Yanks to ban Heading

[The Bear]

The brain IS still developing until around the age of 21. If there's evidence that this can help with head injuries then I'm all for it.

 

[Alan]

The brain IS still developing until around the age of 21. If there's evidence that this can help with head injuries then I'm all for it.

Exactly my thoughts.

There's a difference between controlling for a known, active risk like heading the ball and controlling for more wildly variable risks like driving a car, Penk.

 

[Penk Wolf]

Driving a car isn't compulsory. Why not ban them too?

 

[slink]

Most kids under 10 wouldn't head the ball very often anyway in all fairness so i'm not sure what banning it would do. I would like to know how they could link head injuries to heading the ball as a youngster because i'm not sure you could measure how many times they would have headed the ball. What else are you going to stop? I work with kids every day and i see most of them fall over with force that in my opinion would do more damage than heading a football but you can't stop them running around. Unless it's conclusive that it does cause problems in later life i wouldn't be in favour of banning heading.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Exactly my thoughts.

There's a difference between controlling for a known, active risk like heading the ball and controlling for more wildly variable risks like driving a car, Penk.

Oh good grief.

 

[The Bear]

Most kids under 10 wouldn't head the ball very often anyway in all fairness so i'm not sure what banning it would do. I would like to know how they could link head injuries to heading the ball as a youngster because i'm not sure you could measure how many times they would have headed the ball. What else are you going to stop? I work with kids every day and i see most of them fall over with force that in my opinion would do more damage than heading a football but you can't stop them running around. Unless it's conclusive that it does cause problems in later life i wouldn't be in favour of banning heading.

It's all about limiting risk, and exposure to repeated impacts as much as possible.

It can be used favourably as me tinned earlier. Keep the ball below should eh eight and concentrate on ball skills rather than heading ability.

 

[slink]

It's all about limiting risk, and exposure to repeated impacts as much as possible.

It can be used favourably as me tinned earlier. Keep the ball below should eh eight and concentrate on ball skills rather than heading ability.

If it's all about limiting risk let's just ban football altogether because then there will be no risk at all. I know i'm taking that too far but how far do you take things? As i said i don't think from experience that kids under 10 would head the ball that often anyway as a lot of them don't like heading it. I also don't think that there is a lot of work done on heading skills either at a young age and most sessions would be done with the ball being on the floor or below shoulder height 99% of the time anyway.

 

[Donegal Wolf]

If it's all about limiting risk let's just ban football altogether because then there will be no risk at all. I know i'm taking that too far but how far do you take things? As i said i don't think from experience that kids under 10 would head the ball that often anyway as a lot of them don't like heading it. I also don't think that there is a lot of work done on heading skills either at a young age and most sessions would be done with the ball being on the floor or below shoulder height 99% of the time anyway.

First ever goal I scored was a header when I was about 9 from a corner hit me on top of the head and looped about 2 foot in the air over the keeper and in under the bar, hurt like fuck but did I care and still remember it to this day.

Mind you that's about the only fucking thing I can remember nowadays.....

What were we talking about?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Number of children killed by heading a football in USA 2015 - 0

Number of under 17s killed by guns in USA 2015 - 2,867

Methinks their priorities are $#@!ing $#@!e.

Yeah but with aawwl doo respect y'all we also dont approve of anyone heading their fire arm.

Dont ban heading. If youre worred about it invent a heading helmet like rugby to reduce impact. Oh and while youre at it get the 5000 professional boxers in the USA to wear helmets as there really is evidence that can cause brain damage.

Sorry Alan.... only in America

PS just found this NSFW Warning https://www.facebook.com/110255445995319/videos/166025673751629/

 

[PuntsWolf]

Concussion from heading a ball. Jesus

More chance of getting concussion (or worse) crossing a road.

Plus, Why is hockey allowed? Now that is a truely dangerous sport. Getting a solid block smacked at your head. Now you won't get concision from it because it is harder and the surface are is less, but you may fracture your skull or go blind from an orbital blow out fracture or lose 6 teeth...

 

[Johnny75]

The article isn't very good and they've played it for maximum 'OMG' effect from soccer moms around America.

Firstly - I don't have a problem with the ban, not for the reasons the ill informed in the article have said, but because the neck muscles if under 10's are under developed and the act of heading could cause the brain to 'slosh' more than an adults and therefor be damaged to a greater extent. The greater the brain's impact on the inside of the skull the greater the slosh and the higher chance of concussion, however having even mild concussions cause irreparable damage. Severe concussions are fairly rare in most sports.

The ball impacting the head will have no direct cause for concussion if the player deliberately hades the ball as neither the ball or the player can generate enough force for the ball to cause the brain shake. This is why from puberty heading a football has little to no effect on the human brain or generating brain slosh.

Jeff Astle's widow has poorly supported evidence for the modern game and balls, along with the musculature of modern players and whilst her late husband undoubtedly died from CFE he is a rare case of circumstance from a time now long gone.

