Change to the number of headers allowed in training

[Maddogbob]

4 minutes ago, CircleSeven said:

People always rant and rave about every change made in football and paint it as the end of the sport as we know it. As you’ve said it’s hardly the biggest change is it? Football’s rules haven’t been changed, just minimising heading practice. 

I agree, for most it won't effect there enjoyment of the game. In any way. 

 

People are being far to hysterical about this.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by Maddogbob

[FreshOwl]

5 minutes ago, Maddogbob said:

Oh dear god, it's being limited in training. It's called risk reduction. Again at youth level. Not in games, not in the pro game.

 

The key here, is risk reduction. If you choose to play a sport, you accept the risks that come with it.

 

Same with any risky behaviour.

 

 

What you oh godding? I was merely asking a question about a topic I’m not too familiar with. A thread was started to discuss this. 

[Maddogbob]

Just now, FreshOwl said:

What you oh godding? I was merely asking a question about a topic I’m not too familiar with. A thread was started to discuss this. 

This should solve it

[briggowl]

Its the EU's fault. We need to get out!

[CircleSeven]

8 minutes ago, Maddogbob said:

I agree, for most it won't effect there enjoyment of the game. In any way. 

 

People are being far to hysterical about this.

 

 

It’s the same in BBC’S ‘Have your say’ comments, loads of people frothing at the mouth about the whole thing. It’s only a change in training methods. 

[Five Archers]

3 hours ago, i used to be sc_owl said:

 

They should

None contact boxing?

[S36 OWL]

58 minutes ago, Maddogbob said:

Oh dear god, it's being limited in training. It's called risk reduction. Again at youth level. Not in games, not in the pro game.

 

The key here, is risk reduction. If you choose to play a sport, you accept the risks that come with it.

 

Same with any risky behaviour.

 

 

 

But how do kids learn heading skills they need  if they can't practice again and again in training? 

[S36 OWL]

46 minutes ago, CircleSeven said:

It’s the same in BBC’S ‘Have your say’ comments, loads of people frothing at the mouth about the whole thing. It’s only a change in training methods. 

 

Practising heading is a vital part of training. 

[Five Archers]

2 hours ago, Plonk said:

How are you supposed to practice corners and freekicks if you can only head the ball ten times a week?

No need for this practice at SWFC our corners don’t get past the first man and our free kicks are more dangerous to the crowd 

[CircleSeven]

3 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Practising heading is a vital part of training. 

They aren’t banning it. Just limiting it. 

[S36 OWL]

Just now, CircleSeven said:

They aren’t banning it. Just limiting it. 

 

My point still stands. To improve your heading skills you practice, practice, practice, over and over again, just as you do with passing and shooting. 

[i used to be sc_owl]

16 minutes ago, Five Archers said:

None contact boxing?

 

Shorter fights.  More protection, like head guards in amateur boxing.  

 

I don't understand why people are so against developments designed to protect players? I'm not saying heading should be abolished.  I'm saying that measures designed to keep players healthy can only be a good thing.

[CircleSeven]

1 minute ago, S36 OWL said:

 

My point still stands. To improve your heading skills you practice, practice, practice, over and over again, just as you do with passing and shooting. 

But if they have proved over multiple studies that too much heading massively increases the chances of early onset dementia then football authorities have two choices, ban heading or limiting heading. They have limited it. They can’t leave it as is or they will get sued endlessly regardless of the morality of it. It’s limited by the same amount by all clubs so everyone has the same amount of practice. It won’t change matchday very much. Certainly isn’t a cataclysmic event IMO. 

[Maddogbob]

28 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

But how do kids learn heading skills they need  if they can't practice again and again in training? 

They don't practice really, in my experience, until older ages and haven't during my my time.

 

I agree correct technical training should take place, but at younger ages it would be hard to do near impossible.

 

It's hard enough at u7 to get them to listen and not run around flicking each others ears, let alone teach them how to head a ball properly.

