Jump to content
IGNORED

Sir Geoff Hurst and my Mum


Marina's Rolls Royce

Recommended Posts

I'm sure there's been another thread about this so apologies if I'm going over "old" ground. ( Mods merge if needs be)

Geoff has , as you will no doubt have seen/read has highlighted the possible correlation between the long term consequences of heading a ball and dementia. Now , with great sadness, my sainted Mum has very early onset of dementia. As far as I know she has never played football.

Sir Geoff has now stated that he will donate his brain to medical science. He is campaigning for more research into footballers and heading the ball. There has been much suggestion that coaching staff should now discourage headers and it has even been suggested that heading should be banned.

Meanwhile, it has been discovered that Mountaineers can and do fall off a mountain, F1 drivers can crash,Boxers get brain damage,Amazon explorers get lost or eaten by piranhas, Skiers break everything ,Rugby players suffer horrific injuries and even cyclists fall off their bike.

So perhaps all these activities should be banned or modified in some way to prevent any possible long term consequence particularly if they are famous and earn more money in a year than the rest of us in a career. Alternatively they could choose a safer job with a lot less money, fame or danger.

However brutal- I'm afraid that I find woke football commentary in respect of consequences of playing a physical sport nothing short of pathetic.

What next- American style helmets and padding on our "soccer" pitches?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you would happily advocate a child playing football in the knowledge it could directly lead to dementia in later life?  We used to pump injured players with cortisone, until it was realised that their joints were shot before they were 50 (Tommy Smith being a good example) but the game has learned from that.  Even rugby is now fully wised up to the dangers of concussion.

If too much heading of the ball can cause dementia then, as Sir Geoff advocated, cut down on repetitive heading practise in training and play the ball on the floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The footballs of the 60s were significantly different to the ones they use these days, so it's of limited surprise that there might be a link.

Was it the family of Jeff Astle who first raised the issue with the authorities about a link between to two?

I can see the logic in maybe having kids wear a skull cap whilst their bones are developing so they can learn the skill of heading a ball whilst still young balanced against a reduced risk, but for the adult game, less so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bristol Rob said:

The footballs of the 60s were significantly different to the ones they use these days, so it's of limited surprise that there might be a link.

Was it the family of Jeff Astle who first raised the issue with the authorities about a link between to two?

I can see the logic in maybe having kids wear a skull cap whilst their bones are developing so they can learn the skill of heading a ball whilst still young balanced against a reduced risk, but for the adult game, less so.

Just about to say the same thing. The ball used in the 50s & 60s is very different from the one they use now. I remember using an old uncoated leather ball at junior school, when wet weighed about the same as a small family car . I think it makes sense to limit youngsters heading the ball, but I imagine they need players of 80s & 90s to get to an age where they might suffer before they can make any determination. It can't be just down to impact or jarring, so they need continued research to find all the links. The sooner the better too, horrible illness, had an Aunt how suffered from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

So you would happily advocate a child playing football in the knowledge it could directly lead to dementia in later life?  We used to pump injured players with cortisone, until it was realised that their joints were shot before they were 50 (Tommy Smith being a good example) but the game has learned from that.  Even rugby is now fully wised up to the dangers of concussion.

If too much heading of the ball can cause dementia then, as Sir Geoff advocated, cut down on repetitive heading practise in training and play the ball on the floor.

If that is the case then why hasn’t there been a massive history of say 70% of footballers throughout the last 100 years suffering with any similar condition? People get cancer that have never smoked or drank alcohol, what is the common denominator of people that have caught Covid-19? Should we find out & then all make sure we never do whatever that common denominator is?

The sad fact is that anyone can become ill with any number of illnesses, it’s very little or nothing to do with how anyone decides to live their lives because otherwise all nasty diseases would be left to murderers & paedophiles but it doesn’t work like that.

