me to finish eating my vegetables because children are starving in China.
I thought natural selection was a desirable thing if so then aren’t there’s girls through their stressing the knee improving the lives of future generations of girls? And why no discussion of the benefits to the girls themselves isn’t there a battle going on against obesity?My daughter has played soccer for years and had to work through injuries but she has benifitit from it. I believe that Garth brooks sums it up well “I could have missed the pain, but I”d of had to miss the dance”.
“I thought natural selection was a desirable thing if so then aren’t there’s girls through their stressing the knee improving the lives of future generations of girls?”
What? I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Should Walking Across the Street Be Banned To Reduce Injuries?
The case for banning kids from using crosswalks or otherwise crossing the street on grounds of health and safety is clear.
Hey. Idea. Why not have people who play sports with a high rate of injury buy insurance to pay for those injuries. You know? Sorta like driving a car. Personal responsibility and all that.
But, the trend is to have the Nanny state pay for everything. Guess what? The State has every right to restrict your behavior if the State is going to pay for the consequences of your behavior. Which behaviors it will try to restrict will depend on the form of government (Democratic, Autocratic). If you don’t want the restrictions, don’t take the State money.
See? Once again, freedom and personal responsibility make this sort of problem just go away at the State level, and the State can worry about what the State is good at doing (roads, internal and national security). And, the citizens of the country can go about their business.
Teamwork, winning, and trying to win sometimes produces pain. These are all great life lessons. Exercise warmup before participating, preparation needed to win, another great life lesson. The trade off is potential injury. I made the parent decision to not let my boys play American football, deciding that this is an adverse risk versus gain activity. My opinion was that all other kids sports are a positive risk versus gain result.
I don’t know. Having read Theodore Dalrymple for years, I suspect he’s being a bit facetious here. This is the kind of tortured argument leftists make when they want to ban something (I love the “12,000-odd hours to avoid 8 injuries”) — but the thing to be banned is girls’ soccer, one of leftists’ favorite causes. (Which isn’t to say conservatives don’t enjoy girls’ soccer. But conservatives also enjoy football and NASCAR.)
If I’m wrong, my apologies to the good doctor.
I’ll bet more girls get hurt dancing than in playing soccer. Let’s ban dancing.
Hey, if we ban the girls from sports that may cause injuries we may as well get rid of Title 9.
On the surface, banning girl’s soccer and banning large servings of sugary soft drinks have some similarities: both are activities which people undertake voluntarily which have significant negative health consequences. In a world where health costs are not borne by the individual, but are spread to others, these negative health consequences create external costs which justify government regulation to control or prohibit the behaviors.
However, there is an obvious difference between the two which Dr. Dalrymple seems not to have noticed (or perhaps he just doesn’t care): I and my family do not drink large servings of sugary soft drinks, but we do participate in and enjoy high school girl’s soccer. Therefore, the proposal to ban sugary soft drinks is an excellent idea, while the proposal to ban girl’s soccer is outrageous and ridiculous.
It is reassuring to see that someone actually knows where Dalrymple is coming from. Of course, we are told that consumption of sugary drinks leads to obesity, which leads to expensive health complications, the cost of which are borne by “society”, whatever that means. Interestingly, the obese die sooner, and thus aren’t around as long to consume healthcare resources, so perhaps it is better for “society” to die of a heart attack at 55 than to go through all that expensive “end-of-life” nonsense at 90? I suppose we will just have to ponder the sentence “There is, of course, no objective method of determining whether the effort was worth it; it depends on the scale of values employed.”, and then ponder your last sentence, and go on our merry way of telling others how they must live their lives.
Oh no, two Americans who understand irony. My English brain has exploded.
Someone should ban Americans who understand irony.
Go brush your teeth.
I’m a guy who played socer in college. Many of my female friends who played soccer and basketball suffered torn ACLs. And, yes, it does happen to women at higher rates than men.
But banning it? Dalrymple I believe is from the UK. Her inthe US we have Title IX, which means essentially you need as many women sports as men sports, despite participation rates, affordability/viability, interest, etc. So ban women’ soccer, then have to find a men’s sport to suppress.
“Women’s High School Soccer”?
The local high school here also has “men’s” sports, too.
How many of the players are over 18?
Why are we so anxious to call them adults?
(honestly curious, here)
Soccer is a boring and dangerous sports for every living thing:
http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11604307-concussion-crisis-growing-in-girls-soccer?lite
Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from idiocy.
Of course, ban women’s soccer. That makes perfect sense!
My college had such a mismanaged women’s soccer team that many of the best team members quit.
Strangely enough, all those former female soccer players just joined the women’s rugby team. So they kinda traded knee injuries for knee injuries, concussions, and liver damage (the best parties are rugby parties!)
It is an uncontrovertible fact: 100% of the people who have died have the following item in common — they were born. Clearly, birth is deadly, we need to ban birth.
Commenting on blogs should be prohibited because of the risk of Carpal tunnel syndrome.
