Dementia

[f bloke]

Start with boxing, then move on to football.

That suggestion is hard to argue against.
————————-
Why? Without doing the research I suspect there are many thousand more professional footballers than there are boxers so football will impact many more lives. 

Also I am not sure the courts would accept an argument that footballing authorities didn't have any duty of care to its players until boxing, rugby and American football got its house in order.  With the new data, as sure as eggs are eggs, there will be law suits in this area.

I have also seen the argument, which is a trite argument, that a key part of boxing is trying to avoid the concussive effect of being hit in the head, whilst in football, players are actively trying to receive that head impact.

I think most of the above reactions are understandable since they were my first reactions but digging deeper, I really do believe there are issues that need to be at least investigated further and probably addressed sooner rather than later

[Carborundum]

I am so glad my boy loves playing football and has no interest in rugby.  The danger involved in rugby seems far greater and the professional game may yet turn out to be as damaging as boxing.

From my involvement in youth football it's all about finding a reasonable path.  It's not reasonable to ban heading in games.  The kids want to play football, not an approximation of it.  But it is reasonable to limit the amount of heading in training.  Not completely cut it out - they need to know how and where to make contact. 

But come kick off, there's no holding back.  Something or other  will get us all and it's wise to spend allotted time doing things you love.

[b+w geezer]

Just catching up with this thread, some posters seem in denial of the research cited by f bloke (but he's just the messenger!) and in particular the discovery that rates of dementia varied greatly with position played. The evidence wasn't there before, but it is now, meaning wishing it all away doesn't have a future.

That's already evident from the new rule about headers in training, which moves on from denial mode. The issue is now acknowledged officially. Pandora's Box has been opened.

[Twig]

I am amazed that there are a few very unsympathetic posts on here. Dementia is absolutely horrible and can ruin the lives of both sufferers and their families. Of course other sports should get their acts together, but that's not an excuse for football to do nothing. Of course an outright ban on heading wouldn't be feasible but that's no excuse either. The couple of posts above mine are sensible, surely there is a middle ground which limits heading in training but leaves match days unaffected? Protect youngsters, take concussion injuries seriously, set training limits. That is all sensible stuff, no?

[blingo]

Some form of light, forehead protection could be devised in this day and age which woud stay in place and protect the player. If they ban heading, you can get rid of most forwards in football.

[toshes mate]

For years it has been suggested by evidence that healthy blood supply to the brain via the neck seems to lead to healthier brains - it is known as the heart-head connection in dementia circles.  Whiplash effects were noticed to be possible suspects in causing harm to an individual which would, as in many diseases, appear in later life.  Perhaps this suggests the problem is not the heading of the ball per se but the strength of the individuals neck and the way they have been taught to head the ball.  Likewise in other sports dementia does not occur in all the usual suspects and a lot more research is needed to pin point the many differences individuals bring to the table.  What we do know is that the longer you live the more likely it becomes that dementia will show itself.

[Twig]

Some form of light, forehead protection could be devised in this day and age which woud stay in place and protect the player. If they ban heading, you can get rid of most forwards in football.

I agree Blingo that an outright ban on heading wouldn't work, absolutely.  Perhaps your suggestion of light protection might make sense. Cricketers now wear more protection and on balance I think most agree that it has been of benefit.

[f bloke]

Head guards in boxing help with cuts and scapes but not the concussive effects of punches.  I suspect that,  in the same way, head guards in football would not offer any material protection.

Since this information is now out  there, I suspect rule changes are coming, timing will depend on whether they will happen as a consequence of law suits or as preemptive action to head off law suits.

Personally think banning heading between the boxes could actually improve the game and is certainly something worth trialling

[blingo]

Head guards in boxing help with cuts and scapes but not the concussive effects of punches.  I suspect that,  in the same way, head guards in football would not offer any material protection.

Since this information is now out  there, I suspect rule changes are coming, timing will depend on whether they will happen as a consequence of law suits or as preemptive action to head off law suits.

