http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenh...led-against-fifa-and-u-s-soccer-associations/ Mod Note: moved to start a new discussion on the laws of the game.
....I dislike FIFA as much as anyone but they have to be laughing their asses off about these...."The medical community called for change over a decade ago".....(NO they fooking didn't....the USA medical community called for change over a decade ago).... and this.. "They (the fooking lawyers...who else) also wish to implement regulations regarding heading by soccer players under 17".. This bogus law suit filed in (you guessed it) California has zero chance of succeeding....
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/aug/28/california-concussion-lawsuit-soccer-fifa-us-soccer The Guardian seems to think that this could be a big problem. The most damning case is Chris Kramer playing in the WC final with a concussion. It's the world cup final and the ref couldn't figure out he was concussed even after the player goes up to him and asks if this was the world cup final! Obviously, FIFA has no practical protocol for this.
In case anyone forgets FIFA doesn't give a rats ass about 'International Law'....and their response (if there is one) will be to kick the USA out of FIFA..for domestic interference or somesuch..
I don't see how this can be construed to be domestic interference since it has nothing to do with any of the cases where we've seen FIFA take action. Second, the lawsuit is focused not on financial considerations but on getting change implemented. FIFA's best response would be to get serious about concussion protocols. I know this seems like Americans imposing their values on everyone else. The problem is that they may be right. I would think that the least that should be done is to take a serious stance of protecting the players. Lord knows that the heat protocols have been way overdue and a few deaths could have been avoided if they were used much earlier.
A concussion protocol is long overdue. The English Premier League has introduced one for this season, although it doesn't seem as stringent as it could be. I agree that FIFA should take the lead on this rather than having a patchwork of protocols adopted by different leagues.
The bar is way too low in the USA and we can 'thank' American Football for that....these day's if a young player blows his/her nose too hard they are diagnosed with a concussion....
There is some overreaction but it's probably wise to err on the side of caution when dealing with young brains especially. Knowing what the medical criteria and symptoms are today, I'm positive I had three by the age of 16. Only one of them was a case where I was knocked cold and had to be taken away (on a really, really bad tackle by an opponent). One thing I'd like to see gone at the youth level until 16 or so is the long punt. It's not helpful when encouraging buildup play and technical ability anyway. I'm willing to bet that the majority of concussions at the youth levels come off high booming 50-70 yard punts where 2-4 players are jostling for position to head the ball and one ends up getting driven into the ground like a nail when they take the ball on top of the head. You can see 20 of these types of punts a game 2-3 of which will be headed very poorly due to either a position battle or poor technique. Only a fraction of these 2-3 plays per game will result in a concussion of any grade (usually mild), but a 5% rate over 30 games in a year per team, that's still a couple per team per year. If you get rid of that type of play, I think a team could probably expect to play a lot of games with no more than a couple...maybe none and those that do occur will be fairly obvious scenarios where common sense would suggest you yank the kid to check him out (kid into post, kid kicked in head, dangerous play with kid landing on head, kid takes major blow to face from elbow or ball where he's gotta come out due to bleeding anyway).
This is now a suitable thread to discuss Blatter's 'video challenge' proposal a la Tennis: http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jun/11/sepp-blatter-video-challenge-managers-fifa I actually think this is a good idea. It achieves more than goal-line technology (certainly is cheaper) and the flow of the game is largely preserved with only two challenges for each coach.
First of all, simulations should be discouraged in any form. Sometimes it really looks like a circus, not a football field where real men meet to play a fair game. It's silly to see 80 kilos men falling down like they would have been smashed by Mike Tyson Second, the referee should have much more authority on the field. In rugby only captains can talk to the referee, but the footballers sometimes scream on the referee like he'd be their younger brother. These changes are more of a moral point of view, which, I think, is at a really low level in football.
Keeping up with futbol tradition it should be some sort of card handed over to the 4th official on the sideline. I'd suggest a Blue card.
I would like to see the laws changed to reduce the number of high-stakes/game-changing calls....thereby relieving some of the pressure on referees. Suggestion #1 - reduce the size of the penalty box (thus reducing the number of PK's) Suggestion #2 - move the penalty spot back to 18 yards (thus reducing the conversion rate on PK's) Together, these two changes would reduce the influence of PK decisions on the final outcome of matches. Suggestion #3 - systemize the issuing of yellow & red cards, rather than leaving them to the discretion of referees (i.e. second foul of a match = yellow card, third foul = red card). This would not only reduce tactical fouling and physical play in general, but would also free referees from the difficult task of deciding how "bad" a foul is.
How could they implement a ban on kicking the ball more then 50 yards ? unless they force the youth teams to play indoors ? low roof . It would be easier to disallow head contact with the ball at an early age . BTW i agree that it is harmful , but it just seems that everything is nowdays
Blatter wants to move quickly on video challenges. MLS interested in testing: http://www.si.com/soccer/planet-fut...hallenges-replay-don-garber-sepp-blatter-fifa
They wouldn't need to explicitly disallow kicking a ball over x yards. They'd just need to force keepers to distribute via hands or passing rather than a punt. The force of a ball coming into contact with a head is a function of horizontal and vertical velocity. It's the vertical acceleration as a ball falls from a high punt that presents the most harm. Kids can't easily duplicate this type of issue with a ball played off the ground. IMO, getting rid of punts is good practice anyway because it forces kids to focus on building up play.
Medical Committee proposes new protocol for the management of concussion: http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footb.../index.html?intcmp=fifacom_hp_module_news_top
A corner kick is basicly another type of punt, which can land on players head causing concussion as well. Would you suggest to eliminate them as well ?
