Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ Over the last few decades Association Football has undergone many changes, most not for the better.


These rule changes introduced by persons who know fuck all about the game, certainly from a fan's viewpoint, have been far reaching and have affected the way the game is played. For example, the change to the rule regards passing back to the goalkeeper was introduced in 1992. This effectively made goalkeepers part time sweepers as well as shot stoppers. This change meant that a defender could pass back to his/her keeper but the goalie could not pick the ball up. If, on the other hand, the ball is headed back to the same keeper he/she can pick up the ball. It was supposed to reduce the amounts of back-passing and the keeper holding onto the ball for too long, they had to kick it up field quickly or again back to a defender. 

Did this rule change have the desired effect of reducing time wasting by goalies? Not really, it just changes the role of the goalkeeper, which was the real intention, to that style played by the teams on the continent. The goalkeeper became in effect primarily a goal saver and secondly a sweeper, a style suited to many European Managers like Manchester City’s Pep Guardiola who on his arrival at the club immediately dispersed with the services of City’s established keeper, Joe Hart. Hart was a traditional goalkeeper who was not familiar with the continental sweeper style therefore Guardiola sold him. He was a very good shot stopper and with crosses, the traditional role of a keeper but as for playing a part-time sweeper he was not so familiar. 

This is just one rule change. For me it has pluses and minuses. It has not reduced the amount of back passes in my opinion, but has cut out some time wasting by some keepers, though not as much as perhaps hoped for. Now defenders pass it back to the keeper who, in turn passes it back to the defender who again gives it back to the goalie! The saga goes on and on. Perhaps a better rule change may have been curtailing the time a goalkeeper is allowed to hold the ball from a back pass.

Another rule change, this time certainly not for the better is the offside law. In the so-called modern game this rule is impossible to referee with the naked eye. This was all part of a bigger plan to introduce automated refereeing, the first stage we are seeing now with the cursed VAR. The rule was once if there was “clear daylight” between the defender and attacking player when the ball was played, then the attacker was offside. Easy enough to officiate and no need for some bloke watching a television set in a hotel to overrule the referee! This, in my view is the first step to eradicating human referees altogether in the coming decades. Had the authorities, such as they are, tried to bring in such a daft rule or modification in the sixties and certainly the seventies they would not have got away with it. We, the fans on the terraces would have disrupted the game to such an extent that it would have been unplayable. I can imagine standing at Old Trafford, on a packed Stretford End, celebrating a Stuart Pearson goal and some cunt with VAR disallowed it! A pitch invasion would, in all probability, have ensued.

In the nineteen-sixties the substitute was introduced. 1964 - Keith Peacock became the first substitute to come on as a sub in the football league for an injured player. He played for Charlton Athletic and his side's keeper got injured. Keith Peacock came on as substitute even though his position was midfield. The introduction of the substitute is a good thing and when it was revised to allow the team to bring on a substitute whether a player was injured or not it helped stop “cheating” Don Revie at Leeds United telling players to fane injury thus allowing him to change the game by bringing on a sub for an uninjured player who was faking it. 

Many managers opted to use their substitute, if needed, as a reserve goalkeeper. In the 1968 European Cup Final, Man Utd v Benfica, Matt Busby opted to have United reserve goalie, Jimmy Rimer, as his substitute in case anything happened to Alex Stepney. In 1987 this rule was changed again when two substitutes were allowed, one of them had to be a goalkeeper the other an outfield player. This was later amended again allowing two players as subs from any position. With the formation of the Premier League in 1992/93 season, which many of us were sceptical of - scepticism which has proven well founded - the substitution rule was amended again. Now three subs were allowed, two outfield and one goalkeeper. So far, so good, it prevented many teams finishing with ten or even nine players through injury brought on by fouls. Then, as per usual, they had to go and fuck up a good thing. In 1994/95 clubs could name and use three substitutes and by 1996/97 clubs could name five substitutes and use three. In today’s game as many as five subs can be used in the English Premier League, as voted on by the clubs. For me, two substitutes, to be named before the game, was sufficient. If a manager wished to make one of them a goalkeeper that was up to him. These changes in substitution it is said are to protect players. The next possible rule change really will put players health and safety at its heart, and possibly change the game beyond recognition.