Personally think banning heading between the boxes could actually improve the game and is certainly something worth trialling

I personally think it would kill the game Mr F. How would you cope with corners and crosses? It just seems to go against everything football is. It is a sport like any other and there are risks. Players know the risks and are extremely well paid to take them. Their careers are no more dangerous than many others in life and it becomes tedious when the risks are pointed out to people who earn sums that most can only dream about, yet builders work in dangerous trades so do Firemen and a whole host of others in life, what about them?? It is ridiculous that most others are ignored. If it's that dangerous, ban the sport completely.......oh no, there is too much money involved and suddenly health takes a back seat. Life is full of risks and either we take them or we don't, it really is that simple. And before anyone says it's that it's ok for me to say because im not affected, my mum is in a a home suffering from dementia and she has never headed a ball in her life. We need to man up and realise that life is FULL of risks. Never cross the road cos u might get run over, don't drive your car you might have an accident. Etc etc etc. Don't eat the fat on meat it can kill you. 20 years later, oh you should et it because its actually good for you. WHERE DOES ALL OF THIS B/sh stop? If players are worried about dementia go get another job, it's really not that difficult.

[Craven_Chris]

Head guards in boxing help with cuts and scapes but not the concussive effects of punches.  I suspect that,  in the same way, head guards in football would not offer any material protection.

Since this information is now out  there, I suspect rule changes are coming, timing will depend on whether they will happen as a consequence of law suits or as preemptive action to head off law suits.

Personally think banning heading between the boxes could actually improve the game and is certainly something worth trialling

I would guess you are correct about the head-protection, and that this whole thing will soon become a bigger issue. If it transpires that heading increases dementia risk for not just professional players (who like boxers would be able to make an informed risk choice about whether they want to play professionally) but also children and developing players, then major reform would be required. It will change football a lot (I quite like the idea of only allowing heading in the box, neat symmetry with the goalkeeper ball handling rules) but major rule changes have happened before and if heading were banned, the game would adapt.

I can picture years from now kids looking at old matches, 'they used to hit the ball with their heads' they will say in disbelief!

[Wolf]

I've seen matches played where heading the ball is not allowed - Berkshire's junior league's do not permit the ball above head height (I think theoretically a diving header would be permitted).

The unintended / underirable outcome of any restiction on heading the ball during matches is that the ball would have to be not allowed above head height. Otherwise the tactics will be lob the ball high towards the defence who struggle to deal with it.

My view is that the restriction in training is reasonable. But there are for more dangerous sports already mentioned (rugby, boxing, gridiron), dangerous pastimes and occupations.

[Statto]

I sympathise with the arguments made on this thread but you cannot take the risk out of work and life generally. Anyone who drives for a living is likely exposed to car fumes and therefore an increased risk of lung issues, not to mention the risk of having a car crash, which causes thousands of deaths each year. Similarly builders who are exposed to dust and all sort of hazards. Any job where you sit down is causing you to be more sedentary than is healthy and adversely affecting your cardio-vascular health, not to mention posture. Health care workers are exposed to disease. I could go on.

I agree it should be taken out of kids games (keeping the ball below head height is more conducive to developing skill anyway) and perhaps training. But as for the professional men's game, nah. As others observed, the risk remains low in comparison to other sports like boxing, and probably many of the things we do every day.

I also expect the time footballers spend drinking (and doing all sorts of other substances) in bars and clubs on their days off is far worse for the long-term health of their brains than heading. 

   

[f bloke]

If heading not allowed outside of the penalty box why would it be necessary to keep the ball below head height?  If the ball touches the head, the sanction would simply be the same as hand ball.

Don't think the views re risk being a part of life quite wash.  If there are known risks you take steps to mitigate those risks eg seatbelts, crash helmets, speed cameras, sugar and salt content etc etc Attitudes to health and safety are vastly different compared to when I was a kid - many of these changes have been motivated as much by litigation risk as societal good.  The outside world evolves and sports have to evolve too.   Rugby have made a number of changes to the tackle laws to reduce the concussion risks and more are being considered.  Other sports will have to adapt too and probably will once there is as much available data

[blingo]

Litigation goes out of the window when a player signs a contract to play for x club for x thousands of pounds per week

[Twig]

Litigation goes out of the window when a player signs a contract to play for x club for x thousands of pounds per week

How many thousands per week do you think the average defender in a fourth division side gets?

[blingo]

Litigation goes out of the window when a player signs a contract to play for x club for x thousands of pounds per week

How many thousands per week do you think the average defender in a fourth division side gets?