 

At the younger ages in my experience, it's more about running with the ball and technical skills with the ball at your feet.

 

As you get older and bigger pitches come start to be used, thats when passing/offside/headers come into play.

 

Very very rarely do you see a headed goal, or infact lots of heading the ball (again in my experience) at the lower ages.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 28, 2021 by Maddogbob

[i used to be sc_owl]

Anyone reading this thread would think the game has never changed in a hundred years.  It changes all the time...

 

- offside

- back pass rule

- number of subs both named and allowed

- stoppage time

- points for a win

- teams in each division

 

That's just off the top of my head.  I'd probably remember more had I not headed the ball so much when I was younger.

[Guest mrbluesky]

3 hours ago, i used to be sc_owl said:

*Waits for people to talk about how it was different back in the day when the ball weighed a ton*

Just because something happened in the past, it doesn't mean we should keep on doing it in the future.  

The problem is it hasn't been investigated/ researched enough for it to be conclusive and widespread, you could say rugby is far worse, but what would you do to combat it? 

 

The F.A are the ones to step up, will they? Not a chance,   a ball back in the day weighed approx 16 oz(same as today), added to this it being wet through  at times and the laces can't have helped, modern balls are synthetic  thus not making them heavier 

 

It would be interesting to know if the ball was headed more now, than back in the day 

 

For me, the study hasn't  been conducted extensively enough

 

 

[i used to be sc_owl]

2 minutes ago, mrbluesky said:

The problem is it hasn't been investigated/ researched enough for it to be conclusive and widespread, you could say rugby is far worse, but what would you do to combat it? 

 

The F.A are the ones to step up, will they? Not a chance,   a ball back in the day weighed approx 16 oz(same as today), added to this it being wet through  at times and the laces can't have helped, modern balls are synthetic  thus not making them heavier 

 

It would be interesting to know if the ball was headed more now, than back in the day 

 

For me, the study hasn't  been conducted extensively enough

 

 

 

Agree that more research is needed.  However, would it not be best to come down on the side of caution to protect the health of the players?  No one is talking about banning heading, but rather tweaking training to reduce the risk.  

[Big Jack]

When we was at school our PE teacher used to get you to head a medicine ball as punishment. Unbelievable when i think about it now. The head is so vulnerable, makes sense to me, people who think differently really need theirs testing.

[@owlstalk]

4 minutes ago, mrbluesky said:

 a ball back in the day weighed approx 16 oz(same as today), added to this it being wet through  at times and the laces can't have helped, modern balls are synthetic  thus not making them heavier  

 

 

*sigh*

 

 

[@owlstalk]

5 minutes ago, mrbluesky said:

The problem is it hasn't been investigated/ researched enough for it to be conclusive and widespread, you could say rugby is far worse, but what would you do to combat it? 

 

The F.A are the ones to step up, will they? Not a chance,   a ball back in the day weighed approx 16 oz(same as today), added to this it being wet through  at times and the laces can't have helped, modern balls are synthetic  thus not making them heavier 

 

It would be interesting to know if the ball was headed more now, than back in the day 

 

For me, the study hasn't  been conducted extensively enough

 

 

 

 

Let's just put this one to bed (I did post this earlier in the thread but seems it might have been missed)

 

It is true that footballs of previous eras were significantly heavier than today’s, but other changes in the sport – not least the pace at which the balls tend to travel – have offset the effects.

 

“It’s the speed more than the weight that has the significance,” said Dr Willie Stewart, a consultant neuropathologist who leads a study in the field.

 

“The modern ball stays light, but if you hit it and it travels faster and lands at a higher speed, it may be causing more problems. People suggest that because the ball is lighter, or that players are training at higher intensity, that the risk has gone away. There’s nothing to support that at all. Quite the opposite. Maybe it’s got worse.”

 

 

To summarise - we can't just say things like the old balls were heavier and that's why the old footballers got brain damage