These are just a few of the changes which have taken place on the field over the last few decades, there are many more but I am deviating too far as it is from the title about heading the ball. It is the next possible rule change which will, no doubt, cause some controversy if it comes to pass. That is the banning of heading the ball!

The concerns over footballers getting Alzheimer’s Disease disproportionately to other professions has been causing concern since West Bromwich Albion former striker Jeff Astle was diagnosed and subsequently died from the disease. Since the tragic demise of Jeff many other players have been diagnosed and died from Alzheimer’s Disease, Nobby Stiles of Manchester United being one and Jack Charlton Leeds' former Centre Half and manager of Ireland is another. Much has been said about the disease being aggravated by players heading the football too much. Now, Jack Charlton’s brother, Bobby also of Manchester United has been diagnosed with the disease. Yet, Bobby was more famed for his fierce shot (89.9 mph) rather than heading the ball. He scored one with his head in the crushing defeat of Benfica in the 1968 European Cup Final but generally he was not known as a prolific header. Both the Charlton brothers were, in the case of Jack - and is for Bobby - 85 years of age so could old age be the main factor in these cases for developing the illness? Possibly so, but this cannot be blamed for the case of Jeff Astle who was only 59 when he died. Unlike Bobby Charlton, Astle was a renowned header of the ball, so was Jack Charlton as a big defender.

The former Tottenham Hotspur great, Danny Blanchflower who captained Bill Nicholson’s great Spurs double winning team of 1961 also died of Alzheimer’s Disease in 1993. Danny has been voted Spurs all-time greatest player by the supporters, remember us poor sods, the people who once counted? Tottenham were the first side to win the domestic double in England in the twentieth century. Danny Blanchflower was 67 when he died, another comparatively young man.

Former Leeds and Manchester United Centre Half, Gordon McQueen has been diagnosed suffering from Vascular Dementia. His diagnosis was confirmed in January of 2021 which has once again highlighted the issue of injuries caused to footballers by persistent heading of a ball. Gordon was 68 when he was diagnosed, again a comparatively young man who in any other job would have been only recently retired.

Of England’s World Cup winning side of 1966, Martin Peters, Nobby Stiles, Ray Wilson and Jack Charlton have died from Alzheimer’s Disease with the legendary Bobby Charlton now in that process tragically. According to a study in Sweden footballers are 50% more likely to develop Alzheimer’s Disease with rates among football players higher than in the population as a whole. According to the Daily Star of Friday 17th March, “The finding is based on a study of thousands of players in Sweden’s top division, with one in 11 struck down with dementia.” This is now becoming a growing concern among the football fraternity as many former greats die prematurely of this disease, which appears to be on the increase. The paper continues: “An alarming nine per cent (537 out of 6007) were diagnosed, compared to six percent (3,485 out of 56, 168) of the controls” (sic). The former was obviously, I assume, a more recent study than the latter. Goalkeepers are less likely to develop the disease giving rise to the claims that heading the ball is a major contributor.

The FAI (Football Association of Ireland) have been in discussions with Uefa (sic) and the associations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England regarding the effects on children of heading footballs. Kids under 12 in England, Scotland and the North are now banned from heading in practice and in training, while some want the practice outlawed fully. (Irish Daily Star Friday 17th March P.14). 

I cannot see the point of banning this practice during training and practice games if, in competitive matches, they are going to be heading the ball. Surely, if this is the case, heading should be banned for children or not, in practice and competitive matches, for example inter-schools matches which are not training sessions or practice games?

In Sweden again a study carried out between 1924 and 2019 according to Dr Peter Ueda who said “it has been hypothesised that repetitive mild head trauma sustained and concussions might cause neurodegenerative disease” (ibid). Is there something to this? The study carried out by Dr Ueda appear very thorough and covers many decades so must, therefore, be taken seriously.

