The Game's Gone

[Wainy316]

There’s probably a more relevant thread for this but at least I didn’t put it in ‘The games good’.

 

[Mic09]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63767548

Quote

Scottish football to ban heading the day before and after matches

I really don't understand this. It is obvious heading a football causes damage, yet studies are not yet clear into how much damage or how today's modern footballs affect it long term.

Regardless, that's not the point. If you are a professional athlete, there are serious physical risks you need to consider before making it your career. 

If you are a boxer, you are likely to get hurt. If you are a rugby player, you are likely to get hurt. If you are a long distance runner, your knees will go at older age. If you are are a basketball player, your joints will go. If you are a hockey player, you will lose your teeth. 

All professional sports brings serious risks. But to change the game entirely because of it seems crazy. 

It's like giving swimmers a life vest because some swimmers drown. 

Let's develop science to help people and educate about risks of participating in sport rather than banning pole vaulting because that is a sport that has one of the more dangerous and life threatening consequences. 

 

 

On a different take, Scottish football is about to get even worse. 

Edited November 28, 2022 by Mic09

[foreveryoung]

31 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63767548

I really don't understand this. It is obvious heading a football causes damage, yet studies are not yet clear into how much damage or how today's modern footballs affect it long term.

Regardless, that's not the point. If you are a professional athlete, there are serious physical risks you need to consider before making it your career. 

If you are a boxer, you are likely to get hurt. If you are a rugby player, you are likely to get hurt. If you are a long distance runner, your knees will go at older age. If you are are a basketball player, your joints will go. If you are a hockey player, you will lose your teeth. 

All professional sports brings serious risks. But to change the game entirely because of it seems crazy. 

It's like giving swimmers a life vest because some swimmers drown. 

Let's develop science to help people and educate about risks of participating in sport rather than banning pole vaulting because that is a sport that has one of the more dangerous and life threatening consequences. 

 

 

On a different take, Scottish football is about to get even worse. 

It'd be a bit more clearer if after the neurological deaths of a few older generation footballers, the pgoml and the FA may be interested in looking into it. But they are shit scared the science will find facts causing the FA to pay millions out in compensation.

[rodders0223]

Not really a game's gone.

I think it's pretty obvious heading a ball every day, having the motion of whipping your header forward to an almost immediate atop is going to cause trauma if repeated.

Just a matter of time until heading is banned in some level in the professional game , be it outside the boxes or whatever.

[Mic09]

11 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

Not really a game's gone.

I think it's pretty obvious heading a ball every day, having the motion of whipping your header forward to an almost immediate atop is going to cause trauma if repeated.

Just a matter of time until heading is banned in some level in the professional game , be it outside the boxes or whatever.

No one is disputing if heading causes injuries, much like no one is disputing footballers suffer above average population leg injuries which result in late life osteoarthritis. Should we ban running and contact?

Professional sport is dangerous and should be undertaken with care. But it's a choice. You don't have to play football much like you don't have to box or play rugby. 

It's a game's gone because such interventions fundamentally change the game we love to watch. 

[Rolta]

2 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

No one is disputing if heading causes injuries, much like no one is disputing footballers suffer above average population leg injuries which result in late life osteoarthritis. Should we ban running and contact?

Professional sport is dangerous and should be undertaken with care. But it's a choice. You don't have to play football much like you don't have to box or play rugby. 

It's a game's gone because such interventions fundamentally change the game we love to watch. 

But this is new information. If banning heading the day before and after a game can mitigate some of the risk then what's the problem? None at all.

I don't get the need to be afraid of new information.

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, Rolta said:

But this is new information. If banning heading the day before and after a game can mitigate some of the risk then what's the problem? None at all.

I don't get the need to be afraid of new information.

Data into heading/getting punched/repeated head blows has been available for a long time.

Even without this new information we could say, with confidence, it's not safe to head a football long term.

But it's changing the game. And I think we shouldn't change it that way. 

[Rolta]

3 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Data into heading/getting punched/repeated head blows has been available for a long time.

Even without this new information we could say, with confidence, it's not safe to head a football long term.

But it's changing the game. And I think we shouldn't change it that way. 

If they can improve the situation for the players without changing the actual games — presumably the intention of the Scottish FA — then seems as if there is zero problem and only benefit.

People moaned about cricket helmets back in the day (I am not expecting football helmets. I'm just making a comparison to a progressive move that was resisted by some).

[Mic09]

9 minutes ago, Rolta said:

If they can improve the situation for the players without changing the actual games — presumably the intention of the Scottish FA — then seems as if there is zero problem and only benefit.

People moaned about cricket helmets back in the day (I am not expecting football helmets. I'm just making a comparison to a progressive move that was resisted by some).

But it's not like introducing helmets. 

In fact, introducing a Petr Cech like cushion helmet in training might be a better idea.

To use your cricket comparison, it's like banning batting in practice. 

[Davkaus]

Just now, Mic09 said:

 

To use your cricket comparison, it's like banning batting in practice. 

For a day either side, to improve the health outcomes out the competitors.

Your objections centre around them fundamentally changing the game, but that's not what's happening at all. It's possible (but far from certain), that there might be a small regression in the skill of a fairly small part of the game.

[Rolta]

6 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

But it's not like introducing helmets. 

In fact, introducing a Petr Cech like cushion helmet in training might be a better idea.

To use your cricket comparison, it's like banning batting in practice. 

I think the cricket comparison can work both ways. Batting doesn't have the risk of causing brain damage, but getting a ball to the head does.

