Concussions and Protecting Our Players

[Tex]

Let's hope that's not the case!

Maybe there's a model in the over-age competitions, at least for community sport below 1st/2nd divisions? Modified contact rules (not that I can tell what those modifications are!). Essentially anything to retain the culture and community aspects.

It strikes me that many of these contact rule changes feel like a kicking of the can. The players aren't getting smaller or slower, nor is the field getting wider. Heavy contact at speed is still going to be a factor of the game, arguably core to it. As many in the thread have pointed out, it's very easy to be clobbered when attempting a chop tackle and getting your head inside the hip.

 

[Braveheart81]

I feel like there is a happy medium to be found here. You can't make sports completely safe but you can a fair bit to reduce the prevalence of high risk events.

Concussion will always be a feature of any contact sport and a risk to some degree in most non-contact sports for that matter.

 

[Rob42]

I don't have kids but if I did they'd be steered to touch rugby or ballroom dancing before 15s or 7s rugby. Hurts a bit to say it as I bled for the game growing up, but the cumulative risk of a permanent disability is not outweighed by the important benefits of the sport, namely fitness.

The social side of contributing to a club or team is trickier to replace, as it's still one of the unspoiled gems of rugby. Not sure you get that network of diverse individuals and families in a ballroom dancing studio...

My son played from 6 years of age up until the end of school, with a break for a couple of years in his early teens. I'd do the same today. In that time, I only saw a very small number of concussions across the games he played, maybe 3 or so, and none serious (all players, my son didn't suffer any) - of course there would have been others not detected. In the younger years (playing tackle from U8 onwards), the impacts are so low in energy it's hard to believe the risk is serious - the boys run around in a mob, barely anyone runs more than 2 metres before being tackled, and most of the tackles are side-on or behind.

I think tackling should remain in those younger years, because it's far better for players to learn the tackle process in those conditions, than when they're 13 or older, and the impacts can be much higher in energy.

And watching his team learn tackling, scrummaging and ruck work as 8 and 9 year olds made me fall in love with the game again. Touch rugby for the younger kids naturally favours the future backline stars, with the slower and bigger kids not enjoying it so much. But watching the bigger kids realise that they have a critical part to play in the game, securing and winning the ball, pushing in scrums etc, you'd just see a light come on and suddenly they loved the game. Very hard to replicate without contact.

Of course I don't want anyone to face life-long consequences from head knocks. But as BH says, I think, we can reach a happy medium.

 

[LeCheese]

I think tackling should remain in those younger years, because it's far better for players to learn the tackle process in those conditions, than when they're 13 or older, and the impacts can be much higher in energy.

On this, I think there needs to be more serious thought given to some form of weight classification in the younger years and early-to-mid teens. Obviously there are other considerations (kids being cruel, wanting to play with mates, etc.), but a 75%+ difference sure makes it tricky to compete safely.

 

[Wallaby Man]

Extremely informative and great debate from Ross Tucker and JB (EggChasers podcast) on Rugby Offloads podcast. I’d recommend most interested in this topic to listen.

Biggest thing I got from it is a lot of the pro risk limitation brigade have got Ross Tuckers position all wrong. He’s actually more pro moderate changes than drastic ones

Both come across very informed and intelligent in having civilized debate

 

[Proud Pig]

When I was a lad I was a bit of a physical specimen. I was 14 years old and 6 foot 2 inches tall and built like the proverbial brick outhouse. While I was the tallest player in the team I still played in the front row. I continued playing front row as the other kids caught up to me in height and some in size (but not many if truth be told).

I was concussed a few times throughout my time playing the game, but I was never concussed from a high shot even though I coped a fair few, particularly playing as an adult. The worst concussions I received were from when I had my feet taken out from under me by a low chopping tackle and my head hit the ground. The majority of concussions that I was involved in, and I was involved in more than I received, were to smaller players trying to tackle me around knees and hips.

I just worry that lowering the tackle height to waist and below, which should help with the head clashes and shoulder hits etc..., will inadvertently cause a greater number and more severe concussions to the tackler. If the ref was strict with a bicep, chest and below I think that would aid the situation greatly.

I have been lucky as I haven't seen any real long term effects of the concussions I received and as I am now in my 50s I think any potential repercussions would have already raised their heads. However even though I haven't been directly impacted I believe that we need to remove some of the risks from the game due to concussion. My concern though is that with this particular approach we may make things worse rather than better.

 

[Braveheart81]

I just worry that lowering the tackle height to waist and below, which should help with the head clashes and shoulder hits etc..., will inadvertently cause a greater number and more severe concussions to the tackler. If the ref was strict with a bicep, chest and below I think that would aid the situation greatly.

