Maybe teach them to head the football properly?
Second answer
Please note, I answer your questions.
The study size is small and there is no reference to other lifestyle issues amongst the cohort (smoking, drugs, drinking etc). As I said earlier the study raises more questions than answers, and insofar as I can see a major piece of research will never happen because the cost is prohibitive.
The modern football has less impact on the brain than its predecessor, and as we acknowledged before the footballers at an age where cognition is decreasing were subject to much more factors than their contemporary peers.
Edit:
Do you, @Limiescouse think banning heading in kids football is required, given the dearth of proper research in the area?
1 Like
Considering that the article refers to U12 football, I’d be interested to read the “major piece of research” that demonstrates the significance for the sport of football of kids heading the ball at 10 instead of, say, 13.
I don’t actually think learning to head the ball before the age of 12 is much use anyhow.
Though can I be arsed… nah I care so little, and it won’t change a thing about the game we watch, trust me.
There is no major research, though you know that.
My apologies, because genuinely wasn’t my intent. I didn’t want to put words in your mouth, but it did seem that you were suggesting that stopping heading the ball would end with a no contact football, which of course it won’t.
The issue of heading the ball in football is a contentious one, but there is plenty of evidence now that routine, continuous heading of the ball causes problems. There needs to be more work done, but you can’t ignore it or place the traditions of the game of football above actual human well-being.
I think professional clubs now operate with a set limit of heading drills that can be done, so it’s a concern generally. But you have to take extra caution with kids.
I coach 6/7 year olds, and in my opinion you can’t coach heading the ball properly at that age. There is no point. They don’t have the capacity to understand
In fact, at that age, and anything under about ten, the whole point of coaching is simply to instil a love of the game. No drills, no tactics, no worries about developing skills. Just play football and encourage them to love it.
So we don’t need to drill them on the correct way to cushion a header, nor do we need to spend ages drilling them in tackling or anything like that. It’s boring, it doesn’t work, and it’s simply not the aim with under tens. We let them play football, encourage them in game, and use different game based sessions to almost ‘stealth’ coach them.
Of course we allow, and encourage contact, but we draw the line at slide tackles and over aggressive tackles. Again, we’re there to get as many kids as we can to fall in love with the game. We don’t want kids jibbing because they are going home black and blue (or with sore heads) before they’ve even got started.
1 Like
I think it’s a case of having to draw the line somewhere, and I think it’s the point at which kids move out of inters divisions and into youth football.
I think with what we know of the risk it is a big stretch to sate these changes are required. However, I think if we make these changes and then later come to find out there was no actual risk of dementia like conditions then I still don’t see there would have been any downside. There has been an acknowledgment for at least 30 years, since I was U10s, that kids football is better suited to them if modified to reflect their physical development - smaller pitches, goals and balls, no slide tackling and no heading. From what I have seen the only real obstacle to wide spread incorporation of this is inertia. Add in a plausible albeit weakly supported health benefit and I really don’t see the problem.
What I was more interested in though was what you thought the article you posted without comment said about the risks. I see you’ve subsequently expanded on that and think those are reasonable issues to raise. My take is that NHS piece itself was really bad. It misstates some aspects of the findings, overstates the limitations of the study and drastically undersells its relevance. There are some questions that cannot be investigated with a double-blind interventional trial. In the absence of that gold-standard evidence you have got to be smarter in evaluating the value of the evidence you can collect than just complain that it doesnt provide a “direct causal link”. Especially when the actions being considered in light of the evidence are so trivial. Is this enough evidence to justify eliminating heading from the senior game? Of course not. But to use it to finally get proposed changes instituted that we’ve been discussing for the past 30 years?
The article is poorly written and the information or findings poorly disseminated.
I understand what you and @Mascot are saying…in a sense that the lenghty conversation needs action. The chosen action is to make changes re heading in the underage game.
My point is that we are on a road to changing the structure of sport in a vacuum. The gold standard research is not available, and the stats in current studies are not taking lifestyle situations into account.