Lycan - American football helmets need a lot of work and much research is being done in this area. They can measure the g-force inside the helmet which they can't in football so the risk is higher. Again the musculature argument is there.

Cyber - there is a wealth of information on why boxers do not wear helmets. Rugby scrum caps are called such as they offer no protection at all from head injury and cannot be officially called helmets. Remarkably there is reticence from the IRB to say whether concussion has a direct correlation with long term brain damage. The sounds of law suits must be deafening for them.


A quick caveat for the above statement: I invented and patented a shock absorbing liner to go in sports helmets and armour. I license this technology out to a variety of sports/ leisure companies.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

The article isn't very good and they've played it for maximum 'OMG' effect from soccer moms around America.

Firstly - I don't have a problem with the ban, not for the reasons the ill informed in the article have said, but because the neck muscles if under 10's are under developed and the act of heading could cause the brain to 'slosh' more than an adults and therefor be damaged to a greater extent. The greater the brain's impact on the inside of the skull the greater the slosh and the higher chance of concussion, however having even mild concussions cause irreparable damage. Severe concussions are fairly rare in most sports.

The ball impacting the head will have no direct cause for concussion if the player deliberately hades the ball as neither the ball or the player can generate enough force for the ball to cause the brain shake. This is why from puberty heading a football has little to no effect on the human brain or generating brain slosh.

Jeff Astle's widow has poorly supported evidence for the modern game and balls, along with the musculature of modern players and whilst her late husband undoubtedly died from CFE he is a rare case of circumstance from a time now long gone.

Lycan - American football helmets need a lot of work and much research is being done in this area. They can measure the g-force inside the helmet which they can't in football so the risk is higher. Again the musculature argument is there.

Cyber - there is a wealth of information on why boxers do not wear helmets. Rugby scrum caps are called such as they offer no protection at all from head injury and cannot be officially called helmets. Remarkably there is reticence from the IRB to say whether concussion has a direct correlation with long term brain damage. The sounds of law suits must be deafening for them.


A quick caveat for the above statement: I invented and patented a shock absorbing liner to go in sports helmets and armour. I license this technology out to a variety of sports/ leisure companies.

All of it conflicting depending on whether youre a pro or an amateur. In amateur boxing I have to wear a stupid helmet but as a pro I dont, I tell you pro boxers hit a hell of a lot harder than amateur boxers! Its all to do so I am told with the way the brain swells under hard impact. In which case that blows the case for motorcycle helmets completely out of the water. Additionally if medics go to a motorccle accident they DO NOT remove the helmet as it PROTECTs against the expansions of the brain and reduces the risk of clotting. Who the hell is right then? Why does Peter Cech wear a helmet after a fractured skull if it is not necessary or recommended? I am not a Dr but the common sense part of me says that Helmets = Good no helmets =Bad

 

[Johnny75]

Whoever has given you misguided information needs to be given a damn good lesson or a right hook (it's a bad pun I know). Nearly everything you have written is wrong.

Boxing helmets were badly designed in looks, function and materials, so a fail pretty much all round. You are correct in your assessment in that generally helmets are a good thing and indeed if boxers wore a motorcycle crash helmet then their heads would be fine, however their hands, necks, chests and backs would not as I have mentioned above, musculature plays a massive role in the effectiveness of a helmet.

The reason boxing helmets at all levels have been removed in fights is to do with vision and preparation. The pro boxer will be quicker and hit harder than an amateur and will also prepare themselves through conditioning to see hooks, crosses and wild haymakers out of the limits of their vision, this allows boxers to tense their muscles and prepare for impact.

The boxing helmet took away those limits of vision making the sport infinitely more dangerous, coupled with appalling foam materials that could not fully cushion a blow or recover quickly enough for the next blow (fully compressed) the helmet was useless and had no place in boxing.

Other sports cannot eliminate or prepare its participants for concussion as their tends to be multiple impacts from all directions in a short space of time. Rugby in its stupidity does not recognise this.

I have explained about impact above, please read, it is to do with brain slosh or rattle. The main aim of helmets currently is to dissipate energy through the structures and there is a lot of research currently being done on the effect of rebound properties of the materials used in all helmets to reduce the brain slosh, not just dissipate energy as Newton had a point.

The reason medics do not remove helmets is to do with spinal injury not head trauma, again their is a plethora of information out there on this.

Peter Cech wears ceramic plates in the side of his helmet under special dispensation from UEFA as he has weak bone plates on the side of his head, only found out when the marvellous Mr Hunt decided to drop a knee on him.

Finally, I'm glad you're not a Dr or a trauma surgeon as your common sense needs context to decide whether a helmet is good or bad to use in certain situations.

There is a lot more information out there for you to google.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Yep, helmets prevent blunt trauma like hockey pucks, cricket balls, smashing your head off a curb etc.