So, now the question must be asked, with all the other changes, many unnecessary, in the game this one would be significant and worthy of consideration as it is also a health and safety at work issue, therefore of concern to the PFA (Professional Footballers Association), the players union. For once it is not an issue where parasitical agents need to be consulted. For decades football was played with a leather ball containing a bladder which was inflated and tucked tightly inside the leather case, tied up, and used as the spherical object, the football. The leather case soaked up moisture and water during a game and as the sport is a winter game much precipitation would often fall during a match. The ball would always finish the game heavier than when the teams kicked off. Sometimes these footballs would weigh something like a light medicine ball after a drenching during a downpour. The constant heading of these heavy footballs must, surely, have been a contributing factor to players of bygone days developing Alzheimer’s Disease. During the seventies, when Gordon McQueen was playing the FA in England and, I believe Scotland, Wales and the six counties, shifted to a lighter ball which was less absorbent but, nevertheless, still took on some moisture. Not until the eighties did the synthetic ball used today come into regular use. The rule stating the ball must be the same weight after the game as at kick-off applied. Many players have complained these footballs are too light and shots elevate too quickly and twist and turn when hit ferociously at goal.

If heading was to be banned, under health and safety, then the entire game of Association Football would change and would hardly be worth playing at all! However, it is a health and safety matter and players, despite in a few cases being very highly paid, are still employees selling their labour power. The lower down the leagues we go the wages equal out and are not so astronomical. Of all the Micky Mouse rule changes which have occurred, introduced by idiots, this one would be the most affected and, possibly, necessary. Should we continue down our present trajectory and see if instances are reduced in studies using the newer synthetic footballs as opposed to the old heavier spheres? These have been in use since the eighties so results should shortly be available. Or, on the other hand, should safety come first and an outright banning of heading be introduced? The latter is unthinkable as it would change the game beyond recognition.

I can remember as a kid getting all the old leather balls from the local pub team for us juveniles to practice with on the green. They were a nightmare to inflate and keeping the noose of the bladder in the leather case, folded, was an art in itself. But they were heavy, very heavy after a downpour and our mothers cursed us all coming home covered in mud, happy memories. All sentiment to one side, if this was any other industry would there be even a debate on the issue? If coaches were found to be unsafe to drive would the unions tolerate them being on the road? No, of course they would not but because of our obsession with football this subject has been neglected.

The late great Jeff Astle’s daughter, Dawn, has been campaigning for two decades for football’s authorities to publicly recognise the link between the repeated heading of a football and dementia in later life. Dawn Astle is set to work for the PFA as a special advisor on the illness of dementia and its links to heading in the game which contributed greatly to her father’s early death. I wish Dawn all the best in her endeavours.

So, what would football look like if the heading of the ball was to be banned? For a start the use of the corner and other set pieces would be greatly limited, along with the long throw and indirect free kicks. To ensure the no heading law would be applied to correctly, meaning no contact between the head and the ball at all, perhaps the five-a-side rule of no ball above shoulder height should be applied. That is easier said than done because such a rule would eliminate to all intents and purposes the long ball and forty-yard pass unless such a pass could be played along the ground, when such a pass would never reach its intended target. In five-a-side games this is not a problem as the playing area is approximately one third the size of a full pitch. The rules are very different in such games, normally, though not exclusively, played indoors and corners are not taken in the same way. The ball must not under any circumstances go above shoulder height. In an eleven a side game such rules would be impossible to play which, if heading were to be banned, is difficult to see any other way around this. 

Any ideas football fans? Should heading be banned? If it is proved beyond question that this move is causing premature deaths to players it becomes a health and safety issue and I, as much as I have loved and followed my team, Man Utd, (more recently FC United of Manchester) all over the globe, must accept that heading is a danger and reluctantly see no alternative. Unlike the daft meaningless changes made by morons with money outlined briefly earlier, this is an important issue. If those who govern the game had given the safety of players as much thought as they gave fucking up the game we might, just might have had an answer.

