Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
What do you think is the answer? (serious question, I'm not having a go)
Concussions and Protecting Our Players
- Thread starter USARugger
- Start date
What do you think is the answer? (serious question, I'm not having a go)
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I think the difficulty with this is that in most societies we don't think children can give informed consent to participate in potentially dangerous activities, for the most part, until they are 16-18. Alcohol, cigarettes, sex etc.
So, it might be enough to say 'i accept the risk' as an adult. Can't be the answer for kids. They should just make it tag or touch until 16 or so.
zer0
John Thornett (49)
Just about anything is a potentially dangerous activity. If you're going to ban anything remotely dangerous based on low incident rates, then better be safe than sorry and just ban all sports/physical activity until you're no longer a legal minor. Might also want to have a damned good health system in place before hand, mind. Cos many them kids gonna be right little fatties. And not in the endearing prop way.
If you're not allowed any serious contact until 16 -- and, presumably, meaning that you can't learn how to tackle properly prior -- then I imagine injury rates will sky rocket at that age. Particularly amongst boys as they'd finally be allowed to flatten each other, but will not know how to tackle safely as they wouldn't have been taught that due to the ban on physical contact.
I don't know about Australia, but this is exactly what happens in NZ with alcohol. The old Anglican puritan hangover means there's f*ck all education for <18's, but once 18 they're turned loose like a fox in a henhouse. Hence the ridiculous binge drinking culture. Apply that to rugby, and I think it's easy to see how it can cause more harm than good, as you have testosterone fuelled teenage idiots trying to smash each other in an unsafe environment.
If you're not allowed any serious contact until 16 -- and, presumably, meaning that you can't learn how to tackle properly prior -- then I imagine injury rates will sky rocket at that age. Particularly amongst boys as they'd finally be allowed to flatten each other, but will not know how to tackle safely as they wouldn't have been taught that due to the ban on physical contact.
I don't know about Australia, but this is exactly what happens in NZ with alcohol. The old Anglican puritan hangover means there's f*ck all education for <18's, but once 18 they're turned loose like a fox in a henhouse. Hence the ridiculous binge drinking culture. Apply that to rugby, and I think it's easy to see how it can cause more harm than good, as you have testosterone fuelled teenage idiots trying to smash each other in an unsafe environment.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Well it's about degree of risk for the activity, isn't it. The more we learn about our brains, the more we realise how much damage playing rugby actually does.
Soccer, as an example, still causes brain trauma but to a far lesser extent. So you have to determine where the line is, which is tough.
I agree with your second point. Boozing culture is largely the same, although most people get stuck in well before 18.
Soccer, as an example, still causes brain trauma but to a far lesser extent. So you have to determine where the line is, which is tough.
I agree with your second point. Boozing culture is largely the same, although most people get stuck in well before 18.
The Honey Badger
Jim Lenehan (48)
There is no easy answer.
The simplest solution would be to follow American Football and adopt protective sports wear.
The reason Hard helmets are worn is because of the number of deaths and injury caused by the sport. I am not necessarily advocating hard helmets but the NFL mandated the wearing of Helments around 1950.
The modern NFL helmet is smart and measures force and impact and relelys the information to the sideline. They also have chinstrap that indicate a potential head injury.
So potentially there is alot that can be done to protect and better manage head injury.
Obviously would require a big rethink of the rules of what is currently permitted.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Yes, there's an inherent risk of injury, but 3 otherwise fit and healthy young men dying playing a game is a bit more than that.
There's also been 3 cases of serious spinal injuries in Brisbane school rugby and another one at a RA junior 7s training session.
As far as my memory goes, the incidence of these injuries seems to be on the increase.
Your somewhat glib response reminds me of the officer who reported to his superior after the charge of Beersheba in WW1 "We only lost 30 men sir, it's a miracle." To which the commander is said to have replied "Not if you're one of them."
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
They could start by making the carrier as responsible for the outcome of a tackle as the tackler. Everything points to tacklers being at greater risk than carriers yet the onus is 100% on the tackler to ensure the carrier's head isn't contacted even if the contact is accidental and/ or incidental.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I agree with that. The silliest recent law amendment was the one which said it was a high tackle even if the tackled player fell into it.
The Honey Badger
Jim Lenehan (48)
Rugby law 108 F vii
The player carrying the ball shall remain bolt upright and must run in a true and constant forward direction. He must not change his running posture or running direction before the point of collision with the tackler.
Sanction: yellow card for sudden change of running posture or direction for ball carrier.
There simple.
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
Perhaps you're being a little harsh there HB. Millenia of human instinct tells us to brace ourselves for impact.
Player carrying the ball should have to accept consequences when he lowers his head below shoulder height though.
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
Honey Badger super keen to see how many times you can run bolt upright into someone before your ribs crack, let me know how it goes
You’re also waving goodbye to any sort of sidestep because that involves changing direction or any sort of non premeditated overs or unders hole running
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Ditto "bracing for impact" by turning side-on & presenting the shoulder & upper arm.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Sarcasm detector failing?
southsider
Arch Winning (36)
The Honey Badger
Jim Lenehan (48)
Are you saying this should be outlawed?
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
^ if a defender does it & it doesn't end well it likely gets called a shoulder charge & penalised or carded. Same should apply if the carrier does it. By extension you shouldn't be able to fend above the allowable tackle line, either.
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
Interesting article re insurance coverage for contact sports in America. Coming to a sport and a country near you very soon.
http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id...ing-major-threat-nfl-pop-warner-colleges-espn
http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id...ing-major-threat-nfl-pop-warner-colleges-espn
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Pat Lambie forced to retire at 28 as the result of multiple concussions:
https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/i...pat-lambie-retires-after-multiple-concussions
https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/i...pat-lambie-retires-after-multiple-concussions
dru
David Wilson (68)
Yes I saw this on the weekend. Devastating for the bloke a real talent who will be missed by the world of rugby.