Boxing gloves stop blunt trauma but the added weight and spread of forces causes other issues.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Whoever has given you misguided information needs to be given a damn good lesson or a right hook (it's a bad pun I know). Nearly everything you have written is wrong.

Boxing helmets were badly designed in looks, function and materials, so a fail pretty much all round. You are correct in your assessment in that generally helmets are a good thing and indeed if boxers wore a motorcycle crash helmet then their heads would be fine, however their hands, necks, chests and backs would not as I have mentioned above, musculature plays a massive role in the effectiveness of a helmet.

The reason boxing helmets at all levels have been removed in fights is to do with vision and preparation. The pro boxer will be quicker and hit harder than an amateur and will also prepare themselves through conditioning to see hooks, crosses and wild haymakers out of the limits of their vision, this allows boxers to tense their muscles and prepare for impact.

The boxing helmet took away those limits of vision making the sport infinitely more dangerous, coupled with appalling foam materials that could not fully cushion a blow or recover quickly enough for the next blow (fully compressed) the helmet was useless and had no place in boxing.

Other sports cannot eliminate or prepare its participants for concussion as their tends to be multiple impacts from all directions in a short space of time. Rugby in its stupidity does not recognise this.

I have explained about impact above, please read, it is to do with brain slosh or rattle. The main aim of helmets currently is to dissipate energy through the structures and there is a lot of research currently being done on the effect of rebound properties of the materials used in all helmets to reduce the brain slosh, not just dissipate energy as Newton had a point.

The reason medics do not remove helmets is to do with spinal injury not head trauma, again their is a plethora of information out there on this.

Peter Cech wears ceramic plates in the side of his helmet under special dispensation from UEFA as he has weak bone plates on the side of his head, only found out when the marvellous Mr Hunt decided to drop a knee on him.

Finally, I'm glad you're not a Dr or a trauma surgeon as your common sense needs context to decide whether a helmet is good or bad to use in certain situations.

There is a lot more information out there for you to google.

Ouch! Keyboard slapdown in the first line yet you go on to agree with a number of areas. A bit unnecessary given the areas in bold which agree with my sentiment

You do not however answer the question. Would a hat help heading? If so should that not be the first thing ( not banning heading) that is considered. As you are an expert with a vested interest in this area I expected more than a slap.

 

[leedswolf]

A question for you Johny. In my line of work personal protective equipment is seen as a last resort and should never be solely relied upon. I'm certainly not advocating not using protective equipment in sports and such like, but there also has to be education, training, coaching and practice otherwise those wearing the equipment will believe themselves to be fully protected and may take extra risks under this false assumption?

 

[Johnny75]

Cyber-that was a mere tickle. I have answered your questions, please reread both of my posts for your answer. It is covered under modern equipment and athletes. Helmets for heading is non-sensical, if players are to wear helmets it would be for contacts (head to head, knee to head) and they are rare, making helmets unnecessary.

The bold parts read on their own would agree with you but read in context will give you a better understanding as the whole post aims to do.

Also, motorbike, cricket and baseball helmets are 1-shot helmets, in that you should throw them away after that. Other sports are multiple impact and so materials, forces and properties change.

It's taken me over a decade to get to here so trying to impart knowledge may look a little condescending so apologies if it does.

Leeds - absolutely, education is key, I'd like to see that, especially in your industry which tends to say 'wear this' but never why, how can we change that?

 

[leedswolf]

It is a major challenge Johnny. The first one is to change the inward perception of the macho culture. UKCG and CITB are gradually changing this through training and education both for workers and managers.

The biggest headache (see what I did there?) has been the older generations. We have an industry with an average worker age somewhere in the high 40s low 50s. The younger end should be easier to educate from initial start up.

Management attitude is crucial insofar as explaining the benefits of hardhats and the potential effects of a person being struck on the head as opposed to "Just fucking wear it". Incentives that reward good practices instead of simply punishing bad are being used too.

Our biggest problem is the diversity of the industry and the diverse management and worker attitude that brings. On well managed projects it isn't necessarily a major problem.

The nature of the industry with a high percentage of self-employed and SMEs. 95% of companies employ

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Apparently the chairman of our company often gets the hump about having to wear PPE on his increasingly infrequent trips to site, has a particular dislike for hi-vis jackets I believe, hardly a great example for those below him but he's very much part of an older generation.

I've also known there be problems with some specialist contractors, they don't see PPE as being required for the job they're doing despite working in an area which would govern it's use so they just flat out refuse to wear it, and with some being specialist to a point of there being no alternatives then it puts supervisory staff in an awkward position. I know that caused a lot of problems on one particular job we did last year.

 

[leedswolf]

Hardly a positive culture Mark. I'm from the older generation having been in this industry since leaving school in 1971. I can see the positive benefits why won'y he?