I headed a ball what must of been thousands of times, from the age of about 5 to 43 but I’ve shown no sign of having any issues with my head & I'm sure there are thousands or maybe millions of other people in a similar position. But unfortunately as you become older, things do start failing us all, eyes, ears, memory, heart, kidneys, lungs, hips, knees, the list goes on & on.

Should we stop all women that have had dementia from doing the housework or knitting because that’s surely something they were all doing down the years that could link them if they’ve suffered from any similar illnesses down the years?

There probably been 10 (if that) players that have suffered from dementia in my lifetime (or that have been made public anyway, that’s out of millions of people that have played football over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Just about to say the same thing. The ball used in the 50s & 60s is very different from the one they use now. I remember using an old uncoated leather ball at junior school, when wet weighed about the same as a small family car . I think it makes sense to limit youngsters heading the ball, but I imagine they need players of 80s & 90s to get to an age where they might suffer before they can make any determination. It can't be just down to impact or jarring, so they need continued research to find all the links. The sooner the better too, horrible illness, had an Aunt how suffered from it.

wet leather ball hits head , head moves ball stays still

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tipps69 said:

If that is the case then why hasn’t there been a massive history of say 70% of footballers throughout the last 100 years suffering with any similar condition? People get cancer that have never smoked or drank alcohol, what is the common denominator of people that have caught Covid-19? Should we find out & then all make sure we never do whatever that common denominator is?

The sad fact is that anyone can become ill with any number of illnesses, it’s very little or nothing to do with how anyone decides to live their lives because otherwise all nasty diseases would be left to murderers & paedophiles but it doesn’t work like that.

I headed a ball what must of been thousands of times, from the age of about 5 to 43 but I’ve shown no sign of having any issues with my head & I'm sure there are thousands or maybe millions of other people in a similar position. But unfortunately as you become older, things do start failing us all, eyes, ears, memory, heart, kidneys, lungs, hips, knees, the list goes on & on.

Should we stop all women that have had dementia from doing the housework or knitting because that’s surely something they were all doing down the years that could link them if they’ve suffered from any similar illnesses down the years?

There probably been 10 (if that) players that have suffered from dementia in my lifetime (or that have been made public anyway, that’s out of millions of people that have played football over the years.

No

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

The footballs of the 60s were significantly different to the ones they use these days, so it's of limited surprise that there might be a link.

Was it the family of Jeff Astle who first raised the issue with the authorities about a link between to two?

I can see the logic in maybe having kids wear a skull cap whilst their bones are developing so they can learn the skill of heading a ball whilst still young balanced against a reduced risk, but for the adult game, less so.

I’m not sure of the accuracy of what I’m about to say, but pretty sure when Shearer did that documentary on heading the ball and dementia he was surprised that the old ball was no heavier than the current ball.

Of course the old ball mopping up rain is different, but a dry ball was found to be no heavier during the study with Shearer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

It is a myth that the modern ball is lighter than the balls used in the past.

Since 1937, the dry weight of the ball has been specified by Law 2: 14-16oz. Prior to that, the rules governing the ball’s dry weight specified something lighter – 13-15oz.

This goes for the new ball used in 2010 just as much as it did for the 1966 ball. Whenever you read a comment along the lines of “I’d like to see modern players heading the leather pudding the ’66 boys had to put up with” you can assume that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

What has changed are (1) the material from which the ball is made, and thus the ability of the ball to avoid weight gain during the game through water absorption, and (2) the aerodynamics of the ball i.e. the smoothness of the surface.

The new ball isn’t lighter in of itself – which is what people seem to be assuming: but the new ball won’t get so wet in play. So in the broad sunshine of the ’66 World Cup Final, the famous orange balls were the same weight as the ones we see today. And so it has been on every dry day, on every dry pitch, since the balls were first standardized in the early 1870s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m not sure of the accuracy of what I’m about to say, but pretty sure when Shearer did that documentary on heading the ball and dementia he was surprised that the old ball was no heavier than the current ball.