I still think we're talking about very few tackles here.

The tackle where the player was going to try and smash someone in the chest now needs to be around the midriff. You're essentially trying to tackle at belly button height.

I don't see how players making a tackle at that height are suddenly going to cop a knee or a hip to the head.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I don't see how players making a tackle at that height are suddenly going to cop a knee or a hip to the head.

You're right. A potential risk becomes the attacker lifting knees into the tackle. You see this quite a bit in League and Sua'ali'i'i has been guilty of this a number of times. Nothing a couple of yellows won't fix up though

 

[Proud Pig]

I still think we're talking about very few tackles here.

The tackle where the player was going to try and smash someone in the chest now needs to be around the midriff. You're essentially trying to tackle at belly button height.

I don't see how players making a tackle at that height are suddenly going to cop a knee or a hip to the head.

No, I completely agree. I am saying the tackle height should be chest, bicep and lower.
My concern is the idea of pushing the tackle height to waist is too low and may cause additional impacts.

 

[Braveheart81]

No, I completely agree. I am saying the tackle height should be chest, bicep and lower.
My concern is the idea of pushing the tackle height to waist is too low and may cause additional impacts.

Effectively chest height is where a legal tackle is now. There isn't really anywhere higher than that to aim and for the tackle still to be legal.

Aim for the waist and if you go a bit higher because the ball carrier dips more than expected then you impact the chest and it's a penalty only.

If you aim for the chest and miss slightly you're hitting the chin and red cards come into play.

 

[Wallaby Man]

I’d personally like to see the height slightly dropped to nipple height with a bar across the jersey to display. Just to drop it that fraction bit more, however to make it easier for refs I’d like to see the zone between chin and nipple as a grey zone. If the player makes first contact below the nipple but it slips higher during contact, then play on. Create some grey in the interpretation so it’s easier on the ref and fans to understand

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the idea is that who is actually trying to aim a tackle higher than nipple height? There's not a lot of space between there and a high tackle.

I'd say that the overwhelming majority of "ball and all" tackles are trying to make contact around nipple height so lowering the legal tackle height to there won't actually achieve anything.

If you put a bar across the jersey at nipple height and any contact above that line was a high tackle, wouldn't that effectively be what the new law is? Contact around the belly button being legal but not much above that.

 

[stillmissit]

Just reading an article on the state of rugby in the UK and this quote proves what I stated earlier that the legal fraternity will play a role in brain damage claims.

Whether rugby can do so (survive) will depend on more than simple finances: for the long-term problem of brain injury is an existential threat to the wider game itself, not merely the professional peak of a large grassroots and recreational pyramid.

Several former players are now suing their governing bodies, including the Welsh international, Alix Popham, who has early onset dementia and probable chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CPE), and Steve Thompson, part of the 2003 England World Cup winning team.

Can we save rugby? | Boris Starling | The Critic Magazine

Will rugby recover from financial and physical injuries?

thecritic.co.uk

 

[LeCheese]

Just reading an article on the state of rugby in the UK and this quote proves what I stated earlier that the legal fraternity will play a role in brain damage claims.

Whether rugby can do so (survive) will depend on more than simple finances: for the long-term problem of brain injury is an existential threat to the wider game itself, not merely the professional peak of a large grassroots and recreational pyramid.

Several former players are now suing their governing bodies, including the Welsh international, Alix Popham, who has early onset dementia and probable chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CPE), and Steve Thompson, part of the 2003 England World Cup winning team.

Can we save rugby? | Boris Starling | The Critic Magazine

Will rugby recover from financial and physical injuries?

thecritic.co.uk

If not happening already, I imagine player contracts will include an acknowledgement of risk / waiver of liability regarding neurodegenerative conditions

 

[Dan54]

You're right. A potential risk becomes the attacker lifting knees into the tackle. You see this quite a bit in League and Sua'ali'i'i has been guilty of this a number of times. Nothing a couple of yellows won't fix up though

Why are players suddenly putting their heads in front of knees when tackling anyway, there must be crap coaching going on. There the odd accident, but surely everyone is coached to tackle with head to side or behind legs. My son years ago was playing against Christiam Cullen in senior rugby, he was great at lifting knees when coming into tackle, only thing that pissed son off he did it at such pace when you closed your arms in the tackle there were no legs there! Never had a problem getting knee in head just tackling the bugger!

 

[Derpus]

Just reading an article on the state of rugby in the UK and this quote proves what I stated earlier that the legal fraternity will play a role in brain damage claims.