For the record a player called Frank Barson, a Yorkshireman from Sheffield, once scored a goal with his head while captaining Aston Villa from thirty yards. This was in the 1920/21 season when heading the ball was not as frequent as in more modern times. Until the arrival of Stanley Matthews in the 1930s, 40s and 50s the game was largely a passing affair. Matthews revolutionised the dribbling game and was nicknamed the “Wizard of the Dribble”. Other players like Len Shackleton, nicknamed the “Clown Prince of Football” also had a big impact on the game. Barson died in 1968 aged 77 which for the time was a reasonable age.

🖼 Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Should Heading Be Banned?

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ Over the last few decades Association Football has undergone many changes, most not for the better.


These rule changes introduced by persons who know fuck all about the game, certainly from a fan's viewpoint, have been far reaching and have affected the way the game is played. For example, the change to the rule regards passing back to the goalkeeper was introduced in 1992. This effectively made goalkeepers part time sweepers as well as shot stoppers. This change meant that a defender could pass back to his/her keeper but the goalie could not pick the ball up. If, on the other hand, the ball is headed back to the same keeper he/she can pick up the ball. It was supposed to reduce the amounts of back-passing and the keeper holding onto the ball for too long, they had to kick it up field quickly or again back to a defender. 

Did this rule change have the desired effect of reducing time wasting by goalies? Not really, it just changes the role of the goalkeeper, which was the real intention, to that style played by the teams on the continent. The goalkeeper became in effect primarily a goal saver and secondly a sweeper, a style suited to many European Managers like Manchester City’s Pep Guardiola who on his arrival at the club immediately dispersed with the services of City’s established keeper, Joe Hart. Hart was a traditional goalkeeper who was not familiar with the continental sweeper style therefore Guardiola sold him. He was a very good shot stopper and with crosses, the traditional role of a keeper but as for playing a part-time sweeper he was not so familiar. 

This is just one rule change. For me it has pluses and minuses. It has not reduced the amount of back passes in my opinion, but has cut out some time wasting by some keepers, though not as much as perhaps hoped for. Now defenders pass it back to the keeper who, in turn passes it back to the defender who again gives it back to the goalie! The saga goes on and on. Perhaps a better rule change may have been curtailing the time a goalkeeper is allowed to hold the ball from a back pass.

Another rule change, this time certainly not for the better is the offside law. In the so-called modern game this rule is impossible to referee with the naked eye. This was all part of a bigger plan to introduce automated refereeing, the first stage we are seeing now with the cursed VAR. The rule was once if there was “clear daylight” between the defender and attacking player when the ball was played, then the attacker was offside. Easy enough to officiate and no need for some bloke watching a television set in a hotel to overrule the referee! This, in my view is the first step to eradicating human referees altogether in the coming decades. Had the authorities, such as they are, tried to bring in such a daft rule or modification in the sixties and certainly the seventies they would not have got away with it. We, the fans on the terraces would have disrupted the game to such an extent that it would have been unplayable. I can imagine standing at Old Trafford, on a packed Stretford End, celebrating a Stuart Pearson goal and some cunt with VAR disallowed it! A pitch invasion would, in all probability, have ensued.

In the nineteen-sixties the substitute was introduced. 1964 - Keith Peacock became the first substitute to come on as a sub in the football league for an injured player. He played for Charlton Athletic and his side's keeper got injured. Keith Peacock came on as substitute even though his position was midfield. The introduction of the substitute is a good thing and when it was revised to allow the team to bring on a substitute whether a player was injured or not it helped stop “cheating” Don Revie at Leeds United telling players to fane injury thus allowing him to change the game by bringing on a sub for an uninjured player who was faking it. 