Of course the old ball mopping up rain is different, but a dry ball was found to be no heavier during the study with Shearer.

He's probably correct.

And so are you.

There are football laws that dictate the size and weight of the balls (ooh er missus) since early last century whereby they are the same weight and size as today.

But the old footballs were made of leather and were prone to wear fairly easily and quickly leading to bare patches which absorbed water and added to the weight of the ball. Couple that with leather laces...ouch.

Todays footballs are much more "user friendly" but I would still advocate that young children do not head the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, phantom said:

It is a myth that the modern ball is lighter than the balls used in the past.

Since 1937, the dry weight of the ball has been specified by Law 2: 14-16oz. Prior to that, the rules governing the ball’s dry weight specified something lighter – 13-15oz.

This goes for the new ball used in 2010 just as much as it did for the 1966 ball. Whenever you read a comment along the lines of “I’d like to see modern players heading the leather pudding the ’66 boys had to put up with” you can assume that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

What has changed are (1) the material from which the ball is made, and thus the ability of the ball to avoid weight gain during the game through water absorption, and (2) the aerodynamics of the ball i.e. the smoothness of the surface.

The new ball isn’t lighter in of itself – which is what people seem to be assuming: but the new ball won’t get so wet in play. So in the broad sunshine of the ’66 World Cup Final, the famous orange balls were the same weight as the ones we see today. And so it has been on every dry day, on every dry pitch, since the balls were first standardized in the early 1870s.

Ta.

There was undoubtedly a difference in the £10 ball you buy from JJB and a proper £50-60 match ball (not sure how much they cost these days).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

Meanwhile, it has been discovered that Mountaineers can and do fall off a mountain, F1 drivers can crash,Boxers get brain damage,Amazon explorers get lost or eaten by piranhas, Skiers break everything ,Rugby players suffer horrific injuries and even cyclists fall off their bike.

What a ridiculous statement. If you did even a modicum of research you'd know that safety has been incredibly improved in them as our knowledge grows.

In F1 for example drivers didn't used to wear helmets, fire resistant suits, there was no safety car or speed limit in the pits, and so on. As our knowledge and technology improved, so did the requirements and safety guidelines.

I'm of course not saying we should ban heading, but to imply because other sports are dangerous we should ignore any knowledge we have about danger in football is just plain stupid. Lets not forget the rules of football have changed a fair amount over the years to make things safer for the players, or are we still seeing keepers shoulder charged into the net and two footed tackles from behind?

It's nothing to do with "woke" (I'm not sure you even know what that means) commentary at all. The safety of physical sport is constantly evolving.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Ta.

There was undoubtedly a difference in the £10 ball you buy from JJB and a proper £50-60 match ball (not sure how much they cost these days).

Curtesy of Wiki;

Types of ball[edit]

There are a number of different types of football balls depending on the match and turf including training footballs, match footballs, professional match footballs, beach footballs, street footballs, indoor footballs, turf balls, futsal footballs and mini/skills footballs.[21]

A professional/premium match soccer ball.

Professional/Premium Match Soccer Balls are developed with top professional clubs to maximize players natural abilities and skills. They are FIFA-approved for use at the highest professional and international levels and designed for performance, exact specifications, great accuracy, speed and control. Air retention, water-resistance, and performance are far superior when compared to a training ball. Intended for all natural and artificial turf surfaces and all climates. These are the most expensive soccer balls.

Matchday Soccer Balls are high performance range of balls for all playing surfaces. The outer casing is either leather or an approved synthetic and it will typically be water-resistant as well. They are guaranteed to conform to official size, weight, and texture regulations, designed to suit all levels of play and all age groups. These balls cost more than turf or training balls, which is offset by their superior level of quality.

Recreational/Practice/Training Soccer Balls are tough and highly durable balls for extended use. Made of robust materials for use on all playing surfaces and used by players at any level. Practice balls are the least expensive balls when compared with match type soccer balls.