Whether rugby can do so (survive) will depend on more than simple finances: for the long-term problem of brain injury is an existential threat to the wider game itself, not merely the professional peak of a large grassroots and recreational pyramid.

Several former players are now suing their governing bodies, including the Welsh international, Alix Popham, who has early onset dementia and probable chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CPE), and Steve Thompson, part of the 2003 England World Cup winning team.

Can we save rugby? | Boris Starling | The Critic Magazine

Will rugby recover from financial and physical injuries?

thecritic.co.uk

I don't really see the legal aspect as the existential risk particularly here.

Negligence in Aus and the UK isn't like the US. Payouts are capped (to keep insurance premiums affordable) and it's actually pretty hard to pull off. You need to be able to establish that the risk of harm was foreseeable (which you could argue it previously wasn't) and even then, if reasonable steps were taken to mitigate the risk it seems unlikely to me that a court would find a union negligent. Plus, the plaintiff's willing participation despite the obvious risk (which it is now) will factor into the courts consideration.

Rugby has been far more proactive than other sports in addressing concussion risks and has generally followed medical and scientific advice on, for example, concussion protocols as our understanding of the risk has developed. There might be some discreet instances of clubs ignoring protocols or something of that nature which could give rise to a claim in negligence but I don't think you will see broad scale litigation against RA or the state unions.

The enormous NFL payout occurred because the NFL knew the harm the game was causing to players (it was well documented - not only the harm but that the NFL knew of it) and chose not to act at all. Throw in that court payouts in the US can be enormous and you can see why people are scared of similar litigation hitting other concussion causing sports but I don't think its realistic.

There are far more dangerous sports that have far higher known risk of harm and they kick on. Any kind of combat sport for example. It's about informed consent.

The risk of litigation will really only impact the sport by nudging up insurance premiums (although we will have to continue to take what steps we can to mitigate the harm). the main risk concussion poses to the sport is to participation.

 

[Wallaby Man]

Why are players suddenly putting their heads in front of knees when tackling anyway, there must be crap coaching going on. There the odd accident, but surely everyone is coached to tackle with head to side or behind legs. My son years ago was playing against Christiam Cullen in senior rugby, he was great at lifting knees when coming into tackle, only thing that pissed son off he did it at such pace when you closed your arms in the tackle there were no legs there! Never had a problem getting knee in head just tackling the bugger!

It’s always happened. It’s just concussions are identified a multitude times more than they used to. Also just have to watch 2 mins of a game 20-30-40yrs ago and realise it wasn’t all leg tackles, players were getting smacked in the head potentially even more so than now.

Personally think the force generated from the modern athlete is causing a lot of the issues. Would love to see less subs available and more generalization in position encouraged because of it. Hopefully slim players down

 

[Dan54]

I don't recall ever seeing players putting head in front of knees in a big way, obviously now and then. Watch games now and really most tackles are going low and players doing it correctly head alonside or behingd the legs. And it has always how kids I coached and any that I saw coached were taught to tackle. I not suggesting it is absolutely safe, no contact sport ever is, but think it cuts down on ptotentil for head injuries. I not saying waist or anything is right place, but think below chest is a good place to start, and teaching kids to tackle by holding a tackle bag in front of them is not helping as they not really learning correct body positions etc.

 

[stillmissit]

There are far more dangerous sports that have far higher known risk of harm and they kick on. Any kind of combat sport for example. It's about informed consent.

The risk of litigation will really only impact the sport by nudging up insurance premiums (although we will have to continue to take what steps we can to mitigate the harm). the main risk concussion poses to the sport is to participation.

I hope your legal opinion is correct. Your final statement lines up with 2 reports I read where 'Can Rugby Survive' was the appox. headline.
With the amount of press about concussion issues, I want to see the numbers of men not just affected but disabled. I have read the 9 year analysis of weekend warriors who had concussion/s and found it interesting. As an old guy who's met many old guys, the discussion sometimes comes around to drop off of mental acuity, and it ain't minor, the brain evidently starts to drop off after mid twenties but by the time you are in your 60's the first reduction in memory becomes apparent, by your 70's the drop off of many brain functions is no joking matter.
The question then is what is natural and what is a result of concussion/s? Early onset dementia is on the increase and not just in concussed ex rugby players.

Re your legal opinion. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...by-union-players-dementia-landmark-legal-case

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

I know a lot of park footballers that have had their fair share of head knocks but I'd also say have done a lot of damage to the brain off the field with extracurricular activities.

Hardest group to track I would think with limited medical support (can be a bloke from the game before and at best a Physio). Usually playing with mates who will just listen if you say you're all good. Not watched by many others (family, Friends) who can intervene and follow up treatment or stand down periods don't exist.