U.S. Soccer Bans Headers For Kids Under The Age Of 11

I think we're gonna see a couple of guys on Shark Tank with a business plan to 3d print soccer "helmets" soon, that's what I think. Petr Cech was ahead of the curve on fashion.

 

I'm pretty sure someone tried to sell those a few years back but concussion concerns weren't quite as high then

 

Stupid.

So many headers are a product of poor coaching throughout our youth ranks where they know little more than to lob longballs and play off set pieces.

If the USSF banned idiot coaches and stressed playing on the ground, that would have a far more reaching impact.

 

Ful 90. They were originally marketed for headers. They then switched focus to collisions. And then someone showed that they didn't cause a reduction as claimed.

 

Making a mountain out of a molehill. Its like school black and white. No room for common sense. Most kids don't head during the game at these ages, but it shouldn't prevent teaching proper technique

Now then, what is a 'header?' The kid running to a ball that bounces and nods it down with his head to get it on the ground? Will this be deemed a dangerous play?

Dumb.

 

http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2015/...initiative-after-resolving-concussion-lawsuit

I don't get all the hate here. How is this "Dumb" and "Stupid"? If it even cuts down on a few concussions given to younger kids, it is a success. Sure teaching proper heading technique will help too, but why can't you guys just be happy that they are doing something here?

 

Because it sounds like they're "doing something" purely for the sake of being seen as "doing something". They acknowledge that headers don't account for many concussions at all. Eliminating headers seems to be like trying to kill a fly with a M61A1 Vulcan cannon.

 

I don't really see how it's enforceable, a lot of times it's just a natural reaction. I'd rather go head to head with someone than trade high boots with them trying to bring the ball down first. Seems like a weird, wierd decision.

 

If it will prevent more American commentators with the English language skills of Twellman, I'm all for it. He still sounds concussed.

 

I wonder what will happen the first time someone takes an errant clearance off the noggin at close range and ends up woozy in the normal course of play. What will they ban then?

 

I've coached U-8, U-10, and U-12 travel soccer for nine years. I have refereed five years. I have run a recreation league of over 1,000 kids per year for the past 13 years. I have not seen ONE concussion from heading the ball. Mainly because there are so seldom the opportunities to get a clean header on the ball with a player willing to head a ball in a game.

Because they haven't shown there to be a problem.

 

And then the referee calls a 'dangerous play' foul on the player for heading the ball.

 

It bothers me immensely when I see youth players (usually girls) at the U-12/U-14 level ducking and shying away when confronted with a flighted ball and a normal header situation. If kids don't learn how to do it properly due to a ban, they're going to do it incorrectly at a much higher rate when they get older, which will give them problems (both playing and physiological), guaranteed.

 

This makes a lot of sense for long term health. There's no reason for brain damage at such a young age, considering heading the ball doesn't really matter at such young ages.

You don't need to learn how to head the ball before 12 or 13, at the very earliest. It wouldn't be the worst thing if they held off with heading until 14 or 15. The importance of learning how to head the ball at a young age isn't even close to the importance of learning good technique on the ball at a young age. One of the two also does damage to your brain.

 

I think the idea here is that minor concussions would be cut down, not just the ones that make kids blackout and such. Thus, they are also increasing the education of how to see if a kid has a minor or major concussion. I'm not saying you don't know how to spot a concussion per se, but that there may be concussions that happen and nobody really knows that they happen. Also, they did show there to be a problem in the lawsuit, that is why these changes are occurring, because of the lawsuit.

Don't think you can really guarantee something that seems to be an opinion. I agree education on how to head the ball properly would be great too though.

 

Again those type of injuries major or minor as so far more likely to come from other contact (body part to head, ground to head, ball to head-not a header, but being struck by a ball when neck muscles are not engaged).

And again, how many true headers do you see at a U-10 match?

 

So? I agree, the only people I've known with truly severe concussion problems, did not get it from heading the ball. That does not mean that there are some getting these injuries from headers though, no matter how small a number. Thus, it is a good step in the right direction.

 

How are we moving in the right direction if we don't know there are injuries being caused by it?

 

Protecting against concussions before the age of 11 isn't mainly why it should be banned, although that is also important. Its mainly important because of the accumulation of brain damage and also kids before the age of 11 usually have no clue how to head the ball. Just completely get rid of it before kids get to an age where heading the ball is a real option to consistently use in a game. Before 11 years old it really shouldn't be important at all.

 

Lawsuits are almost never fora for an examination of scientific findings. In fact, they are usually spectacularly terrible at that very thing.

So, heading properly currently causes problems (a claim under dispute as to its universality and general veracity), but heading improperly won't?

 

Teaching them in a controlled environment is neither dangerous nor unnecessary. In fact, it is necessary to prepare them at least somewhat for realistic conditions. An alternative is a poorly-prepared/afraid kid taking one off the nose or the side, or the back of the head, which is much worse.

 

Because you can see the long-term effects of heading the ball and anyways I think we do know that there are injuries being caused by it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/health/youth-soccer-safety/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ayers-crashing-in-to-each-other-than-heading/

Both articles do show as you and I agreed, that most concussions are not from heading the ball, but there is some concussions being caused by heading the ball.

The links above have some evidence.

 

If you ban it, in most cases they aren't going to take one off the nose or side/back of the head, although there could be a few exceptions. Just like with handling the ball, kids would learn that using their head is not a viable option, and a free kick would be given if they do.

Once they get to an age where the games get more competitive and serious, you obviously can't eliminate heading, since its a key element of soccer, so thats when you introduce heading.

 

The links above do not show that banning the act of heading will do one bit of good since more than 4/5 of concussions (and I suspect sub-concussive events) happen when not heading the ball.

Furthermore, they do not support the hypothesis that because a lawsuit was successful, that it was based in sound science.