I find the article informative (I know nothing of soccer) but some of the comments ignorant. It does not bother me to learn of views which disagree with my position. If some one raises criticisms of a sport I love, I do not infer that he is against me. The author did not advocate banning a well recognized healthy activity; he simply presents data on a scientific study of one sport’s injury, and a reasonable suggestion on more warm ups prior to playing.
In my experience, a black belt in Taekwondo, college swimming and many high school sports, his approach seems reasonable. I would add one vital element, alert, trained supervision, particularly in the martial arts. I winch at viewing pro wrestling and Mixed Martial Arts. Those participants in the ring are very close to death or permanent injury. We are learning from pro football what we learned from pro boxing, violent attacks to the human skull can make you stupid or kill you. And we have learned the obvious: activities among 100 lb athletes which risk mild injuries, bumps and bruises, can be devastating among 300 lb., incredibly powerful athletes.
At every level of sport, as speed, power, and intense exertion is pushed to the limit, the need for thoughtful consideration of serious injury must advance. Some limits, objectionable to purists, must be imposed, by rule and referee, e.g. we have banned combat to the death as sport, and that defines our humanity. It is better to kick a ball than a human being.
“Some limits, objectionable to purists, must be imposed, by rule and referee, e.g. we have banned combat to the death as sport, and that defines our humanity.”
Should the UN ban war and would that make any difference?
Let’s go the whole hog and just outlaw stupidity in general.
;-D
;-D
oh! boys don’t suffer, just girls, get a life?
Cleverly done.
We’ll see who’s totalitarian and nannyish enough to agree uncritically.
And we’ll see who’s sexist enough to want to protect females at all costs, while failing utterly to give a rat’s posterior about males.
And we’ll see who’s sexist enough to become shrill at the thought of denying liberty and opportunity and Title IX parity to young women but who would gladly champion a move to deprive men of a sport program for statist reasons.
Granted, parsing out the language of the latter two groups to differentiate them from reasonable people will be a challenge. But all in all, well done.
why don’t we just keep all people in restrained in stasis pods, while hooked up to a virtual reality simulating life. this way no one will ever get hurt. Better yet, let’s just not allow people from having kids. No kids – no harm. Everybody wins.
Go Progressivism!
Matrix is problematic too, as proved by agent Smith.
This whole issue sounds so liberal. There is no mention of the possiblity, even the possiblity, that there might be a benefit to the girls that maybe, just maybe, would offset the possible injuries.
Bathtubs and Automobiles need banning too, as they are the source of many injuries.
I it possible that these comments are real? Can you fools not comprehend a parody? Really? Such po-faced sincerity in the replies, such stupidity. Good lord this is depressing. . .
Nanny doctor Dalyrumple.
I am a former soccer coach and currently a soccer administrator. At first, I took this article seriously because everything in it coincides with what I have read about ACL injuries in young women who play competitive soccer. I thought better of though and then decided that it might have been intended for April 1, or perhaps written by Bill Whittle who really HATES soccer. Then I realized that it was, for lack of a better term, a thought experiment for us.
This is exactly the kind of argument that the nanny-state, looney left would make. (Doctor Dalrymple doesn’t fit in either category, IMO.) All of the risks are expounded and summarized with just the right emotion and then the proposal is made to ban the activity for the better of the young women and for the greater good. Good job.
The fact is that organized sport, like other aspects of life, has risks. It also has benefits. For young people, including young women, the benefits are fitness and health, self confidence, less drug use, few pregnancies, and better school attendance. Pretty good stuff, eh?
This sort of thinking and writing is what led to the ban on DDT. The ban on DDT has cost nearly 50 million lives. Most of those 50 million were children. Yes, we banned DDT and saved the birds and snakes. (Or was it junk science?) But no one stopped to think about how many would die if it were banned and then 50 million did.
This is the sort of crap that the nanny-stater and environmental left have foisted on us all for many years. This piece makes me think and I suspect that’s what the good Doctor had in mind.
I agree. In fact we should ban exercise altogether. next time you see a middle aged man limping down the sidewalk just ask him whats wrong dude. 99 times out of a hundred he hurt his knee exercising. if he had just set down and relaxed his knee would be fine right now.
if the lord had meant us to go to gym he would have provided more towels and he would not have invented the guy that hogs the leg press machine and sweats all over it.
90% of all injuries happen within 10 miles of home. Everybody should move 20+ miles; indeed, this is embraced under section 404(iv) of Obamacare.
Perhaps if the young soccer players wore helmets it would protect their ACL’s? While not a “team sport”, ballet is absolutely “unnatural” The human body does not have the “turnout required by classic ballet. Our feet were not built for dancing “en pointe” Are we then to be denied the ineffable beauty of ballet? Figure skating and Gymnastics are hazardous but beautiful also.
I recommend banning the use of hearts.
They are unreliable, ultimately having well over a 100% failure-rate as all fail at least once and some fail repeatedly. When they fail, consequences for their users are drastic and extremely life-threatening.
This article is a classic piece of satire from Dalrymple. I’m amazed anyone is taking it at face value.