Should heading be banned in football?

One of the problems is that we can’t see how effective any changes are for decades. The examples we see today are players who retired in the 90’s or earlier. It will be interesting to see if the numbers reduce over the next 20 years to reflect the changes being made today. Balls are not as heavy as they were, especially in wet weather. Heading drills are massively reduced compared to the 90’s and earlier and it’s banned in kids football. There are also far less long balls and power headers than there used to be in games.
 
king_hellfire said:
Like it or not, the money-men are only interested in money, and will do their utmost to keep that money rolling in. If banning headers means less money they will use every excuse under the sun to keep it in the game. If it doesn’t affect their income then I’d assume they’d be fine with the ban.
Click to expand...
Will those money men be happy to start paying out compensation and care fees to families?
inquests will surely eventually follow on from Jeff Astle and CTE dementia will be an industrial injury and incur costs that the poor families are having to meet at present.
 
king_hellfire said:
Like it or not, the money-men are only interested in money, and will do their utmost to keep that money rolling in. If banning headers means less money they will use every excuse under the sun to keep it in the game. If it doesn’t affect their income then I’d assume they’d be fine with the ban.
Click to expand...
TBH I don't think it would worsen the game, just my opinion. For the first year or so people would be super curious at how different it is, then the game would just adapt. Its called football for a reason, and its mainly played with the feet. The best footballer in your school is never the one whose best in the air, that develops later (I bet even Oliver Bierhoff was the best player on the deck in his school). But that would just stop happening and players would get better at dribbling. Yes, some players wouldn't make it as professionals who otherwise would have done, but is that such a bad thing? They can always take up basketball.
 
atypical_boro said:
TBH I don't think it would worsen the game, just my opinion. For the first year or so people would be super curious at how different it is, then the game would just adapt. Its called football for a reason, and its mainly played with the feet. The best footballer in your school is never the one whose best in the air, that develops later (I bet even Oliver Bierhoff was the best player on the deck in his school). But that would just stop happening and players would get better at dribbling. Yes, some players wouldn't make it as professionals who otherwise would have done, but is that such a bad thing? They can always take up basketball.
Click to expand...

You’re probably right. It’s just that I’ve got so used to seeing Alexander-Arnold whipping pinpoint crosses into the box that I’d be gutted to see it go.
 
fmttmadmin said:
Will those money men be happy to start paying out compensation and care fees to families?
inquests will surely eventually follow on from Jeff Astle and CTE dementia will be an industrial injury and incur costs that the poor families are having to meet at present.
Click to expand...


Those money-men (aka vultures) tend to be good at looking after themselves. They’ll make sure that they keep their money when the subject of compensation raises its head.
 
king_hellfire said:
Like it or not, the money-men are only interested in money, and will do their utmost to keep that money rolling in. If banning headers means less money they will use every excuse under the sun to keep it in the game. If it doesn’t affect their income then I’d assume they’d be fine with the ban.
Click to expand...
It’s not about the money men tho is it?
Most fans and players are happy with the status quo.
The fans because it might spoil the spectacle and the players - the rewards on offer seem enough for them to take the risk.

On that basis it makes sense for them to sign away their privilege of future medical and care claims
 
fmttmadmin said:
The critical problem is there is no test for CTE - punch drunk - until the person is dead.
Click to expand...
I understand that no direct test currently exists but they can scan and monitor brains and look for potential changes or areas of weakness, stress, damage. More research through monitoring and checks are needed for player safety in the meantime, same should apply to boxing. That said, It is clear there is a significant increased risk of problems developing later in later life as you stated. Football will be very different without it, but whilst I think it probably should be stopped, I don’t see any massive pressures for change anytime soon coming from within football, and as it is an international game it has to apply worldwide via FIFA with pressure from governments.

Litigation against clubs may have success, but that is never a worldwide solution.

If heading is banned, you’d have to have a form of sanction applied to those that did head a ball deliberately. Then you get situation like how on earth do you defend free kicks as a wall? What if any sanction is applied when a ball is fired at someones head from a free kick, long corners could be banned. Any changes would have to be trialled somewhere. 5-a-side used to be a free kick if the ball goes above shoulder height, does that end the long cross-field ball if applied to a 11-a-side?

