I can see them banning it in training but it couldn't work during a game
I think they ban it already for younger age groups in training and games on smaller pitches. I could see them reduce it in training (so can only do heading in training once a week say) but struggle to see how they would do it in a professional game on full size pitch.
I think the bigger concern modern day should be on the footballers who are collapsing on the field. Not only those who lose their lives, but those who don't as well. John Fleck at Sheffield United and Charlie Wyke seem the most recent one's this season and Eriksen obviously being the most famous this year.
A lot of players who are suffering from head injuries and end up with dementia, Alzheimer's etc were playing in a different era. Only really freak incidents like Ryan Mason's unfortunate situation these days. The game has moved on with concussion substitutes, better developed balls and just in general the game being less physical in regards to challenges these days.
My bigger concern is what is going on with footballers that are collapsing. I know plenty of them will take performance or recovery supplements before/after games, training or just any sort of physical exercise related to the club. Whether this is linked to players collapsing, I do not know but usually any form of supplements, in tablet form, have some sort of side effect on the cardiovascular system which isn't a great combination when paired with high intensity physical exercise. I just wonder if more research into this area will be done.
I think the way liability and safety are becoming more and more to the forefront of people's responsibilities. It will be a matter of when, not if. Within next 30 years, it will be banned, I'd say.
JustYour,
Caffeine supplementing is massive now in top level sports. The problem is the data needed for a study to establish any sort of link to whatever is causing the incidents is difficult. I can see bans on certain supplements coming regardless.
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 1 minute ago
JustYour,
Caffeine supplementing is massive now in top level sports. The problem is the data needed for a study to establish any sort of link to whatever is causing the incidents is difficult. I can see bans on certain supplements coming regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah there isn't enough evidence right now to determine if there is causation or correlation between supplements
I can see it coming as well in the not too distant future but I've never been sold on the idea of any sort of supplements. Beta-Alanine is relatively common as well these days which, as you say, has no information regarding long-term usage or safety in conjunction with other supplements.
The biggest concern with b-Alanine is that studies have failed to check for the purity of the product and if any banned substances are included within the product given to top level athletes. It's these types of studies that need to be addressed sooner rather than later as I can see that being the bigger concern in the short-term than heading a football personally. Although both need studying further.
should just start playing with windfloaters instead.
celtic v rangers kicking off with a thomas the tank engine baw.
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 41 minutes ago
I think they ban it already for younger age groups in training and games on smaller pitches. I could see them reduce it in training (so can only do heading in training once a week say) but struggle to see how they would do it in a professional game on full size pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah correct, think it's banned for under 12's which might be actually help technical skills development
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 41 minutes ago
I think they ban it already for younger age groups in training and games on smaller pitches. I could see them reduce it in training (so can only do heading in training once a week say) but struggle to see how they would do it in a professional game on full size pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah correct, think it's banned for under 12's which might be actually help technical skills development
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it doesnt , as most age groups under 12s cant really provide the purchase on the ball to get it head height
It would be better placed to ban it at 12- 18yr olds to help with technique - as that is where the game changes and it just becomes hoofball due to them transitioning to 11 asides . and going from a non competitive environment to a competitive environment.
few teams continue to play out from the back which was always encouraged at 4s, 5s 7s and 9 aisde ..and it just becomes a case of punt it up the park
the heading data is screwed , footballs arent what they used to be in the 60s ...they are more lightweight and dont get heavier in the rain
for training most teams use training balls which again are lighter and allow for heading
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 9 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not to say that you can't mitigate or reduce the risk where possible though if there is some evidence that it can be harmful to your own health. What a naïve thing that would be if you just ignored it.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 9 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not to say that you can't mitigate or reduce the risk where possible though if there is some evidence that it can be harmful to your own health. What a naïve thing that would be if you just ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand banning at youth level as they are underdeveloped and also perhaps too young to make certain choices.
like I said there are stats out there showing there are far more dangerous things.... such as cars, roads. Where do we draw the line?