Many managers opted to use their substitute, if needed, as a reserve goalkeeper. In the 1968 European Cup Final, Man Utd v Benfica, Matt Busby opted to have United reserve goalie, Jimmy Rimer, as his substitute in case anything happened to Alex Stepney. In 1987 this rule was changed again when two substitutes were allowed, one of them had to be a goalkeeper the other an outfield player. This was later amended again allowing two players as subs from any position. With the formation of the Premier League in 1992/93 season, which many of us were sceptical of - scepticism which has proven well founded - the substitution rule was amended again. Now three subs were allowed, two outfield and one goalkeeper. So far, so good, it prevented many teams finishing with ten or even nine players through injury brought on by fouls. Then, as per usual, they had to go and fuck up a good thing. In 1994/95 clubs could name and use three substitutes and by 1996/97 clubs could name five substitutes and use three. In today’s game as many as five subs can be used in the English Premier League, as voted on by the clubs. For me, two substitutes, to be named before the game, was sufficient. If a manager wished to make one of them a goalkeeper that was up to him. These changes in substitution it is said are to protect players. The next possible rule change really will put players health and safety at its heart, and possibly change the game beyond recognition.

These are just a few of the changes which have taken place on the field over the last few decades, there are many more but I am deviating too far as it is from the title about heading the ball. It is the next possible rule change which will, no doubt, cause some controversy if it comes to pass. That is the banning of heading the ball!

The concerns over footballers getting Alzheimer’s Disease disproportionately to other professions has been causing concern since West Bromwich Albion former striker Jeff Astle was diagnosed and subsequently died from the disease. Since the tragic demise of Jeff many other players have been diagnosed and died from Alzheimer’s Disease, Nobby Stiles of Manchester United being one and Jack Charlton Leeds' former Centre Half and manager of Ireland is another. Much has been said about the disease being aggravated by players heading the football too much. Now, Jack Charlton’s brother, Bobby also of Manchester United has been diagnosed with the disease. Yet, Bobby was more famed for his fierce shot (89.9 mph) rather than heading the ball. He scored one with his head in the crushing defeat of Benfica in the 1968 European Cup Final but generally he was not known as a prolific header. Both the Charlton brothers were, in the case of Jack - and is for Bobby - 85 years of age so could old age be the main factor in these cases for developing the illness? Possibly so, but this cannot be blamed for the case of Jeff Astle who was only 59 when he died. Unlike Bobby Charlton, Astle was a renowned header of the ball, so was Jack Charlton as a big defender.

The former Tottenham Hotspur great, Danny Blanchflower who captained Bill Nicholson’s great Spurs double winning team of 1961 also died of Alzheimer’s Disease in 1993. Danny has been voted Spurs all-time greatest player by the supporters, remember us poor sods, the people who once counted? Tottenham were the first side to win the domestic double in England in the twentieth century. Danny Blanchflower was 67 when he died, another comparatively young man.

Former Leeds and Manchester United Centre Half, Gordon McQueen has been diagnosed suffering from Vascular Dementia. His diagnosis was confirmed in January of 2021 which has once again highlighted the issue of injuries caused to footballers by persistent heading of a ball. Gordon was 68 when he was diagnosed, again a comparatively young man who in any other job would have been only recently retired.

Of England’s World Cup winning side of 1966, Martin Peters, Nobby Stiles, Ray Wilson and Jack Charlton have died from Alzheimer’s Disease with the legendary Bobby Charlton now in that process tragically. According to a study in Sweden footballers are 50% more likely to develop Alzheimer’s Disease with rates among football players higher than in the population as a whole. According to the Daily Star of Friday 17th March, “The finding is based on a study of thousands of players in Sweden’s top division, with one in 11 struck down with dementia.” This is now becoming a growing concern among the football fraternity as many former greats die prematurely of this disease, which appears to be on the increase. The paper continues: “An alarming nine per cent (537 out of 6007) were diagnosed, compared to six percent (3,485 out of 56, 168) of the controls” (sic). The former was obviously, I assume, a more recent study than the latter. Goalkeepers are less likely to develop the disease giving rise to the claims that heading the ball is a major contributor.

The FAI (Football Association of Ireland) have been in discussions with Uefa (sic) and the associations in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England regarding the effects on children of heading footballs. Kids under 12 in England, Scotland and the North are now banned from heading in practice and in training, while some want the practice outlawed fully. (Irish Daily Star Friday 17th March P.14). 