A corner kick isn't basically another type of punt..at all...other than they both have in flight balls. Corners are more horizontal in flight, which isn't as big of an issue because as a ball travels 40 yards in the air, wind resistance takes a lot of mustard off the ball. Vertically though, the ball's speed gets assisted by gravity as it drops. The vertical velocity of a punt that drops from 20 meters (with air resistance factored in) is roughly 40 miles per hour (64 km per hour). A really high, looping corner, at most, drops from a height of 10 meters (that's pretty generous). It's going roughly 29-30 mph (47-48kph). The vertical velocity of the punt is only 34% greater, but the kinetic energy of the ball (velocity-squared) is 80% more. So vertically, a kid is facing a much bigger impact off a punt. Other issues: -a kid heading a corner is usually trying to redirect the ball. He's not pushing the ball directly back in the direction the ball came from like a defender would returning a punt. On a corner header, you therefore aren't receiving all the energy as players do on a punt. -a lower trajectory ball (corner) is easier to judge because it's coming at you within your normal line of site with a backdrop (depth perception). It's coming at you at a trajectory that is easier to strike with your forehead. If you mess up, you're likely to glance the ball at the wrong angle. Very rarely will you take the ball with its full force and mis-hit the ball, because that would involve taking the ball directly to your eyes/face. Something your body instinctively will fight against. A higher trajectory ball (punt) is coming down on you. You're craning up to see it outside of your normal line of sight and judge it against nothing but the sky. When you mis-hit a punted ball, you're more likely to get the full brunt of the ball's energy on the top of your head. This judgment issue isn't just a soccer thing. Assuming a ball is in fielding range, a baseball player will have a harder time with a pop up than a ball going as fast toward the player on a lower trajectory. American football kick returners have a harder time fielding punts than kickoffs. Keep in mind theses are pros asked to use their hands. Not kids asked to use their head to come into contact with a moving object. -frequency. The players asked to return a punt are usually limited to the defensive 4 (and usually the central defenders). Offensive players are trying to let the ball run through. It's the same players over and over again. On a corner, repetitive risk is not as great. You've got a lot of players fighting for that ball.
It seems as a pretty nice explanation, but I don't buy it. As in the bolded part, why in Baseball does the catcher whom receives the ball at an extremely low altitude, where there is no gravity effect, also is the only player in the field with lots of protection gear, and also the player with the thickest gloves of all ? As I remember from my days back in baseball (strictly amateur in little league), a high fly, pop-up ball was probably the easiest catch, as all you have to do is put the open glove in the trajectory of the ball, and the glove does the rest (the only 2 difficulties it presents, is that you lose sight of the ball as it lands, specially when you are playing against the sun and you get sun blinded, and to put your glove in the trajectory of the ball). Playing outfield could've perfectly been played bare-handed, while playing infield (specially as catcher), it was almost impossible to do so, without getting a sore hand by the simple act of catching the ball (in the case of the catcher, it happens even after using his specialized glove, so not many players can play in this position. Oh yes, back in time as a young boy, I started playing as outfielder, but ended playing as catcher in my later years. Ended playing it, cause here in Chile, almost no one plays baseball). Back to football : playing as goal keeper (where I played), the risk of a high ball never was its velocity, but the fact that the ball bounces on your hands when you try to catch it, and if you lose control when this happens, anyone can get it afterwards. A direct kick of the ball to the head, is the most dangerous hit anyone can receive, specially when it is at a close distance (to keep in mind, when you play a barrier in a free kick, where most players protect, with their hands other organs instead). And yes, most defending players usually play barriers (which of course, increases the chances of being hit at the head with the ball).
@Chicago76 i like your argument. certainly seems to make some sense. 2 questions: 1. couldnt the same force on the punt be generated by a keeper throwing the ball out (up in the air as it would on a punt) 2. what percentage reduction in risk would there be if you make the change you are suggesting? how much risk of getting hit on a fk or from open play is there? (see @Rickdog post)
Some changes I would like to see: Each team can have 5 unique subs a game, with those being subbed out can be subbed back in without counting against those 5. Having the ability to actually take a break allows players to play at a higher pace and with more energy throughout the whole game creating a better overall product. having 20 physically exhausted players on the field after 75 minutes is not good for the sport. This also reduces the risk of injury, or making an injury worse. Players would be able to come out and be properly evaluated before going back in. Or if a player does have an injury after all of the subs have been used they are not pressured into continuing to play and possibly making the injury worse. The 3 subs and only 3 subs rule is honestly idiotic from every possible logical perspective. Each team has a single goalie sub that does not count towards the 5. A second goalie sub would count against the 5. If they are a special position then it should be treated as a special position in every way. On injuries, goals, and substitutions the clock is stopped. I don't know one good reason not to. Only designated players can directly complain to a ref. The complaining you see just gets ridiculous at times. The players really should not be interacting with the ref in that manner. That is the coaches job. Delay of game is an automatic red card. Broaden what is considered delay of game. These acts are disrespectful to the game and to those watching the game, and should not be tolerated. Red cards do not come with an automatic suspension. A ref should not have the power to affect subsequent games. A red card might be a marker for an automatic assess if a suspension is necessary, but to have an automatic suspension be applied is putting too much power into a persons hands who does not have the time or ability to accurately assess if a play is worthy of suspension.
Conmebol is looking at some changes. (This article is about Copa America 2015, but the same changes may then be placed for the Copa Centennial 2016.) Espanol: http://www.conmebol.com/es/24102014...e-innovaciones-reglamentarias-eliminatorias-y English: http://www.conmebol.com/en/10242014...ers-and-copa-america-touched-press-conference "there is a presentation by president Napout [CONMEBOL President Mr. Juan Angel Napout] to eliminate overtime except in the final. Also with regard to this final match the president spoke of the possibility of including a fourth substitution. All this has to do with the tremendous physical toll that occurs in football today."