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.
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.
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!
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! Bah!
