No more on the noggin

crustyjuggler

I was wondering what peoples opinion on the debate whether headers should be removed from the game . David Walsh on the Sunday Times last week welcomes the idea . I reckon the football is so light these days that heading the ball is grand .

Sirsok

As someone that has his head split open three times pretty severely by putting my head in where it shouldnt be during a match

I can state with certainty that it absolutely should stay in the game and I'm no good at heading

Removing the art of heading would definitely take so much from the game, but as the evidence grows it seems harder to justify retaining it. The one thing is, in a world where we have boxing, MMA and other activity where people are encouraged to punch each other in the head as hard as possible, I think authorities should look at the future of those sports first, I would have thought heading further down the list, but that doesn't mean football should not be proactive and address the issue.

kksaints

At a senior level I don't think so. Stronger concussions protocols and head injury rules along with constant monitoring of the manufacturing of the football to try and improve the cushioning effect of ball on head will hopefully work.

Underage football is a different matter. Personally don't think kids under 14 should be heading the football except for very restricted training sessions to learn the correct technique.

ArmaniJeanss

crustyjuggler wrote: »

I was wondering what peoples opinion on the debate whether headers should be removed from the game . David Walsh on the Sunday Times last week welcomes the idea . I reckon the football is so light these days that heading the ball is grand .

How does he envisage it working at a practical level? Like would it be an offence (deliberate head-ball or was it ball-to-head, head in an unnatural position, goal ruled out by VAR because it flicked Lineker's ear? He should pin 'em in future).

Has he analysed the difference it would make to tactics, how difficult it would make a corner or throw-in? How do you challenge for a ball landing in the penalty box from a height (a shoulder battle?)

I understand that the USA have implemented it in some way at junior level, but not sure how it works in practice. It just seems something that would turn the game upside down.

osarusan

No issues with stopping it at underage level, until they are old enough and developed enough to do it properly.

At senior level, I wonder will we see instead helmets like Peter Cech's becoming more common? I know the helmet was desiged to protect after a skull fracture, but could that kind of helmet prove effective?

crustyjuggler

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

How does he envisage it working at a practical level? Like would it be an offence (deliberate head-ball or was it ball-to-head, head in an unnatural position, goal ruled out by VAR because it flicked Lineker's ear? He should pin 'em in future).

Has he analysed the difference it would make to tactics, how difficult it would make a corner or throw-in? How do you challenge for a ball landing in the penalty box from a height (a shoulder battle?)

I understand that the USA have implemented it in some way at junior level, but not sure how it works in practice. It just seems something that would turn the game upside down.

The frustrating thing was is that he didn't envision anything. He just dismissed heading bluntly without getting into detail. In indoor soccer there is a line on the wall in some places and the ball isnt allowed go as high as the line .

DM_7

kksaints wrote: »

At a senior level I don't think so. Stronger concussions protocols and head injury rules along with constant monitoring of the manufacturing of the football to try and improve the cushioning effect of ball on head will hopefully work.

Underage football is a different matter. Personally don't think kids under 14 should be heading the football except for very restricted training sessions to learn the correct technique.

It is also the general collisions that occur due to players challenging that are a concern.

The Kimpembe clearance and Ronaldo attempt to score in France v Portugal could have been a lot worse for example.

https://twitter.com/VMSportIE/status/1327725572101988352?s=20

osarusan

DM_7 wrote: »

It is also the general collisions that occur doe to players challenging that are a concern.

Yeah, but collisions like this don't happen all that often, whereas a centre-half could head away a hoof downfield 20 or 30 times a game.

duffman13

I think up senior football it should be restricted, its all well and good a child heading a ball tossed by a coach but a whipped ball in from a corner cant be good for children. I've seen u13s whizzing balls in from corners with some power. The research is there long term for adults to make a conscious decision at senior level.

I coached a lot of underage football and I know id probably be in the minority with my view amongst other coaches I know but at the end of they day, the majority of these are coaches who have kids on teams and not a lot of experience heading a ball themselves.

DM_7

osarusan wrote: »

Yeah, but collisions like this don't happen all that often, whereas a centre-half could head away a hoof downfield 20 or 30 times a game.

Yes you are right about the heading issue in its own right. I added the issue of head contact with another player as we already saw on this thread the idea of lighter balls etc as a means to address a problem. It could well help solve one issue.

I think comparable collisions happen on a regular enough basis to be a concern, we also see scenarios where players get elbows or other parts crashing into heads while challenging for the ball.

