Helmets & Headgear

Good Point. I did around 50 matches in the Fall as well. No serious head injuries.

 

One where the player was brought in to check for a concussion, but it was as a result of serious foul play (elbow). 2 after improper heading technique (really bad), game had to stop, but they came back and seemed fine. 50-75 matches, CR and AR, U9 to premier amateur and NFHS games.

 

I suspect my gamecount is approaching 1700 and I can recall one head injury in a mens open game where a GK dove sideways into an upright to make a save. had to leave the game.

 

Early november (in Richmond Va) a keep playing U-18 premier had a knock of the head with a forword. Stopped for a bit, moved up and kicked the ball. Collapsed and died at the hospital shortly thereafter.

Nothing was released to indicated a preexisting condition or some sort of freak coincidence.

It was the only thing on the refs lips in this area.

Would gear have prevented this from occuring is a question that we will likely never know, but the initial quick reaction is that it could not have hurt. Of cource, then we are left wondering if they might have come at each other even harder with "protection on", which would negate the benefits.

 

I was on the field for this incident. You have the details of this somewhat mixed up. In fact, it was the forward's head that impacted with the keeper's chest damaging the sternum and inducing a heart attack on the field. A headgear would not have helped in any way.

 

I haven't played too much, but if this helps, I got concussed during practice, when a teammate and I went to head a ball.

In a school match, a teammate of mine went for the ball with the other team's goalkeeper, fell on his head and concussed the keeper.

I'm u/17

 

One, head injuries are not always apparent at the time of the injury. I know plenty of people who got banged in the head but didn't think anything of it until they had migraines all the next day.

While a manager for soccer and lacrosse in high school I saw I can honestly say I saw at least 10-20 head injuries, several of them severe. This was over a period of only two years (two seasons out of each of those), and I doubt I'm remembering all of them. I can also recall at least one of our girls considering not playing any more because of head injuries.

Actually, during our university intramural indoor season this fall I ref'd or staffed at least 2 or 3 head injuries, one of which required EMS.

I guess what I'm saying is maybe some people notice them more than others, or something...

 

Would a softer surface hitting the chest have lessoned the impact? It must have been horrible.

Last fall I did a game (as coach) in which a girl was spun in the air (no foul, just a 50/50 with her having less balance) and then slipped when she hit the ground. I am sure you (Headhunter) remember how hard the local surface was in mid fall at Darden Towe. Her head snapped back and thumped the ground hard enough that she actually suffered a small skull fracture. We kept her on the pitch until the rescue squad arrived, secured her and took her to UVa hospital. A very expeirenced ref had the center and did a good job keeping eveyone informed and ensuring nothing happened until she was safe. Not sure what impact head gear might have made as it is really not padded in the back. That is sum total of head injuries that might have been changed by head gear in 20 years of playing, coaching and reffing.

 

This is an extremely rare occurrence, but it does happen. It also happened once in a youth baseball game when the batter was hit in the chest with a pitch and died.

Basically, what happens is a sudden impact at the direct center of the sternum can basically stop the heart if it happens at a very, very precise moment during the heart's rhythm. If the collision happens a millisecond earlier or later, the person suffers nothing more than a bruise. Applied at just the right moment, the heart stops cold and can only be restarted with a defibrillator.

 

I did about 75 matches this season between U10 - 19 rec and men's and women's amature adult leagues (from 8v8 35 and over to 11v11 Div A). I saw several minor head bumps, but non that, IMO, required medical treatment.

There were two the stand out in my mind. A U16 Boys match. Two go up for a header and one comes down and falls to the pitch motionless. No foul, just 50/50 head to head. I stopped play immediately and had the coach come to evaluate. The player was subbed out, but came back in the game later. I think head protection might have done some good here.

In a U13 Boys tournament final, just after the half. Attacker and keeper going for a lofted ball collide just outside the six. Both go down momentarily holding their heads. Again a 50/50 with neither player at fault, just doing their jobs. After evaluation, both players continued for the rest of the match. After the final whistle, the manager of the keeper's team approached me and said he was acting a bit strangely, and they were going to get him checked by a doctor just to be safe. I told her that I would write a report in case there were any insurance issues due to the incident. Considering the speed with which these two collided, I don't believe headgear such as the Full 90 would have done much good here.

 

It is interesting that the Full 90 folk quote the study done by the Brits that indicates a 50% reduction in force for collisions of 3m/s. That translates to about 6-3/4 miles per hour.

