Chris Chilton (1 Viewer)

Irish Sky Blue · Nov 17, 2020

Chris Chilton was a centre forward bought by Noel Cantwell in the early 70s. He played most of his career for Hull and arrived at City and in the top flight quite late in his career. He didn't have the best of times with us and I think he was forced to retire through injury not to long after signing.
Like most centre forwards in those days, a large part of his job was to win the ball in the air.
Chris and his son featured on the national news today, as sadly Chris is suffering from dementia. They were on the news item as it was reporting on the campaign by the Stiles family to highlight the plight of many old footballers suffering with dementia.
The figures show that footballers suffer much more from dementia than the general population with the reason seeming to be the amount of times that they head the ball.
I don't know what the solution to this will be. Heading the ball is such an integral part of the game that it is hard to see how it could ever be banned. How can you therefore protect the players from what may happen in later life?

fernandopartridge · Nov 18, 2020

Irish Sky Blue said:
Chris Chilton was a centre forward bought by Noel Cantwell in the early 70s. He played most of his career for Hull and arrived at City and in the top flight quite late in his career. He didn't have the best of times with us and I think he was forced to retire through injury not to long after signing.
Like most centre forwards in those days, a large part of his job was to win the ball in the air.
Chris and his son featured on the national news today, as sadly Chris is suffering from dementia. They were on the news item as it was reporting on the campaign by the Stiles family to highlight the plight of many old footballers suffering with dementia.
The figures show that footballers suffer much more from dementia than the general population with the reason seeming to be the amount of times that they head the ball.
I don't know what the solution to this will be. Heading the ball is such an integral part of the game that it is hard to see how it could ever be banned. How can you therefore protect the players from what may happen in later life?

I've heard about this association before. I think it's linked to the heavier balls of days gone by. Today's ball is very lightweight in comparison.

You'd hope that the PFA can support ex pros much better than it seems to

aloisijohnnyaloisi · Nov 18, 2020

It's a very interesting point. I guess it'll be 2-3 decades before we know if the lighter footballs they use these days make much of a difference. Having experienced dementia in the family I certainly hope they do. It's hard to imagine football without heading, but at what cost?

I know they've already banned heading for U'12's in training which is a good move, given kids sculls aren't fully developed.

Shearer made an interesting documentary on the topic a few years ago. He makes the point that professional footballers are at much higher risk, given the repetition of heading the ball in training 5 days a week.

Maybe they'll just stop practicing heading and one day Kevin Kyle will look relatively effective at getting on the end of a cross.

rob9872 · Nov 18, 2020

It's a shame, but they were in a chosen profession and earned well generally. Money isn't everything and a lot more sympathy with those from the 70s who not only had the heavier balls, but didn't have the benefit of any science to make choices, but similarly many possibly cant walk due to tackles that were allowed back then and where is the line? Most of the news (I dont know cc's case so can't comment directly) is claim related, but I was brought up heading a ball as I imagine many on here were. As a tall lad who was also a central defender for a few years, possibly headed it more than others but the compensation is only about the pro game. It's unfortunate, but it should be about the learnings for tomorrow's kids rather than the benefit of yesterday's heroes.

stevefloyd · Nov 18, 2020

fernandopartridge said:
I've heard about this association before. I think it's linked to the heavier balls of days gone by. Today's ball is very lightweight in comparison.

You'd hope that the PFA can support ex pros much better than it seems to

When you used to head the old cased balls when it was in the wet it was like heading a lump of concrete as you say balls these days are so much lighter

speedie87 · Nov 18, 2020

The new balls are lighter however because of that they Travel a lot quicker and therefore the force when heading it can be just as high as a slower moving heavier ball

cc84cov · Nov 18, 2020

Irish Sky Blue said:
Chris Chilton was a centre forward bought by Noel Cantwell in the early 70s. He played most of his career for Hull and arrived at City and in the top flight quite late in his career. He didn't have the best of times with us and I think he was forced to retire through injury not to long after signing.
Like most centre forwards in those days, a large part of his job was to win the ball in the air.
Chris and his son featured on the national news today, as sadly Chris is suffering from dementia. They were on the news item as it was reporting on the campaign by the Stiles family to highlight the plight of many old footballers suffering with dementia.
The figures show that footballers suffer much more from dementia than the general population with the reason seeming to be the amount of times that they head the ball.
I don't know what the solution to this will be. Heading the ball is such an integral part of the game that it is hard to see how it could ever be banned. How can you therefore protect the players from what may happen in later life?