Leading with the head in other field sports is illegal to avoid scenario's where players make contact with the head (an opponents or their own). It is also an issue in it's own right as challenges for headers lead to these collisions.

Kevin Doyle had to retire due to cumulative head injuries. He spoke about not being aware of concussions or damage from heading the ball and his diagnosed concussion leading to retirement followed a collision with a goalkeeper. I think this shows the broader investigation and consideration that is needed.

MrMusician18

osarusan wrote: »

No issues with stopping it at underage level, until they are old enough and developed enough to do it properly.

At senior level, I wonder will we see instead helmets like Peter Cech's becoming more common? I know the helmet was desiged to protect after a skull fracture, but could that kind of helmet prove effective?

If you take it out of the underage game, you will effectively take it out of the senior game. All the players will be coming through will have a game and style that will have adapted to not having it.

Such rules would need to be set internationally otherwise you'll have groups of countries that will be producing technically weaker senior players vis-a vis the others.

osarusan

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If you take it out of the underage game, you will effectively take it out of the senior game. All the players will be coming through will have a game and style that will have adapted to not having it.

The would know the freedom to head the ball is coming though, it would reappear pretty quickly when they reached the age group that allowed it.

There is an issue about taller players not being all that valuable at lower ages, then suddenly becoming worthwhile at the age of 16/18 or whenever. And conversely, shorter defenders whose lack of height doesn't matter much at underage levels, but suddenly becomes a liability.

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Such rules would need to be set internationally otherwise you'll have groups of countries that will be producing technically weaker senior players vis-a vis the others.

Agreed on this, the rules would need to be standardised, and more to the point, they would need to be enforced.

Cookiemunster

osarusan wrote: »

No issues with stopping it at underage level, until they are old enough and developed enough to do it properly.

At senior level, I wonder will we see instead helmets like Peter Cech's becoming more common? I know the helmet was desiged to protect after a skull fracture, but could that kind of helmet prove effective?

No. Even NFL helmets don't stop concussion. The concussion comes from the brain impacting the inside of the skull. Any hit hard enough will rattle the brain around the skull, whether you wear a helmet or not.

osarusan

Cookiemunster wrote: »

No. Even NFL helmets don't stop concussion. The concussion comes from the brain impacting the inside of the skull. Any hit hard enough will rattle the brain around the skull, whether you wear a helmet or not.

Sure, I understand this, but I was wondering whether the wearing of a helmet of some kind absorbs some of the impact and reduces the impact on the head and brain itself.


In boxing, for example, a study showed that boxing headgear reduced the impact of punches from the 130g range to the 80-90g range (1g is equivalent to the force of gravity at the Earth’s surface).

Another study of Aussie rules showed that an impact of 88.5g has a 75% likelihood of concussion, while an impact of 65.1g has a 50% likelihood.

I wonder has the impact of heading a ball, freekick hitting the head, etc, been researched in the same way. In the richest sport in the world, you'd hope so.

Cookiemunster

osarusan wrote: »

Sure, I understand this, but I was wondering whether the wearing of a helmet of some kind absorbs some of the impact and reduces the impact on the head and brain itself.


In boxing, for example, a study showed that boxing headgear reduced the impact of punches from the 130g range to the 80-90g range (1g is equivalent to the force of gravity at the Earth’s surface).

Another study of Aussie rules showed that an impact of 88.5g has a 75% likelihood of concussion, while an impact of 65.1g has a 50% likelihood.

I wonder has the impact of heading a ball, freekick hitting the head, etc, been researched in the same way. In the richest sport in the world, you'd hope so.

I highly doubt it. Football doesn't even have a proper concussion protocol.

Look at Eric Bailly in the FA Cup semi final. He was allowed to continue after a clash of heads with Maguire only to collapse 3 or 4 minutes later, obviously concussed.

If it was rugby, both players would have been removed (and replaced with temporary subs) to be assessed and Bailly would not have been allowed to return. The same should happen when a player takes a ball at speed into the head, but it doesn't.

Football is a disgrace when it comes to head injury.

atilladehun

I think we're at the thin edge of the wedge here. We're making judgements based on today's knowledge.

On what we know now I'd ban it for all amateurs and in professional football I'd only allow crosses from beyond the line of the box extended to the sideline.

Protocols need to improve with extensive mandatory regular up to date training for doctors, team management and players. As the science improves they should continue to learn.

Over a longer time I think it'll be banned. More evidence will show any impact can cause damage and heading will be deemed intentional use in a dangerous manner. Someone somewhere will win a workplace safety case saying they were asked to put themselves at risk. Any form of training that involves headers will be evidence against football.