Of course safety is a concern, and as @Mascot says there is probably no great harm in coaching kids to a certain age in a different manner. I understand that argumrnt. I dont necessarily agree but I understand the premise.
I honestly see this leading to changes in football, over the next twenty years. And I suppose my concern is that football will become a pale sanitised version of what I grew up playing and watching. I am accused of a giant leap from here to there, but the times we live in demand answers to perceived problems rather than a stop and think approach to defining if the problem even exists
I played in a ploughed field in an under 15s match a long time ago, no injuries and a combative game…I saw local pitches called off because of a bit of surface water that was gone with an hours work…
Times are changing.
Given the way that our local society is going, tackling will be ruled out eventually with rules about possession times or pure one / two touch. Doesn’t mean it will happen, just that if we continue down the same path it will. Boxing, MMA etc will bite the bullet and we can all share our feelings together and have a good cry about those bastard manly men who used to drink, smoke, play aggressive sports and bone their girlfriends afterwards. In the “we’re all equal” gender neutral future, we’ll get children from the clinic and the world will be utopian bliss.
If you haven’t watched Demolition Man recently, do. That’s currently our future.
Ahem, sorry, no sleep in 38 degree heat last night……
Personally, I indulge in only one of those activities now.
1 Like
At least you got to share your feelings
It’s not being done in a vacuum though. We know the mechanism for how repeated low-impact contacts with the head can cause these injuries. We can identify football as a likely source of those impacts so we can assume there is a risk. What we don’t know and are unlikely to be able to know for some time is how to quantify that risk. The means there is a big gap in our knowledge, but it also doesn’t mean we know nothing.
2 Likes
Ok
So, should heading a football be banned? Because of assumed risk?
Edit: Bearing in mind “football is a likely source, and we are assuming a risk”
Should it be upto the individual to decide if they wish to head the ball? I wonder which of the many pro sports is the most dangerous? Boxing? F1? Participants vs deaths per year?
what’s really interesting is the degradation of this thread. originally titled “heading the ball in pro football” but references a FA decision on U-12 kids.
Clearly some of us are missing the football. with or without headers.
I thought I’ve been pretty clear on that, no? Assuming we’re only talking about youth football, I think the risk is insufficient by itself to require changes, but I think they are prudent and justified nonetheless given the relative lack of downside and alignment with long-standing pre-existing ideas for how youth football should be modified. I’m definitely conscious of not overstating the risk and think there has to be a line drawn on when they are brought back in, but as long as we’re talking about kids football then Im fine with it and see a lot of updside.
If someone were to put forward well articulated arguments for why this is bad for youth football I’d certainly be willing to reconsider, but I really haven’t heard much in that sense beyond generalized “the world’s gone mad” teeth gnashing.
3 Likes
From cdc site:
Smoking causes cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis** . Smoking also increases risk for tuberculosis, certain eye diseases, and problems of the immune system, including
arthritis.
Very interesting, but I’ve never been a smoker. In fact, I despise it.
The argument for stopping heading and slide tackling when young is interesting. I tend to agree with making the game safer for young people, and the evidence is pretty compelling that even bar safety issues it’s a good idea.
However, it seems pretty clear to me that not learning how to do anything until an older age definitely affects your ability to do it. Look at kids who play tennis from 4-5 vs ones who don’t pick it up until 14-15, or in any other sport really. Heck, look at me — I only played football for about 2 years growing up really and never headed/slide tackled.
In my 30s now and can’t head the ball to save my life, nor can I slide tackle. Never learnt how at a younger age and it doesn’t come very naturally to me.
Granted that’s a very special case; I am one of the least athletic people you’d ever meet. The case is still interesting though; I do think people not learning how to head or slide tackle until 13+ will have an impact on pro footballers’ ability to do so later in life.
It’s worth it to be safer, to keep kids playing, etc but I do think authorities should be aware of all this when making decisions.
1 Like