U.s. Soccer Limits Headers
- Thread starter BEC SPK
- Start date
Only for U-11s. I'd rather kids that young play mostly for fun and stay safe doing it. Not much is worth head injuries for kids (I'm looking at you, football).
I think it may actually do the opposite. At times USA teams both men's and women's have seemed a bit to dependent on crosses into the box for headers. The USWNT seems to be the most heavily dependent on this style. Then again if I was coaching a team with Abby W in her prime I'd probably do the same. Take headers away in the younger leagues and maybe it forces more early development on possession, ball skills, and passing. To me those are harder to master than heading anyway.
I posted a similar response on Reddit and Facebook.
This isn't about limiting the growth of players that will one day give the US it's very own Lionel Messi. This is about making sure a parent doesn't end up with a brain dead 8 year old.
Will all kids suffer traumatic brain injury because of an ill-placed header? Nope. But some do.
[Generally speaking] We applaud Taylor Twellman for taking such a strong position on protecting players from preventable head injuries yet protecting the brains of children from something as trivial as head-butting a ball is considered controversial.
This isn't about limiting the growth of players that will one day give the US it's very own Lionel Messi. This is about making sure a parent doesn't end up with a brain dead 8 year old.
Will all kids suffer traumatic brain injury because of an ill-placed header? Nope. But some do.
[Generally speaking] We applaud Taylor Twellman for taking such a strong position on protecting players from preventable head injuries yet protecting the brains of children from something as trivial as head-butting a ball is considered controversial.
Has there been any evidence that kids of that age suffer from heading the ball? Were there any scientific studies? I ask this seriously, because I don't know.
I coach my 8-year-old's rec team, and he practices with the travel team. The notion of kids that age intentionally heading anything is laughable, much less heading a ball traveling with enough force to injure someone. They just aren't quick enough, tall enough or coordinated enough to pull it off. I think I've seen one intentional header all season, and that was off a throw-in.
I have a lot of doubts that this will make any difference in whether kids under 10 get hurt playing soccer or in their development of a soccer skill that doesn't suit their age group. I also highly suspect that this was just a convenient way to settle a highly frivolous lawsuit that never should have been in court to begin with.
I coach my 8-year-old's rec team, and he practices with the travel team. The notion of kids that age intentionally heading anything is laughable, much less heading a ball traveling with enough force to injure someone. They just aren't quick enough, tall enough or coordinated enough to pull it off. I think I've seen one intentional header all season, and that was off a throw-in.
I have a lot of doubts that this will make any difference in whether kids under 10 get hurt playing soccer or in their development of a soccer skill that doesn't suit their age group. I also highly suspect that this was just a convenient way to settle a highly frivolous lawsuit that never should have been in court to begin with.
Some what related question for those who are involved with youth soccer these days. Do leagues make goalies wear the Petr Cech style head protection? If they are worried about headers shouldn't they also be worried about goalies smashing their heads into the posts? Growing up playing soccer goalie head injuries seemed more common than those caused by field players heading the ball.
I stand by what I said in the beginning of the thread, but there is no doubt in my mind this is the actual reason for the suit.
Granted no money was awarded to the various groups responsible BUT the Lawyers brought in over $500k in fees which US Soccer (and the other folks named in the suit) paid for.
I have no data to support this but I wouldn't be surprised if more head injuries are caused by athletes falling on the ground than by headers. This is also a bigger problems for girls.
It's not actually the heading of the ball (head/ball contact) that causes the majority of injuries -- it's hitting your head on something (or someone) else when attempting a header. Unfortunately, the injuries come from not knowing how to protect yourself when heading the ball, so banning headers won't necessarily help over the long-term.
My son's U10 team drew this weekend on a last minute header goal -- I'm going to file a protest immediately!
jerseyhotspur
Registered
companies who make protective headgear for soccer are going to make millions . . .
The research on TBI is implicating repeated mild, sub-clinical concussions, rather than the big one's where players lose consciousness, in the development of long term sequelae from head injuries. So, in football, the problem is not the big hits, it is the repeated banging of the head in practice. Same in soccer. It is the repeated heading of the ball in practice, not the 2 or 3 times a player might head it in a game.
i guess this is to protect the kids and i think thats fine but this doesnt really mean that it will translate to possession based play when they are little because i keep reading some coaches dont know what they are doing much less know how to properly coach possession based game. from what i read the coaching is still lacking in this country.
My son plays in a elite U8 travel team, and I'm totally fine with this ruling. I personally tell him that he's too young to do headers, and he will learn that skill later on.
But in reality, even on my son's team, headers from crosses are non-existent. They just don't have the skills to pull that off. Every now and then a kid will head the ball from a soft bounce off the ground, but they're more likely to get a head injury just by running into another player. This has happened a few times already.
Either way, still think this is a good decision. Kids younger than 12 shouldn't be focused on headers. Too much risk involved.
But in reality, even on my son's team, headers from crosses are non-existent. They just don't have the skills to pull that off. Every now and then a kid will head the ball from a soft bounce off the ground, but they're more likely to get a head injury just by running into another player. This has happened a few times already.
Either way, still think this is a good decision. Kids younger than 12 shouldn't be focused on headers. Too much risk involved.
jerseyhotspur
Registered
Youth sports in the US tend to focus on wins and point / goals scored. There's no time for fundamentals. Crazy sports parents are just into getting exposure for their kids so they can get a college scholarship.
Z4CH3B99
Borracho Aficionado
Not trying to be rude here, but how elite can U8 soccer possibly be?
This short interview elaborates on Mertz' point from one of the leading researchers on sports related concussions and who was an advocate for the rule change (wanted it to go further, actually):
http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/201...eaders-concussions-player-safety-robert-cantu
He describes it in his book (which I perused after the rule change was announced, because I hadn't heard anything about it until the lawsuit settlement) as similar to banning sliding headfirst in baseball. Less dangerous if done with perfect form, but rarely perfect from kids. The book is pop culture though, so don't go looking for medical journal cites
The program is more advanced than your average U8 program. They receive training by a local soccer academy, and play travel games, but the program is more focused on individual development. These kids are pretty good for their age. The games are so fun to watch.
Slightly orthogonal, but I'd love to see more futsal at that age. I don't know that I've ever headed a ball in 20-odd years of playing futsal, but it's also an incredible way to develop skill.
Similar threads