Being very fit and healthy isnt good for most people LONG term. People who keep fit and healthy (at high levels) for long periods of their lives often put a lot of mileage on the clock (mainly their heart) and can actually lessen their lifespan.
Do we therefore ban people being too fit and healthy for too long. Do we ban people getting stressed out at work as the damage that can do can be severe.
You could pick out most things in life and pick out things in it. Phyically were quite a fragile species
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but to take that as an example you know the danger. You have to take lessons and a test
You have to have insurance, cars are tested and have ridiculous safety standards
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but to take that as an example you know the danger. You have to take lessons and a test
You have to have insurance, cars are tested and have ridiculous safety standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that was just one example of millions I could pull out, the act of driving is about the 8th highest killer of people in the world. Alchohol kills more than anything in football...... far more important things need to be challenged if thats the route people wanna go down IMO.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 21 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you draw the line? When ex-professionals start suing clubs, football associations for not exercising their duty of care towards players in the light of emerging medical evidence. There is a reason why American footballers are dressed like combats freaks in a futuristic sci-fi movie.
Pending law suits in the rugby world, both League and Union, are also concentrating the minds of the law-makers wonderfully.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 9 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not to say that you can't mitigate or reduce the risk where possible though if there is some evidence that it can be harmful to your own health. What a naïve thing that would be if you just ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand banning at youth level as they are underdeveloped and also perhaps too young to make certain choices.
like I said there are stats out there showing there are far more dangerous things.... such as cars, roads. Where do we draw the line?
Being very fit and healthy isnt good for most people LONG term. People who keep fit and healthy (at high levels) for long periods of their lives often put a lot of mileage on the clock (mainly their heart) and can actually lessen their lifespan.
Do we therefore ban people being too fit and healthy for too long. Do we ban people getting stressed out at work as the damage that can do can be severe.
You could pick out most things in life and pick out things in it. Phyically were quite a fragile species
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but if you can make a change for the safety of others in sport, it cannot be considered a bad thing.
The way you're labelling it, nobody may as well do anything because EVERYTHING has an element of risk. Don't go outside because you might get run over but don't sit inside your house until the day you die because you'll suffer from psychiatric issues related to being sat indoors all day which is detrimental to your health. How far do you take your claim?
There may be more important matters to address, but this is something that would be of a health and safety benefit to footballers potentially, so it can't be disregarded as a bad change.
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but to take that as an example you know the danger. You have to take lessons and a test
You have to have insurance, cars are tested and have ridiculous safety standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that was just one example of millions I could pull out, the act of driving is about the 8th highest killer of people in the world. Alchohol kills more than anything in football...... far more important things need to be challenged if thats the route people wanna go down IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with heading a football.
Would ruin the game. Corners, wide/long free kicks, even throw ins would be pointless.
Get it for kids. But having head injuries when younger, you know the risk you put yourself. Can imagine like others on here I was playing football on concrete as a kid. Balls are also very different to the ones fifty years ago.
There’s a health risk associated with all sorts of professions. Can’t just ban everything. Worlds gone soft.
comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 41 minutes ago
I think they ban it already for younger age groups in training and games on smaller pitches. I could see them reduce it in training (so can only do heading in training once a week say) but struggle to see how they would do it in a professional game on full size pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah correct, think it's banned for under 12's which might be actually help technical skills development
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it doesnt , as most age groups under 12s cant really provide the purchase on the ball to get it head height - not in my experience.
It would be better placed to ban it at 12- 18yr olds to help with technique - as that is where the game changes and it just becomes hoofball due to them transitioning to 11 asides . and going from a non competitive environment to a competitive environment. - at lower levels yes, pro youth that will supply vast majority of the pros, no.
few teams continue to play out from the back which was always encouraged at 4s, 5s 7s and 9 aisde ..and it just becomes a case of punt it up the park - as above
the heading data is screwed , footballs arent what they used to be in the 60s ...they are more lightweight and dont get heavier in the rain - the issue is just as much the repeated small blows to the head - increased training can make that worse.
for training most teams use training balls which again are lighter and allow for heading - the opposite is my experience - they use cheap balls that deflate over t8me and they are lazy bastirts so they over pump them so that the impact is even harder
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry mate
I don’t want it banned but it is a real issue. I fear more for pro rugby players abusing their bodies to put on mass then taking the impacts they do.