More than the average worker in Greggs. You try handling hot sausage rolls and pies all day.

[toshes mate]

I personally think it would kill the game Mr F. How would you cope with corners and crosses? It just seems to go against everything football is. It is a sport like any other and there are risks. Players know the risks and are extremely well paid to take them. Their careers are no more dangerous than many others in life and it becomes tedious when the risks are pointed out to people who earn sums that most can only dream about, yet builders work in dangerous trades so do Firemen and a whole host of others in life, what about them?? It is ridiculous that most others are ignored. If it's that dangerous, ban the sport completely.......oh no, there is too much money involved and suddenly health takes a back seat. Life is full of risks and either we take them or we don't, it really is that simple. And before anyone says it's that it's ok for me to say because im not affected, my mum is in a a home suffering from dementia and she has never headed a ball in her life. We need to man up and realise that life is FULL of risks. Never cross the road cos u might get run over, don't drive your car you might have an accident. Etc etc etc. Don't eat the fat on meat it can kill you. 20 years later, oh you should et it because its actually good for you. WHERE DOES ALL OF THIS B/sh stop? If players are worried about dementia go get another job, it's really not that difficult.

Amen to all that, Mr Blingo.

My comment above was an attempt to suggest that it is the neck that takes just as much (if not more) damage whenever our heavy heads are violently moved against the direction of our bodies and this is why there has been so much concern about what actually causes dementia for some and not for others conducting the same occupations.  If you brace the neck it restricts movement of both body and head and may be impractical in many sports and that is the real issue.

There is an interesting story doing the rounds currently about a young woman (Lucy Dawson) in Lincoln who suffered a severe headache and apparent breakdown and was incorrectly diagnosed as mentally ill.  She was given electric shock treatment with tragic consequences meaning she fell out of bed onto a hot radiator pipe which completely burned the sciatic nerve in her left leg and left it paralysed.  She was actually suffering from encephalitis and is now, five years later, recovering.   Our bodies are very complex and very individual and we shouldn't lose sight of that. 

[Statto]

Don't think the views re risk being a part of life quite wash.  If there are known risks you take steps to mitigate those risks eg seatbelts, crash helmets, speed cameras, sugar and salt content etc etc

Mitigate yes. Eradicate no. The rule that a game must now be stopped immediately if a player has potential concussion is an example step to mitigate brain injury risk. Banning heading could be another step but to me it seems to set a risk threshold lower than we still accept in the other contexts mentioned.

[f bloke]

Totally agree that can't eradicate all risk from sport - it is just trying to assess what the risks are and what steps can reasonably be taken to mitigate those risks.  Since CBS are 5 times more likely to incur/ die of dementia than their peer groups just don't think that this issue can be ignored indefinitely.  This is not just about individual choices, it is also about societal costs.  Dementia does not just impact the person involved but it in many ways it imposes a greater burden on the carers and loved ones and there is also a cost to the state.

Reducing the amount of heading in training is a start although almost impossible to monitor or police. 

New concussion protocols (eg concussion subs) are also helpful although they only deal with specific incidents not with the cumulative effect of heading.  Note key findings of the Glasgow findings were that the incidence of dementia were directly related to both the position on the pitch and the length of the career  - so again I don't think the footballer lifestyle arguments wash.

Banning heading in training and at matches at junior levels, between the boxes at all levels (as mentioned this apparently would reduce by 70% the number of in match headers) and reducing the number of headers in training at senior levels will mitigate the cumulative impact of heading.

I am repeating myself here a bit mainly since I am yet to be persuaded by any of the opposing arguments being put forward.  I think the footballing authorities do have some sort of duty of care to do something and trialling the suggested rule change to see if it is both something that could be made to work and, if so, to assess whether it is likely to make an appreciable difference, would be a good next move.

The results of any such trial would be interesting and my hunch, and it is only a hunch, is that the game could actually be improved by banning heading between the boxes

[blingo]

I caught a report on one of the Spanish tv channels where a player recently had a really badly cracked skull and he has been operated on and is back playing football thanks to a specially devised head band. I was amazed he could play again after the injury which showed a split from one side of his skull to the other.

Just searched and it is Raul Jimenez who plays for Wolves.