Response Essay Example: Would Football without Concussions Still be Football?

DeAnna DeSantis Response

Thank you DeAnna for your response utilizing Nina Burleigh's essay "Would Football without Concussions Still be Football"? Your analysis, especially at the introduction stage is profound and touches on the main areas for the discussion. Your analysis accurately defines the idea that football is known for its physical nature and continues to describe the fact that the physical nature of football contributes to the problem that is concussions among the players. You also make statements that show the opinions that you hold with regard to the topic under discussion. However, lack of appropriate punctuation on some areas can take away for the message or intention as in the end of the second paragraph where you say "Should we let self-inflicted injuries of the game, blame football as the problem, I think not" instead of "Should we let self-inflicted injuries of the game, blame football as the problem? I think not. Also, injuries in football cannot be referred to as self- inflicted injuries because they are indeed, not self-inflicted but simple, the players are simply aware of the risks involved.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The rest of the argument is coherent and informs anyone who might be interested in the topic or issue. It also indicates that in the public domain, the issue is emotive and there is as section of the public that considers the presence of concussions and similar case a necessary part of the sport or game to the extent of recommending that it should not be changed or enhanced to reduce these concussions, which have even caused deaths among players. It is also important to note that the absence of education and information also plays a part in the development and increase of cases of poor health associated to the sport which can be addressed instead.

Julia Sovey Response

Thank you Julia for your response. It emerges that football is correctly considered a rough sport. Being a rough sport, you present the argument by one author that indicates that football should not be considered to be such a precious sport that it can be allowed at the expense of lives of young people. To this end, the presence of safety requirements and guidelines is prescribed and introduced. It is also intriguing to note that you mention how safe football has become in the past few decades, and underscore your argument with the idea that there is no sport that should be so precious that lives are lost in the process. The contrasting argument that sports allow the person playing to build mental and physical toughness provides an opposite and equally dangerous position and approach. It, however, presents the opportunity to seek the response for what it means when a person suffers injuries and even death in the playing field. Does that mean he is not strong enough? That he is weaker than his colleagues? What does injuries mean in the perspective of sports being opportunities for players to be tougher? With a response to these questions, it might be easier for the opposite views and perspectives to come out clearer and indicate the way forward in the quest to achieve safe sports. It is also not true that when a player suffers in the sports fields (which might range from broken limbs, concessions, brain damage and even death), he will be better off than if he stayed inside and played video games. You should have refuted such a claim because it belittles the efforts ad intensity of the suffering that the football players go through.