Whats the Latest on Head Protection?

[mwsmlj]

Have heard allot and seen allot of head protective devices in WUSA and elsewhere - ie Full90 Headguard. Are they legal?

[whipple]

Originally posted by mwsmlj
Have heard allot and seen allot of head protective devices in WUSA and elsewhere - ie Full90 Headguard. Are they legal?

Head protectors are neither legal nor illegal. They are not required in Law 4, therefore it is up to the referee to judge whether they consititute a danger to the player or an opponent. If the referee feels that they are a danger, then they are illegal. On the other hand, if the referee allows them, then they are legal.

I, personally, have allowed them in a couple of my matches where players have worn them. They are pretty harmless, and, at least in my experience, the players usually take them off after a short period of play, particularly on hot days.

Unlike mouthguards, which I believe if not not worn properly, represent a potentially fatal choking hazard, the head guards, unless they were to slip down around the neck, or catch a keeper's finger while contesting for the ball are not likely, themselves, to add greater risk, at least at the youth level.

The downside, as I see it, is that if they achieve wide adoption or even by those who elect to use them, there is a very real possiblity that they will effect certain player's play. Like shinguards, knee pads, etc. there will be players who will use them for more agressive contact. Rather than head contact being a painful accident, players with protective gear, may integrate it into their playing style, which, as in football and hockey, could theortically increase the number and seriousness of injuries the headgear was developed to prevent.

I do know that the Skeens, who are the people behind the Full 90, have been very agressive promoters of the concept and have sponsored a number of WUSA players as a means of promoting their products. This is probably why you have seen them on a few of the players. I wonder how many, if any, would wear them if they were not paid to.

Sherman

[jeff skeen]

Hi,

My name is Jeff Skeen. I am one of the founders of FULL90, makers of the FULL90 Performance Headguard.

I wanted to respond to those of you wondering about the legality of our headguards. Here is the situation. FIFA LAW 4 says " a player may not wear or use any equipment which is DANGEROUS to himself or another player". Under this LAW referees were free to interpret the word DANGEROUS. Some refs, either trying to protect the "traditions" of the game, actually believing player might become more aggressive (the Superman effect) or not understanding the rules have forced the removal of our soft padded headband.

Let me provide you with some background. There have been studies that suggest that "heading" (the act of directing the ball with ones head) causes long term cognitive brain deficits. The caused the soccer community to recoil and assume a very defensive posture. The soccer community supported studies that concluded that there was no conclusive evidence to support the notion that repetitive low impacts, such as heading, caused long term congnitive brain deficits. The soccer community also viewed anyone, or any company trying to market soccer head protection as the enemy. The fact of the matter is that it would take a large scale, 30-50 study to find conclusive evidence of a cause and effect. In the meantime, everyone that knows anything about soccer at a competitive level knows that head to head, head to ground, and head to elbow impacts are causing a significant number of concussions. (most of which are not reported, unless they result in LOC.)

This is where we come in. As parents of players that experienced multiple concussions, we had enough. We wanted to prevent our friends from going through what we went through. We started investigating the problem. On a personal note, I have had brain surgery and multiple concussions, and ironically had about 20 years experience in head protection. I figured, who better to try to fight this battle. I felt blessed just to be alive. This whole battle with the soccer traditionalists would be easy.

We developed a product that we felt the best players would WANT to wear. YES we do play some players, but mostly because they are good people, soccer doesn't pay much, and they have helped us develop a better product. We also have numerous players at all levels BUYING the product because they WANT to wear it.

At this point, after battling the traditionalists, we have won. Reasonable people have prevailed. Not just us, but the people in the soccer community that understand the game. FIFA and USSF both understand that protective equipment is GOOD for the game. Not a threat, but an asset. Look back to the Mens World Cup. Did you notice the players with goggles and face masks? Nobody dared say anything. Notice a knee brace?

Back to headguards. Because some refs have actually removed a soft padded headband using their interpretation of FIFA LAW 4, the USSF issued concrete advise to refs in a memo dated March 7, 2003. In the memo, DANGEROUS was defined for the first time as "hard surfaces, sharp edges, or loose and dangling straps". The memo went on to say that refs can't use their personal opinions about whether a safety product might work, instead redirecting them back to the standard of DANGEROUS. The memo even addressed the so called "Superman" issue by instructing refs that they cannot ban a product because they think a player might committ a foul. Under this notion, a shoe could be DANGEROUS because the shoe laces could choke someone.