Turf Balls are specifically designed to work on artificial surfaces that mimic grass. They are durable and reasonably affordable, but tend to skip more when used on a natural pitch.

Promotional Balls are usually made to promote a name brand, organization or event.

Indoor Soccer Balls come in the same sizes as the outdoor soccer balls, but are designed to have less bounce and rebound in them, making it possible to control the ball on a smaller court or indoor arena. The cover of an indoor ball is also the strongest of any category, so it can withstand the hard rebound impact on the court flooring and wall surfaces.

Futsal Soccer Balls differ from typical soccer balls in that the bladder is filled with foam. That makes the ball heavier and with less bounce for use on the hard futsal playing surface. Besides that, a futsal soccer ball is smaller in size than a football used in the soccer field.

Load of balls in other words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marina's RR,

I empathise with you. My mother never played any football or engaged in dangerous activities. She was always astonished why twenty-two grown men would run around a field chasing a leathery old bag of wind. She has Alzheimer's and is now in a care home (where I can't see her at the present). It does seem unfair at the very least.

It's always going to be difficult to define health problems against a large population with so many variables and factors that need to be taken into consideration. We've all heard of someone's grandad who smoked sixty a day, drank half a bottle of whisky a day and lived until he was 96. The exceptions that prove the rule...

However, as is pointed out above, there are trends and patterns that we can begining to see more clearly now in the light of more research. Changes to rules, interpretation, equipment and attitudes are part of that response. I note the NFL has 'reversed field' recently and now takes the issue of repetitive brain impact far more seriously; that, and a number of large law suites that have been filed, which may have focussed minds. Of course, if something is so dangerous it would be banned outright, but trying to make good changes are often seen as a backwards step in sport. Clearly, if you don't want to be killed you would not want to take part in, say, motorsport or extreme activities. But that comes down to an individual's choice, and it's here we see the greatest debate: is it up to the individual to make the evaluation of a sport and take their own decision about the effects? Should the rule-makers take that choice away?

I guess it may reflect the current situation: are you a fastidious Covid-19 adherant or do you want to march around town claiming infringement of your freedom? Whilst the law may have its own opinion, the natural world is a different court and we are all in that dock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly a lot of us, including myself, have experienced dementia at first hand and which has been brought about by many contributing factors. 

But it amazes me that people are still unwilling to put two and two together and acknowledge that dementia in professional football players is at least three times that of the rest of the population.

I know it’s from the dark side, but Stuart Taylor, of whom I have local connections, is a case in point.

I’m totally against the nanny state, but at least on a youth level we should consider the implications of kids heading the ball and that it should be reconsidered, even if during my “old” generation heading was part and parcel and the fun of playing and practising the game. 

All of us amateurs never played, or practised, to the intensity of those who went into becoming pro’s, and so that’s why we haven’t (hopefully!) suffered from the after effects.

Long live Bobby Charlton with an meaningful life – who was my mums (who sadly died of dementia) and many others, hero.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IAmNick said:

What a ridiculous statement. If you did even a modicum of research you'd know that safety has been incredibly improved in them as our knowledge grows.

In F1 for example drivers didn't used to wear helmets, fire resistant suits, there was no safety car or speed limit in the pits, and so on. As our knowledge and technology improved, so did the requirements and safety guidelines.

I'm of course not saying we should ban heading, but to imply because other sports are dangerous we should ignore any knowledge we have about danger in football is just plain stupid. Lets not forget the rules of football have changed a fair amount over the years to make things safer for the players, or are we still seeing keepers shoulder charged into the net and two footed tackles from behind?

It's nothing to do with "woke" (I'm not sure you even know what that means) commentary at all. The safety of physical sport is constantly evolving.

 

Fair points regarding the increase in safety measures. No matter how much extra there is - there is always a danger and individuals at the top of their sport must weigh up the risks.

