| Jeff Astle and his daughter 12:51 - Aug 24 with 1283 views | legoman |
Dont know if this is new news but just watched a report on GB News.
Apparently the old heavy footy balls from back in the day are less dangerous than todays lighter balls because the damage to the brain by kinetic energy is doubled by the faster speed of the lighter ball :( |  |
| |  |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 12:52 - Aug 24 with 1242 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
Bring back leather footballs that get heavier as they get wetter. |  |
| |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 12:54 - Aug 24 with 1226 views | legoman |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 12:52 - Aug 24 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Bring back leather footballs that get heavier as they get wetter. |
Modern tech to make them waterproof? | |
| |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:03 - Aug 24 with 1180 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
Not sure on the physics of this.
The kinetic energy transmitted to the ball is k.e. = 1/2 mv^2 so the speed will be greater. However, for the same amount of energy transferred, the velocity will only increase by its square root. Since the velocity is also decreased by air resistance as the ball travels through the air the k.e. from a modern football should reduce more rapidly at a greater velocity. The mass, however, only changes as the ball gets wetter or drier (much more of an issue with the old leather balls).
Additionally, the big issue is really momentum which is the simple product of mass x velocity.
Although I did play a small amount of football with a leather ball when I was young, I never headed the thing! I cannot believe that the forces involved with a wet, heavy leather football are anything other than much greater than with a lighter, modern ball.
The big issue is with the rate of change of velocity of the skull. If a head changes speed rapidly then the brain will come into contact with the skull with greater force. I suspect (but don't have the level of physics to be sure) that the heavier balls will have led to greater accelerations on the skull.
In short, I would like to see her working because this seems counter-intuitive. Ultimately, though, physics sometimes is.
EDIT: Think of it a little like, is it better to be hit by a lorry doing 10 mph or by a bicycle doing 15 mph? Of course, the answer is, I would rather avoid being hit by either! [Post edited 24 Aug 2021 13:09]
|  |
| |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:16 - Aug 24 with 1106 views | legoman |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:03 - Aug 24 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Not sure on the physics of this.
The kinetic energy transmitted to the ball is k.e. = 1/2 mv^2 so the speed will be greater. However, for the same amount of energy transferred, the velocity will only increase by its square root. Since the velocity is also decreased by air resistance as the ball travels through the air the k.e. from a modern football should reduce more rapidly at a greater velocity. The mass, however, only changes as the ball gets wetter or drier (much more of an issue with the old leather balls).
Additionally, the big issue is really momentum which is the simple product of mass x velocity.
Although I did play a small amount of football with a leather ball when I was young, I never headed the thing! I cannot believe that the forces involved with a wet, heavy leather football are anything other than much greater than with a lighter, modern ball.
The big issue is with the rate of change of velocity of the skull. If a head changes speed rapidly then the brain will come into contact with the skull with greater force. I suspect (but don't have the level of physics to be sure) that the heavier balls will have led to greater accelerations on the skull.
In short, I would like to see her working because this seems counter-intuitive. Ultimately, though, physics sometimes is.
EDIT: Think of it a little like, is it better to be hit by a lorry doing 10 mph or by a bicycle doing 15 mph? Of course, the answer is, I would rather avoid being hit by either! [Post edited 24 Aug 2021 13:09]
|
Thank you. I will follow Jeffs daughter and see if I can get more info. | |
| |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:23 - Aug 24 with 1063 views | PositivelyPortman |
GBeebies News so it must be true then?? 🤦ðŸ»â€â™‚ï¸ |  |
| |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:41 - Aug 24 with 995 views | legoman |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:23 - Aug 24 by PositivelyPortman |
GBeebies News so it must be true then?? 🤦ðŸ»â€â™‚ï¸ |
Since found it covered by all channels.
Lots of research and development is required to protect our hero's!
I obviously did not give you an up arrow. | |
| |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:42 - Aug 24 with 991 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:23 - Aug 24 by PositivelyPortman |
GBeebies News so it must be true then?? 🤦ðŸ»â€â™‚ï¸ |
Apart from the fact that 'heavy' old balls is an utter nonsense.
The legal max dry weight of a football is the same today as it was in 1937, as has been specified by Law 2: 14-16oz. Prior to 1937, the legal dry weight was actually lighter at 13-15oz.
The only difference between todays modern balls and the 40's/50's/60's is that now the ball doesn't gain weight in the wet. | |
| |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:49 - Aug 24 with 961 views | legoman |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:42 - Aug 24 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Apart from the fact that 'heavy' old balls is an utter nonsense.
The legal max dry weight of a football is the same today as it was in 1937, as has been specified by Law 2: 14-16oz. Prior to 1937, the legal dry weight was actually lighter at 13-15oz.
The only difference between todays modern balls and the 40's/50's/60's is that now the ball doesn't gain weight in the wet. |
I played with heavy waterlogged old balls at school back in the day....They hurt. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:53 - Aug 24 with 944 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:49 - Aug 24 by legoman |
I played with heavy waterlogged old balls at school back in the day....They hurt. |
Not as much as getting one across the legs on a cold frosty day in January.
We're still talking about football right? [Post edited 24 Aug 2021 13:53]
| |
| |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:58 - Aug 24 with 909 views | legoman |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:53 - Aug 24 by Cheltenham_Blue |
Not as much as getting one across the legs on a cold frosty day in January.
We're still talking about football right? [Post edited 24 Aug 2021 13:53]
|
Obviously every current footballer and wannabe footballers will want this study to be thorough.
I hope that the test comparisons include the kinetic energy of waterlogged balls of the past.
Errors must be admitted accepted and solved in every industry. | |
| |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 14:00 - Aug 24 with 893 views | Mullet |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:49 - Aug 24 by legoman |
I played with heavy waterlogged old balls at school back in the day....They hurt. |
Both of them? |  |
| |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 14:06 - Aug 24 with 847 views | legoman |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 14:00 - Aug 24 by Mullet |
Both of them? |
Bit sad and predictable comment on such a serious predicament. | |
| |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 14:31 - Aug 24 with 775 views | legoman |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 14:06 - Aug 24 by legoman |
Bit sad and predictable comment on such a serious predicament. |
I have spent much time in chiropractor and osteopath clinics for sports injuries, much of the time is spent on the neck area.
I wonder if the ricochet of impact is as much to blame as the skull impact?
We must keep caring. | |
| |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 15:53 - Aug 24 with 677 views | Kitman |
| Jeff Astle and his daughter on 13:41 - Aug 24 by legoman |
Since found it covered by all channels.
Lots of research and development is required to protect our hero's!
I obviously did not give you an up arrow. |
Got to be careful not to upset the leftie snowflakes if you admit to watching GB News... |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
