Doing nothing is not an option

The research project into the effect of heading a football is making the news at the moment. As the club that gave Jeff Astle his start in the professional game, we have a particular interest. It is now proved beyond doubt that a professional player - especially one who heads the ball a lot - strikers / central defenders - run a 5 times greater risk of developing dementia in middle age.
Faced with these findings, how does the FA respond? Already the ball has been made lighter and less able to absorb water during the game, but is this enough.
There is talk of restricting the amount of hearing during training sessions, but how do you police something like that? The trouble is that young men and women in their ****s and twenties are subject to the 'that won't happen to me' syndrome.
One alternative is to change the laws of the game so that headed goals do not stand, but this wouldn't obviate defensive headers. It seems unthinkable that the laws will be amended to ban heading completely. It is one of the mlost exciting skills in a game.
Just wondered how Notts fans think this issue can be dealt with.

What about allowing the use of skull caps like they wear in Rugby (or akin to what Petr Cech wore). The balls are lighter and more water resistant, how about research into headwear that helps cushion the impact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chicken Balti Pie

What about allowing the use of skull caps like they wear in Rugby (or akin to what Petr Cech wore). The balls are lighter and more water resistant, how about research into headwear that helps cushion the impact

---

That seems as good a solution as you could come up with if heading the ball is deemed to be too dangerous. The only other option I can think of is playing with beach balls, which makes some form of protective headwear by far the better option.

Heading a ball that’s coming down from 100+ feet out of the sky has always seemed an inherently unhealthy thing to do to me.

I think outlawing heading would probably make the game better and more reliant on skill rather than brute force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigFatPie

Heading a ball that’s coming down from 100+ feet out of the sky has always seemed an inherently unhealthy thing to do to me.

I think outlawing heading would probably make the game better and more reliant on skill rather than brute force.

---

it would probably make us clear favourites for promotion this season but ultimatley of course that is not going to happen.

Making the ball lighter, and providing some head protection is really all you can do plus of course a style of play less dependent on heading where possible. Ultimately every career or interest comes with risk. The disappointing thing is that of course a big thing that will come out of this is legal actions and lawyers and then inevitable clauses and terms and conditions as that is the society in which we live.

If they ban kids heading the ball how will they learn the proper technique, perhaps they should have left the lace in the ball, and then like me, they would naturally duck their head out of the way.
There isn't a really good way around the problem without altering the game we all love.
I would like to see some comparison of strikers and defenders I would think that the latter would be more prone to it.
Looks like more research is needed.

https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/blog/f...-dementia-risk

It would be a shame in my opinion if heading was banned outright and take something away from the game. On the other hand it's a real issue that needs tackling in some form, I'm with CBP regarding the head wear as I can't think of anything else they can do to reduce the risk and not affect the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazyfists

It would be a shame in my opinion if heading was banned outright and take something away from the game. On the other hand it's a real issue that needs tackling in some form, I'm with CBP regarding the head wear as I can't think of anything else they can do to reduce the risk and not affect the game.

---

It wouldn’t just be a shame it would be a travesty. Football would become so much duller. Imagine free kicks and corners without being able to head. Imagine how many free kicks would be conceded knowing it’s almost impossible to score from the resultant free kick as the defending team would be back in shape.
Im intrigued as to who the scientists have used to come to the conclusion that heading a football increases the chances of Alzheimer’s. Have they used footballers from the 60’s when footballs themselves were so much heavier than they are now?
Football has changed so much. The ball spends more time on the floor than it does in the air. We only have to look at Notts to see that. Even in amateur games the emphasis has changed to keeping the ball more.
Heading is a skill. And from my own experiences at times a painful one. Not quite heading a ball properly has left me with a temporary headache in games. I suspect it’s this that could cause longer term health problems. I would suggest that ‘target’ men are more susceptible to this contact as they flick balls on. They would also get a wack from the defender back in the day.
That all said. If players want to use head guards as a precaution, then it’s sensible. They do it in rugby, they do it in amateur boxing and martial arts. So why not?
I would also like concussion protocol to include checking a player who heads a ball a particular number of times in a game.
For me, taking heading out of football is not an option.

This is interesting.

CONCLUSION
In the current test programme, we measured the performance of headgear against ball impact conditions of low speed volunteer heading (6.4–8.2 m/s), high speed ball dummy head impact (10–30 m/s) and against direct dummy head to head contact (2–5 m/s).

The findings of the low and high speed ball impacts, with a human subject and dummy headform, respectively, showed that all headgears did not reduce the impact response of the head. The head acceleration responses were within the variability noted for the unprotected condition. High speed video confirmed that the ball undergoes much larger deformation than the headband. The headgears tested are not effective because it is the ball which dominates the impact response. The head responses observed in all ball to head tests indicated a low risk of concussion even at the highest speed tested.

The findings of the head to head impacts show that headgear provides a measurable improvement in head response for the two impact sites tested. Due to the relatively high stiffness of the colliding heads, the introduction of a compliant headgear helps attenuate the impact by dissipation of energy. A prime original intent of football headgear was for protection while heading, however, it is reasonable that further performance gains might be achieved if materials are optimised for impact with the head or other rigid objects. Further effort shall be required to define other protective aspects of football headgear and develop relevant performance specifications and product standards.

What this study adds
If headgear is to be worn in football, the effectiveness of that headgear and its limitations must be understood. Three commercially available football headgear were tested. They were found to offer no protection from ball heading and high speed ball impact, but did offer some protection against impact from another player’s head.


https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/39/suppl_1/i40

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by countygump

This is interesting.

CONCLUSION
In the current test programme, we measured the performance of headgear against ball impact conditions of low speed volunteer heading (6.4–8.2 m/s), high speed ball dummy head impact (10–30 m/s) and against direct dummy head to head contact (2–5 m/s).

The findings of the low and high speed ball impacts, with a human subject and dummy headform, respectively, showed that all headgears did not reduce the impact response of the head. The head acceleration responses were within the variability noted for the unprotected condition. High speed video confirmed that the ball undergoes much larger deformation than the headband. The headgears tested are not effective because it is the ball which dominates the impact response. The head responses observed in all ball to head tests indicated a low risk of concussion even at the highest speed tested.

The findings of the head to head impacts show that headgear provides a measurable improvement in head response for the two impact sites tested. Due to the relatively high stiffness of the colliding heads, the introduction of a compliant headgear helps attenuate the impact by dissipation of energy. A prime original intent of football headgear was for protection while heading, however, it is reasonable that further performance gains might be achieved if materials are optimised for impact with the head or other rigid objects. Further effort shall be required to define other protective aspects of football headgear and develop relevant performance specifications and product standards.

What this study adds
If headgear is to be worn in football, the effectiveness of that headgear and its limitations must be understood. Three commercially available football headgear were tested. They were found to offer no protection from ball heading and high speed ball impact, but did offer some protection against impact from another player’s head.


https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/39/suppl_1/i40

---

The head gear needed would need further engineering no doubt (I thought this before I saw this to be honest). The issue is the brain moving around in the skull. The skull is hard so the ball deforms, you ideally want the head guard to deform instead of or along side the ball to avoid head injury. Almost like how the car deforms in a crash to absorb the impact to protect the passengers inside! I am sure that with a bit of ingenuity, it's not an insurmountable challenge though