The game’s lawmakers have rejected an interim replacement ruling for concussions in the Premier League and two other competitions next season, a move criticized by players’ unions, leagues and activists.
Here, the Palestinian News Agency looks at the main issues.
What is the background to this?
The global players’ union, FIFPRO, has advocated testing of temporary concussion replacements for nearly a decade. Last month, FIFPRO and the World Leagues Forum wrote to the FIFA Council, which governs the laws of the game around the world, requesting permission to run interim concussion replacement tests for upcoming seasons of the English Premier League and France’s top-flight Ligue 1 and Major League Soccer. Major League Soccer (MLS) in the United States.
Why would these groups want to do this experiment?
The temporary replacement protocol gives doctors a longer period of time to assess players with a head injury — 10 minutes, versus three minutes under the permanent concussion replacement protocol currently being tested. It also allows clinicians to perform this assessment out of the field rather than in the field. Therefore, its advocates feel that the temporary approach better protects players from brain injury, at a time when studies have found that football players are more likely to die from neurodegenerative diseases than the general population.
There is an acceptance that even with a 10-minute assessment some concussions will be missed, but this will provide additional time to identify a greater number of less obvious injuries than with a three-minute assessment.
What did the International Football Association Board decide?
The International Football Association Board failed to reach consensus at its annual business meeting at Wembley on Wednesday. Mark Bullingham, CEO of the Football Association and Director of the International Federation of Football Associations, said that this means that there will be no support for conducting a trial next season.
The Football Association has been coordinating international efforts to support the experiment, and it is understood that the experiment has majority support among the four UK associations heading into Wednesday’s meeting.
If enough FAs support testing, why isn’t this happening?
The four associations in the United Kingdom account for four-fifths of the International Football Association Board (IFAB), the last being FIFA. When it comes to the annual general meetings of the FIFA Council for ratification, FIFA has four votes, while the British associations have one vote each, with the 75 per cent majority required to pass the motions. Therefore, virtually any application submitted to the IFAB requires the support of FIFA.
Why didn’t FIFA support him?
FIFA considers that the permanent concussion replacement model, when applied correctly, is safer. His mantra about head injuries is “Don’t trust and protect” – and his argument is that if you think you need a temporary replacement to evaluate a player, it means that a concussion is already suspected.
He cites data that up to 25% of players who undergo a longer assessment for head injuries in other sports such as rugby are later diagnosed with a concussion despite being deemed fit to play – so-called ‘false negatives’.
He might argue that permanent substitutions come with a zero percent risk of false negatives because if a concussion is suspected after three minutes, the player is taken off.
What is the harm in testing temporary concussion replacements?
No proper answer has been given to this question yet. The possibility of “false negatives” from longer ratings is a potential “harm” that opponents of the secondary ruling related to concussions might anticipate, but leagues and federations will vigorously oppose.
What does the International Football Association Board do in the event of a concussion, then?
Temporary concussion replacement attempts will be kept under Active Review, but the focus is on ensuring the current permanent concussion subprotocol is properly applied and players are dropped when a concussion is suspected. It was accepted that there were a number of instances where the protocol was not applied properly and infected players were allowed to remain, but it is understood that no specific ways to improve the existing protocol were discussed at ABM. Permanent concussion replacement trials have been given the go-ahead to continue indefinitely by the International Football Association Board (IFAB).
What is the reaction to the decision of the International Football Association Board?
Adam White, head of brain health at the Professional Footballers’ Association, said the decision was “extremely disappointing”. Penny Watson, wife of former England captain Dave Watson, who now suffers from dementia, described it as “crazy”.
what happened after that?
The unions and associations that submitted the original application are now considering their options. Lobbying for a change of heart at the IFAB’s annual general meeting in March appears doomed to failure, and in any case, it is too late for MLS to come up with a protocol for starting its new season on February 25th.
Will MLS be ready to challenge the IFAB and go ahead with the experiment? Does FIFA punish the American League if this happens? Can other leagues follow suit? See this space.
The game’s lawmakers have rejected an interim replacement ruling for concussions in the Premier League and two other competitions next season, a move criticized by players’ unions, leagues and activists.
Here, the Palestinian News Agency looks at the main issues.
What is the background to this?
The global players’ union, FIFPRO, has advocated testing of temporary concussion replacements for nearly a decade. Last month, FIFPRO and the World Leagues Forum wrote to the FIFA Council, which governs the laws of the game around the world, requesting permission to run interim concussion replacement tests for upcoming seasons of the English Premier League and France’s top-flight Ligue 1 and Major League Soccer. Major League Soccer (MLS) in the United States.
Why would these groups want to do this experiment?
The temporary replacement protocol gives doctors a longer period of time to assess players with a head injury — 10 minutes, versus three minutes under the permanent concussion replacement protocol currently being tested. It also allows clinicians to perform this assessment out of the field rather than in the field. Therefore, its advocates feel that the temporary approach better protects players from brain injury, at a time when studies have found that football players are more likely to die from neurodegenerative diseases than the general population.
There is an acceptance that even with a 10-minute assessment some concussions will be missed, but this will provide additional time to identify a greater number of less obvious injuries than with a three-minute assessment.
What did the International Football Association Board decide?
The International Football Association Board failed to reach consensus at its annual business meeting at Wembley on Wednesday. Mark Bullingham, CEO of the Football Association and Director of the International Federation of Football Associations, said that this means that there will be no support for conducting a trial next season.
The Football Association has been coordinating international efforts to support the experiment, and it is understood that the experiment has majority support among the four UK associations heading into Wednesday’s meeting.
If enough FAs support testing, why isn’t this happening?
The four associations in the United Kingdom account for four-fifths of the International Football Association Board (IFAB), the last being FIFA. When it comes to the annual general meetings of the FIFA Council for ratification, FIFA has four votes, while the British associations have one vote each, with a majority of 75 per cent required to pass the motions. Therefore, virtually any application submitted to the IFAB requires the support of FIFA.
Why didn’t FIFA support him?
FIFA considers that the permanent concussion replacement model, when applied correctly, is safer. His motto about head injuries is “Don’t trust and protect” – and his argument is that if you think you need a temporary replacement for player evaluation, a concussion is already suspected.
He cites data that up to 25% of players who undergo a longer assessment for head injuries in other sports such as rugby are later diagnosed with a concussion despite being deemed fit to play – so-called ‘false negatives’.
He might argue that permanent substitutions come with a zero percent risk of false negatives because if a concussion is suspected after three minutes, the player is taken off.
What is the harm in testing temporary concussion replacements?
No proper answer has been given to this question yet. The possibility of “false negatives” from longer ratings is a potential “harm” that opponents of the secondary ruling related to concussions might anticipate, but leagues and federations will vigorously oppose.
What does the International Football Association Board do in the event of a concussion, then?
Temporary concussion replacement attempts will be kept under Active Review, but the focus is on ensuring the current permanent concussion subprotocol is properly applied and players are dropped when a concussion is suspected. It was accepted that there were a number of instances where the protocol was not applied properly and infected players were allowed to remain, but it is understood that no specific ways to improve the existing protocol were discussed at ABM. Permanent concussion replacement trials have been given the go-ahead to continue indefinitely by the International Football Association Board (IFAB).
What is the reaction to the decision of the International Football Association Board?
Adam White, head of brain health at the Professional Footballers’ Association, said the decision was “extremely disappointing”. Penny Watson, wife of former England captain Dave Watson, who now suffers from dementia, described it as “crazy”.
what happened after that?
The unions and associations that submitted the original application are now considering their options. Lobbying for a change of heart at the IFAB’s annual general meeting in March appears doomed to failure, and in any case, it is too late for MLS to come up with a protocol for starting its new season on February 25th.
Will MLS be ready to challenge the IFAB and go ahead with the experiment? Does FIFA punish the American League if this happens? Can other leagues follow suit? See this space.
“Lifelong web fan. Incurable internet junkie. Avid bacon guru. Social media geek. Reader. Freelance food scholar.”
