I think any sport where repeated head trauma is an integral part has to take it seriously. Research might show that modern footballs minimise the risk but research needs to confirm this.
Football has a duty of care to players which it had neglected in the past.
Wouldn't clubs just write it into a contract going forward, that heading a ball, is a fundamental requirement to be a footballer?
Surely there are other sports where risk of serious injury is as high as a footballer getting brain damage from a football?
Most winter sports (leave curling) Cycling Motor racing / Speedway Rugby Combat sports
They all carry obvious risks don't they?
Not sure an employer can wash their hands of their legal obligations in that way.
Might aswell ban all contact sports, just to be on the safe side
Do you think football should just ignore the problem?
No, I think football should banned as of tonight
Stupid answer as expected.
Sorry luv, you kinda sprung the question on me and I didn't realise I had to come up with a solution to the problem on demand.
But, if the findings are that damning and football clubs have a legal obligation to their players, maybe it's a dead end? I don't know what else you'd like me to come up with for you. Another idea I touted earlier up the thread was to maybe introduce some sort of protective head wear, but I can't personally think of anything that would give the player enough protection while letting them still head the ball effectively.
What will happen with other professions though, where severe injury is highly probable?
I watched an interview with Eddie Hall recently where they basically said that putting his body through the regime he does, he's got a very high risk of multiple organ failure at some point in his life. He shrugged his shoulders and said that he wanted to lift more, so that was a price he was prepared to pay (or something along those lines). I would have thought though, that football clubs, or the governing bodies, could come up with a paper that players must sign every year, to say they know the risks of any injury when they enter the field of play, but that was poo pooed an all, so I'm genuinely sorry, but I don't have an answer for you.
I think the point was that lifestyle may contribute too.
I think those producing scientific research are not governed by anecdotes about how much footballers used to drink.
Maybe they should be. Somebody who has a good diet and a moderate to no alcohol intake regime is probably going to have a lot less health problems in later life than somebody whose diet and alcohol intake wouldn’t be recommended today.
Years ago, there were just 11 players and 1 substitute and it seemed most weeks it was the same 11 or 12 named. Games were sometimes played on successive days. Teams like Liverpool were playing the best part of 70 games a season. By all accounts, injuries were commonly being dealt with by an injection. That surely has to come back and cause problems in later life.
Wouldn't clubs just write it into a contract going forward, that heading a ball, is a fundamental requirement to be a footballer?
Surely there are other sports where risk of serious injury is as high as a footballer getting brain damage from a football?
Most winter sports (leave curling) Cycling Motor racing / Speedway Rugby Combat sports
They all carry obvious risks don't they?
Not sure an employer can wash their hands of their legal obligations in that way.
Might aswell ban all contact sports, just to be on the safe side
Do you think football should just ignore the problem?
Cearly football authorities are not ignoring the problem, so much has already been done to help prevent head injuries, but I guess you just want to ignore all that.
Wouldn't clubs just write it into a contract going forward, that heading a ball, is a fundamental requirement to be a footballer?
Surely there are other sports where risk of serious injury is as high as a footballer getting brain damage from a football?
Most winter sports (leave curling) Cycling Motor racing / Speedway Rugby Combat sports
They all carry obvious risks don't they?
Not sure an employer can wash their hands of their legal obligations in that way.
Might aswell ban all contact sports, just to be on the safe side
Do you think football should just ignore the problem?
No, I think football should banned as of tonight
Stupid answer as expected.
Sorry luv, you kinda sprung the question on me and I didn't realise I had to come up with a solution to the problem on demand.
But, if the findings are that damning and football clubs have a legal obligation to their players, maybe it's a dead end? I don't know what else you'd like me to come up with for you. Another idea I touted earlier up the thread was to maybe introduce some sort of protective head wear, but I can't personally think of anything that would give the player enough protection while letting them still head the ball effectively.
What will happen with other professions though, where severe injury is highly probable?
I watched an interview with Eddie Hall recently where they basically said that putting his body through the regime he does, he's got a very high risk of multiple organ failure at some point in his life. He shrugged his shoulders and said that he wanted to lift more, so that was a price he was prepared to pay (or something along those lines). I would have thought though, that football clubs, or the governing bodies, could come up with a paper that players must sign every year, to say they know the risks of any injury when they enter the field of play, but that was poo pooed an all, so I'm genuinely sorry, but I don't have an answer for you.
Was that answer more to your satisfaction?
I would imagine players already have to sign something like that. I'm sure footballing associations protect themselves from families of players who die of heart attacks from suing them. And boxing bodies from being sued for boxers who die of other injuries.
The NFL continues to go on, where the risks are outrageous. I would imagine the players weigh the financial rewards with the risks and make a decision. Likewise footballers will do the same.
If those other sports go on, this is hardly the end of football.