Huge topic in our house.
Ironic then that he fcks his ankle.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but to take that as an example you know the danger. You have to take lessons and a test
You have to have insurance, cars are tested and have ridiculous safety standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that was just one example of millions I could pull out, the act of driving is about the 8th highest killer of people in the world. Alchohol kills more than anything in football...... far more important things need to be challenged if thats the route people wanna go down IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with heading a football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Fatuous argument.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but to take that as an example you know the danger. You have to take lessons and a test
You have to have insurance, cars are tested and have ridiculous safety standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that was just one example of millions I could pull out, the act of driving is about the 8th highest killer of people in the world. Alchohol kills more than anything in football...... far more important things need to be challenged if thats the route people wanna go down IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with heading a football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no it doesnt but it reflects on my original point that where do you draw the line and why focus on things far les important than others if thats the route you wanna take.
Salvia tests.
I'm not sure how tripping out of your nut would help you play football.
Sign in if you want to comment
What if? ....
Page 1 of 3
posted on 7/12/21
I can see them banning it in training but it couldn't work during a game
posted on 7/12/21
I think they ban it already for younger age groups in training and games on smaller pitches. I could see them reduce it in training (so can only do heading in training once a week say) but struggle to see how they would do it in a professional game on full size pitch.
posted on 7/12/21
I think the bigger concern modern day should be on the footballers who are collapsing on the field. Not only those who lose their lives, but those who don't as well. John Fleck at Sheffield United and Charlie Wyke seem the most recent one's this season and Eriksen obviously being the most famous this year.
A lot of players who are suffering from head injuries and end up with dementia, Alzheimer's etc were playing in a different era. Only really freak incidents like Ryan Mason's unfortunate situation these days. The game has moved on with concussion substitutes, better developed balls and just in general the game being less physical in regards to challenges these days.
My bigger concern is what is going on with footballers that are collapsing. I know plenty of them will take performance or recovery supplements before/after games, training or just any sort of physical exercise related to the club. Whether this is linked to players collapsing, I do not know but usually any form of supplements, in tablet form, have some sort of side effect on the cardiovascular system which isn't a great combination when paired with high intensity physical exercise. I just wonder if more research into this area will be done.
posted on 7/12/21
I think the way liability and safety are becoming more and more to the forefront of people's responsibilities. It will be a matter of when, not if. Within next 30 years, it will be banned, I'd say.
posted on 7/12/21
JustYour,
Caffeine supplementing is massive now in top level sports. The problem is the data needed for a study to establish any sort of link to whatever is causing the incidents is difficult. I can see bans on certain supplements coming regardless.
posted on 7/12/21
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 1 minute ago
JustYour,
Caffeine supplementing is massive now in top level sports. The problem is the data needed for a study to establish any sort of link to whatever is causing the incidents is difficult. I can see bans on certain supplements coming regardless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah there isn't enough evidence right now to determine if there is causation or correlation between supplements
posted on 7/12/21
I can see it coming as well in the not too distant future but I've never been sold on the idea of any sort of supplements. Beta-Alanine is relatively common as well these days which, as you say, has no information regarding long-term usage or safety in conjunction with other supplements.
