Just listened to Mason on Talksport with Jim White. Fascinating and at times quite shocking interview. Tell you what, though - I don't think we'll see him again. He's making all the right noises, but it didn't sound like his heart was in it. When an outfield player - and a previously combative one at that - starts talking about wearing headgear, and 'being careful', it doesn't bode well. I hope I'm wrong, of course.
Sadly I agree with you , I just don't think it's worth the risk , life is more important than football
I'd expect Ryan's family have probably tried to convince him to give it up. I know I'd try to influence that if I were one of his family. There's just too much to risk. If he does decide to continue, he should practice getting good at taking corners.
Ryan Mason @RyanMason Thanks to everyone for all the positive feedback from my interview on @talkSPORT
I can't post the bloody article but this is a bit of it. It's by Daniel Taylor in the guardian. It is an easy assumption to make and I must confess I was one of those who thought the dangers had largely been removed once football phased out those heavy, leather balls, often saturated in water, that have been blamed for the issues relating to previous generations. That, however, might be a common mistake because if you listen to some of the experts who have been studying these cases it is a complete red herring. The balls might be lighter these days but that just means they travel much faster. The game is getting quicker all the time and that means more crosses are being made and more headers are necessary. There might not be the same kind of physicality compared to the days, to quote Harrison, when “trying to break opponents in half” was part of your average Saturday afternoon. But the greater speed also means there is a higher risk of players taking accidental bangs to the head. Willie Stewart, the neuropathologist who examined Astle and likened what he found to the brain of an old boxer, calls it a “lazy characterisation” to think of it as merely a problem of the past. Many people still do, however, and maybe that explains why the authorities in England have chosen to look the other way for so long, never taking the trouble to confront the evidence properly. It is certainly worth recounting what happened after the FA promised the Astle family in 2002 that it would treat the issue as a high-level priority. Instead the family received two letters and did not hear from the governing body for 12 years until Greg Dyke, the then chairman, had the decency to apologise on behalf of a previous regime. The first letter was from the FA’s solicitors to advise against legal action. The next could easily be described as a sweetener – a tactic the FA used many years later with various sexual-abuse victims – by offering free tickets for the next England friendly, albeit with the rider that it would be difficult to squeeze them all in. Two seats was the limit. Thankfully, there are other countries where they have devoted time to these studies without leaving the impression they had to be pushed into seeking answers. One study in New York found that players in their 30s who headed the ball 885 to 1,550 times a year had significantly lower water movement in three areas of their brains and those who did so more than 1,800 times tended to do notably worse in memory tests. American sports have been much quicker to recognise the dangers of concussion and when it comes to chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), the brain disease caused by repeated blows, Boston University announced last week there had been a significant breakthrough diagnosing it in living humans rather than having to identify it posthumously, as was previously the case. The United States feels so far ahead in terms of its research, its response (heading has been outlawed for under‑10s since 2015) and its understanding that the people playing sport have a right to know the risks. It might not change the way they play, or what their coaches demand, but at least they would be in possession of the facts. Doyle moved to Major League Soccer in 2015. It doesn’t reflect well on English football that he might still be going up for headers every Saturday, come what may, if he had stayed put.
Imagine what will be going through his mind when it comes to that first aerial challenge. How can it not affect his game? Not only that, but imagine being an opposing centre half and wondering if you're gonna be the one who smashes his skull again and kills him.
Every time I see that photo (of their heads clashing) or the video, I remain convinced it was totally reckless from Cahill. Flying in, eyes shut, missed the ball, took the player out. He should have been off and banned. Not saying it was intentional (to injure Mason), of course it wasn't, but totally reckless. I wonder if more would have been made of it had it been Maguire or Davies?
It was reckless, without a doubt. There was absolutely no intent and I believe he was only trying to play for the ball but he wasn't in control of his movement, that combined with the force of the challenge caused a life changing injury.
I think that could be said about pretty much any header though. The rules of the game don't do anything to protect against this kind of injury; rightly or wrongly heading, and being strong and dominant in the air, is a big part of football. It's a bit like those high foot incidents. There's no clarity on what a player is supposed to do instead of attempting to kick a ball which is in the air - are they meant to just leave it? Sometimes there's red cards and sometimes there's nothing, because the rules don't say anything clear on the matter. But very occasionally someone gets seriously hurt from it.
I agree its all very vague and we don't want to remove genuine strong challenges from the game. I do feel however, if you seriously injure someone through carelessness then that should be punished, its like the Liverpool player a few weeks ago, he had every right to challenge for the that ball but once he'd missed and kicked the goal keeper in the face he had to be sent off. I don't want it to become a case of punishing the injury and not the challenge (that happens a lot in rugby) but in cases like this a little bit of common sense could be applied.
I'm not sure I get you. It sounds like what you're describing is exactly what you say wouldn't want it to become. That Mane one was a perfect example. He did what every Liverpool fan would expect him to do and would have been rightly criticised if he didn't go for the ball, yet he got sent off because he mistimed it ever so slightly. I'm not sure how you solve it without softening the game to be honest.
You wouldn't want players to be softer, they can still make the same challenges with the same commitment, but they just need to accept that on the rare occasions they get it wrong they have to face the consequences, it wouldn't change the game or a players mentality in the slightest.
That sounds like the situation we have now. Injuries like this can already happen, and players can already get punished for an injury rather than a challenge, as with Mane and many others.
Yep, think he is trying to keep his options open as long as he can, and who can blame him, but imho, one specialist raising doubts is one too many, add to that Mason is going to become a father in a few months time, that should focus his priorities and show there is more to life than football. That said, if he is to get a "screamer"/non sleeper, he may well wish he could escape every day down to the training ground to get some peace! It must be an impossible decision to make to give up his passion, when he doesn't know anything else, but hopefully his family situation will help him weigh up the risk and priorities.
For me this is a game played by players and I believe the rules should reflect their take on the game, far more than they should reflect those of non-participants. Mason has had a hard time of it and he was lucky, on the day, to receive the thoughtful treatment on hand. But how many of us would not do it all again? I believe the surgery and subsequent healing growth will mean his skull will be stronger than it was, so, perhaps, others on here are right that it may be mainly a psychological problem for him, although I think he wiĺl wear protection to, in some way, counter that. Don't sanitize football, contact rules are already both poor and poorly applied, making it worse will kill the game quicker than the money men.
I think Ryan should retire, I carried on playing after a disclocated knee and worse - debutant arthritis which can provoke a trapped brachial nerve in the neck - but I am not about to be a father and we're talking the brain here. But when it's what you know and love, only the player can make that decision
And that German keeper who poleaxed Patrick Battiston (world cup 82) didn't even get a word from the referee. That was GBH! Plain and simple.