I cannot see the point of banning this practice during training and practice games if, in competitive matches, they are going to be heading the ball. Surely, if this is the case, heading should be banned for children or not, in practice and competitive matches, for example inter-schools matches which are not training sessions or practice games?

In Sweden again a study carried out between 1924 and 2019 according to Dr Peter Ueda who said “it has been hypothesised that repetitive mild head trauma sustained and concussions might cause neurodegenerative disease” (ibid). Is there something to this? The study carried out by Dr Ueda appear very thorough and covers many decades so must, therefore, be taken seriously.

So, now the question must be asked, with all the other changes, many unnecessary, in the game this one would be significant and worthy of consideration as it is also a health and safety at work issue, therefore of concern to the PFA (Professional Footballers Association), the players union. For once it is not an issue where parasitical agents need to be consulted. For decades football was played with a leather ball containing a bladder which was inflated and tucked tightly inside the leather case, tied up, and used as the spherical object, the football. The leather case soaked up moisture and water during a game and as the sport is a winter game much precipitation would often fall during a match. The ball would always finish the game heavier than when the teams kicked off. Sometimes these footballs would weigh something like a light medicine ball after a drenching during a downpour. The constant heading of these heavy footballs must, surely, have been a contributing factor to players of bygone days developing Alzheimer’s Disease. During the seventies, when Gordon McQueen was playing the FA in England and, I believe Scotland, Wales and the six counties, shifted to a lighter ball which was less absorbent but, nevertheless, still took on some moisture. Not until the eighties did the synthetic ball used today come into regular use. The rule stating the ball must be the same weight after the game as at kick-off applied. Many players have complained these footballs are too light and shots elevate too quickly and twist and turn when hit ferociously at goal.

If heading was to be banned, under health and safety, then the entire game of Association Football would change and would hardly be worth playing at all! However, it is a health and safety matter and players, despite in a few cases being very highly paid, are still employees selling their labour power. The lower down the leagues we go the wages equal out and are not so astronomical. Of all the Micky Mouse rule changes which have occurred, introduced by idiots, this one would be the most affected and, possibly, necessary. Should we continue down our present trajectory and see if instances are reduced in studies using the newer synthetic footballs as opposed to the old heavier spheres? These have been in use since the eighties so results should shortly be available. Or, on the other hand, should safety come first and an outright banning of heading be introduced? The latter is unthinkable as it would change the game beyond recognition.

I can remember as a kid getting all the old leather balls from the local pub team for us juveniles to practice with on the green. They were a nightmare to inflate and keeping the noose of the bladder in the leather case, folded, was an art in itself. But they were heavy, very heavy after a downpour and our mothers cursed us all coming home covered in mud, happy memories. All sentiment to one side, if this was any other industry would there be even a debate on the issue? If coaches were found to be unsafe to drive would the unions tolerate them being on the road? No, of course they would not but because of our obsession with football this subject has been neglected.

The late great Jeff Astle’s daughter, Dawn, has been campaigning for two decades for football’s authorities to publicly recognise the link between the repeated heading of a football and dementia in later life. Dawn Astle is set to work for the PFA as a special advisor on the illness of dementia and its links to heading in the game which contributed greatly to her father’s early death. I wish Dawn all the best in her endeavours.

So, what would football look like if the heading of the ball was to be banned? For a start the use of the corner and other set pieces would be greatly limited, along with the long throw and indirect free kicks. To ensure the no heading law would be applied to correctly, meaning no contact between the head and the ball at all, perhaps the five-a-side rule of no ball above shoulder height should be applied. That is easier said than done because such a rule would eliminate to all intents and purposes the long ball and forty-yard pass unless such a pass could be played along the ground, when such a pass would never reach its intended target. In five-a-side games this is not a problem as the playing area is approximately one third the size of a full pitch. The rules are very different in such games, normally, though not exclusively, played indoors and corners are not taken in the same way. The ball must not under any circumstances go above shoulder height. In an eleven a side game such rules would be impossible to play which, if heading were to be banned, is difficult to see any other way around this. 