I don't think any headwear will suffice. Football is not a controlled environment. It bangs off different parts of players heads many times in a game for a variety of reasons.

~Rebel~

osarusan wrote: »

Sure, I understand this, but I was wondering whether the wearing of a helmet of some kind absorbs some of the impact and reduces the impact on the head and brain itself.


In boxing, for example, a study showed that boxing headgear reduced the impact of punches from the 130g range to the 80-90g range (1g is equivalent to the force of gravity at the Earth’s surface).

Another study of Aussie rules showed that an impact of 88.5g has a 75% likelihood of concussion, while an impact of 65.1g has a 50% likelihood.

I wonder has the impact of heading a ball, freekick hitting the head, etc, been researched in the same way. In the richest sport in the world, you'd hope so.

Dawn Astle has been waging a one-woman war on this for well over a decade at this stage, but it seems like these are not answers the football associations really want to look for. It's only in the last year or so that the FA have finally been forced into more proper research, but they're so far behind the curve in relation to some other sports that it's fairly embarrassing. All while a scarily disproportionate number of their glorious 66 team have developed dementia in later life.

It seems like they're gonna need to be dragged kicking and screaming to just put in some basic safety measures like the rugby ones mentioned above.

This isn't a new link though - Dawn today sites a newspaper article from 25 years ago talking about this. Just goes to show how much the associations have ignored the possibility of a serious problem for a long time.
https://twitter.com/DawnAstle9/status/1328373083447713793

ctrl-alt-delete

Once you've headed one of these as a young lad in winter you've done all the damage you are ever likely to do.

ctrl-alt-delete

ctrl-alt-delete wrote: »

Once you've headed one of these as a young lad in winter you've done all the damage you are ever likely to do.

No, heading a GAA football was the worst, you couldn't resist if one came at the right angle in a kick around, but it would nearly drive the head down into the spine and you'd be woozy for a split second.

Great days though...

briany

If you got rid of headers (and I'm not saying you should or shouldn't), then what would corner kicks look like? Would they be more boring or less boring to remove one of the most common, if not *the* most common, ways of scoring from one? Because, in a typical corner kick, players tend to congregate in the box, there's not as much room for manoeuvre, so getting it on the deck for a shot at goal seems more difficult.

atilladehun

briany wrote: »

If you got rid of headers (and I'm not saying you should or shouldn't), then what would corner kicks look like? Would they be more boring or less boring to remove one of the most common, if not *the* most common, ways of scoring from one? Because, in a typical corner kick, players tend to congregate in the box, there's not as much room for manoeuvre, so getting it on the deck for a shot at goal seems more difficult.

Yeah, lots of the game would change. Short corner and early shots, a broader spread of players. It would be more dull.

DM_7

briany wrote: »

If you got rid of headers (and I'm not saying you should or shouldn't), then what would corner kicks look like? Would they be more boring or less boring to remove one of the most common, if not *the* most common, ways of scoring from one? Because, in a typical corner kick, players tend to congregate in the box, there's not as much room for manoeuvre, so getting it on the deck for a shot at goal seems more difficult.

Hard to know. If you play a ball into the box and the defence could not head it away then it would possibly be more chaotic. Short corners, spreading players out, more pre-designed plays. I don't think it would be boring anyway, just different.

Guy:Incognito

If a shot is going in at head height, would players then have to just get out of the way and let it go in? Even light loopy ones? If its dropping in under the bar, theres effectively nothing a player can do about it.

Mr.Nice Guy

I hated heading the ball in training as a kid. I would be told off too for closing my eyes, but it was instinctive because it just wasn't a nice feeling. I'd be in favour of young kids not having to do it.

I wouldn't like to see it disappear from the game altogether though because it would be a huge change to the sport and transform it into something else. I do think there needs to be much more respect given for the health risks and it really needs to be rammed home to the players that trying to play on with a possible concussion is as stupid as trying to play on with a damaged hamstring, only far more dangerous.

Are there any numbers about Alzheimer's and the like in former professional footballers? There are some notable cases alright but I haven't seen any hard data.
For now I'm definitely in favour of getting rid of it at least to U12, maybe U14. U14 would be best if it wasn't on a full pitch though, I think with smaller pitches it would be easier for the players to ban as there's much less hoofing to begin with.

Cookiemunster

I don't know the numbers, but it's been reported that the prevalence amongst former professional footballers is higher than in the general public.

