***Official*** English Football Season 2019-20

[sledger]

I have no beef with this.

 

[sledger]

They're all going to die some day anyway, and almost all deaths are unbearably painful. If you want to protect them from long-term damage your only option is to ban childbirth.

Surely this can't actually be your position though. I mean, I know you are being a bit facetious here, and I see that. But we're not talking about prohibiting adults from doing an activity that is possibly deleterious to their health, but prohibiting children from being exposed to something that has apparently been empirically demonstrated to drastically increase the chance of incredible direness.

 

[cpr]

If you want to protect kids from brain injury move them out of the country where a headbutt is a sign of affection

 

[Uppercut]

Surely this can't actually be your position though. I mean, I know you are being a bit facetious here, and I see that. But we're not talking about prohibiting adults from doing an activity that is possibly deleterious to their health, but prohibiting children from being exposed to something that has apparently been empirically demonstrated to drastically increase the chance of incredible direness.

Honestly I don't know what position I hold. I'm conflicted. Part of me rebels against "policy by horror story", where millions of people are forced to change their behaviour because of a small risk of something horrific that starts making the headlines. I know logically that this is one of the more reasonable cases of that phenomenon, and the response hasn't even gone as far as it could have. But it's also an example where my own experience gives me a strong emotional response. It's not that I don't care about brain damage, but I don't think it's the slam-dunk argument everyone else thinks it is. Brains are degenerative, we've all got it coming sooner or later. If you don't suffer long-run brain damage it's only because something else, possibly something worse, got to you first.

It's tied up with my more general old-man anger about the gentrification of football. Football without heading isn't football. You're free to come up with your own sport, call it something else and play it instead. You can't take over an existing sport, decide you're not comfortable with the risks it involves, and change the rules so that tougher, more aggressive kids, who are invariably worse-off economically, become less and less valuable.

I know I'm losing the argument, which is maybe a good thing. Maybe if I was in charge I would come to the same conclusion. But I still feel like I should object, I don't want these changes to pass by without the acknowledgment that something valuable is being lost.

 

[sledger]

Honestly I don't know what position I hold. I'm conflicted. Part of me rebels against "policy by horror story", where millions of people are forced to change their behaviour because of a small risk of something horrific that starts making the headlines. I know logically that this is one of the more reasonable cases of that phenomenon, and the response hasn't even gone as far as it could have. But it's also an example where my own experience gives me a strong emotional response. It's not that I don't care about brain damage, but I don't think it's the slam-dunk argument everyone else thinks it is. Brains are degenerative, we've all got it coming sooner or later. If you don't suffer long-run brain damage it's only because something else, possibly something worse, got to you first.

It's tied up with my more general old-man anger about the gentrification of football. Football without heading isn't football. You're free to come up with your own sport, call it something else and play it instead. You can't take over an existing sport, decide you're not comfortable with the risks it involves, and change the rules so that tougher, more aggressive kids, who are invariably worse-off economically, become less and less valuable.

I know I'm losing the argument, which is maybe a good thing. Maybe if I was in charge I would come to the same conclusion. But I still feel like I should object, I don't want these changes to pass by without the acknowledgment that something valuable is being lost.

Fair dos, and thanks for taking the time to explain.

I do get where you are coming from, but a lot of your arguments/points sound very reminiscent of the comments made by those angry about the concussion prevention rules introduced in the NFL (e.g. banning unnecessary roughness, and headbutts etc.) "Game's gone soft" etc.

For me, what these rules are about, is allowing for the game to continue to be played whilst simultaneously preventing conduct that is unnecessarily harmful. Often, these rules may have the effect of stymieing aspects of the game that are, to many people, fundamental. But that's just it. It is just a game. And life > any game.

I mean I guess my standpoint is that if you can find a way of eliminating something that is potentially life-altering (in a bad way), then why wouldn't you do it?

Edit: and a crucial distinction here is that this rule is only being introduced for children (i.e. minors who do not have capacity to make potentially life-altering decisions for themselves). In the case of adults who do have the capacity to make decisions for themselves, that obviously is another matter entirely.

 

[sledger]

Football without heading isn't football.

Also, don't necessarily disagree with this, but it struck me as funny how a game called football arguably isn't what it is without a body part that isn't... a foot.

 

[Uppercut]

Fair dos, and thanks for taking the time to explain.

I do get where you are coming from, but a lot of your arguments/points sound very reminiscent of the comments made by those angry about the concussion prevention rules introduced in the NFL (e.g. banning unnecessary roughness, and headbutts etc.) "Game's gone soft" etc.

For me, what these rules are about, is allowing for the game to continue to be played whilst simultaneously preventing conduct that is unnecessarily harmful. Often, these rules may have the effect of stymieing aspects of the game that are, to many people, fundamental. But that's just it. It is just a game. And life > any game.

Sure. I don't really have an opinion on the NFL changes. It's not my sport, I have no connection to it, it wouldn't be my place to tell people who are deeply invested in it what level of risk is or isn't acceptable.

I do kind of object to your last bit of rhetoric. Sports have massive health and wellbeing benefits, and stripping them back in the name of saving lives would be perverse. This wouldn't really apply to the heading change on its own, but the gentrified-football era has seen participation rates fall off a cliff, and that can be a matter of life and death too.

 

[sledger]

Sure. I don't really have an opinion on the NFL changes. It's not my sport, I have no connection to it, it wouldn't be my place to tell people who are deeply invested in it what level of risk is or isn't acceptable.

I do kind of object to your last bit of rhetoric. Sports have massive health and wellbeing benefits, and stripping them back in the name of saving lives would be perverse. This wouldn't really apply to the heading change on its own, but the gentrified-football era has seen participation rates fall off a cliff, and that can be a matter of life and death too.

I suppose this is where we differ I guess, because I don't think it would. As I say, if you can strip out a feature of a game that is (for argument's sake, let's say) definitely very harmful to the participants, whilst simultaneously ensuring the game remains playable, and does not lose much of its fundamental character, why would you not do this?

Granted, some people would argue that if heading were to be removed from football entirely (though I don't think anyone is actually suggesting this), this would fundamentally alter the character of the game. I'm not really convinced by this though. 5 or 6 a side games often ban the ball going above head height or whatever, for instance.

I mean, to me, if an aspect of a game is fundamentally harmful, the problem is likely with the game itself, not with the people who want to change it (probably). As above, if consenting adults want to involve themselves in something they know to be harmful, then that's generally fine to me, but the goal posts (heh) are moved when we start to talk about minors and people lacking capacity to make a choice etc,.

 

[vcs]

The heading guidance covers training for all age groups between under-six and under-18
No heading in training in the foundation phase (primary school children)
Headers will gradually get more frequent in training, for example under-12 teams will be limited to one session a month with a maximum of five headers, while under-13 age groups will have one session a week
The rules also advise not to over-inflate the football when introducing heading in training, instead using the lowest pressure allowed
The guidance also sets out required ball sizes for training and matches for each age group

I think this is fair enough, they are not taking it out of the game altogether. Seems sensible to avoid it for primary school children at a stage where their skulls and brains are still presumably developing.

 

[sledger]

Yeah. For me it's not cutting off your nose to spite your face, but cutting off your nose to remove a canker.

 

[Furball]

If it encourages young players to actually play football rather than the ****e version of it that gets played in Scotland then I'm all for it.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, banning heading at a young age may have some footballing benefits. A bit like how my school didnt cover kicking as part of rugby education.

 

[DriveClub]

Quite an upset on the cards

 

[harsh.ag]

Quite a comeback

 

[cpr]

Sigh.


**** Liverpool. Just show a shred of weakness ffs.

 

[Cabinet96]

Going back to the debate on the heading issue, it's a tricky one. I'm someone who is a lot more on board with football's gentrification and probably contribute to it in some ways myself, but I totally get a lot of the outcry against it. Personally I think heading will die out in football eventually, either naturally or by design. It seems inevitable to me with each study, not to mention all the other dangers that come with challenging for the ball with your head; think John Terry and Diaby, Ryan Mason etc. I think on it's own, simply stopping youngsters from heading the ball in training has no negatives; doesn't impact the game in competition, might even lead to improved all-round footballing skills etc in future generations etc. But I've little doubt it's a stepping stone to something more drastic further down the line.

 

[morgieb]

Even as a kid the idea of heading seemed kinda dangerous to me. Given what we know about concussion cutting it from junior soccer is probably a good thing.

 

[DriveClub]

I actually remember playing football in the backyard and when I was 10-11 and one of my friend in his effort to head the ball swung his head back to get momentum and smashed my other friend's teeth in who was right behind him. He actually lost both his front teeth, was pretty scary at the time. Lots of blood

 

[GIMH]

Going back to the debate on the heading issue, it's a tricky one. I'm someone who is a lot more on board with football's gentrification and probably contribute to it in some ways myself, but I totally get a lot of the outcry against it. Personally I think heading will die out in football eventually, either naturally or by design. It seems inevitable to me with each study, not to mention all the other dangers that come with challenging for the ball with your head; think John Terry and Diaby, Ryan Mason etc. I think on it's own, simply stopping youngsters from heading the ball in training has no negatives; doesn't impact the game in competition, might even lead to improved all-round footballing skills etc in future generations etc. But I've little doubt it's a stepping stone to something more drastic further down the line.

If you think heading will be removed from football I have some tartan paint to sell you.

Have you ever watched a non-top flight match? The ball spends 50% of the time in the air in League One and 85% of the time in the conference*

*Stats may not be scientifically calculated

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Have you ever watched a non-top flight match?

He absolutely has not.