Did they knowingly accept the risks? Was this spelled out to them? You don't mean to trivialise it but you just compared dementia to an ingrown toenail.
Expect 15 posts as Syd reinterprets what was said and readjusts what he said and ends up telling us everyone is wrong but him.
That's because I didn't mention ingrowing toenails (as it happens, my toe nails have been ****ed from (still) playing football - not ingrowing though). I also didn't make any comparison of dementia to ingrowing toenails; why would I, that would be ridiculous. But small details like that don't stop Syd posting what he wants to make up! One weird guy. It was a post from me so therefore Syd will respond to argue about something; often something that wasn't actually there. Hey ho. Anyway, putting aside for one moment his obvious obsession with a couple of us, I truly wonder if he has some sort of diagnosed medical condition? Genuine question. If we know then we can take that in consideration when responding (at least those of us that still bother responding). I've taken part in all sorts of activities, sport or otherwise, every single day of my life. From the moment I wake up to deep in the night .... oops, got carried away there, to when I go to sleep. I don't expect, nor should I expect, to have all the risks clearly laid out in front of me for me to make a decision about whether to accept them and continue or not. FWIW, I think the sensible precautions now being put in place for young 'uns is a good thing. Pro footballers claiming against the authorities to me is plain ridiculous, and a(nother) very slippery slope for sport & society.
I'm old enough to have headed the old style leather football. It ****ing hurt, particularly if you caught it wrong. It doesn't surprise me that persistent heading of this ball caused problems. My dad taught me to head a ball before age 11 but by using a light plastic ball, which didn't hurt at all. I wonder how much the older ball is responsible for damage as opposed to the newer one and if the damage is caused by the number of impacts as opposed to the force. More research needed I think.
The leather ball was no heavier than a modern ball when dry. The problems were when you were playing in rain as unlike modern balls it absorbed water. “ It is a myth that the modern ball is lighter than the balls used in the past. Since 1937, the dry weight of the ball has been specified by Law 2: 14-16oz. Prior to that, the rules governing the ball’s dry weight specified something lighter – 13-15oz. This goes for the new ball used in 2010 just as much as it did for the 1966 ball. Whenever you read a comment along the lines of “I’d like to see modern players heading the leather pudding the ’66 boys had to put up with” you can assume that they don’t know what they’re talking about. What has changed are (1) the material from which the ball is made, and thus the ability of the ball to avoid weight gain during the game through water absorption, and (2) the aerodynamics of the ball i.e. the smoothness of the surface. The new ball isn’t lighter in of itself – which is what people seem to be assuming: but the new ball won’t get so wet in play. So in the broad sunshine of the ’66 World Cup Final, the famous orange balls were the same weight as the ones we see today. And so it has been on every dry day, on every dry pitch, since the balls were first standardized in the early 1870s.”
And don’t forget if you headed those bloody laces, though my memory (which is pretty good from the past, just recent stuff..red flag?) is that the laced up balls were mainly used in our own games (mid 70’s), rather than schools. I think they used even heavier plastic ones? I will never forget as a ‘centre half’ when there was no playing out from the back, your head would rattle heading the opposition goalies kick up field. And as someone alluded to earlier, I was never actually ‘taught’ how to head a ball. Not sure if there was a safer way, but you just met it with your forehead with as much forward force as your timing would allow, as you’d seen Chillo and co do.
Quoted to help you out. Asking if they're also complaining about their toenails being messed up (one common example being ingrown toenails) as if having issues with that should be considered to require the same action as legal proceedings around head injuries is to equate the two. The post was absolutely trivialising how serious and detrimental head injuries are long term to someone's health. Of course the poster then tried to backtrack with his follow up "I don't mean to trivialise head injuries" comment but he already had. As others have explained, players took to the field not fully aware of implications around head injuries and it's perfectly reasonable to now be seeking compensation for that.
Syd seems to think that a toe problem involving nails is an ingrowing toenail. Other toenail problems are available…
Ignoring the personal rubbish in most of this post (nothing new), on your point about pro players taking legal action against a former employer, not only is it not a slippery slope, it already happens across the board if you are injured in a work place you are entitled to compensation. If your employer had knowledge and could have taken action to prevent your injuries that you were unaware of at the time, you are also entitled to compensation. It's happening across a number of sports worldwide in relation to head injuries and is not unique to football. Your employer owes you a duty of care.
Cityzen looks like he needs to brush up on the definition of the word 'example'... Or was the expectation I list every single possible toe problem one can sustain from football, rather than just an incredibly common example.
Was such a good, respectful discussion as well with inputs from multiple people with different perspectives. Shame it was ruined by the same person again in typical fashion.
Yes, GFAW suggesting I have a medical condition rather than addressing the points in the discussion was disappointing but entirely expected.
At the time of your 'jinxed it' post, I'd made all of one post to suggest that GFAW had trivialised the matter, which was no better or worse than half a dozen other inputs into the discussion. I suspect just as GFAW thinks I read certain people's posts in a certain way, there's plenty of posters who read mine in the same 'way'. My responses since have also refrained from being personal, but rather have expanded on my view around head injuries. I've even ignored personal remarks that have now come from two sources. So I'd love to know how I 'ruined' this discussion in a way that GFAW being personal and insulting as per, and you now verging on the same haven't. Or just say 'lmao' again I guess.
As predicted. But the immaturity in the discussion is coming from one source, or so they say. Rather sad, but oh well.