Guy:Incognito

It would need to be broken down a lot more than just "footballers" though. A keeper could go a whole career without heading a ball, a midfielder might only head it the odd time. A defender 30 years ago could be returning lockouts with his head multiple times a game. Plus obviously whatever they do in training.

You get concussion from your brain rattling around your skull, so could other types of training be contributing? Shuttle runs with short sharp turns?stuff involving jumping?

How do any boxers survive with getting dementia?

plibige

It would completely change the art of a corner kick anyway. And not for the better.

Personal opinion is it should stay in at senior level but with monitoring and protocol. Something like the concussion rules in rugby.

Underage football i can certainly see the merit in removing it. I suppose my only question would be "if children don't learn proper heading technique, do they risk doing damage as adults by not knowing or understanding how to protect themselves while heading".

Obviously this is all an opinion, and if new information comes out to say it needs to be banned so be it

osarusan

Proper testing would be a first step.

Putting sensors on a mannequin's head and subjecting them to tests like getting hit by a free kick while in a wall, connecting with a ball dropping out of the sky like a keeper's kickout, connecting with a whipped freekick and so on. Even getting the mannequin to 'head' the ball should not be difficult - just get an actual player to do it while wearing sensors that can detect speed of head movement and the like, and have the mannequin head on a machine that can replicate that.

Then compare that data with lighter footballs, mannequins wearing helmets, see what the effects of those variables are.


If adults are still allowed to punch and kick the heads off others in sports like boxing and MMA, it's very unlikely that heading a football will be outlawed - just a question of adults making the choice to engage in a sport in which that happens.

but at underage levels, maybe lighter footballs, helmets, could protect them until they reach the age where they can make that decision.

Cookiemunster

There's also the question of the changes to the balls over the years too. Heading a heavy water soaked leather ball 40 years ago is a lot different to heading the modern light synthetic balls. The impact forces would be lower, which you'd assume would lead to less damage to the brain in modern footballers. Although I suppose it's a question that couldn't really be answered for another 20-30 years.

osarusan

Cookiemunster wrote: »

There's also the question of the changes to the balls over the years too. Heading a heavy water soaked leather ball 40 years ago is a lot different to heading the modern light synthetic balls. The impact forces would be lower, which you'd assume would lead to less damage to the brain in modern footballers. Although I suppose it's a question that couldn't really be answered for another 20-30 years.

Yeah, the people that are suffering now played football in a different time, though it can't be assumed that the more modern version is without risk either.


I saw it mentioned somewhere that modern balls go a lot faster too, which would make impacts worse in that regard.

~Rebel~

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any numbers about Alzheimer's and the like in former professional footballers? There are some notable cases alright but I haven't seen any hard data.
For now I'm definitely in favour of getting rid of it at least to U12, maybe U14. U14 would be best if it wasn't on a full pitch though, I think with smaller pitches it would be easier for the players to ban as there's much less hoofing to begin with.

There's quite a few studies out there at varying scales.

This peer-reviewed one was over 30,000 people, 7676 of whom were former professional footballers.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1908483

Conclusion was that in general the ex-footballers had slightly healthier hearts and lungs, but were 3 times more likely to die of a neurodegenerative disease, and 5 times more likely to die of Alzheimers specifically.

And an interesting little caveat that of the ex-footballers, dementia-related medications were prescribed less frequently to goalkeepers, which is an extra little nod (pun unintended) to heading being the issue.

dreamers75

Pretty sure the majority of concussions are not the ball but some other lads/ladies head.

FatherTed

I referee in the US and heading is banned for U12 and under.

chicorytip

The link between Alzheimer's and heading a football is tenuous and not conclusively proven. Drinking water contaminated with lead is also thought to be a trigger for the disease but like any life threatening illness there can be many reasons why people develop it.

Richard Hillman

Seasoned Boxers and MMA fighters tend to have good "chins". You don't last long without one. It's not really the chin though, it's the membrane around the brain to protect it.Some people, no matter how big and burley they are get knocked out quite easily.

With football it's hard to tell. Some people can head the ball all day and not be bothered. Some people (like myself) cannot head a ball coming at force. Whenever I used to do it, it was the same thing, blow to the head, dizzyness, ringing in the ears and then a headache for a few minutes. I copped pretty quickly that I shouldnt be heading a football so whenever a cross or a long ball came to me I would jump up and "miss" the ball. Heading from throw ins and little breaks of the ball were fine but corners, crosses, kick outs were a total ordeal.

If you have defenders and strikers doing things like that multiple times in training and then a match, there are going to be serious repercussions in the long term.