Kids nowadays are being increasingly protected-e.g. non contact rugby which is now how things are and if young people playing football are prevented from heading the ball in training then that's fine too. 

My issue is in the professional game where players are being paid incredibly well even outside the Prem- so surely these players have a choice. The idea of headers being removed from the professional game is, imo and as stated, pathetic.

In terms of Woke- it's a word morphing towards general snowflake/apologist etc and I used it in that sense as opposed to in the political correctness context. Years ago if I was sick it was a bad thing but more recently I discovered it was a great thing. Words change but you were fully aware of my general sentiment. That's on, periodt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a difficult one.

At what point do you accept the inherent risk in a given activity and allow an individual freedom of choice?

That said, I’ve coached junior football for 10 years and the amount of ‘heading’ that occurs prior to 13ish, is virtually non-existent anyway. 

Even through teens (my eldest is 15) it is still a rarity, believe it or not. If you watched a game and counted the times an individual headed the ball, the majority would be nil.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 054123 said:

It’s a difficult one.

At what point do you accept the inherent risk in a given activity and allow an individual freedom of choice?

That said, I’ve coached junior football for 10 years and the amount of ‘heading’ that occurs prior to 13ish, is virtually non-existent anyway. 

Even through teens (my eldest is 15) it is still a rarity, believe it or not. If you watched a game and counted the times an individual headed the ball, the majority would be nil.

 

Exactly....it's life choices.

What do you say to someone who wants to do boxing...cage fighting? 

Where the aim is to knock the opponent out. Punching the head everyday.

Life choice on smoking... it'll kill you.

Life choice on over drinking alcohol. 

Life choice on over eating and obesity...

When I used to ski race...you can wear. Helmet, have padding, have safety netting and the safest equipment and technology etc etc...but it was still a life choice that if I crash at 50mph on sheet ice, it could kill or give me life lasting injuries. Which it has...I have to live with injuries that effect me everyday...but I wouldn't change it, because I wouldn't have enjoyed my life.

You can protect yourself all your life, but get cancer or hit by a bus.

Heading the ball repeatedly will most likely leave lasting damage...but so will running and turning...that will leave lasting damage on joints etc.

Many ex professionals have arthritic knees and ankles...where do you stop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’m not sure of the accuracy of what I’m about to say, but pretty sure when Shearer did that documentary on heading the ball and dementia he was surprised that the old ball was no heavier than the current ball.

Of course the old ball mopping up rain is different, but a dry ball was found to be no heavier during the study with Shearer.

Listened to a radio documentary / piece on this subject going back a few weeks with various experts , Incl medical who have looked at it , and they were actually saying that the modern ball travels faster and that actually potentially causes more damage than a heavy ball

(Dont ask me to explain the reasons but it seemed to boil , basically down to force speed x mass)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

Sir Geoff has now stated that he will donate his brain to medical science.

If so, perhaps they'll discover why he's the most obnoxious, self-important racist going? 

Had the displeasure of attending a luncheon hosted by the FA at the then, yet to be opened, new Wembley. Hurst was guest speaker.

To say he stunned a room of 500 or more professionals into silence when responding to open questions would be an understatement. Asked by a very erudite lawyer of Indian ethnicity who he thought should partner Owen upfront at the forthcoming World Cup he castigated the talents of every black forward whose name was mentioned proffering instead a number of players who in common with the fact they were useless or failed also happened to be white. The tables quickly started to empty once, having referenced Heskey's inclusion in the 2004 Euro squad, he uttered this bon mot: "..as I said, we won't win anything playing a monkey upfront...." Lord Mawhinney (chairing) choked on his petit four.

Yes, THAT Sir Geoff......

That said, Martin Peters wasn't much better at the following function when he stood in for Alan Ball (who had been taken ill prior to his untimely demise.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

Listened to a radio documentary / piece on this subject going back a few weeks with various experts , Incl medical who have looked at it , and they were actually saying that the modern ball travels faster and that actually potentially causes more damage than a heavy ball

(Dont ask me to explain the reasons but it seemed to boil , basically down to force speed x mass)

That makes perfect sense....but the argument “the modern ball is lighter” is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

That makes perfect sense....but the argument “the modern ball is lighter” is incorrect.