The biggest concern with b-Alanine is that studies have failed to check for the purity of the product and if any banned substances are included within the product given to top level athletes. It's these types of studies that need to be addressed sooner rather than later as I can see that being the bigger concern in the short-term than heading a football personally. Although both need studying further.
posted on 7/12/21
should just start playing with windfloaters instead.
celtic v rangers kicking off with a thomas the tank engine baw.
posted on 7/12/21
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
posted on 7/12/21
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 41 minutes ago
I think they ban it already for younger age groups in training and games on smaller pitches. I could see them reduce it in training (so can only do heading in training once a week say) but struggle to see how they would do it in a professional game on full size pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah correct, think it's banned for under 12's which might be actually help technical skills development
posted on 7/12/21
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 41 minutes ago
I think they ban it already for younger age groups in training and games on smaller pitches. I could see them reduce it in training (so can only do heading in training once a week say) but struggle to see how they would do it in a professional game on full size pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah correct, think it's banned for under 12's which might be actually help technical skills development
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it doesnt , as most age groups under 12s cant really provide the purchase on the ball to get it head height
It would be better placed to ban it at 12- 18yr olds to help with technique - as that is where the game changes and it just becomes hoofball due to them transitioning to 11 asides . and going from a non competitive environment to a competitive environment.
few teams continue to play out from the back which was always encouraged at 4s, 5s 7s and 9 aisde ..and it just becomes a case of punt it up the park
the heading data is screwed , footballs arent what they used to be in the 60s ...they are more lightweight and dont get heavier in the rain
for training most teams use training balls which again are lighter and allow for heading
posted on 7/12/21
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 9 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not to say that you can't mitigate or reduce the risk where possible though if there is some evidence that it can be harmful to your own health. What a naïve thing that would be if you just ignored it.
posted on 7/12/21
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 9 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not to say that you can't mitigate or reduce the risk where possible though if there is some evidence that it can be harmful to your own health. What a naïve thing that would be if you just ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand banning at youth level as they are underdeveloped and also perhaps too young to make certain choices.
like I said there are stats out there showing there are far more dangerous things.... such as cars, roads. Where do we draw the line?
Being very fit and healthy isnt good for most people LONG term. People who keep fit and healthy (at high levels) for long periods of their lives often put a lot of mileage on the clock (mainly their heart) and can actually lessen their lifespan.
Do we therefore ban people being too fit and healthy for too long. Do we ban people getting stressed out at work as the damage that can do can be severe.
You could pick out most things in life and pick out things in it. Phyically were quite a fragile species
posted on 7/12/21
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but to take that as an example you know the danger. You have to take lessons and a test
You have to have insurance, cars are tested and have ridiculous safety standards
posted on 7/12/21
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but to take that as an example you know the danger. You have to take lessons and a test
You have to have insurance, cars are tested and have ridiculous safety standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that was just one example of millions I could pull out, the act of driving is about the 8th highest killer of people in the world. Alchohol kills more than anything in football...... far more important things need to be challenged if thats the route people wanna go down IMO.
posted on 7/12/21
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 21 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Where do you draw the line? When ex-professionals start suing clubs, football associations for not exercising their duty of care towards players in the light of emerging medical evidence. There is a reason why American footballers are dressed like combats freaks in a futuristic sci-fi movie.
Pending law suits in the rugby world, both League and Union, are also concentrating the minds of the law-makers wonderfully.
posted on 7/12/21
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 9 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not to say that you can't mitigate or reduce the risk where possible though if there is some evidence that it can be harmful to your own health. What a naïve thing that would be if you just ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I can understand banning at youth level as they are underdeveloped and also perhaps too young to make certain choices.
like I said there are stats out there showing there are far more dangerous things.... such as cars, roads. Where do we draw the line?
Being very fit and healthy isnt good for most people LONG term. People who keep fit and healthy (at high levels) for long periods of their lives often put a lot of mileage on the clock (mainly their heart) and can actually lessen their lifespan.
Do we therefore ban people being too fit and healthy for too long. Do we ban people getting stressed out at work as the damage that can do can be severe.
You could pick out most things in life and pick out things in it. Phyically were quite a fragile species
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but if you can make a change for the safety of others in sport, it cannot be considered a bad thing.