Unfortunately there are no quick measuring tools to measure what individual players reactions are to heading the ball at force. But if there was, you can guarantee a lot of careers being stopped and ended early.

Saying that, you have big money operations like the NFL starting to take it seriously (because they are getting sued for it). If they can work out a quick fire CT scan and measure impacts after training sessions or games, it will hit football very quickly. I think they will be quite shocked the amount of micro concussions that footballers get.

ArmaniJeanss

FatherTed wrote: »

I referee in the US and heading is banned for U12 and under.

What does 'banned' mean in practice - Is it like handball, leading to a free-kick or a penalty?
Is there an element of intent, like if the keeper does a Schmeichel star-jump and it hits his head what happens?

And what do you think of how it effects general play - i'd have thought it makes a corner or throw-in very difficult as it cuts your options. Short-corners tend to work best when they are a surprise which they no longer are.
On the other hand a freekick from outside the box is more advantageous as the wall is now useless. So probably defences don't bother with a wall and defend near the goal?

~Rebel~

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Seasoned Boxers and MMA fighters tend to have good "chins". You don't last long without one. It's not really the chin though, it's the membrane around the brain to protect it.Some people, no matter how big and burley they are get knocked out quite easily.

With football it's hard to tell. Some people can head the ball all day and not be bothered. Some people (like myself) cannot head a ball coming at force. Whenever I used to do it, it was the same thing, blow to the head, dizzyness, ringing in the ears and then a headache for a few minutes. I copped pretty quickly that I shouldnt be heading a football so whenever a cross or a long ball came to me I would jump up and "miss" the ball. Heading from throw ins and little breaks of the ball were fine but corners, crosses, kick outs were a total ordeal.

If you have defenders and strikers doing things like that multiple times in training and then a match, there are going to be serious repercussions in the long term.

Unfortunately there are no quick measuring tools to measure what individual players reactions are to heading the ball at force. But if there was, you can guarantee a lot of careers being stopped and ended early.

Saying that, you have big money operations like the NFL starting to take it seriously (because they are getting sued for it). If they can work out a quick fire CT scan and measure impacts after training sessions or games, it will hit football very quickly. I think they will be quite shocked the amount of micro concussions that footballers get.

Yeah, like there was another study that showed that after 20 instances of heading a modern football in one session, 80% of subjects failed the concussion protocol test when administered after. That doesn't mean they had concussion obviously, but points towards meaningful cognitive issues from repeated heading. Repeat that over a career of a 500-plus games plus daily instances in training, and it really does tie in with the study I linked to earlier of significantly increased neurodegenerative problems in later life for footballers.

Richard Hillman

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Seasoned Boxers and MMA fighters tend to have good "chins". You don't last long without one. It's not really the chin though, it's the membrane around the brain to protect it.Some people, no matter how big and burley they are get knocked out quite easily.

Knockouts and short term effects are almost separate from long term effects. Or at least won't always have a direct link. Plenty of boxers at lower weights will rarely or never be knocked out but the consistent low-level trauma will build. Fighters who apparently fine can be sick for a couple of days afterwards. If anything fighters with better chins can "take" more trauma but it may well turn out that having and testing the stronger "chin" is a negative long-term.

atilladehun

Can't believe luiz made it to half time. What ever about football creating a debate to stave off science on low level stuff major bangs should have had better protocols years ago.

atilladehun

atilladehun wrote: »

Can't believe luiz made it to half time. What ever about football creating a debate to stave off science on low level stuff major bangs should have had better protocols years ago.

Shocking tbh.

atilladehun

Kevin Doyle on Off the Ball AM today. Talking about his concussions and everything around it. Typical professional attitude which he can't be blamed for. Shows how much they need to be protected from themselves.

He had to head the ball in a return to play protocol. He'd lie that it wasn't painful to get to play. Mood swings, his head is sensitive now. He had lots more interesting things like that.

Mitch Connor

atilladehun wrote: »

Kevin Doyle on Off the Ball AM today. Talking about his concussions and everything around it. Typical professional attitude which he can't be blamed for. Shows how much they need to be protected from themselves.

He had to head the ball in a return to play protocol. He'd lie that it wasn't painful to get to play. Mood swings, his head is sensitive now. He had lots more interesting things like that.

Didn't he cite concussion as a primary reason for his retirement at the time?