"The weight specified for a ball is the dry weight, as older balls often became significantly heavier in the course of a match played in wet weather. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(ball)

Unfortunately no data exists as to how heavy these balls became.

In the modern game it is quite usual to see a player lay off the ball with his chest look back at old clips on you tube this skill will not be there as it was like trying to control a cannon ball fired at speed it would have knocked you off your feet.

Now where's my tin of dubbin.

Caswell Chelsea Royal Boot Dubbin Football Shoe Polish Tin 1930s | eBay

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Abraham Romanovich said:

"The weight specified for a ball is the dry weight, as older balls often became significantly heavier in the course of a match played in wet weather. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_(ball)

Unfortunately no data exists as to how heavy these balls became.

In the modern game it is quite usual to see a player lay off the ball with his chest look back at old clips on you tube this skill will not be there as it was like trying to control a cannon ball fired at speed it would have knocked you off your feet.

Now where's my tin of dubbin.

Caswell Chelsea Royal Boot Dubbin Football Shoe Polish Tin 1930s | eBay

 

 

Yeah, we all accepted the view earlier in the thread that a wet ball is a different proposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heading the laces hurt!

Wet match day balls were an issue right up until the late 60s as they were not plastic coated and we played on grassless mud patches at pretty much all levels. 

The baseball ground and Stamford Bridge were two at top level that were simply awful, however if you were playing at pub level it was worse.

 

I know personally ex players with dementia that doctors fear was caused by heading a football. It is a thing that’s been around a while and largely ignored, or at least kept on the down low, as there are examples of it from The Dog n Duck FC to World Cup winners. 

We live in more enlightened times and as people have said equipment is better in all sports,  however contact sport is what it is, boxing/fighting has been known as a brain killer for years, how anybody could possibly think that footballers would not get long term effects over a period is simply beyond me. 

Nevertheless the PFA The FA UEFA AND FIFA now have to man up and put some of their almost limitless resources into research, education and mitigation for the injured....after of course the lawyers have argued for years its not true!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/11/2020 at 21:25, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

So you would happily advocate a child playing football in the knowledge it could directly lead to dementia in later life?  We used to pump injured players with cortisone, until it was realised that their joints were shot before they were 50 (Tommy Smith being a good example) but the game has learned from that.  Even rugby is now fully wised up to the dangers of concussion.

If too much heading of the ball can cause dementia then, as Sir Geoff advocated, cut down on repetitive heading practise in training and play the ball on the floor.

So heading a football gives you dementia? 

Just watched the documentary about Roberto Duran. That was one tuff bloke and did you know he went the full distance with “Marvellous Marvin Hagler” He hasn’t got dementia! He ought to donate his brain to science to find out why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this highlights the uncertainty of this subject (or indeed many other medical  problems) when specific examples are made out of the population. Clearly it is not a black and white  distinction. Surely it must be considered just how an individual person reacts to the damage (the natural tendancy, their 'strength' if you will) and the actual damage that they receive (which will vary from person to person, of course). That alone is a complex matrix.

What sort of heading does a player become exposed to? There are the big centre forwards/halves who go up for the big downfield clearances; there are those who are more likely to flick the ball on, rather than return back in the direction it came from, and so on. And naturally the number of headers per game will vary. Given a matchday is probably not going to be that excessive, perhaps it is the heading that occurs for hours on end in training each week. It all adds up.

Another aspect of football that might be significant is the injuries sustained. Apart from a ball what sort of effect is caused by the occasional elbow or opponent's head? Or even the possibility of a bad fall and smacking the ground?

The subject is going to be a difficult one to quantify and I suspect it will take many years before a real solution is agreed on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...