It doesn’t help that thumping someone on the street on a night out carries such little sanction in the courts at present, unless a person is seriously harmed at that time. I often wondered if a blow could come to cause issues years after a Magistrates court case was over. Maybe the law within the courts needs looking at too.
 
RavsFan said:
Any changes would have to be trialled somewhere. 5-a-side used to be a free kick if the ball goes above shoulder height, does that end the long cross-field ball if applied to a 11-a-side?
Click to expand...
11-a-side wouldn't have to punish the ball going above the shoulder though, just actual headers. Cross-field hollywood balls to pick out a nippy winger could absolutely still be relevant. Corners would change, but teams often play them short anyway. Chucking it into the box at chest height might still actually be a thing. Imagine the panic it would cause for the first few months at least.

We'd need to do some research on the long-term impact on chests though. ;)

The changes are being trialled at all levels under 12. I know that under 12 football has never really been about 'heading' and maybe there is something in that in itself. Its something that coaches used to introduce more as players got older to gain an advantage, maybe in future they just wouldn't? Its hardly like the junior football I watch on a Saturday morning bears no resemblance whatsoever to senior football because they don't do headers.
 
Last edited:
king_hellfire said:
You’re probably right. It’s just that I’ve got so used to seeing Alexander-Arnold whipping pinpoint crosses into the box that I’d be gutted to see it go.
Click to expand...
I don't know if it would massively affect the number of balls into the box. A ball into a dangerous area is still a ball into a dangerous area. Defenders wouldn't be able to head it either remember.

Wingers would just be aiming to get the ball to dip and land in a different place, low enough to volley it. But players would still cross the ball.
 
It's a topic I'm really interested in.
My ' Job' playing football , from a very young age till my 30's was to head it back where it'd came from.
I wasn't even very tall till later , was just really good in the air.
I must of headed keeper clearances back 10's of thousands of times
 
It’s a problem and you don’t need to be a brain specialist to realise that heading a football a few thousand times in a football career might cause some damage. The expression ‘he’s a real head the ball’ has been around for a long time.

I think it’s the risk of damage from just one header of a fast or high ball that needs to be understood. If limiting the exposure works then that would be the way forward.

Although it won’t prevent the brain shake I actually think some head protection would be a good idea to prevent damage from head clashes which always look particularly dangerous to me.

As a fan I think banning heading would detract from the game particularly corners, set pieces and crosses from the wing but there are also no circumstances which would justify the known damaging of a player’s health in my opinion.
 
I think it will be a matter of time.

Players will have to adapt and become more capable on the ground.
 
atypical_boro said:
You'd imagine this would put a lot of people off.

I don't really understand the argument of 'yeah but its not as bad as rugby/boxing' etc. I'd still rather not have dementia, personally. Thankfully I haven't headed a ball regularly since the 2000s.
Click to expand...
The problem is the people it doesn’t put off claim they don’t believe in CTE or it doesn’t exist.
I’ve seen first hand that this opinion is rife among competitors in many combat sports.
 
parnabyscrosses said:
The problem is the people it doesn’t put off claim they don’t believe in CTE or it doesn’t exist.
I’ve seen first hand that this opinion is rife among competitors in many combat sports.
Click to expand...
I see, fair enough. Like climate change deniers/holocaust deniers I guess. Had enough of experts etc. I suppose you’re always going to get that.
 
I've always been old school in regards to changes in the rules in football but have a different outlook when it comes to this.
Nothing in life is more important than your health and everything that can be done to minimise the chances of getting dementia should be given serious consideration.
Unfortunately have personal experience of this and it truly is the devil's disease.
 
Interesting how they would implement the rule. Would the head be seen as akin to the hand, or something more nuanced, like heading only allowed on the bounce?

Can see why repeatedly getting under high balls would be detrimental, but nodding a ball forwards after a high bounce where all the momentum comes from the player seems much more innocuous, and banning this would limit the flow of the game in a negative way.

Classic example a goal Kane scored for Bayern a couple of weeks ago. Cross into the box was ahead of him, stuck his foot out and controlled it but it went upwards, so instead of waiting for it to drop and maybe being challenged, he just leaned forward and nodded it in. Great skill and improvisation and unlikely to have fallen under the category of heading this proposal would look to protect players from. That wouldn't even have been covered by a "bounce" rule, which makes legislating this even harder.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top