Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Primary school children banned from heading in football training

Primary school children have been banned from heading in football training in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The Football Associations of each country announced heading will no longer be allowed in the "foundation phase" - primary school children - and a graduated approach to heading in training in under-12s to under-16s football.

The ban does not apply to matches because of the limited number of headers which occur in youth games.

The announcement comes after a study showed former footballers were three-and-a-half times more likely to die of neurodegenerative disease than age-matched members of the general population. 


https://news.sky.com/story/primary-school-children-banned-from-heading-in-football-training-11942145

«1

Comments

  • Not going to argue about a temporary ban but there needs to be much more research into this subject before definite conclusions are drawn 
  • Not going to argue about this and I actually think its a good thing - primary school age is probably too young to be heading the ball regularly (though banning heading in training could lead to not being able to do it properly the few times it does happen in games which could be a problem). 

    However the study which this is based on is pretty seriously flawed from a research and medical perspective.
  • Footballs now are like feathers compared to those 40-50 years ago.
  • Good. I hate my son heading the ball and we've had far too many arguments/melt downs about it.
  • Footballs now are like feathers compared to those 40-50 years ago.
    But will be infinitely healthier in 40/50 years time. 
  • Footballs now are like feathers compared to those 40-50 years ago.
    That's probably part of the problem.
  • Not going to argue about this and I actually think its a good thing - primary school age is probably too young to be heading the ball regularly (though banning heading in training could lead to not being able to do it properly the few times it does happen in games which could be a problem). 

    However the study which this is based on is pretty seriously flawed from a research and medical perspective.
    Which study?
  • Not going to argue about this and I actually think its a good thing - primary school age is probably too young to be heading the ball regularly (though banning heading in training could lead to not being able to do it properly the few times it does happen in games which could be a problem). 

    However the study which this is based on is pretty seriously flawed from a research and medical perspective.
    How is it flawed? 
  • I think it is inevitable and probably just the beginning of a process that will probably remove heading from the game sooner or later. 
  • They're only able to use figures on the older generation. That generation played a completely different game to that of what it is now, different ball, worse conditions, poorer diet, harder unpunished tackles.
  • Sponsored links:


  • This is true but we do have to detach our love of the game as it is from the health and safety aspects.
  • Chizz said:
    Not going to argue about this and I actually think its a good thing - primary school age is probably too young to be heading the ball regularly (though banning heading in training could lead to not being able to do it properly the few times it does happen in games which could be a problem). 

    However the study which this is based on is pretty seriously flawed from a research and medical perspective.
    Which study?
    The one you refer to in your OP.
  • edited February 2020
    You cannot judge like for like.....the balls used by the generation of footballers who have died or contracted neurodegenerative disease (and who are therefore used in the study), are now like chalk and cheese.
    Those players (such as Matt Tees), also clashed heads countless times, which IMHO caused more damage than simply heading of a ball......but that’s only my opinion of course.
    Therefore the study is flawed.
  • You cannot judge like for like.....the balls used by the generation of footballers who have died or contracted neurodegenerative disease (and who are therefore used in the study), are now like chalk and cheese.
    Those players (such as Matt Tees), also clashed heads countless times, which IMHO caused more damage than simply heading of a ball......but that’s only my opinion of course.
    Therefore the study is flawed.
    By the same token a Childs brain is not as fully formed as a fully grown adult and in the medical professions opinion needs protecting and with respect I know who's opinion I would value more. The new modern football is of course in comparison a million miles away from the one in my day but a Childs head hasn't got a fully formed hardened skull to protect the brain from the shock. 
  • Sensible to ban in kids training. Heading hardly features in the age groups I coach anyway. Most matches pass by without a single header
  • Chizz said:
    Not going to argue about this and I actually think its a good thing - primary school age is probably too young to be heading the ball regularly (though banning heading in training could lead to not being able to do it properly the few times it does happen in games which could be a problem). 

    However the study which this is based on is pretty seriously flawed from a research and medical perspective.
    Which study?
    The one you refer to in your OP.
    Oh right.  The OP doesn't say the study is the basis of the ban though.  Thanks for clarifying. 
  • Chizz said:
    Chizz said:
    Not going to argue about this and I actually think its a good thing - primary school age is probably too young to be heading the ball regularly (though banning heading in training could lead to not being able to do it properly the few times it does happen in games which could be a problem). 

    However the study which this is based on is pretty seriously flawed from a research and medical perspective.
    Which study?
    The one you refer to in your OP.
    Oh right.  The OP doesn't say the study is the basis of the ban though.  Thanks for clarifying. 
    Its clearly stated as a factor by the FA and pretty much every news outlet is reporting it as such.
  • You’ll be telling me next you can’t head a blackboard rubber when it’s thrown at you.
    I was just about to get a job when I found out my full name wasn't Raymond Getoutofmyclass!
  • Sponsored links:


  • What is it then? Stan Dinacorna? ;)
  • We're gonna be screwed when Football tactics return to long ball, Wimbledon style
  • Sensible to ban in kids training. Heading hardly features in the age groups I coach anyway. Most matches pass by without a single header
    100%
  • iainment said:
    Not going to argue about this and I actually think its a good thing - primary school age is probably too young to be heading the ball regularly (though banning heading in training could lead to not being able to do it properly the few times it does happen in games which could be a problem). 