The bottom line is this. Like it or not, the product is perfectly legal. If a ref removes it, they might face the consequences of having to justify their decision in front of a jury.

The battles we have faced are behind us, the product is legal on every field in the world. No reasonable person could think it is dangerous.

The players are wearing the product because they want to play the full 90 minutes of a competitive match. They don't want to get hurt and let a teammate take their spot.

We are not saying we can prevent all foreseeable head injuries. We are just trying to do the best we can without changing the game and within the confines of what a player will actually want to wear. We are not seeking to mandate anything. If a player chooses to wear one and another doesn't, that's fine.

We are only trying to help. Based on our success, apparently we are doing the right thing. We have also struck a nerve!

If you want to help, we are looking for leaders not followers.

Just in the upcoming Womens World Cup, we already have over 10 players wearing the product. Maybe you have heard of some of them: Joy Fawcett, Daniela, Boyd, Latham, Katia, Sawa.


Sincerely,

Jeff Skeen

[Scotty]

Anyone got a photo of these things? (preferably in action)

[Wolves_67]

Send the info to Brian McBride!

[BerwynBlazers]

i don't agree with the whole idea but here is a pic

http://www.full90.com/images/products_premier/product_shot.jpg

Total Weight
•1.5oz (Less than a baseball cap - 2.6oz)

[MassachusettsRef]

Something tells me your entire post will prompt numerous responses for various reasons, but let me pick on one point, which you seem to use here as a scare tactic:

Originally posted by jeff skeen
The bottom line is this. Like it or not, the product is perfectly legal. If a ref removes it, they might face the consequences of having to justify their decision in front of a jury.
For someone who is willing to reference a USSF position paper several times, since it suits your purposes, you conveniently omit pertinent sections of the Laws of the Game (from which, coincidentally, USSF position papers are derived):

From Law V, IFAB Decision 1
A referee is not held liable for...any loss suffered by any individual, club, company, association or other body, which is due or which may be due to any decision which he may take under the terms of the Laws of the Game or in respect of the normal procedures required to hold, play and control a match.

This may include...a decision to allow or not allow a player to wear certain equipment (bullet #7)

Also, you continuously reference (and quote) a USSF position paper which you did not link here. For those that actually want to read it, and not just view the selected passages that you quoted, it is available here:

http://www.ussoccer.com/templates/includes/services/referees/pdfs/position_papers/player_equip.pdf

You'll note that while you seemed to imply that the paper was specifically issued to deal with headgear, yet readers will note that it never even mentions headgear, and is very broad in scope. By no means does it endorse or sanction the product in question, as it never even refers to it. An important quote from the document that you omitted:

USSF does not 'pre-approve' any item of player equipment by type or brand--each item must be evaulated individually

The paper does, as you said, provide guidelines for determining what is dangerous (point 3). But, it also defers to any pre-existing rules by competition authorities (point 1), reminds the referee to always inspect equipment (point 2), and, as the paper should, reminds referees that, ultimately, under Law IV, the referee is still the final word on whether non-compulsory equipment can be worn.

So, despite your broad claims, the issue still comes down to each referee's interpretation of Law IV. USSF has merely provided additional guidance--not new instruction.

[Statesman]

Just wanted to toss a couple logs on the fire real quick. Today a British scientist released a study which concludes the act of heading the ball poses no significant risk to injury to a player. The conclusion was also supported by a seperate group of scientists in the United States.

The conclusions did state that players are likely to suffer trauma (if they ever do) from head to ground contact, head to arm contact, and head to head contact. Head to soccerball is relatively harmless.

This being the case, there isn't much need for headgear. Players are inclined to be more protective of any body part that isn't padded, including the head. This is even more evident at the youth level (well, up to around 17 years old that is). A player with a padded head would be more likely to place their head at risk, feeling a false sense of security through the headgear. Going up against an opponent without the headgear and you may have a problem.

My resolution? If the headgear in of itself is safe, allow them to play. If the player becomes too aggressive due to the headgear, call them for playing in a dangerous manner and let them know the reason. Wear the headgear, play responsibly.

[Andy Bennett]

This type of thing also makes it impossible to head the ball accurately with any reliability.

[ProfZodiac]

I've never had to make the decision, but when it comes, I'm not going to allow it. For the same "Superman" effect that Senor Skeen spoke of, and because it's simply not in the uniform. If one person's wearing it, it could be perceived as a distinct advantage. The fact that one person is wearing it may make the other little kiddies afraid to head the ball, since they don't have an airbag strapped to their foreheads.

Note that the highest level I do is U-16, and those are few and far between.

I don't plan on allowing the gear.

[MPJ334]

Originally posted by jeff skeen
Not a threat, but an asset. Look back to the Mens World Cup. Did you notice the players with goggles and face masks? Nobody dared say anything. Notice a knee brace?

Dared, sir? Are you suggesting that the referees were scared to say something if they thought it was unsafe? We're talking about Dallas (regardless of the Deutchland call), Collina, Shield, et cetera, et al. They simply found nothing unsafe about the aforementioned items.

and now i refer you to MassRef's post.

and, gosh, this is worse than a telemarketer...at least they generally have a somewhat unbiased inkling about what they're talking about. i do not consider myself an expert on the Laws but i know that if it becomes a danger, it's off my field. if there's a problem with that it's dissent. :)

[jc508]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jeff skeen
[B]Hi,

The bottom line is this. Like it or not, the product is perfectly legal. If a ref removes it, they might face the consequences of having to justify their decision in front of a jury.


To me, this is more to the point than anything else.

I believe that USSF issued its paper out of fear or paranoia that if it did not allow people to wear this thing, someone was going to face expensive litigation. If little Suzy hurts her head after being told she could not wear this contraption on her head, some aggressive unethical attorney will be running to file papers to sue any and all who may have possibly had a connection with Suzy and her head contraption.

As with other USSF papers, they say players can wear these things with more of an eye towards avoiding liability for USSF. Similarly, USSF won't say that players should not wear glasses on the pitch, but leave it to the referees to decide if they are dangerous (which they are). Still most ref allow players to wear regular corrective eyewear.

To me, it seems as if entrepreneureal spirit has taken faulty science and grasped a way to make money off the fears of soccer moms.

I've read some "science" that said that the Full 90 protects against abrasions to the forehead, not concusions.

More players are killed by lightning than head injuries. Now if Mr. Skeen could figure out how to protect players, refs, and fans from lightning, I would buy and promote that product.

[Dennis Piper]

Let's not lose sight of what we're trying to do here. Recent studies have shown that nearly 2/3 of college soccer players have concussion symptoms during a single year. Half of all entering college freshmen soccer players have already suffered at least one concussion. Because there may not be any outward symptoms (bleeding, bruising, etc.), thousands of concussions are unreported or undiagnosed. We at Full90 would like to offer some protection to the kids who accidentally bump their heads while playing soccer.

If the Full90 Performance Headguard were worn on a player's knee, probably no referee would forbid it. That indicates that it is not likely to be dangerous. Wearing it on one's head creates no more danger than wearing it on the knee. The Superman Syndrome has been brought up in just about every activity that uses headgear - bicycling, horseback riding, hockey, baseball - and protective headgear is now an accepted part of each of those sports because people eventually saw the positive aspects of protection. They finally realized that if a player is likely to be aggressive, he/she will be aggressive regardless of the presence or absence of headgear.

We don't see this as an issue of "who's right/who's wrong." It is an issue of protecting our children so they can continue enjoying a sport that they love. "Dings" and "ringing one's bell" are mild concussions. One of these can result in severe damage; a second one before the first has completely healed can be devastating. We hope to elevate the awareness of the concussion issue so people can make their own decisions about whether to wear protective headgear in soccer. We do not want to mandate it, we just want it to be allowed so people can make their own choice.

[Dennis Piper]

jc508, where did you see this "science" saying headguards protect against forehead abrasions but not against concussions? Full90 has never made a statement like that.

[jeff skeen]

Wow, people really get fired up on these message boards! That was the first one I ever looked at or responded to.

First off, I want all of you to know that I when I mentioned the the potential liability issue, I was not referring to me or anyone connected with FULL90. Just the point that I have personally talked to so many frustrated parents and players that were forced to remove their FULL90's last high school season. The went from frustrated to furious when their kids subsequently got concussions that might have been prevented or reduced by wearing the product in their gearbags.