The way you're labelling it, nobody may as well do anything because EVERYTHING has an element of risk. Don't go outside because you might get run over but don't sit inside your house until the day you die because you'll suffer from psychiatric issues related to being sat indoors all day which is detrimental to your health. How far do you take your claim?
There may be more important matters to address, but this is something that would be of a health and safety benefit to footballers potentially, so it can't be disregarded as a bad change.
posted on 7/12/21
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but to take that as an example you know the danger. You have to take lessons and a test
You have to have insurance, cars are tested and have ridiculous safety standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that was just one example of millions I could pull out, the act of driving is about the 8th highest killer of people in the world. Alchohol kills more than anything in football...... far more important things need to be challenged if thats the route people wanna go down IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with heading a football.
posted on 7/12/21
Would ruin the game. Corners, wide/long free kicks, even throw ins would be pointless.
Get it for kids. But having head injuries when younger, you know the risk you put yourself. Can imagine like others on here I was playing football on concrete as a kid. Balls are also very different to the ones fifty years ago.
There’s a health risk associated with all sorts of professions. Can’t just ban everything. Worlds gone soft.
posted on 7/12/21
comment by CelticTornado (U4316)
posted 20 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 41 minutes ago
I think they ban it already for younger age groups in training and games on smaller pitches. I could see them reduce it in training (so can only do heading in training once a week say) but struggle to see how they would do it in a professional game on full size pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah correct, think it's banned for under 12's which might be actually help technical skills development
----------------------------------------------------------------------
it doesnt , as most age groups under 12s cant really provide the purchase on the ball to get it head height - not in my experience.
It would be better placed to ban it at 12- 18yr olds to help with technique - as that is where the game changes and it just becomes hoofball due to them transitioning to 11 asides . and going from a non competitive environment to a competitive environment. - at lower levels yes, pro youth that will supply vast majority of the pros, no.
few teams continue to play out from the back which was always encouraged at 4s, 5s 7s and 9 aisde ..and it just becomes a case of punt it up the park - as above
the heading data is screwed , footballs arent what they used to be in the 60s ...they are more lightweight and dont get heavier in the rain - the issue is just as much the repeated small blows to the head - increased training can make that worse.
for training most teams use training balls which again are lighter and allow for heading - the opposite is my experience - they use cheap balls that deflate over t8me and they are lazy bastirts so they over pump them so that the impact is even harder
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry mate
posted on 7/12/21
I don’t want it banned but it is a real issue. I fear more for pro rugby players abusing their bodies to put on mass then taking the impacts they do.
posted on 7/12/21
Huge topic in our house.
Ironic then that he fcks his ankle.
posted on 7/12/21
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but to take that as an example you know the danger. You have to take lessons and a test
You have to have insurance, cars are tested and have ridiculous safety standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that was just one example of millions I could pull out, the act of driving is about the 8th highest killer of people in the world. Alchohol kills more than anything in football...... far more important things need to be challenged if thats the route people wanna go down IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with heading a football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. Fatuous argument.
posted on 7/12/21
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? What age is middle aged? (U3126)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by whodunnit (U22710)
posted 22 minutes ago
world gone crazy, people are at risk at something at all times, we are not indestructible. Where do we draw the line? Do we then look into banning cars they are far far more dngerous than any football in the world. Do we ban crossing the road? Do we ban "unhealthy" food long term just as damaging to your health.
Its a choice people make.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but to take that as an example you know the danger. You have to take lessons and a test
You have to have insurance, cars are tested and have ridiculous safety standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that was just one example of millions I could pull out, the act of driving is about the 8th highest killer of people in the world. Alchohol kills more than anything in football...... far more important things need to be challenged if thats the route people wanna go down IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with heading a football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no it doesnt but it reflects on my original point that where do you draw the line and why focus on things far les important than others if thats the route you wanna take.
posted on 7/12/21
Salvia tests.
I'm not sure how tripping out of your nut would help you play football.
Page 1 of 3