NFL issue with CTE is a lot worse they attempt to put things in place but you’ll never stop it.

Flying Fokker · Nov 18, 2020

speedie87 said:
The new balls are lighter however because of that they Travel a lot quicker and therefore the force when heading it can be just as high as a slower moving heavier ball

It would be interesting to see the science behind that (On the Internet) Sadly, there are too many rabbit holes for me to go down.

the rumpo kid · Nov 18, 2020

stevefloyd said:
When you used to head the old cased balls when it was in the wet it was like heading a lump of concrete as you say balls these days are so much lighter

Totally agree with this, and as for balls traveling faster now ,a cross or a goal kick headed away wouldn't cause nearly as much damage with today's lighter balls, I would say the only time the lighter ball would be even similar to the old leather ball is if you were hit in the head by a direct shot.

Terry Gibson's perm · Nov 18, 2020

The PFA seem only to help themselves paying massive salaries to the executives and fine art on the walls of their London base, all of this money should be going to helping former players who have come on hard times.

shmmeee · Nov 18, 2020

Flying Fokker said:
It would be interesting to see the science behind that (On the Internet) Sadly, there are too many rabbit holes for me to go down.

Newton's Second Law - Forces, acceleration and Newton's laws - AQA - GCSE Combined Science Revision - AQA Trilogy - BBC Bitesize

Learn about and revise terminal velocity, Newton's Laws and braking forces with GCSE Bitesize Combined Science.

www.bbc.co.uk

chiefdave · Nov 18, 2020

Obviously if there's an issue it needs to be investigated but where do you stop? Ban heading as the rate of dementia is higher among footballers than the general population? So by the same logic do you ban tackles as I would say the rate of broken legs is higher in players.

Also find it odd that the spotlight seems to be on football, what about boxing, MMA, rugby or other sports that seem far more likely to cause issues?

Sky Blue Harry H · Nov 18, 2020

Mentioned it before, but with today's technology available you would think a protective skull cap/ head band could be developed - likely to reduce head collision wounds/concussions/long term effects? Especially something that offers protection, yet doesn't greatly affect the movement of the ball/ability to head it 'normally'. Let's face it, how many times have we sat and winced as spectators when two players have collided in an aerial challenge? Seems crazy to me that nothing has been developed (with such an obvious lucrative/H&S demand for such a product).

TomRad85 · Nov 18, 2020

Sky Blue Harry H said:
Mentioned it before, but with today's technology available you would think a protective skull cap/ head band could be developed - likely to reduce head collision wounds/concussions/long term effects? Especially something that offers protection, yet doesn't greatly affect the movement of the ball/ability to head it 'normally'. Let's face it, how many times have we sat and winced as spectators when two players have collided in an aerial challenge? Seems crazy to me that nothing has been developed (with such an obvious lucrative/H&S demand for such a product).

Was thinking exactly the same. If its a genuine problem this is the way forward.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

rob9872 · Nov 18, 2020

Sky Blue Harry H said:
Mentioned it before, but with today's technology available you would think a protective skull cap/ head band could be developed - likely to reduce head collision wounds/concussions/long term effects? Especially something that offers protection, yet doesn't greatly affect the movement of the ball/ability to head it 'normally'. Let's face it, how many times have we sat and winced as spectators when two players have collided in an aerial challenge? Seems crazy to me that nothing has been developed (with such an obvious lucrative/H&S demand for such a product).

Amazed Sky or the EPL haven't been pushing this with such an obvious sponsorship opportunity too!

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 18, 2020

cc84cov said:
NFL issue with CTE is a lot worse they attempt to put things in place but you’ll never stop it.

That's a big issue but at the same time the players talk about the worry of it when they retire then go and celebrate a sack/TD by smacking their helmets together (Ooh, matron!).

They almost all seem to tackle head first, head down or just throw themselves in front of the player rather than trying to 'wrap up' the opponent like in rugby.

So they can be their own worst enemy.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 18, 2020

speedie87 said:
The new balls are lighter however because of that they Travel a lot quicker and therefore the force when heading it can be just as high as a slower moving heavier ball

Decent point. Also with better, lighter boots players can strike the ball harder too so you're robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I guess it'd be easy to prove scientifically. Group of people with old boots and old balls strike them against a force plate numerous times to create a data set, then repeat with new boots and balls. Some would do the new balls first to allow comparison for potential fatigue.

David O'Day · Nov 18, 2020

the rumpo kid said:
Totally agree with this, and as for balls traveling faster now ,a cross or a goal kick headed away wouldn't cause nearly as much damage with today's lighter balls, I would say the only time the lighter ball would be even similar to the old leather ball is if you were hit in the head by a direct shot.

You may want to take that up with Isaac Newton

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 18, 2020

Sky Blue Harry H said:
Mentioned it before, but with today's technology available you would think a protective skull cap/ head band could be developed - likely to reduce head collision wounds/concussions/long term effects? Especially something that offers protection, yet doesn't greatly affect the movement of the ball/ability to head it 'normally'. Let's face it, how many times have we sat and winced as spectators when two players have collided in an aerial challenge? Seems crazy to me that nothing has been developed (with such an obvious lucrative/H&S demand for such a product).

This is part of the argument about helmets in the NFL.

One is that the helmets give a sense of invulnerability to the player and are actually more likely to do something that will put them at risk because they feel protected.

Also such devices don't stop internal movement of the brain within the skull so things like concussions, bruising etc aren't really avoided at all. It can cushion the impact somewhat but the fact that your head will have it's momentum arrested to a degree by performing the action but your brain won't is still the issue.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 18, 2020

I'd have thought this will eventually be treated like work-related conditions such as those suffering from working with vibrating tools.

Of course the issue being many people who aren't footballers also develop dementia, so the causal link is hard to confirm and thus affect a claim for compensation. But they could surely count it as a contributing factor, especially in early onset dementia.

cc84cov · Nov 18, 2020

Aaron Hernandez story on Netflix touched on the effects of CTE

the rumpo kid · Nov 18, 2020

David O'Day said:
You may want to take that up with Isaac Newton

You may want to take it up with a football

David O'Day · Nov 18, 2020

the rumpo kid said:
You may want to take it up with a football

Why aren't they subject to Newtons second law i.e. F=MA like everything else in the universe?

the rumpo kid · Nov 18, 2020

Put it like this, I'd rather be hit by a ballon traveling at 70 mph than a brick traveling at 70mph.
We've already come to the conclusion that the modern ball is lighter.

David O'Day · Nov 18, 2020

the rumpo kid said:
Put it like this, I'd rather be hit by a ballon traveling at 70 mph than a brick traveling at 70mph.
We've already come to the conclusion that the modern ball is lighter.

But that is not what people have said is it.

The conclusion was lighter balls can travel at faster speeds and have greater rates of acceleration which as per newtons 2nd law can generate the same force as heavy objects.

It's Force = Mass x Acceleration

the rumpo kid · Nov 18, 2020

Best idea for you is get an old leather ball and a new Mach ball soak them in water for 90 mins then get someone to drop you on your head, I mean drop them on your head let me know when your out of concusion which hurts more.

David O'Day · Nov 18, 2020

the rumpo kid said:
Best idea for you is get an old leather ball and a new Mach ball soak them in water for 90 mins then get someone to drop you on your head, I mean drop them on your head let me know when your out of concusion which hurts more.

You may want to take that up with Galileo as his leaning tower of Pisa experiment showed that objects of differing masses with only the force of gravity on them have the same rate of descent so the acceleration of part on newtons 2nd law is the same.

Briles · Nov 18, 2020

Film called concussion with Will Smith really worth a watch. Based on this guys findings with American footballers.

Bennet Omalu - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

clarriebourton · Nov 19, 2020

I mentioned a Gofundme campaign for Chilton in my column last week.

Jim Brown's Journal

A selection of writings and thoughts about Coventry City's glorious history

jimbrownsjournal.blogspot.com

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

BornSlippySkyBlue · Nov 19, 2020

fernandopartridge said:
I've heard about this association before. I think it's linked to the heavier balls of days gone by. Today's ball is very lightweight in comparison.

You'd hope that the PFA can support ex pros much better than it seems to

As it goes, this is a myth. The weight of a (dry) football has hardly changed as it is specified in the laws of the game. The specifications have changed in that they are now grams rather than ounces, but the actual weight isn’t much different. The main difference is that modern balls are made from different materials and don’t absorb water, so the weight doesn’t increase during the game, but even old balls didn’t actually get that much heavier when wet (2-3grams according to linked article).

Also, bit out of date, but here is an article about how similar the dangers are of modern balls vs old ones:

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Modern footballs 'not much safer'

news.bbc.co.uk

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 19, 2020

the rumpo kid said:
Put it like this, I'd rather be hit by a ballon traveling at 70 mph than a brick traveling at 70mph.
We've already come to the conclusion that the modern ball is lighter.

But we've also pointed out that that ball will be able to be struck harder and travel faster, especially with better equipment like boots designed to transfer the power more efficiently.

In your example of dropping the ball you're not taking that into account. It's more akin to dropping the old heavy football while the newer one is being fired out of a machine.

Mass has gone down, acceleration has gone up.

BornSlippySkyBlue · Nov 19, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
But we've also pointed out that that ball will be able to be struck harder and travel faster, especially with better equipment like boots designed to transfer the power more efficiently.

In your example of dropping the ball you're not taking that into account. It's more akin to dropping the old heavy football while the newer one is being fired out of a machine.

Mass has gone down, acceleration has gone up.

No it hasn’t.
Edit:

An Enduring Football Myth: The Weight of the Ball – More Than Mind Games

www.morethanmindgames.com

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 19, 2020

BornSlippySkyBlue said:
No it hasn’t.
Edit:

An Enduring Football Myth: The Weight of the Ball – More Than Mind Games

www.morethanmindgames.com

So it isn't absorbing water and getting heavier in that manner. But in the old days when balls did as it meant footballers couldn't kick the wet ball as hard or quick as the dry one.

Try it. Kick a bucket. Then fill the bucket with water and kick it again. Tell me which goes furthest and fastest.

the rumpo kid · Nov 19, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
But we've also pointed out that that ball will be able to be struck harder and travel faster, especially with better equipment like boots designed to transfer the power more efficiently.

In your example of dropping the ball you're not taking that into account. It's more akin to dropping the old heavy football while the newer one is being fired out of a machine.

Mass has gone down, acceleration has gone up.

It would have to be moving like an express train.

BornSlippySkyBlue · Nov 19, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
So it isn't absorbing water and getting heavier in that manner. But in the old days when balls did as it meant footballers couldn't kick the wet ball as hard or quick as the dry one.

Try it. Kick a bucket. Then fill the bucket with water and kick it again. Tell me which goes furthest and fastest.

I’m aware that heavier things take more energy to move, but as the articles above point out, they didn’t actually absorb much water, certainly not a bucketful. According to one of those articles they soaked an old-style leather ball in water and it gained 2-3 grams. Even with my knackered legs that wouldn’t make much difference.

I know we all ‘seem to remember’ them being heavy, but apparently not.

“An enduring myth”.

Chris Chilton (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency