Dementia in Football.

[Venton]

Harsh

To be fair he is 83 so you can't tell whether it's football. I don't recall him doing a lot of headers.

[Zapater]

Harsh

Didn't mean in it in a disrespectful way.

Both of my late grandmothers had it - well one dementia and the other Alzheimers which I believe is a strain of the former. The one was in perfect health until 92, went on to deteriorate badly and passed at 95. The other was not so fortunate, she got it in her late 70s and lived the last decade of her life in uncertainty. On a good day she knew everything, on a bad one she didn't know who any of her family were. To my knowledge, I'm fairly certain neither of them participated in contact sports.

If I don't know who I am at 70, is it because of my family history or because I've headed footballs and was punched repeatedly in a boxing ring?

[Norbs]

I don't know why I posted that

[Cormack74]

Probably the best thread for this, surprised no one has posted already:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55352368

The Premier League has said it hopes to start permanent concussion substitution trials from January.

It follows football's lawmakers, the International Football Association Board (Ifab), approving trials in 2021.

The new rule means permanent substitutions can be made if a player suffers a head injury, even if all replacements have already been used.

To avoid potential abuse of the rule, opposition teams will also be able to make a change at the same time.

However, Premier League clubs have voted against the use of five substitutes for a third time, despite Ifab's confirming an extension to the rule on Wednesday.

Instead, the number of top-flight players allowed on the bench has increased from seven to nine.

This measure will come into effect from matchday 14, which begins on Saturday.

"With player welfare the Premier League's priority, clubs agreed in principle to introduce additional permanent concussion substitutions following approval of the trial by the International Football Association Board yesterday," the Premier League said on Thursday.

"The Premier League will look to implement protocols which will allow a maximum of two concussion substitutes to be used per team, with the opposition side able to use the equivalent number.

"The additional concussion substitutions may be made regardless of the number of substitutions a team has made already."

Speaking before the latest decision not to allow five substitutes, Football Association chief executive Mark Bullingham said he was "surprised" top-flight clubs had not approved the change.

Bullingham also said clubs still competing in the FA Cup would be allowed to make five substitutions.

"I think when we started off at Ifab level, we fully expected all of the leading leagues to sign it off for the reason of a very congested season with a lack of pre-season," said Bullingham.

Speaking about permanent concussion substitutes, he added: "I think we have to state clearly why permanent substitutes are better.

"We had a concussion expert group pulled together by Fifa and Ifab to look at this and their view is very firmly that it's safer."

Concussion substitutes were set to be introduced at the football competitions of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics before the Games were postponed until 2021 because of coronavirus.

The ability to gather a more accurate diagnosis of head injuries has been in the spotlight after several members of England's 1966 World Cup-winning team were diagnosed with dementia.

Stiles and Jack Charlton, who both died earlier this year, had dementia, while Sir Bobby Charlton's family recently revealed he had been diagnosed with the disease.

Former Tottenham defender Jan Vertonghen also recently explained how he had felt the effects of a concussion he sustained playing for Spurs for the following nine months.

[Buzzo]

Concerns raised over how football clubs will enforce new heading restrictions

• Adherence to guidance of 10 headers per week not policed
• Dr Michael Grey queries no distinctions for women or children

Nick Ames

Wed 28 Jul 2021 19.17 BST

Clubs in English football may be required to significantly adapt their training methods after the game’s leading bodies agreed new guidance to limit the number of headers players are allowed to make.

The recommendations will restrict footballers to 10 “higher-force” headers a week in training amid continued investigations into the potential health risks associated with regularly heading a ball, which could include dementia. They were announced on Wednesday by the Football Association, Premier League, English Football League, Professional Footballers’ Association and League Managers Association, and include stipulations for the professional and amateur games.

It follows multiple studies undertaken in recent months by a subgroup of the Professional Football Negotiating and Consultative Committee, which involved a cohort of players from Liverpool’s under-23, under-18 and women’s teams, and Manchester City’s under-18 and women’s teams.

The development is expected to be broadly welcomed within the game although questions have been raised about the practicality of enforcement and there have been calls for the guidance to go further, particularly where considerations around women and children are concerned.

Higher-force headers were defined in a joint statement by the authorities as “typically headers following a long pass (more than 35m) or from crosses, corners and free-kicks”. It pointed out additionally that the majority of headers involve “low forces”. Nonetheless, clubs that observe the guidance to the letter are likely to find training for set pieces, a cornerstone of preparations at all levels, particularly challenging given the number of aerial duels traditionally involved.

In further detail, the guidelines suggest clubs limit the number of headers carried out when a player takes three or more steps and runs on to the ball, or dives to meet it. They also propose that players hone heading technique using thrown passes, which involve “lower peak accelerations”.

For adult amateur football, it is recommended heading practice is limited to 10 headers per session, undertaken in one session per week. The statement said this guidance was “to reduce overall exposure to heading without compromising development of technique and the role heading plays in the English game”.

The FA chef executive, Mark Bullingham, said: “These measures have been developed following studies with coaches and medics and represent a cautious approach whilst we learn more. We are committed to further medical research to gain an understanding of any risks within football; in the meantime this reduces a potential risk factor.”

Professional clubs will be encouraged to ensure players have adequate time after matches to recover from heading. The studies found “early but limited evidence” that greater neck muscle strength may contribute to safer heading and research will be conducted into how that may developed safely.