    However the study which this is based on is pretty seriously flawed from a research and medical perspective.
    How is it flawed? 
    There was a whole thread specifically on it on here when it was announced. https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/87136/heading-the-ball-increases-your-risk-of-alzheimers-disease/p1

     I got my girlfriend who has a masters in medical stats to have a quick look at it and work out what was going on. 

    If I remember correctly the study was based on players who had played football in Scotland back in the pre or early post war years and had since died. It completely didn't control for factors such as the footballs very different now weight of them and absorbing water etc. The change in concussion protocols in modern football, back then would play on through concussion which is much more damaging long term than the actual concussion. It compared footballers in Scotland to whole of UK population - not accounting for general health differences between the two. Its a very small sample size to be basing this sort of action on. 

    Being a professional sportsperson and leading an active and more healthy lifestyle means you are less likely to die from other issues which may get you first i.e. heart disease, cancers. So the people in the study would in general live longer which in itself increases the chances of dementia etc.

    The main research problem was it that it only looked at death rate rather than the actual incidence rate which beyond the obvious - you may have dementia but die of something else - it is statistically a wrong approach - for some complicated reason my girlfriend explained and I cant remember - I think I might have explained it on the other thread.

    The study didn't actually claim to do a lot of the above (i.e. it was aware of its flaws) but it has been used as though it does. This study should be treated as "we may have potentially identified a possible link - maybe football should fund some further much more complete and detailed research". instead it has been treated as a definitive link and action taken based on it which is wrong and I'm sure the authors would say it was wrong. 

    As I said I actually support banning it in primary schools but we need more research before we jump to any further conclusions.
    That’s not enough to say it’s flawed is it. 
    What you say might be true but the opinion of one qualified person and her boyfriend is hardly a proper peer review.
  • And the trap is set
  • This just gets rid of the drills of throwing the ball up and heading it back 100s of times at the age of 5. 
  • edited February 2020
    iainment said:
    iainment said:
    Not going to argue about this and I actually think its a good thing - primary school age is probably too young to be heading the ball regularly (though banning heading in training could lead to not being able to do it properly the few times it does happen in games which could be a problem). 

    However the study which this is based on is pretty seriously flawed from a research and medical perspective.
    How is it flawed? 
    There was a whole thread specifically on it on here when it was announced. https://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/87136/heading-the-ball-increases-your-risk-of-alzheimers-disease/p1

     I got my girlfriend who has a masters in medical stats to have a quick look at it and work out what was going on. 

    If I remember correctly the study was based on players who had played football in Scotland back in the pre or early post war years and had since died. It completely didn't control for factors such as the footballs very different now weight of them and absorbing water etc. The change in concussion protocols in modern football, back then would play on through concussion which is much more damaging long term than the actual concussion. It compared footballers in Scotland to whole of UK population - not accounting for general health differences between the two. Its a very small sample size to be basing this sort of action on. 

    Being a professional sportsperson and leading an active and more healthy lifestyle means you are less likely to die from other issues which may get you first i.e. heart disease, cancers. So the people in the study would in general live longer which in itself increases the chances of dementia etc.

    The main research problem was it that it only looked at death rate rather than the actual incidence rate which beyond the obvious - you may have dementia but die of something else - it is statistically a wrong approach - for some complicated reason my girlfriend explained and I cant remember - I think I might have explained it on the other thread.

    The study didn't actually claim to do a lot of the above (i.e. it was aware of its flaws) but it has been used as though it does. This study should be treated as "we may have potentially identified a possible link - maybe football should fund some further much more complete and detailed research". instead it has been treated as a definitive link and action taken based on it which is wrong and I'm sure the authors would say it was wrong. 

    As I said I actually support banning it in primary schools but we need more research before we jump to any further conclusions.
    That’s not enough to say it’s flawed is it. 
    What you say might be true but the opinion of one qualified person and her boyfriend is hardly a proper peer review.
    Maybe flawed was the wrong word. Limitations night be better. The paper itself notes many of these limitations, the flaw is in how it is being used. Which is exactly whatvi said about its is being used wrong. This should be enough to do some more thorough research rather than being used by the FA as the basis for decision making.

    The one thing in the paper I would call a flaw is in using death rate rather than incidence rate. You would struggle to find any statiction anywhere who would accept that as the right measure. It's wrong in every way.

    I'm also an analyst myself (though applied to economics) and critiquing the methodology of research papers such as this one was a significant part of my degree. I feel somewhat qualified to make these points.
  • This is PC gone mad, probably some scheme dreamed up by a bloated Brussels bureaucrat.

    Thankfully once we get Brexit done we can get on with letting English kids head old-fashioned heavy English footballs again rather than these new fangled foreign ones.
    Here Here, And while they're at it, they can take their diving and play acting and poke it where the sun don't shine an all.

    Champions League???? SWIVEL!  
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!