As a recipient of a massive concussion while wearing a helmet, I concur that the only thing rugby style soft headgear is going to prevent is bumps, bruises and cuts.
Headgear
- Thread starter Denied
- Start date
As a recipient of a massive concussion while wearing a helmet, I concur that the only thing rugby style soft headgear is going to prevent is bumps, bruises and cuts.
vegasguy
GOLD
It is a personal choice. A keeper needs to play with confidence and if the head gear gives them more confidence then it is good for them. My keeper has never even considered head gear and used to have Petr fathead on his wall. My keeper chooses not to wear pants and if he has a long sleeve jersey he cuts it off above the pads. He doesn't like them. He says he feels constricted in long pants and long sleeves. Others swear by the long sleeves as they feel protected. Wear what makes you confident and protected..
Mystery Train
GOLD
That's probably the most stringent study I've seen.
The only thing is that I don't understand the metrics underlying their star-rating system. There is a table that shows a range of figures equating to the stars, but I'm not a physics expert, so I don't understand what the figures derived from the equations actually translates to in basic terminology. For example, a 5 star rating equates to the numbers 0.0 to 0.3. Do the numbers represent the factor by which a given headgear reduces the concussion causing forces? In other words, a 0.0 means it reduces those forces to zero? That seems unlikely. Is it a percentage? In other words the concussive force is reduced to zero percent or 3o percent? Or is it .03 percent? Or is it a calculation based on the percentage of likely hood of getting a concussion given a certain force of impact? It seems amazing if the study shows that the given 5 star headgear reduces the forces to nearly zero. That would be something worth shouting from the rooftops.
The last nit-pick I'd have about that study is that they seem to be measuring head to head impacts like field players get when two players leap to head a ball, rather than the deceleration type concussions I think are more common. I've seen three different teammates of my DD's get serious concussions in soccer, and all came from collisions where the head snapped back after a fall, rather than getting knocked on the skull by another skull.
But it is good to see some science being applied to the problem, even if I don't understand it all. Thanks for sharing.
Mystery Train
GOLD
If I owned a headgear company, I'd get a local youth club to require using my headgear for all their players in exchange for a sponsorship. Then use a local university or independent lab to record the incident rates of concussions among the players at that club vs another club over the span of a season or two. That would be a pretty useful marketing tool if the results actually showed a difference.
On a side topic, we are getting our DD Keeper a Dentist made mouth-guard. We are getting the cast made next week. Long story...but we know kids who have gotten teeth knocked out playing soccer and basketball. There are some studies both for and against mouth-guards preventing or lessening the severity of a concussion - I am not claiming they do or do not, just that I have seen both. We are not doing it for concussion reasons, but to protect her choppers. The girls are getting bigger and stronger,and the collisions are becoming more and more frequent and physical.
coachrefparent
GOLD
I haven't read the study, but the Virginia Tech logo is prominently displayed on the manufacturer's website along with strange disclaimers as to the protection afforded "For given VA Tech impacts", so that's all I need to know.
Mystery Train
GOLD
I was skeptical about that too. But I did some research on them. Apparently VA Tech has a group that's been involved in helmet testing for football for some time, and created a ratings system to try to measure effectiveness in concussion prevention. This was their first study for soccer headgear. A quick google search shows several studies that they had published in peer-reviewed research publications, so it's not a total sham. Whether or not VA Tech gets anything out of this deal, I have no clue, but it does appear to be independent of manufacturer's control.
After a more careful study of their test methodology, I think it's probably as thorough as they can devise, but I think the star-rating system definitely skews the results to seem more impressive than maybe the numbers show. It's not a bad comparison of products, relative to each other, but there is quite a lot of guesswork being used on calculating the "probability" of the rate of concussions given the one type of collision they are simulating. It's hard for me to believe a Storelli headband (rated 5 stars) can reduce probability of concussion to almost zero, which is what is suggested by their rating table. Not even a NASCAR HANS device could do that.
I think it would be less misleading to state that headgear A is 20% more effective in reducing lateral forces than brand B, etc. But giving out star-ratings makes it seem like a consumer product test rather than a scientific analysis for concussion prevention.
Mystery Train
GOLD
Update us on how she likes it. We got a store bought mouth guard for my DD at about the same age, but she couldn't communicate with her defense very well. She kept having to take it out to shout at them, and eventually stopped using it. I bet the custom one would be better.
Surfref
PREMIER
I called a foul/PK and yellow card against a keeper who brought the knee up into a players stomach. Forward went straight up for the header and keeper came forward with the knee into the attacker. PK was scored and ended up being the winning goal. So, make sure your player does not commit a foul when bring that knee up.
Take a look at SISU mouth guards. Very thin but still strong. Makes talking and drinking easier. Daughter used to use one but as her communication got better she still didn't like all that talking with the mouthpiece in. YMMV. Good luck!!
Exactly. Gave up a goal where she was kicked in the arm and the ball went into the net. Really?
My daughter would forgo the shin guards if she could. Speed and quickness is something she has and doesn't want to give up. She plays basketball and takes more bumps and bruises there then she has at keeper, including hits to the head on rebounds. Pretty much every girl that keeps playing as they get older is going to go head to head with other girls on the field as they try to head the ball, so if head gear is required it should be for everyone.
If the keeper had grabbed the ball first before the knee hits the attacker would that have made a difference?
Multi Sport
DA
I had Invisline Braces, upper and lower. The trays that you go through are on the thinner side but the retainers are definitely thicker. I have a friend of mine who is a Dentist and he had offered to make my retainers if I ever lost them. Curious to know how thick they could be made. Just a thought.
I think there's a general consensus that when the knee is used offensively instead of defensively it is a foul. Where there's still a log of disagreement is whether the act of raising a knee is itself dangerous play and/or reckless. The reality is that nearly every professional trainer (from the highest to the lowest levels) teaches goalkeepers to raise their knee (though they may disagree on how aggressive it should be). It becomes part of their muscle memory. If it is dangerous play, then it should result in an IDF any time it is even attempted and there is another player in striking range (even if not struck). If it's not dangerous/reckless play, then you get a lot of who is charging whom. Fair point that if a field player were to do it it wouldn't be tolerated, but the reality is that it's part of the accepted technique at the current time. I think FIFA really needs to speak on this point definitively once and for all.
And I'd be willing to trade it if refs started to call attempts to play a ball in the possession of the goalkeeper and FIFA beefed up the rules so that the keeper no longer loses the handling advantage and the biggest danger for the striking player is a yellow card. I'd say attempts to play the ball in the keepers possession should result in a yellow + IDF from the penalty line, if contact in a negligent or reckless manner a yellow + DFK from the penalty line, violent contact a red +DFK.
There's too much imbalance right now in the rules to protect the goalkeeper, who holds one of the most (if not the most) dangerous positions on the field. The revision of the triple jeopardy rule was one attempt to balance things. I think they need to look at knees and possession as well to further balance things to make sure keepers are not given an unfair advantage nor unnecessarily put in danger.
p.s. loving the goalkeeper forum. More interesting discussion here than in the regular forum right now. Learning a lot.
p.p.s. the buildout line rules were revised this year. If there's a line violation, the prior award was a free kick. But that just makes the keeper give up his handling advantage in favor of what's effectively a goalkick, and since it's not a carding offense, unless the ref was prepared to call a redo or verbally warn the player crossing, the keeper would be put in a worse situation. The revision means the free kick is now taken from the penalty line, which makes sense (restoring the advantage the keeper previously held). Know it's not FIFA but it makes sense...same rationale here.
p.p.p.s as long as I'm ranting along the lines of referees generally being biased against keepers, the other thing that drives me nuts is on corner kicks I have yet to see a ref call impeding when they put a striker right there to block the goalkeeper's path on these challenges. That's clearly covered in the laws now, but rarely ever called (let them play, after all), and another thing I would trade the knee for, particularly for an express mention in the laws. I saw a coach put a striker in a U12 game to impede the keeper off a direct free kick (which is both impeding and offside). Ref didn't do anything about it until it was called out.
That's clearly covered in the laws now, but rarely ever called (let them play, after all), and another thing I would trade the knee for, particularly for an express mention in the laws. I saw a coach put a striker in a U12 game to impede the keeper off a direct free kick (which is both impeding and offside). Ref didn't do anything about it until it was called out.
coachrefparent
GOLD
No player has the right to "knee" any other player, period.p.p.p.s as long as I'm ranting along the lines of referees generally being biased against keepers, the other thing that drives me nuts is on corner kicks I have yet to see a ref call impeding when they put a striker right there to block the goalkeeper's path on these challenges.
The situation you describe on corner kicks is NOT a foul. "All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent." Any player can stand right next to any other player and not move, including next to a keeper on a corner kick.
As for the free kick, it would be offside (assuming all other requirements) if the player impacts the keeper's ability to make a play on the ball.
Au contraire:
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/blocking-or-holding-the-goalkeeper-at-a-corner-kick-or-free-kick/
http://www.askasoccerreferee.com/marking-the-keeper-at-corner-kicks/
Law 12: "An indirect free kick is awarded if a player....impedes the progress of an opponent without any contact being made"
IIUC there was some big controversy in the revision of the 2007 laws where it was expressly called out, but then reworded because it was feared that the implication would be that the keeper could be impeded on something other than a corner. Perhaps Surfref has more knowledge, but it's not a new problem.
I take your point though. All players have the right to their position. The problem of course is that such concept doesn't make any sense. What if 2 players want to occupy the same position. The Laws, IIUC, don't really state who has precedence. What if 2 players on the corner want to occupy the same space? Whoever gets there first? In any case, the rebuttal by a keeper to this is easy. Striker stands in front of the keeper to impede. Keeper moves to the side. Striker follows. The clear intent has been establish by the striker to impede as opposed to just hold their position.
It's the GKs job to pull a player in to "gently remove" the offending player that's trying to disrupt their position on the field.
And as far as going up for a ball with their knee up.. or when stretching out on the ground and bending the upper leg/studs up..I tell my GK the striker has two choices if they want to play so aggressive as to try and run right thru them. 1) Hit the eject button and pull out of the play. 2) Eat a knee or take the studs wherever they land. My kid's safety comes first before some kid hell-bent on scoring a goal that will do anything to score that goal.
the offending player that's trying to disrupt their position on the field. And as far as going up for a ball with their knee up.. or when stretching out on the ground and bending the upper leg/studs up..I tell my GK the striker has two choices if they want to play so aggressive as to try and run right thru them. 1) Hit the eject button and pull out of the play. 2) Eat a knee or take the studs wherever they land. My kid's safety comes first before some kid hell-bent on scoring a goal that will do anything to score that goal.