Now, running into a wall at 6-3/4 mph would hurt, particularly at full speed. It would hurt with our without a Full 90. But the dynamics of such a collision with a ball (which may be coming in much faster if coming directly off a foot) or head-to-head or head-to-ground or head-to-post are all much different than running into a wall. And, the effectiveness of that headgear falls off past that 50% quickly as the speed of the collision increases. The faster speed collisions I think would be the head-to-ground contact, or the rocket-off-the-foot-to-head collision.

I can see no real benefit for the Full90, other than the psychological "warm fuzzy." Seems like a perfect marketing niche to get the soccer moms to part with their money. Perfect moneymaker for NFHS - if they require their use and mandate an NFHS logo, they can make a cut on each and every one, too.

Along with padded goalposts, this is just another solution to a problem that doesn't exist. I hate crapola like this - we see the game being changed for the worse by those making money from the change. And it won't reduce the number of lawsuits one bit.

 

To the original question of head injuries to referees, I had one only 2 weeks ago. Indoor soccer and a ball hit me in the cheek, knocking my glasses off. I brushed it off and called for play to continue. No followup; no injury. What scared me was that this was almost identical to something that happended to a ref some years ago. In this case the earpiece of the glasses scratched his eye as they came off and he was unable to focus after that. He made it to half time but had to excuse himself at that point.

 

You can see no real benefit, but you state it in the next line. Or do you really think these companies, NFHS, and their special interest groups are solely interested in the safety of players?

 

Similar thing happened to a friend here - he turned his head just in time to avoid a full facial. However, he ended up having a minor stroke as a result of the impact...don't recall the details precisely, but it was scary and describes the kind of impact that a full90 type of headgear will NOT protect against. Velocity (energy) of the ball is just simply too high in this case (just like hitting the post on a dive, or falling and hitting the back of the head on hard ground, etc.).

 

I don't want to sound like a shill, but I wonder if you misunderstand the purpose of the Full90 head protection.

First, while your experiences as referees are invaluable, they do not necessarily give us a full picture of the situation as it actually exists. From what I’ve read of the literature, statistical analysis has shown that head injuries are occurring in soccer in the United States at roughly the same rate as American football. To me, given the radically different natures of the two games, that’s simply amazing. When you look at the whole world, and abstract from any particular experiences, the picture is very different than what some of you have described.

Full90, again from their literature, does not claim to prevent every injury. They merely state that they reduce the forces that the head endures by something like 50%. We know that there are many cases that are so terrible, or so freak, that headgear will not have any positive benefit. However, I think that it’s been demonstrated that headgear will have a net positive effect for players, for very little money, with no detrimental effect on the game.

An example which I think is appropriate: Seatbelts don’t prevent every death or injury in every car accident. However, they do prevent enough injuries and provide enough benefit that we, as a society, have decided to mandate their use. There is a net benefit to seatbelt use that outweights their cost and more than makes up for the instances where they don't work.

I leave unanswered, of course, the question of negative externalities. Will players, knowing their heads are protected, change the way they play the game? We can all imagine that American football would be a vastly different game without helmets or pads. Will soccer change in the same way?

 

I would be very suspicious of any "statistics" or "research" provided by Full90, particularly as their representatives have come here in the past and told a pack of lies. (See old thread with several hundred replies).

IMO, it's just a glorified (and expensive) sweatband, and will discourage children from learning the proper heading technique, which is what they really need to do to avoid injury.

Furthermore, if it does reduce impact then it stands to reason it will reduce the power, and possibly the control, on the header.

Soccer, without helmets, has a similar injury rate to American football, with helmets, suggesting that helmets are unlikely to prevent injury anyway.

Do you really want American children to grow up without learning how to head the ball? If they don't learn they will be clueless at international level, and the US will once again be laughed at by the rest of the world.

Also, there have been dozens of studies by reputable organisations such as FIFA, USSF, the FA, and none of them have found any conclusive link between heading the ball and increased concussion or long-term brain injury.

It is arguably true that wearing helmets in a car would marginally reduce the risk of serious injury following an accident. Why doesn't the government therefore mandate the wearing of helmets by drivers and passengers in a car, or better still, in everyday life, including in private homes and even in bed, in case the ceiling falls in overnight?

My point is, some risks are so small as to be virtually non-existent. If you really want to avoid this absolutely tiny risk, don't bother playing soccer at all, but please don't ruin it for the rest of us.