And let's not forget there are far more dangerous jobs in the world than sport.
Wouldn't clubs just write it into a contract going forward, that heading a ball, is a fundamental requirement to be a footballer?
Surely there are other sports where risk of serious injury is as high as a footballer getting brain damage from a football?
Most winter sports (leave curling) Cycling Motor racing / Speedway Rugby Combat sports
They all carry obvious risks don't they?
Not sure an employer can wash their hands of their legal obligations in that way.
Might aswell ban all contact sports, just to be on the safe side
Do you think football should just ignore the problem?
No, I think football should banned as of tonight
Stupid answer as expected.
Sorry luv, you kinda sprung the question on me and I didn't realise I had to come up with a solution to the problem on demand.
But, if the findings are that damning and football clubs have a legal obligation to their players, maybe it's a dead end? I don't know what else you'd like me to come up with for you. Another idea I touted earlier up the thread was to maybe introduce some sort of protective head wear, but I can't personally think of anything that would give the player enough protection while letting them still head the ball effectively.
What will happen with other professions though, where severe injury is highly probable?
I watched an interview with Eddie Hall recently where they basically said that putting his body through the regime he does, he's got a very high risk of multiple organ failure at some point in his life. He shrugged his shoulders and said that he wanted to lift more, so that was a price he was prepared to pay (or something along those lines). I would have thought though, that football clubs, or the governing bodies, could come up with a paper that players must sign every year, to say they know the risks of any injury when they enter the field of play, but that was poo pooed an all, so I'm genuinely sorry, but I don't have an answer for you.
Was that answer more to your satisfaction?
I would imagine players already have to sign something like that. I'm sure footballing associations protect themselves from families of players who die of heart attacks from suing them. And boxing bodies from being sued for boxers who die of other injuries.
The NFL continues to go on, where the risks are outrageous. I would imagine the players weigh the financial rewards with the risks and make a decision. Likewise footballers will do the same.
If those other sports go on, this is hardly the end of football.
And let's not forget there are far more dangerous jobs in the world than sport.
Tbh, I meant sign something specifically for this this reason
But you, like me initially, are saying that football can't really do anything about this and some sort of long term injury / illness is a calculated risk that players take, and should understand, when they put their boots on
Hoof it up to benty won't be happy when he reads this and Shootie said that football clubs, as employers, have a legal obligation to their players.
Health and safety law does not cover safety matters arising out of the sport or activity itself.
What does that mean, Bob?
It means that if a player breaks a leg, or wrist, or suffers a head injury or any other matter arising from taking part in the sport itself then there is no claim in law that the players health and safety has been compromised - it is an occupational hazard, no different than a boxer not being able to make a claim against the BBBoC for santioning a fight when he is hit in the face!
If it were different then there would be very little sport taking place, as most carry unavoidable risks.
Health and safety law does not cover safety matters arising out of the sport or activity itself.
What does that mean, Bob?
It means that if a player breaks a leg, or wrist, or suffers a head injury or any other matter arising from taking part in the sport itself then there is no claim in law that the players health and safety has been compromised - it is an occupational hazard, no different than a boxer not being able to make a claim against the BBBoC for santioning a fight when he is hit in the face!
If it were different then there would be very little sport taking place, as most carry unavoidable risks.
Health and safety law does not cover safety matters arising out of the sport or activity itself.
What does that mean, Bob?
It means that if a player breaks a leg, or wrist, or suffers a head injury or any other matter arising from taking part in the sport itself then there is no claim in law that the players health and safety has been compromised - it is an occupational hazard, no different than a boxer not being able to make a claim against the BBBoC for santioning a fight when he is hit in the face!
If it were different then there would be very little sport taking place, as most carry unavoidable risks.
Blimey. I am absolutely shocked at that.
A civil claim could be made if it could be proven that all reasonable efforts were not made to mitigate such risk - e.g. the provision of emergency medical support.
The key here is 'reasonable' - providing crash helmets, or banning heading the ball, would not be deemed as reasonable. Making CT scans available on a regular basis perhaps would be reasonable.
Stipulating that a boxer couldn't take a head shot isn't reasonable. Providing medical support at ringside with oxygen available immediately is reasonable.
Many are assuming that modern, lighter balls lessen the risk. This assumption needs to be tested. Women generally have thinner skulls than men - are they even more susceptible to brain damage due to heading the ball?
In the meantime, maybe the precautionary principle needs to be investigated for young players - maybe below a certain age there is a case for banning heading in matches, and/or compulsory headgear, or some such modification.
I realise heading is a skill which needs to be learnt, and practised many more times in training than in actual matches, so this is not an easy problem to solve, but the answer needs to be one which is imposed from the top - it is unrealistic to expect your average footie-mad 10 year old to make a reasoned decision about their future health prospects 50 years down the line! And parents also need to be made aware of the risks.
