Better late than never I suppose, but bearing in mind the number of old time players who suffered the consequences of heavier leather balls, I am surprised it took so long.
That said, I wrote quite some time ago that I had banned myself from watching my favourite spectator sport, Rugby League, because of the modern battering ram techniques of tackling rather than going for the legs as in the old days.
I had long given up watching Union, quite apart from all the time wasting scrums (also dangerous on the first clash) I was shocked how when the traditional game became professional, muscle building rather than fitness seemd to become the prime requirement.
But at least all those sport’s participants suffer injury as a predictable, but accidental, result of taking part. What about the one sport that actually promotes as it’s raison d’etre, damage to the head and upper spinal chord? Boxing. Why has that not been banned, years ago? The whole point of the ridiculous exercise is to hit someone on the chin to snap their head back violently thus compressing the chord at the base of the skull to achieve unconciousness. Absolutely outrageous.
Ironically that might be better in a way. The theory is that the reason why old time bare knuckle fights went on so long over so many rounds to an ultimate conclusion of exhaustion of one or both participants, was because boxers were unwilling to break their hands by hitting relatively hard parts of the body like the head, and concentrating more on the torso for their blows.
Might be apocryphal, but it does make a kind of sense. If true it is the modern use of gloves which protect the hands but make it worse for the more vital parts such as brain and spine.
Can I throw in what seems to me to be a logical thought chain as food for discussion.
Now that players are Professionals paid by the club to do a job of work, doesn’t the employer (the club), have obligations under the regulations governing health and safety in the workplace.
By virtue of the training both given and required by the employer, taken together with the matchplay activities required of the players by the employer, then surely the employer must be liable for causing what is effectively repetitive strain injury.
Surely it then follows that the employer has a duty to prevent this known and foreseeable injury by either putting a stop to the specific activity involved, or by supplying, and indeed requiring, suitable protective equipment to be worn.
Personally, I would prefer to see a total ban on heading the ball.
After all, the game is called FOOTball is it not ?
Short answer is no, because players know what they are signing up to do and the regulators set levels of duty of care. Of course that will most likely be reviewed from time to time. I take it after the boxing comments no one has caught the MMA series of effectively cage fighting, its brutal and women take part with the same brutality
I don’t think a total ban on heading (in a match) would ever work. It could be reduced by having a rule that says the ball must bounce first , or can only be headed in the penalty box.
I think wearing headgear would help. I
It’s not just heading a ball which causes problems but trauma when tackling or being tackled for example. American Footballer players are heavily padded and they don’t head the ball !