PS- the risk is even smaller now, given the lightweight, waterproof modern ball, as opposed to the old heavy laced-up leather variety. If people survived then, they can defintely survive now.

 

I understand precisely the purpose of the Full90 headgear. It is to provide a warm-fuzzy feeling to those parents who have spent their money to line the pockets of some folks who designed a product to solve a problem that doesn't exist at a significant level.

Statistics are cold, hard things. When we insert feelings, or beliefs, they can reinforce almost any fear we might have. Statistical analysis is also usually bogus (bull-generated-fecal-matter) for those gathering the data are gathering it to prove a conclusion they have already made, or want to see substantiated. In my experience as an engineer, dealing with statistcal methods to analyze processes and solve problems, I always always always toss studies done by the manufacturer or by the process owner. The environment is too ideal and the motives too often impure.

I would like to see the studies (and their included data) that you cite.

That said, if the rate* of injuries is the same between American football and soccer, just what injuries are we talking about? Concussions? Unconsciousness? Headaches? Oww-ees?
Are neck injuries included?
What age groups are studied?
Are we looking at rec and professional in the same pot?
We can toss in a lot more questions, which would all be part of designing the study to help establish (not guarantee) validity.

*And what do we mean by rate? Just a total of raw numbers? Injuries per game played? Injuries per capita? Per minute? Per touch? Per whistle? Lots of ways to look at statistics, and in the end we will STILL argue whether or not they are valid. Figures don't lie, but liars figure (a nondiplomatic way to say beware of statistics!!!).

As I stated in an earlier post, that 50% reduction in force is quoted as occurring at what I consider a moderate velocity. Higher velocities, or the involvement of something immoveable, make the Full90 FAR less effective than advertised. Seen one of them things? How easy would it be to still crown yourself wearing one, without even getting the thing involved?

This is a straw man argument. To try and draw the parallel is inappropriate.

The sad thing is, our society is being hoodwinked into thinking that a 100% save life exists. Every breath is taken with a risk.

American Footbal WAS a different game with leather helmets and pads, no face protection and only grass (or mud) fields. Adding full 90 protection as a requriement would only make the Full90 folks richer, and would not provide ANY significant reduction in head injury. No foamy headgear is going to reduce the impacts we are concerned about, for physics-related reasons too boring for here.

Consider baseball. A ball hit sharply and striking a player in the chest at the precisely correct split-second can stop the hearts of some. So we saw squooshy balls for the youngsters. Then we found out that those very squooshy balls actually were more of a problem because they are soft and the impact is spread over a longer time, increasing the odds of that intersection with the magical heart stopping split second. Not 100% safe....

I see the extension from the full 90 to "safer" headgear changing the game, and in the end making it more dangerous. But since our opinons as referees are not valid, I suppose we'll just have to wait and see....

Please forgive me for soapboxing, but I really get wound up when we talk like we are making science-based decisions, but they end up being based on emotion or agenda.

 

The thing is that, even on Full90's site, no one says that heading the ball is a significant cause of head injury. The medical research is all over the place in this regard. The main causes of head trauma sited by relevant interested parties: collision with the ground, collision with other players, collision with the goalposts. The "heading the ball causes concussions" line of argumentation is probably empirically false (according to some studies) and a red herring.

Secondly, American football without helmets is, as we know from historical experience, deadly. Just throwing that out there. The helmets in American football prevent death, not just concussions or injury.

Thirdly, I don't advocate mandatory use of the helmet. However, I do think that people ought to be allowed to use it, that it be within the rules to use it. Another example, I remember when girls playing lax didn't wear goggles. Now they do. Since it's passive, both the helmet and the goggle, and doesn't interfere with the game, is it a bad thing?

I am, of course, assuming that the helmet as designed does not interfere with the game.

Fourth, if the negative eternality of using the helmet is that children will not learn proper technique that is, imho, a good reason for carefully monitoring its use by parents and coaches.

Fifth, the government mandates all sorts of safety regulations on cars and in houses. For example, when I build a house I'm required to seek all sorts of permits, have safety inspections, etc... The regulations for a house, at least here in Southern California, are massive, intrusive, and detailed. The government is, from my experience, very involved in the inspection of safety.

Lots of people in the United States play soccer. There are lots of injuries for a game that is relatively less violent and contact prone than, say, American football, which is a vicious game. If parents want their children using this device, or somone who has suffered concussions in the past wants to use this device, shouldn't it be allowed or even encouraged?

 

Neurosurgery Today and Sports-Related Head Injuries.

