Why not replace tackle programs with flag football?

By John Gerdy

Parents, school officials, and anyone else involved in tackle football for kids 18 and under need to ask themselves a question:

Why not flag football?

I've heard all the arguments justifying tackle football. It's "about the kids." It contributes to personal fitness. It teaches things that cannot be taught in the classroom. Coaches impart valuable life lessons on discipline, teamwork, and personal responsibility on the field and off. It increases "engagement," making kids more likely to stay in school while giving them something constructive to do.

In addition, the competitive aspect of tackle football serves as a teaching tool in an increasingly global economy. It builds community, as few things can unite a community more than a successful football team. And finally, tackle football is very entertaining.

But let's be honest. The violence and sheer brutality are a big part of tackle football's appeal. Football is popular and entertaining because it satisfies humans' deep, for lack of a better term, bloodlust. Like a moth to a flame or a rubbernecker to an auto accident, we are attracted to the crunches, crushes, mayhem, and carnage.

As evidence linking football concussions and brain damage mounts, there has been increasing talk about how to make the game "safer." As if a game that, at its core, is predicated on inflicting bone-crunching, brain-rattling physical punishment on opponents can be made suitably safe.

Let's say football's damage quotient is a 9 on a scale of 10. Even with great effort, the most that could be expected would be to nudge that needle back from 9 a bit. Would that be safe enough?

The fact is, the sport is inherently, fundamentally violent. It is what it is, a brutal game. Instituting a few rules that will only marginally improve player safety, and launching glitzy public relations efforts to sell those rule changes as having a meaningful impact, won't change that reality.

So if we are serious about the safety of players, especially young athletes, why not flag football?

In terms of benefits for participants, the two forms of football are essentially the same. There is still grace, beauty, and athleticism. In flag, however, you get to avoid the bone-crunching hits, blocks, and tackles, as well as the gladiatorial (and expensive) equipment required to "survive" all that brain-scrambling. In contrast, a flag football defender just has to grab a ribbon from a belt attached to the ball carrier.

So why the resistance to flag football from the supposed "adults" in the room - parents, fans, school officials, and sports media? Why not embrace a safer and less expensive alternative?

If we were serious about teaching valuable life lessons, developing healthy bodies and competitive instincts, building community and providing entertainment, we would embrace the change. To do otherwise would enable the continuation of an activity in which our children have a reasonable chance of sustaining lifelong brain damage.

Some can't imagine the loss of the game's extremely physical nature. Without that raw brutality, they fear, the lessons learned from getting up after being knocked down may be lost. This is nonsense. I played basketball professionally. I got knocked down hundreds of times and had to pick myself up and get back in the game. Basketball, and plenty of other sports - including flag football - can teach that lesson.

The fact is, virtually every benefit that can be derived from tackle football can still be taught and absorbed through flag football. Players on flag teams would still learn sacrifice, teamwork, and personal responsibility. They would still be engaging in a physical activity. They would still compete for starting positions and against other teams. And the game would continue to be wonderfully entertaining, just in a different, less brutal (and less expensive) way.

So why not flag football?