Any ideas football fans? Should heading be banned? If it is proved beyond question that this move is causing premature deaths to players it becomes a health and safety issue and I, as much as I have loved and followed my team, Man Utd, (more recently FC United of Manchester) all over the globe, must accept that heading is a danger and reluctantly see no alternative. Unlike the daft meaningless changes made by morons with money outlined briefly earlier, this is an important issue. If those who govern the game had given the safety of players as much thought as they gave fucking up the game we might, just might have had an answer.

For the record a player called Frank Barson, a Yorkshireman from Sheffield, once scored a goal with his head while captaining Aston Villa from thirty yards. This was in the 1920/21 season when heading the ball was not as frequent as in more modern times. Until the arrival of Stanley Matthews in the 1930s, 40s and 50s the game was largely a passing affair. Matthews revolutionised the dribbling game and was nicknamed the “Wizard of the Dribble”. Other players like Len Shackleton, nicknamed the “Clown Prince of Football” also had a big impact on the game. Barson died in 1968 aged 77 which for the time was a reasonable age.

🖼 Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

6 comments:

  1. Speaking from an evolutionary viewpoint our cranium never evolved to take regular impacts so we are only now realising the long term effects of such.

    I think it will be banned soon for this reason, at least in Youth football. To counter that I think they should bring a rule were offside is only an issue in the penalty box. This will spread the play further and increase the need for greater technical ability in front of goal.

    Football evolves and has done since people's heads were kicked from one village to the next.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fair point Steve, on the offside rule, back in the seventies there was a lobby to get rid of the rule altogether. That would be too extreme in the other direction. Your penalty box idea is worthy I'm sure.

    I am tied here, as a trade unionist and one time active campaigner for health and safety in the workplace banning heading is a no brainer. As a football fan of decades, one time fanatic, I cannot envisage the game without heading. I'm thinking of all the great headers I've seen at Old Trafford over the years. That said, players health and safety must take preference. It will be handy to see if the new balls introduced in the eighties makes any difference. Results should now be available.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's a very informative piece even aside from the heading issue. What about protective head gear Caoimhin similar to that worn by hurlers? Might it feature? Look at Boris - he must have been heading a ball all his life!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Head gear is an idea Anthony, but have you ever tried heading a ball while wearing a crash helmet? No direction can be gained so if headgear is worn and as heading in a direction with pace involves being able to feel the ball on impact it defeats the object. Heading is an art, a dangerous one admittedly, but an art all the same. I'm not sure protective head gear would have the desired affect, but would not rule it out.
      Yes, Johnson must have been banging his head against some kind of object, his behaviour certainly shows signs of mental degeneration! Maybe he was on the books of Glasgow Rangers🤣🤣⚽️⚽️⚽️⚽️.

      Caoimhin O'Muraile

      Delete
  4. Denis Law & Terry Mc Dermott are also suffering from dementia . The sooner " headers " are banned , the better . Aside from boxing , no other sport has a s high an incidence of the disease . There's a lot to be said for gaelic football , pity it never caught on in North America .

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm torn here, I really am, having watched "The King" (Denis Law) at Old Trafford and his headers, not always fare as he often cheekly used the opponent defenders shoulders to elevate himself higher, I cannot envisage the game without headers. I've seen many great headers, Joe Jordan at United, and Gordon McQueen in defence but often popping up with a headed goal. Of those three I've mentioned, and I could go on, only Joe Jordan, so far, has escaped dementia. Denis is now 83, so like Bobby and Jack could age be a factor? If so, the same cannot be said of Gordon, who was 68 when he was diagnosed two years ago. Even at 70 he is still relatively young.

    The game, for me, without heading might as well not be played. That said, health and safety must take preference, see your point Ron. I would like to see if the synthetic footballs introduced in the eighties has made a beneficial difference. All may not yet be lost.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete