Chris Kamara

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It's nothing to do with the weight of the ball, it's the velocity of it.

Balls these days travel much faster so the impact is worse than the old balls of yesteryear.

F=ma suggests it’s both.

It’ll depend on the ratio of the changes that determines the new impact.

 

[KentBlue]

The only option then is to either ban heading altogether (think of the consequences of that happening) or players are issued with some kind of protection, like a crash helmet but not as big, maybe?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

All for it. Heading a ball surely must be bad for you over time. The game would change but so what.

I think the main issue is making sure that those who play football are aware of all the risks. In the case of boxing everyone knows it is dangerous (like many sports) so when they choose that life they are prepared for risk. The same culture must be introduced to football. Safeguards need to be introduced to protect players as much as possible but nothing will ever be 100 per cent safe.
Perhaps science and technology will also be able to help with things like lightweight headguards or different designs of balls. The problem with football is that, for too long, the authorities have been burying their heads in the sand about these risks (no pun intended). There needs to be transparency.

 

[halfcenturyup]

F=ma suggests it’s both.

It’ll depend on the ratio of the changes that determines the new impact.

m and a refer to the effect of force F on an object. The force itself in the case of football is derived from its mass, so how heavy it is, and its velocity on impact, ie how fast it is travelling. So while you were right in saying that both mass and velocity affect the impact of ball to head, you were wrong to imply that m and a refer to the ball. Unless you weren't trying to imply that, in which case I apologise and shut up.

Actually, I will shut up anyway.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

m and a refer to the effect of force F on an object. The force itself in the case of football is derived from its mass, so how heavy it is, and its velocity on impact, ie how fast it is travelling. So while you were right in saying that both mass and velocity affect the impact of ball to head, you were wrong to imply that m and a refer to the ball. Unless you weren't trying to imply that, in which case I apologise and shut up.

Actually, I will shut up anyway.

Nice use of velocity and not speed! :-)

 

[KS55]

Fuck me, it's the resurrect old threads day this week isn't it, first Sun Jihai and now this?

Just shows you what a week without a PL game leads to......

Next week: Billy Meredith

 

[inchy14]

However this is sad

Unbelievable.

Wish him all the best. Seems a nice bloke, never has a bad word to say about anyone and just enjoys his football. Shame.

 

[oakiecokie]

However this is sad

Wow I found that quite difficult to watch as I love Kammy and his infectious laugh and reporting.
Get well soon Kammy.

 

[moh]

Nice use of velocity and not speed! :-)

Yes but it’s acceleration. As in the rate of change of velocity as opposed to the velocity itself

If the velocity stays the same then the force stays the same

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Yes but it’s acceleration. As in the rate of change of velocity as opposed to the velocity itself

If the velocity stays the same then the force stays the same

Sure but they’re obviously linked. It doesn’t factor in distance, drag, wind, rain, thickness of skull etc.

I wasn’t trying to suggest it was the perfect equation to solve the heading issue, it was to show that a ball half the weight would have to accelerate at twice the rate to create the same force.