I don't know whether this term is used outside of Ireland, I'm not even sure it is used outside of Louth but we often refer to a foolish person here as a "Head-the-ball". If I was to guess why, I'd say it is the combination of two things: impracticality and stupidity. If you rise in the air, Roy of the Rovers (or Fernando Morientes) style to deliver the classic header, your feet aren't exactly on the ground. Likewise, a willingness to use one's skull to bat a hard leather ball travelling at speed would suggest a somewhat cavalier attitude to the contents of that container.
A certain amount of danger is present in almost every activity and soccer, while it can cause major leg injuries, is nowhere near as dangerous to the brain as, say, boxing. This hasn't stopped Australian neuropsychologist Rod Markham from writing to FIFA requesting a ban on heading the ball!
His second preference is to introduce protective headgear - although he should take a look at Ice Hockey if he thinks this will have a positive effect, head injuries have gone up with the introduction of mandatory headgear. I would say that, so long as people are aware of the risks, it is ridiculous to try and micromanage safety in sport. Why not make sure Formula 1 drivers conform to the speed limit? after all speed kills!
Frank, my wife sometimes uses "head the ball", which I had assumed was a Dublin expression. So, it's obviously not just Dublin or Louth.
Now, as for the NHL's headgear and the number of head injuries, I'm not sure there's any link between hockey and soccer here. Hockey players with helmets have suffered far more head injuries, but the explanations as to why this is vary. I tend to accept that in the days before helmets, the players accepted the unwritten rule against targeting the other guy's head - either with your stick or when checking.
You need to read about Don Cherry, who argued against mandatory helmets 25 years ago and has been proven right in time.
Posted by: John | May 26, 2004 at 12:50 PM
I have read about Don Cherry, albeit through Colby Cosh's blog but I think the point holds. If you have a helmet you feel invincible, and you feel the other guy is also invincible so you are more likely to indulge in riskier behaviour, riskier for you or the other guy.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | May 26, 2004 at 01:03 PM
Actually, it's not so much that you think you're invincible when you have a ice hockey helmet on. It's more that the OTHER guys thninks it's ok to take more liberties.
Though, it's also questionable to assert a direct link between more injuries and mandatory helmets. One OTHER difference between the late 70s and today is the makeup of the ice hockey player. Back then, players were either big or fast. Now, they're both.
Posted by: Brian | May 26, 2004 at 01:59 PM
Though I'm a bit concerned about this banning the header thing. Right now, it meets with general derision. But radical changes often start out meeting general derision but slowly gain traction.
Posted by: Brian | May 26, 2004 at 02:01 PM
Besides, poorly executed, reckless or malicious slide tackles cause far more damage than headers.
Posted by: Brian | May 26, 2004 at 02:02 PM
But radical changes often start out meeting general derision but slowly gain traction.
Quite right: The "boiled frog" syndrome - Nobody ever specifically voted for the level of government intrusion into quotidian life considered normal these days, it just expanded due to apathy and inertia. Ireland's workplace smoking ban is a good example.
Besides, poorly executed, reckless or malicious slide tackles cause far more damage than headers.
I thoroughly agree. The thing is, poor old Jeff Astle aside, it's not like there is an epidemic of footballers with brain-damage or dying from head injuries but there are countless footballers with serious leg injuries and many have been crippled. What's more, a Race/Morientes-style headed goal is a thing of beauty. A sliding, crunching, studs-first tackle is a sickening sight, no matter whether incompetence, carelessness or malice is behind it.
Posted by: Frank McGahon | May 26, 2004 at 02:56 PM
You mentioned boxing.
The introduction of boxing gloves is probably responsible for more life-threatening and life-quality-reducing injuries than any other single factor.
In the days of bare-knuckle boxing, broken hands and smashed jaws brought fights (and careers) to a close long before repeated blows to the head could injure the brain. Broken bones are painful then they mend, but they don´t kill.
Protecting the hands with gloves turns them into blunt clubs ideal for repeated battering of opponents. Poor old Mohammed Ali.
T o n y
www.tallrite.com/blog.htm
Posted by: Tony | May 28, 2004 at 01:28 PM
Interesting observation!
Posted by: Frank McGahon | May 28, 2004 at 02:18 PM