10000maniacs

Half of the England World Cup winning side have or had dementia, and a lot more from that era besides.
If ever statistical evidence was incontrovertible, it's this.

osarusan

More from rugby...Steve Thompson, only 42, appears to have been diagnosed with CTE and is among a group of former players suing a few governing bodies including the RFU and World Rugby.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/55201237

10000maniacs

10000maniacs wrote: »

Half of the England World Cup winning side have or had dementia, and a lot more from that era besides.
If ever statistical evidence was incontrovertible, it's this.

What age are they? What proportion of people (men) who reach such advanced years are likely to get dementia?
I'm not saying there's no issue but off the top of my head none seemed to have early-onset dementia or the like.

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

What age are they? What proportion of people (men) who reach such advanced years are likely to get dementia?
I'm not saying there's no issue but off the top of my head none seemed to have early-onset dementia or the like.

This is not specific to the 66 world cup team, but still:

A landmark study led by the University of Glasgow has revealed the first major insights into lifelong health outcomes in former professional footballers.


In findings published today in The New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the Football Association (FA) and the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA), researchers compared the causes of death of 7,676 former Scottish male professional football players who were born between 1900 and 1976 against those of more than 23,000 matched individuals from the general population.


Led by consultant neuropathologist Dr Willie Stewart, honorary clinical associate Professor at the University of Glasgow, the FIELD study found that former professional footballers had an approximately three and a half times higher rate of death due to neurodegenerative disease than expected.
Dr Stewart, said: “This is the largest study to date looking in this detail at the incidence of neurodegenerative disease in any sport, not just professional footballers.


“A strength of our study design is that we could look in detail at rates of different neurodegenerative disease subtypes. This analysis revealed that risk ranged from a 5-fold increase in Alzheimer’s disease, through an approximately 4-fold increase in motor neurone disease, to a 2-fold Parkinson’s disease in former professional footballers compared to population controls.”

https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2019/october/headline_681082_en.html

~Rebel~

osarusan wrote: »

This is not specific to the 66 world cup team, but still:



https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2019/october/headline_681082_en.html

Yeah, I linked to the full paper itself earlier in this thread. Quite interesting.

Deleted User wrote: »

What age are they? What proportion of people (men) who reach such advanced years are likely to get dementia?
I'm not saying there's no issue but off the top of my head none seemed to have early-onset dementia or the like.

It's welllllll above the statistical average. There have been numerous studies of the probability of dementia for people in their 70's - it comes out at 5.0% of those aged 71–79 years (which is around the age group we're dealing with for the '66 squad).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705925/

So you would expect 1 in 20 to have it. There were 22 players in England's 1966 squad, so you pretty much expect 1 player to be the result. But instead 6 of that squad have it, or have died with it (Ray Wilson, Nobby Stiles, Martin Peters, Jack Charlton, Bobby Charlton, and Peter Bonetti). So that's 6 times the expected average, which, for otherwise above-average healthy men who were all top level athletes, is fairly astounding.

Vertonghen suffered for nine months after his concussion v Ajax in 2019.

He was actually allowed back on (:rolleyes:), but didn't last long and actually vomited on the pitch iirc.

A blow to the head in the Champions League semi-finals last year left Jan Vertonghen dizzy and suffering from headaches for nine months, and ruined the last season of his contract at Tottenham, the Belgium international said.

Centre back Vertonghen, who left Spurs for Benfica on a free transfer in August, was involved in a sickening collision with team mate Toby Alderweireld in the fixture against Ajax Amsterdam.

He had concussion symptoms for months, and was left fearing every coming together in training or a match.

"Lots of people don't know it but I suffered a lot from that hit: dizziness and headaches," he told Belgium's Sporza TV.

"This is now the first time I tell about it. It affected me in total for nine months and that's why I couldn't bring on the field what I wanted to.

"I just didn't know what to do. It was game after game and training after training. Every time there was a new impact. Then the lockdown came and I was able to rest for two months, after that it was a lot better."

Vertonghen admits he felt compelled to keep on playing for the sake of his career, even though he knew it was affecting his performance.

"I had only one year of contract left, so I had to play. But when I played, I played badly. Not a lot of people knew about it, that was my own choice."

Vertonghen’s admission comes on the same day lawyers for a number of former rugby players sent a letter of claim to World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union in a class-action suit that alleges a failure to protect them adequately has led to early onset of dementia.

The combined claims are expected to amount to millions of pounds in damages.

https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2020/1215/1184656-vertonghen-suffered-for-nine-months-after-concussion/

Hotblack Desiato

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

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.

Does this mean that if you've no subs left and you "accidentally" whack an opponent in the head, they get a concussion sub and you get the tactical sub you wanted but didn't have... :eek: