The ball

Any thoughts on the following:

I refer to Alan Shearer's project regarding further investigations into the long term effects on the brain caused by long term heading of a football. I certainly wouldn't argue against this apart from one thing. According to Alan, the old leather football (apart from when it was mud bound ) was less heavy than the ball is today. I'm assuming he'll have done his homework but if the sizes of balls are the same as yesteryear (size 5) for senior football, I can't see how the modern plastic casings are thicker and weigh more than the old leather ball and it's bladder.

Isn’t it the case that the old leather balls used to soak up moisture from the pitch and any rain that was falling? So although they may have weighed less when dry, the moisture made them weigh more during many matches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seriouspie

Any thoughts on the following:

I refer to Alan Shearer's project regarding further investigations into the long term effects on the brain caused by long term heading of a football. I certainly wouldn't argue against this apart from one thing. According to Alan, the old leather football (apart from when it was mud bound ) was less heavy than the ball is today. I'm assuming he'll have done his homework but if the sizes of balls are the same as yesteryear (size 5) for senior football, I can't see how the modern plastic casings are thicker and weigh more than the old leather ball and it's bladder.

---

Have googled weight of a football.

I am wrong in my assumption. Apparently when dry, the ball today weighs just the same as in 1966. Amazing! I would certainly have lost a bet on that one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seriouspie

Have googled weight of a football.

I am wrong in my assumption. Apparently when dry, the ball today weighs just the same as in 1966. Amazing! I would certainly lost a bet on that one!

---

I’d have agreed with you on this, serious but decided to look it up. (You beat me to it but here's my reply anyway!)

What they’re talking about is the DRY weight of the ball.

The dry weight of the ball is specified in the rules as 14-16oz. This has been so since 1937.

Prior to that the weight specified was 13-15oz.

The difference between the old leather balls and the ones used now is that the current ones gain less weight during the game through water absorption.

So in theory todays ball could be heavier than those of days gone by as long as the weather is fine, otherwise no chance!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 60YearsAPie

I’d have agreed with you on this, serious but decided to look it up. (You beat me to it but here's my reply anyway!)

What they’re talking about is the DRY weight of the ball.

The dry weight of the ball is specified in the rules as 14-16oz. This has been so since 1937.

Prior to that the weight specified was 13-15oz.

The difference between the old leather balls and the ones used now is that the current ones gain less weight during the game through water absorption.

So in theory todays ball could be heavier than those of days gone by as long as the weather is fine, otherwise no chance!

---

Just a final comment 60Years.

I can distinctly remember the ball changing from a laced one to a ball with a countersunk or flush 'tit' as we called it. It was still leather and white (possibly a 'Mitre') and had a bladder which couldn't be changed I think and had a water resistant coating. In those days of 2-3-5 there was a lot of heading for defenders to do - especially the half back line - as it was more of a long ball game. Even with the weather being dry I seem to remember " No more ten second headaches coming today with this pill". Although I've been proved wrong it seemed a bloody sight easier and less painful to head than it's predecessor !!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seriouspie

Just a final comment 60Years.

I can distinctly remember the ball changing from a laced one to a ball with a countersunk or flush 'tit' as we called it. It was still leather and white (possibly a 'Mitre') and had a bladder which couldn't be changed I think and had a water resistant coating. In those days of 2-3-5 there was a lot of heading for defenders to do - especially the half back line - as it was more of a long ball game. Even with the weather being dry I seem to remember " No more ten second headaches coming today with this pill". Although I've been proved wrong it seemed a bloody sight easier and less painful to head than it's predecessor !!!!

---

Interesting!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4123437.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by countygump

Interesting!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4123437.stm

---

Very!!!

Me and a few more of my generation would't agree Gumpy. Another small point, you see modern players with a foot on the ball just prior to kick off. You can see the ball quite clearly deflate a little ......... this wouldn't happen with the old ball. Also there weren't too many players that could grip the old ball and lift it off the ground one handed .........Honestly!! But maybe the modern ball has less air in it ...... I dunno.

Yawn