Second thing, if the product is currently being worn in international matches would that change your mind? Maybe the refs at that level know something you don't. Maybe the players know something you don't. Maybe the coaches know something you don't. What about if FIFA sent you a memo? Would that change your mind? What if you saw the product on 5 teams in the upcoming Women's World Cup? I am just curious at what point, you become a little more open minded.

If you want to see the product in action, tune in to the WUSA match this Sunday between San Diego and Atlanta.

Lastly, whoever responded about the new study saying heading is not harmful missed the most important part of our approach. We are NOT addressing the head to ball issue, but rather incidential contact such as head to head, head to ball and head to ground. Again, we cannot prevent all foreseeable head injuries, we are just trying to help. We also don't want to change the game. We have done extensive ball speed and direction testing proving our product does not change the game (it is on our web site in PDF form) and extensive research on peak impact force reductions. The product clearly helps.


If I could figure out how to attach a picture of the product in action during international play, I would. More to follow.
Sincerely,

Jeff Skeen

[pkCrouse]

Originally posted by jeff skeen
Wow, people really get fired up on these message boards! That was the first one I ever looked at or responded to.

Come now, let's be perfectly honest, shall we? This thread was created by a virgin poster. Apparently it took his curiosity about headgear, of all things, to finally give him the courage to make his first post on Big Soccer. So our hero posts an innocuous looking question about the legality of headgear, but interestingly enough he mentions a specific name-brand item. Good bait.

Miraculously, 2 more virgin posters stumble upon this new thread and they just happen to both be associated with FULL90. What an incredible coincidence.

Gentlemen, it is one thing to use this board for blatant commercial interests. It is another to assume that we aren't savvy enough to see it for what it is. It may be worthwhile to have a debate about headgear, but please don't insult us by implying that you didn't know what you were doing when you started this thread.

By the way, how many of the pro players that are wearing this item have not been paid by the manufacturer for their endorsement?

[whipple]

Dear Matt and Jeff,

It is apparant, now, that the first poster was most likely Matt Skeen, who elected, by trolling, to apply both bad netiquette, as well as a deceptive business practice. If your product is legit, why would your company engage in such dishonesty?

Such actions, if they are in fact the case, might lead one to believe that, rather than a misguided, but altruistic advocate for player safety, you are an opportunistic peddeler of a patented panacea with more regard for your pocketbook than the best interest of the players. Your misstatements regarding the USSF position, as pointed out by MR, and veiled implications of liability for referees who would not support your efforts, suggests the latter.

This said, let's put your fear and intimidation tactics aside for the moment and look at the effect of protective gear on play and its impact on player safety. This applies to any form of padding, shins, knee, hip and elbow, not just the head.

As you may be aware, shinguards were not introduced to the Laws until 1990. This was not to prevent injury, but in response to the need to prevent blood born disease, such as HIV, being transmitted on the playing field. Prior to this, shinguards were optional, or required by certain leagues or levels of competition, such as schoolboy soccer.

One of the problems with shinguards was that players would use them to sweep an opponents legs. They were, in a sense, used as a weapon by agressive players. They made the game more dangerous, not less, resulting in more professional fouls and carreer ending injuries. To deal with this, such tactics are misconduct (USB if only reckless or SFP if done with excessive force).

In other words, it was a trade-off. The game became more dangerous as a result of the shinguards, but it is viewed as a necessary evil.

In Massachusetts high school soccer, we have a rule mandating mouthguards. This is not to protect the teeth, so much as it is to prevent concussion. In fact, as I understand it, the cushioning effect of a mouthguard is a more effective means of preventing concussion than soft padding. The trade-off with the mouthguard, particulary one which has no strap, is that it is a serious choking hazard, potentially fatal to the player who does not keep it around their teeth or cuts it down for comfort. To address this, we inspect every players mouthguard prior to every game and if they are not safe, the player is not allowed on the field. Further, if during play, we observe that the player does not have them around their teeth, we are instructed to caution the player and they must leave the field to correct their equipment.

