Announcement

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 01:36 PM

Headers could be the most simplistic skill ever to be taught. Go watch the current crop of mediocre high school soccer plays and what you see over and over, are the big tough kids who have, literally, no true soccer skills, capable of evaluating a ball in the air and heading it forward 20 yards on punts and goal kicks. Sometimes they hit it with a shoulder. usually the head. 80% of the time it takes a ball , which should be 90/10 their possession and turns it into a 50/50 at best. the crowd loves it. looks brave. but its not. its just a matter of evaluating the flight of the ball and acting bravely. But its not a skill. it doesnt need to be taught at u12. a kid can pick up being good at headers at u14, u15 in about 1 month of practice. Seen it, done it.
Spend time and work on bringing a ball down with the chest or foot trap, settling it, distributing to feet of your own sock color. Then, you have something worth teaching.

Why is it the sidelines (and even our coach) cheer so loudly when a player heads a goalie punt even when the headed ball goes straight to the other team? Happens in just about every girls youth game I've seen. They wouldn't cheer if it had been a pass struck willy-nilly or directly to a defending player. Why do parents think every time a girl touches her head to the ball (no matter the outcome) that it is the most amazing thing?

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Headers could be the most simplistic skill ever to be taught. Go watch the current crop of mediocre high school soccer plays and what you see over and over, are the big tough kids who have, literally, no true soccer skills, capable of evaluating a ball in the air and heading it forward 20 yards on punts and goal kicks. Sometimes they hit it with a shoulder. usually the head. 80% of the time it takes a ball , which should be 90/10 their possession and turns it into a 50/50 at best. the crowd loves it. looks brave. but its not. its just a matter of evaluating the flight of the ball and acting bravely. But its not a skill. it doesnt need to be taught at u12. a kid can pick up being good at headers at u14, u15 in about 1 month of practice. Seen it, done it.
Spend time and work on bringing a ball down with the chest or foot trap, settling it, distributing to feet of your own sock color. Then, you have something worth teaching.

Why is it the sidelines (and even our coach) cheer so loudly when a player heads a goalie punt even when the headed ball goes straight to the other team? Happens in just about every girls youth game I've seen. They wouldn't cheer if it had been a pass struck willy-nilly or directly to a defending player. Why do parents think every time a girl touches her head to the ball (no matter the outcome) that it is the most amazing thing?

I don't play so I can't comment from that angle, but I have two playing in college and I'm hard pressed to believe that it isn't a difficult skill to master. I watch way too many games and see some of the worst soccer involving headers - and this is at the higher caliber D1 level, presumably by kids playing elite level soccer for years (and heading the ball for years). Headers straight up in the air; headers to opponents; headers out of bounds; missed goals when a capable header would have been able to hammer it home. To say that a kid can pick up being good at headers in about a month seems a bit misplaced. Mastering the skill of heading is a lot more than just having the ball come at the player and hitting it back 25 meters.
BTW, I do agree that kids shouldn't be heading the ball 10/11 and under. The cost to the kids far outweighs the benefits.

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

If it's not mandated, will anyone do it?

Our club already is taking steps to implement it and modifying releases. Mandated or not, it will be the standard and ignoring it exposes the club/team to liability. That is the state of our litigation system today.

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

USSF caved on this due to the pressure from a lawsuit. I would imagine the law firm that led the action is cashing it's fee check today and will be sitting poolside tomorrow in a warm and sunny spot drawing up a list of the next in line organizations. That is the way it works in US. They sure aren't going to say "hey, that's great we won that case and got a nice fee". They will now becoming the "leading firm" in this type of litigation and their per hour rate will go up 50%. Anyone who ignores this "recommendation" will be at risk. The case file is already built.

Far too true. Ughh

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Our club already is taking steps to implement it and modifying releases. Mandated or not, it will be the standard and ignoring it exposes the club/team to liability. That is the state of our litigation system today.

Smart. The concussion after effects are bothering some kids for life. One lawsuit could put a club out of business quickly.

On that note, if a coach puts a player back in a game after a possible concussion-like event and the player suffers from post concussion symptoms afterwards for weeks/months, can the coach/club be held liable?

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 02:44 PM

The lawsuit talk makes me chuckle. All of you watch too much TV, or listen to too much talk radio.

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 02:46 PM

Really? This entire header ban came about due to a class action lawsuit...

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

The lawsuit talk makes me chuckle. All of you watch too much TV, or listen to too much talk radio.

No, it's called living in the real world and knowing about business in general and sports business in particular. "What? Me Worry?"

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Our club already is taking steps to implement it and modifying releases. Mandated or not, it will be the standard and ignoring it exposes the club/team to liability. That is the state of our litigation system today.

We have several girls on our u14 team who have been out with one or more concussions already this year. I bet other teams are similar. Typically, those players are released after symptoms subside for a little bit. Once back, the girls continue to take hard punts, etc to the head. A slippery slope. The latest studies say just heading a punted ball is equivalent to American football forces and causes sub-concussive damage that is often worse than a full on concussion since no rest is given and the girls don't realize their brain gets bruised each time. Scary stuff. I know several girls whose parents have pulled them from competitive soccer after they had lingering concussion effects. I'm happy for the ban and wish it went till u16 for girls since their necks aren't as strong and they suffer many more soccer related concussions than do the boys.

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

No, it's called living in the real world and knowing about business in general and sports business in particular. "What? Me Worry?"

No, there was a lawsuit that was resolved by USSF agreeing to implement a rule. There were no damages sought in the case. Here's an excerpt from Monday's NYT that makes that pretty clear:

"The suit sought no financial damages, only rules changes, as FIFA joined other sports governing bodies like the N.F.L., the N.H.L. and the N.C.A.A. in facing a lawsuit over head injuries.

A judge ruled in the summer that the case against FIFA had no standing, but that an amended complaint could be filed against U.S. Soccer. The announcement of Monday�s initiatives will serve as a resolution in the case, and Steve Berman, the lawyer who brought the case, agreed not to appeal the dismissal."

No there aren't more lawsuits, or more frivolous lawsuits than there were 30 years ago. Blaming lawyers and lawsuits is easy, but it's usually wrong just like it was here in the previous posts. You're not living in the real world, you're living in a world with too much TV and talk radio. Hence the chuckle and the too much TV and talk radio comment.

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

No, there was a lawsuit that was resolved by USSF agreeing to implement a rule. There were no damages sought in the case. Here's an excerpt from Monday's NYT that makes that pretty clear:

"The suit sought no financial damages, only rules changes, as FIFA joined other sports governing bodies like the N.F.L., the N.H.L. and the N.C.A.A. in facing a lawsuit over head injuries.

A judge ruled in the summer that the case against FIFA had no standing, but that an amended complaint could be filed against U.S. Soccer. The announcement of Monday�s initiatives will serve as a resolution in the case, and Steve Berman, the lawyer who brought the case, agreed not to appeal the dismissal."

No there aren't more lawsuits, or more frivolous lawsuits than there were 30 years ago. Blaming lawyers and lawsuits is easy, but it's usually wrong just like it was here in the previous posts. You're not living in the real world, you're living in a world with too much TV and talk radio. Hence the chuckle and the too much TV and talk radio comment.

And you must be a trial lawyer. No one called them frivolous (although I see plenty - sorry). And no one claimed the class action was good or bad because of any damages claim. Personally, like someone else posted, I wish the initiative went to U14 or higher. However, the reality is that the precedent has been set and the failure to follow the standards will, guaranteed, result in more lawsuits in the concussion arena. Call them whatever you want - they will come, some lawyers are chomping at the bit, and damages will be sought notwithstanding that this settlement didn't result in a damages award. Starts out with statements like "we're just trying to protect the kids," and ends with suits. Real world. Check back with me in a couple years.

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

And you must be a trial lawyer. No one called them frivolous (although I see plenty - sorry). And no one claimed the class action was good or bad because of any damages claim. Personally, like someone else posted, I wish the initiative went to U14 or higher. However, the reality is that the precedent has been set and the failure to follow the standards will, guaranteed, result in more lawsuits in the concussion arena. Call them whatever you want - they will come, some lawyers are chomping at the bit, and damages will be sought notwithstanding that this settlement didn't result in a damages award. Starts out with statements like "we're just trying to protect the kids," and ends with suits. Real world. Check back with me in a couple years.

The sad thing about comments like yours is that they ignore the fact that lawsuits will come only if and when a child suffers a concussion. Without a concussion there isn't a case. I suppose a concussion case without a concussion could be filed, but there really aren't a lot of frivolous cases filed in the grand scheme of things. If you see plenty of them, you must be an insurance adjuster or insurance defense lawyer. Everything is frivolous from that perspective but it's pretty warped. Finally, I read your comment about lawyers "chomping [sic] at the bit" and seeking damages as a negative. Did you intend it some other way? Should kids who needlessly suffer concussions be denied a remedy?

Here's an excerpt from an earlier post:

"I would imagine the law firm that led the action is cashing it's fee check today and will be sitting poolside tomorrow in a warm and sunny spot drawing up a list of the next in line organizations. That is the way it works in US."

I'm pretty sure this was not meant as a compliment or even a neutral statement.

I have tried cases, that's true; but not very many injury cases and those were usually on the defense side.

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 07:52 PM

It's called legal Jeopardy

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Our club already is taking steps to implement it and modifying releases. Mandated or not, it will be the standard and ignoring it exposes the club/team to liability. That is the state of our litigation system today.

A club would be risking a major law suit if they didn't comply and a player suffered ANY LEVEL concussion.

**Unregistered** · 11-12-2015, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

A club would be risking a major law suit if they didn't comply and a player suffered ANY LEVEL concussion.

It would be a major lawsuit if there was a major injury. If there was a minor injury, then it would be a minor lawsuit. Lawsuits compensate people for injuries actually sustained so the recovery is driven by the extent of the injury. There are exceptions, but that's the rule.