Heading

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
I've got to be honest here, yes lets sod it! Governments really are not required to be policing every element of our lives and nanny stating us to a position of not heading a football is ludicrous. In Britain we have been playing football en mass for many years, each generation with improved life expectancy and improving health. (At least until the obesity bomb hits!)

What has the government got to do with it? It would be the decision of the footballing body, as is the case in the US.

That this ban originates in America is even more ludicrous, a country that has the WWE as an iconic business with so many of it's performers suffering premature mortality and followed by so many youngsters, American footballers with the pressures through out the highschool and collegiate system concusing each other in savage hits that continue into the pro game. And lets not even start on the gun ownership laws.
Football may not be as important as anyones future health but who on here believes it's had a detrimental effect on them? Did I ever even as an 8 year old feel concussed or really hurt by heading a ball? Nope! Do I do myself and my braincells allot more damage down the pub on a semi regular basis? Oh yes! will these children grow up to do the same damage as the rest of us by self inflicting Booze, drugs and junk food on themselves. Probably! There are so many ways in which to damage yourself in your lifetime and in my book it should take a lot more than a study of hints and potential to be telling everyone to stop something which on a scale is relatively low risk, with very little certainty of even mild negative effects.
Come the revolution will you ban everything potentially harmful? There'll be nothing to eat as every week something new is stated to cause cancer, should we all migrate south in the winter because some child might slip on ice and break limbs and or get concussion? What do you think about; snowball fighting, conkers, hot drinks, anything wooden (Splinters and ensuing infection), people congregating in the same space (Illness, disease and contagion!) Time for us to all live in hermetically sealed padded boxes, because to expose ourselves to even slight risks is madness!

Bah!

I don't want to be rude, GM, but most of your points here are straw-men and the tiny sample size you mention (i.e. "I headed a football when I was young, and I'm alright") is incomparable to peer-reviewed research.

For the record, this isn't a case of banning all heading or anything. It's to do with mitigating future risks by reducing heading in training for the most vulnerable demographic. Sounds like a sensible move in light of recent findings IMO.
 
Yeah, sod the peer reviewed research hinting at potential brain damage! Football is more important than the future health of the children!

If this was true then there'd be a hell of a lot of people with brain damage considering how any people play this sport.
 
If this was true then there'd be a hell of a lot of people with brain damage considering how any people play this sport.

How do you know there isn't? People don't tend to get screened for brain damage (however mild) unless they have experienced some sort of 'event' which hints at it.
 
What has the government got to do with it? It would be the decision of the footballing body, as is the case in the US.




I don't want to be rude, GM, but most of your points here are straw-men and the tiny sample size you mention (i.e. "I headed a football when I was young, and I'm alright") is incomparable to peer-reviewed research.

For the record, this isn't a case of banning all heading or anything. It's to do with mitigating future risks by reducing heading in training for the most vulnerable demographic. Sounds like a sensible move in light of recent findings IMO.

Blimmey JK if that's you being rude maybe I've married badly! I take your point on the size of poll and I have not looked at the collective findings of the research. However I would imagine that of the sample size, the sufferers would be showing limited suffering and limited severity in their suffering. i would also imagine that it will only effect a a tiny proportion. Again I think this then comes down to how risk averse we should be as a society and whilst my glib points about sealing kids or all of us up in hermetically sealed boxes, is just that there is also the question that i'm really asking of just how far should risk aversion go? Surely parents, children et al can make those sort of decisions against limited risks themselves. Whilst I have sympathy for the Astles, he rather looks the exception rather than the rule and as an exception might there have been some physiological reason why he suffered his fate, whilst others in the same era heading the same balls have exhibited no symptoms or effects?
In a life, any life where it could get ended by a knife weilding urchin, a fairly responsibly driven car or a sudden act of the skypixie, I can't countanance that a study that "hints" at "potential" for something but does not say 1 in a 1000 will become a gibbering drool monkey should result in a wide spread ban. It's Nannying nonsense in my book.

Bah!
 
... I can't countanance that a study that "hints" at "potential" for something but does not say 1 in a 1000 will become a gibbering drool monkey should result in a wide spread ban. It's Nannying nonsense in my book.

But like I say, GM, it isn't a "widespread ban" that is being advocated. It's merely sensible mitigation of risk.

As far as I can tell, the idea is that the use of heading in youngsters' matches will be normal (including in practice matches). It's just the dedicated 'heading drills' that will be reduced. I don't really see this reduction for a specific age demographic to be a major issue.
 
But like I say, GM, it isn't a "widespread ban" that is being advocated. It's merely sensible mitigation of risk.

As far as I can tell, the idea is that the use of heading in youngsters' matches will be normal (including in practice matches). It's just the dedicated 'heading drills' that will be reduced. I don't really see this reduction for a specific age demographic to be a major issue.

OK I generally agree with that, but I thought the initial post implied that all heading in under 10's was to be banned. If practice is allowed but reduced then I don't see any great problem. As long as it is practiced, otherwise they will end up doing themselves a mischief in a match. Afterall heading drills are fine but it still doesn't quite replicate a contested header in the heat of a match.

I would still call a rule applying to anyone up to ten in the US as pretty widespread though! :emoticon-0110-tongu

Bah!