This of course will not totally solve the problem - how many cyclists do you still see without helmets? - but every bit helps.
Of course everyone realises that participation in sport brings risk of injury - a Saturday afternoon visit to any A&E will reveal a disproportionate number of patients in sports gear! But generally we think of immediate trauma such as ligament damage or a broken bone, and regard participation in sport as a health enhancing activity. Long-term potential dangers also need to become common knowledge, especially when they are as serious as Alzheimers.
Health and safety law does not cover safety matters arising out of the sport or activity itself.
What does that mean, Bob?
It means that if a player breaks a leg, or wrist, or suffers a head injury or any other matter arising from taking part in the sport itself then there is no claim in law that the players health and safety has been compromised - it is an occupational hazard, no different than a boxer not being able to make a claim against the BBBoC for santioning a fight when he is hit in the face!
If it were different then there would be very little sport taking place, as most carry unavoidable risks.
Blimey. I am absolutely shocked at that.
@ShootersHillGuru will be as he believed the opposite, it's nice to have it confirmed as it was an interesting point that SHG raised.
Comments
Surely there are other sports where risk of serious injury is as high as a footballer getting brain damage from a football?
Most winter sports (leave curling)
Cycling
Motor racing / Speedway
Rugby
Combat sports
They all carry obvious risks don't they?
Football has a duty of care to players which it had neglected in the past.
But, if the findings are that damning and football clubs have a legal obligation to their players, maybe it's a dead end? I don't know what else you'd like me to come up with for you. Another idea I touted earlier up the thread was to maybe introduce some sort of protective head wear, but I can't personally think of anything that would give the player enough protection while letting them still head the ball effectively.
What will happen with other professions though, where severe injury is highly probable?
I watched an interview with Eddie Hall recently where they basically said that putting his body through the regime he does, he's got a very high risk of multiple organ failure at some point in his life. He shrugged his shoulders and said that he wanted to lift more, so that was a price he was prepared to pay (or something along those lines). I would have thought though, that football clubs, or the governing bodies, could come up with a paper that players must sign every year, to say they know the risks of any injury when they enter the field of play, but that was poo pooed an all, so I'm genuinely sorry, but I don't have an answer for you.
Was that answer more to your satisfaction?
The NFL continues to go on, where the risks are outrageous. I would imagine the players weigh the financial rewards with the risks and make a decision. Likewise footballers will do the same.
If those other sports go on, this is hardly the end of football.
And let's not forget there are far more dangerous jobs in the world than sport.
Tbh, I meant sign something specifically for this this reason
But you, like me initially, are saying that football can't really do anything about this and some sort of long term injury / illness is a calculated risk that players take, and should understand, when they put their boots on
Hoof it up to benty won't be happy when he reads this and Shootie said that football clubs, as employers, have a legal obligation to their players.
Health and safety law does not cover safety matters arising out of the sport or activity itself.
It means that if a player breaks a leg, or wrist, or suffers a head injury or any other matter arising from taking part in the sport itself then there is no claim in law that the players health and safety has been compromised - it is an occupational hazard, no different than a boxer not being able to make a claim against the BBBoC for santioning a fight when he is hit in the face!
If it were different then there would be very little sport taking place, as most carry unavoidable risks.
A civil claim could be made if it could be proven that all reasonable efforts were not made to mitigate such risk - e.g. the provision of emergency medical support.
The key here is 'reasonable' - providing crash helmets, or banning heading the ball, would not be deemed as reasonable. Making CT scans available on a regular basis perhaps would be reasonable.
Stipulating that a boxer couldn't take a head shot isn't reasonable. Providing medical support at ringside with oxygen available immediately is reasonable.
Many are assuming that modern, lighter balls lessen the risk. This assumption needs to be tested.
Women generally have thinner skulls than men - are they even more susceptible to brain damage due to heading the ball?
In the meantime, maybe the precautionary principle needs to be investigated for young players - maybe below a certain age there is a case for banning heading in matches, and/or compulsory headgear, or some such modification.
I realise heading is a skill which needs to be learnt, and practised many more times in training than in actual matches, so this is not an easy problem to solve, but the answer needs to be one which is imposed from the top - it is unrealistic to expect your average footie-mad 10 year old to make a reasoned decision about their future health prospects 50 years down the line! And parents also need to be made aware of the risks.
This of course will not totally solve the problem - how many cyclists do you still see without helmets? - but every bit helps.
Of course everyone realises that participation in sport brings risk of injury - a Saturday afternoon visit to any A&E will reveal a disproportionate number of patients in sports gear! But generally we think of immediate trauma such as ligament damage or a broken bone, and regard participation in sport as a health enhancing activity. Long-term potential dangers also need to become common knowledge, especially when they are as serious as Alzheimers.