 

Went there...realize that we are looking at "estimated" numbers of head injuries:

Soccer, for all ages, has 14,465 hospital/dr visits per year (again, ESTIMATED), placing it below cycling at 64,476, football at 25,515, basketball at 24,320, and watersports at 18,860. And just above golf at 8049 and fishing at 2689.

I get a good laugh just thinking about fishing and golfing helmets....

Like I said, we don't see the DATA that these ESTIMATED numbers come from. Too many places for hidden bias, for misinterpretation.

Now, I would say that 15000 head injuries that require visits to ER's is a lot. But in 20,000,000 (estimated ) participants, playing, say, 15 matches and 45 practices per year (3 practices per match, sessions assumed to be 90 mins to match game length), we have 1.2 billion "sessions" or opportunities for that head injury, or a 0.00125% chance of a head injury on a given match for a given player.

Or to look at it a different way, if we still assume 20 million participants in the US, then 15000 / 20,000,000 = 0.075% chance of a headache in an entire season.

Of course, these numbers are bogus, since I have made rough estimates, and have absolutely no idea of the nature or origin of the head injuries quoted in the referenced article. Hopefully some food (snack) for thought...

As you stated earlier:
"The thing is that, even on Full90's site, no one says that heading the ball is a significant cause of head injury. The medical research is all over the place in this regard. The main causes of head trauma sited by relevant interested parties: collision with the ground, collision with other players, collision with the goalposts. The "heading the ball causes concussions" line of argumentation is probably empirically false (according to some studies) and a red herring."
Accurate...

"Secondly, American football without helmets is, as we know from historical experience, deadly. Just throwing that out there. The helmets in American football prevent death, not just concussions or injury."
It is deadly WITH helmets. At the turn of the last century, football was almost banned due to the deaths resulting from this collision (not contact) sport. But if you look at the progression of the equipment, you will see that violence in the collisions has increased with the increasing quality of the equipment - today's helment and shoulder pads allow a hit that could not have been executed in the 1930's, and was not coached at that time since the tackler would have been committing suicide. Keep this in mind for later...


"Thirdly, I don't advocate mandatory use of the helmet. However, I do think that people ought to be allowed to use it, that it be within the rules to use it. Another example, I remember when girls playing lax didn't wear goggles. Now they do. Since it's passive, both the helmet and the goggle, and doesn't interfere with the game, is it a bad thing?"
Sadly, due to the misconceptions that abound and the desire for 100% safety in activities (or maybe 98%, cuz I can sue for a bozillion dollars if I make it into the 2%), these things will end up being mandated, sooner rather than later. Not pessimistic, just realistic...

"I am, of course, assuming that the helmet as designed does not interfere with the game."
A bold assumption. Football helmets don't interfere with the game, but as the armor has evolved, so has the violence of the game. Particularly with invincible kids (at least in their minds), I think we'll see more crazy play since the kids are "protected".

"Fifth, the government mandates all sorts of safety regulations on cars and in houses. For example, when I build a house I'm required to seek all sorts of permits, have safety inspections, etc... The regulations for a house, at least here in Southern California, are massive, intrusive, and detailed. The government is, from my experience, very involved in the inspection of safety."
Intrusive - the operative word. When we get govenmental, or psuedo-governmental (like league boards of directors) organizations trying to venture into areas like this, we get the intrusive, massive, and detailed. And uneducated - MOST of the local ordinance requriements for things like your house are based upon "hmmm that sounds like a good idea" rather than fact or science. Attack of the nanny state....

"Lots of people in the United States play soccer. There are lots of injuries for a game that is relatively less violent and contact prone than, say, American football, which is a vicious game. If parents want their children using this device, or somone who has suffered concussions in the past wants to use this device, shouldn't it be allowed or even encouraged?"
Allowed is no problem. Unless the kid becomes a maniac because he/she uses it. Encouraged? Why encourage something that is of dubious value, at best?

And don't mistake my intent here - when a player that is in a game I am reffing gets hurt, or one of the kids I coach goes down, I am messed up. I don't like seeing kids get hurt, in my match or someone else's. But I really, really don't like it when we continue a mythology that is false, whether its the use of headgear for "protection" or whatever else. Go in smart, make an educated decision, then do it. Full90 has my disdain because of the fear they capitalize on to make a buck.

 

So you've worked for Full90 for how long?

 

Fair enough.

In your opinion, what is the threshold for determining that a safety innovation is worthy and necessary?