Clubs’ adherence to the guidance will not be policed although they are expected to take it seriously. Some figures in the game have wondered how, in practice, it can be applied in a competitive training session. The statement said “it is essential that club staff monitor each player’s heading practice in real time” and that clubs should develop profiles detailing the nature of the headers each player usually undertakes.

Dr Michael Grey, a football and dementia expert from the University of East Anglia who gave evidence to the government’s “concussion in sport” report last week, welcomed the guidelines but expressed some reservations.

“It remains unclear on what basis these specific FA limitations have been made and how the new guidance will be enforced,” he said. “The recommendations make no distinction based on gender despite growing evidence that women are more susceptible to head injury than are men. There are biological differences between male and female in both structure and physiology that warrant a more considered approach.”

Grey also said that an outright ban on heading in younger children should be considered. Children at primary school are not allowed to head the ball in training.

The ramifications of heading have come under intense scrutiny in recent years. A study by the University of Glasgow in 2019 found former footballers were three and a half times more likely to die of neurodegenerative diseases. This month an MPs’ inquiry said sport had been allowed to “mark its own homework” in reducing brain injury risks.

[Exiled_red]

Obviously it is a really important issue and it's good to see that it is being given consideration in football. But it seems that these plans really haven't been well thought out by those in the game, set pieces are such a massive part of the game limiting practice to 10 headers (per person) per week will presumably have a significant effect on teams, particularly those who rely alot on set pieces.

I think that unless scientific evidence can be carried out to demonstrate safe heading of the ball we will probably reach a point in a few years where heading will be removed from the game.

[Corndog]

Obviously it is a really important issue and it's good to see that it is being given consideration in football. But it seems that these plans really haven't been well thought out by those in the game, set pieces are such a massive part of the game limiting practice to 10 headers (per person) per week will presumably have a significant effect on teams, particularly those who rely alot on set pieces.

I think that unless scientific evidence can be carried out to demonstrate safe heading of the ball we will probably reach a point in a few years where heading will be removed from the game.

I think that will be the end point, that heading is taken out of the game.

It will be met, like any big change with huge resistance and older people harkening back to the days when a man was a man and could head a football but if enough scientific evidence is there, it should be an easy decision.

It would definitely alter how the game is played but some more than others given there are already teams who employ strategies to minimise aerial balls and those who do the opposite, but potentially even for the better as it would surely result in more focus on better technical and passing play.

[Roboklopp]

How do they deal with this in boxing?

[Fosterbloke]

How do they deal with this in boxing?

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LikxFZZO2sk"]Parkour Atlas - YouTube[/ame]

[Mr Pink]

Imagine no headers in football… you’d have head ball as well as hand ball… they’d prob have to change corners- maybe you take it from where the box meets the line or something. Also, at least it would make calling offsides a lot easier- the any part of your body that ya can play the ball with, would be a lot simplified!

[Rigadon]

Imagine no headers in football… you’d have head ball as well as hand ball… they’d prob have to change corners- maybe you take it from where the box meets the line or something. Also, at least it would make calling offsides a lot easier- the any part of your body that ya can play the ball with, would be a lot simplified!

Type of centre backs and probably team structure would also change.

[BG1973]

Boxing is going to be banned anytime soon then I presume.

Seems a strange one to me. Its a hazard of the job, or at least it might have been back when balls used to get waterlogged and therefore much heavier. Fair enough, cut down in training but where does it end. No risk allowed whatsoever..

[Maxiedge]

Imagine no headers in football… you’d have head ball as well as hand ball… they’d prob have to change corners- maybe you take it from where the box meets the line or something. Also, at least it would make calling offsides a lot easier- the any part of your body that ya can play the ball with, would be a lot simplified!

Protective head gear would surely be preferred over no headers and maybe even just for centre backs..?

[Doc_Piptorious]

Boxing is going to be banned anytime soon then I presume.

Seems a strange one to me. Its a hazard of the job, or at least it might have been back when balls used to get waterlogged and therefore much heavier. Fair enough, cut down in training but where does it end. No risk allowed whatsoever..

You ban boxing, UFC or any other combat sport and it goes under ground even more than now.

[Zapater]

Protective head gear would surely be preferred over no headers and maybe even just for centre backs..?

Head protection proven scientifically to be worse than no headgear. In milliseconds it creates a double impact. First from the initial contact then from the headgear recoil making secondary contact. Hence headgear in amateur boxing has been outlawed in some competitions. Although cuts, swelling etc play a bigger part which isn't a problem in football.

It's a difficult one to see because we need to wait a generation to see the impact of these changes. I don't see the rules changing any time soon. I would also like to know how many footballers suffer from head trauma related diseases. I'd assume it's minimal. The best bet would be to educate people and they can then decide if they want to participate in the sport or not.

The majority of retired footballers live long lives and seem to be in generally good health with low rates of violent behaviour etc. which would indicate it's not terrible at this stage. Whereas in retired American football players you see all of them doing strange things after a career, including suicide and deteriorating physical health, presence of stumbling, slurring etc. In boxing when looking at guys with more than 25-30 fights it's flipping a coin. Condition could be perfectly fine to dead 15 years after their careers are over.

Whilst the heading is one to watch out for, I doubt anything drastic will be done yet at a professional level.