Either way, these guys header enough – they're not going to forget the skill if they don't do it the day before a match. If it helps with recovery/not compounding the impact of headering in the bigger picture and still lets them header in games then what is the problem? You wouldn't notice a difference, but presumably the players are healthier for it. If it improves the long term health of the players then do it. Of course.

Edited November 28, 2022 by Rolta

[Mic09]

2 minutes ago, Rolta said:

I think the cricket comparison can work both ways. Batting doesn't have the risk of causing brain damage, but getting a ball to the head does.

Either way, these guys header enough – they're not going to forget the skill if they don't do it the day before a match. If it helps with recovery/not compounding the impact of headering in the bigger picture and still lets them header in games then what is the problem? You wouldn't notice a difference, but presumably the players are healthier for it. It's a win win situation.

The day before a game the players are likely to train set pieces to lower the workload. That's when you head the ball.

You could argue that not heading the ball 2 days before or after game might bring even greater benefits with little change. Why wouldn't you be for that?

It is changing the game.

But in fact, you have helped me come to a conclusion that using soft Peter Cech like helmets in certain situations (i.e. youth training) might be the best for the game.

I'm not arguing there are no risks. But we see a different approach with how to minimise those. 

This world cup has show that the Iranian keeper and Saudi defender, both with major head damage, did not head a ball yet suffered extreme injuries. Should we prohibit goalkeepers from leaving the 6 yard box and claiming the ball in training? 

I am less for prohibition, and more for football development and proper medical support for professionals.

[Davkaus]

Just now, Mic09 said:

But in fact, you have helped me come to a conclusion that using soft Peter Cech like helmets in certain situations (i.e. youth training) might be the best for the game.

This will do almost nothing to mitigate the concussion risks, may do more harm than good by giving a sense that it's safer to head the ball more and more, and will also potentially *untrain* players in matchday heading as the ball will respond differently. Just a non-starter, IMO

[Stevo985]

46 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

No one is disputing if heading causes injuries, much like no one is disputing footballers suffer above average population leg injuries which result in late life osteoarthritis. Should we ban running and contact?

Leg injuries don't kill you

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Leg injuries don't kill you

Not playing football doesn't kill you either. 

And "heading a ball kills you" is also a big simplification.

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Not playing football doesn't kill you either. 

And "heading a ball kills you" is also a big simplification.

But you must surely see the ridiculousness of comparing these kinds of head injuries with leg injuries?

Leg injuries might affect your mobility in your older age.

These head injuries can kill you. Or they can be seriously life changing/shortening.

 

The only big simplification here is comparing the two things. It's like saying racing drivers shouldn't wear helmets because they might crash and break their legs anyway

[Davkaus]

The other big discrepancy is running is an absolutely massive part of the game. Heading, in training, much less so. There's a careful balancing act to try and mitigate unnecessary risks that pose danger to competitors that outweigh any benefits to the competition.

Remember how outraged some F1 fans got about the Halo?

Not all safety steps can be justified. You can't ban punching in boxing. You should definitely have to wear a harness in racing. Most other cases fall along a spectrum where there's no right answers, and it's a case of judgement. I think this is quite a reasonable one though, which will have almost no impact on games while having a chance of reducing brain injuries to players.

If the day comes they want to ban it altogether, that's a very different conversation

If you disagree, well, it's only Scottish football so far - so we can wait and see what happens.

[The Fun Factory]

18 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Leg injuries don't kill you

Try telling Bob Marley that.

[Mic09]

Just now, Stevo985 said:

But you must surely see the ridiculousness of comparing these kinds of head injuries with leg injuries?

Leg injuries might affect your mobility in your older age.

These head injuries can kill you. Or they can be seriously life changing/shortening.

 

The only big simplification here is comparing the two things. It's like saying racing drivers shouldn't wear helmets because they might crash and break their legs anyway

Ok, we are getting beyond the point, let's bring it back.

Yes, it's dangerous to repeatedly head a football. It may result in brain damage.

But any sport brings danger. Football, compared to rugby or martial arts probably less so. 

Heading a football is a key element of the game. Prohibition of training that skill for any time period impacts the game. (In Scotland heading a ball js probably 80% of what they do )

I hope we agree so far. 

I just think that we should explore different avenues to minimise those risks, just like we don't teach boxers not to throw head punches or American football players to run into each other which are even more of a risk.

Sport is dangerous. Anyone sending their kid to training without thinking "they might sustain injuries, it's a risky game" probably should think again. 

I don't know what the right answer is to minimising risks. But throwing a life vest on a swimmer or asking ice hockey players not to bash against each other is probably not the right way to go about minimising these risks. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rolta]

3 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Ok, we are getting beyond the point, let's bring it back.

Yes, it's dangerous to repeatedly head a football. It may result in brain damage.

But any sport brings danger. Football, compared to rugby or martial arts probably less so. 

Heading a football is a key element of the game. Prohibition of training that skill for any time period impacts the game. (In Scotland heading a ball js probably 80% of what they do )

I hope we agree so far. 

I just think that we should explore different avenues to minimise those risks, just like we don't teach boxers not to throw head punches or American football players to run into each other which are even more of a risk.

Sport is dangerous. Anyone sending their kid to training without thinking "they might sustain injuries, it's a risky game" probably should think again. 

I don't know what the right answer is to minimising risks. But throwing a life vest on a swimmer or asking ice hockey players not to bash against each other is probably not the right way to go about minimising these risks. 

 

 

 

 

 

Just saying sport is dangerous isn't a logical argument against bringing in measures to reduce impact. It's just a phrase, and it doesn't add up to anything.