Many goalkeepers also wear additional protective gear not mentioned in Law 4. These include gloves, some with re-enforced fingers, elbow pads, knee and thigh pads. Much of this is integral to the keepers uniform. The effect of this is not to protect the keeper, but to enable to keeper to play more dangerously, with more confidence, with more agression to dive, and contest for the ball. While the gear itslef reduces the discomfort of minor injury, the net effect on play increases the potential for serious injury.

The use of head protectors for goalkeepers has long been debated, not just to protect keepers from the posts, but also to protect their head when diving at the feet of opponents for the ball. One of the arguements raised against this has been that while such protection might reduce the incidence of skull fractures, cuts and abrasions, the trade off would be an increase in the more serious neck and spinal injuries due to the fact the the keepers play even more agressively, charge with greater momentum based upon a false sense of security.

Further, were a keeper to wear such a device, would the opponents be more or less likely to restrain their challenge? Would referees be as protective?

Now you are advocating that field players should wear protective devices on their heads. Notwithstanding the degree of protection (or more imporant the lack thereof) which your design affords, what are the trade offs? Will such a device make the players safer, or will it make the sport more dangerous?

The answer to this is suggested in the statements made by the players you have paid to endorse your products.

Allie Kemp-Sullivan says:
"Being one of the smallest players in a league packed with strong athletic women, I have to be aggressive to be successful. Full90 gives me the confidence to mix it up with bigger players and know that my head will be protected."

Daniella says:
"I love to play soccer full out, 100% effort. I don't have to compromise when wearing Full90. I get the same power on the ball and I am also protected."

It sounds to me as though these players are saying that an ounce and a half of foam wrapped around their temple and frontal lobe will give them the confidence to play more agressively, more dangerously, with less pain or warning from minor injury, thereby increasing the liklihood the player will risk more serious and potentially career ending injuries.

In other words, while your device may not, in itself be more dangerous, would its use not make the sport itself more dangerous by giving players that false sense of security (confidence) to play more dangerously and place themselves at risk?

Further, and to Statesman's point, as a referee, I can only call playing in a dangerous manner if the play effects an opponent, not if a player simply endangers themselves. Therefore, if one of the players wearing your device breaks their neck as a result of the false sense of security they believe your device affords, then it is you who will be defending yourself in court, not I.

Sherman

[TOTC]

Actually, I think part of the headgear thing is protecting people from second or third concussions.

Take Kim Pickup, who is wearing one of these headgear thingies. A few weeks ago at Washington, she did not look AT ALL like her normal self.

No Pickup flip, no life in her legs. Late in the game, she was hit in the side of her torso with a shot, fell down, and didn't get up for several minutes.

That looks like post-concussion syndrome to me.

I had a friend on the 1988 Olympic ice hockey team who had to retire from play because of repeated concussions.

It's happening in soccer all the time with people knocking heads and hitting the goalposts.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT, IN AND OF ITSELF, THE ACT OF HEADING THE BALL!

Done properly with the front of the crown, heading the ball can be done simply and painlessly.

I can't say for sure that the headgear helps or hurts, but all I know is that the headgear shows the players who are afraid of getting hurt. And that's who you attack.

[Claymore]

While I'm philosophically opposed to headgear, and particularly disturbed by the blatant scare tactics employed by the manufacturer, I have to say that I would probably allow a player to use it.

Here's the scenario: little Suzie shows up for her U-12 match with her overly protective parents, who believe that their little bundle of joy is not only the second coming of Mia Hamm, but that any contact to her head will leave her in a permanent vegitative state. I, for one, am not going to start off the match on the wrong foot by obviously endangering Suzie's life and future college scholarship (sarcasm fully intended) and have to listen to her parents compare me to the Grim Reaper if this little piece of foam is considered by the USSF to meet the requirements of Law 4.

I don't believe for a second that this aggressively marketed snake oil was developed solely for the good of mankind. I believe the USSF is acting in its best interests in allowing this equipment to be used, although not specifically mentioned in position papers, in order to avoid the threat of expensive litigation.

[law5guy]

Did you see in the warranty of these things?

FULL90 SPORTS, INC. OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY LIABILITY FOR LOSS DAMAGE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LMITED TO, PERSONAL INJURY AND INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.

http://www.full90.com/warranty.asp

So, if someone gets a head injury when they are wearing these things... Tough luck. Mr Skeen won't give you $0.01 toward your medical bill. Sounds like a good deal for him.