Concussions and Protecting Our Players

[cyclopath]

Norman Swan is a pretty reasonable health commentator in general. If he is using the term "concussion codes" it is not a good sign.

He may appear so to a lay-person. He has some pretty odd takes in various medical fields. Remember, he is basically a journalist who once did a medical degree, and with which he really never worked. He's no more informed than anyone who reads a lot of stuff.

 

[dru]

He may appear so to a lay-person. He has some pretty odd takes in various medical fields. Remember, he is basically a journalist who once did a medical degree, and with which he really never worked. He's no more informed than anyone who reads a lot of stuff.

Thanks cycle, I'll take that on board.

 

[Proud Pig]

I'll start worrying when they stop ppv televising/ streaming UFC & professional boxing.

Yes but as others have stated it is the impact on the young players that is the issue. They won't ban the game but they very likely will ban contact before 16 years old. This will stop some kids playing the game. No one is starting UFC at 12.

 

[Derpus]

The non-contact footy suits like 10-20% of what a current pro rugby player needs to be. It'll weed out anyone big and non-super athletic. It's done for.

I think we are now arguing about different things. You said contact sport would stop existing entirely. I think that is very unlikely. Will the way it looks change pretty drastically? Yeah, probably.

 

[qwerty51]

Huh? It’ll be touch rugby, that’s not rugby so yeah the game won’t exist.

 

[Derpus]

Huh? It’ll be touch rugby, that’s not rugby so yeah the game won’t exist.

Nah you're crazy man. Going in circles now. It'll be smaller, probably. But there will still be amateurs and probably professionals in some form playing contact rugby.

 

[qwerty51]

Rugby is pretty much fucked already with the new ball carrier rules so I don't know how you can say with confidence in 5, 10, 20 years it'll still exist.

Wait until they discover anyone who played 5+ years has 70% rate of CTE, anyone who played 10+ years 90% rate of CTE>

 

[Derpus]

Rugby is pretty much fucked already with the new ball carrier rules so I don't know how you can say with confidence in 5, 10, 20 years it'll still exist.

Wait until they discover anyone who played 5+ years has 70% rate of CTE, anyone who played 10+ years 90% rate of CTE>

Well they may not find that. And I already gave the example of combat sports.

 

[qwerty51]

I really do not see the relevance of combat sports - at all.

The goal of those is to give the opponent a brain injury, everyone knew this since the 50s at minimum.

It's an individual sport that no parents want their kids getting into, there's little to zero junior participation. The number of fighters compared to rugby players is what, 0.005%?

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Less than 5,000 players have played the game professionally in Australia. F@ck the professional game it should be about the thousands of amateurs who play the game each week. That's who we should be making it safer for.

 

[Derpus]

I really do not see the relevance of combat sports - at all.

The goal of those is to give the opponent a brain injury, everyone knew this since the 50s at minimum.

It's an individual sport that no parents want their kids getting into, there's little to zero junior participation. The number of fighters compared to rugby players is what, 0.005%?

Surely not. I couldn't find MMA specific numbers in a quick google search but the estimaed martial arts participants according to google is 248,351. According to google another 300,000 participate in 'some form of boxing' (I'd guess a lot of this would not be contact). Dunno if there is crossover in those numbers and whether boxing is considered a martial art.

Anyway - think your numbers are way, way off.

And the relevance is that it illustrates a willingness to knowingly participate in an activity that has the potential to cause brain damage.

 

[qwerty51]

I know over 100 people who have played rugby, I know zero who have boxed or fought (except at the pub). Anecdotal but I'm sure you're similar? How many people do you know that have fought competitively? 200k is laughable.

 

[cyclopath]

I reckon a fair number of the "boxing" numbers would be people doing sparring for training / Boxercise type stuff.

 

[Derpus]

I reckon a fair number of the "boxing" numbers would be people doing sparring for training / Boxercise type stuff.

I agree. Just trying to illustrate that participation numbers are higher than Qwerty is suggesting.

Guess we'll have to wait and see who's right in the long run. Think you are underestimating human appetite for self destruction.

 

[dillyboy]

I agree. Just trying to illustrate that participation numbers are higher than Qwerty is suggesting.

Guess we'll have to wait and see who's right in the long run. Think you are underestimating human appetite for self destruction.

Not aimed at you specifically but I find it laughable that people think a sport that's been around for about 200 years will be here forever......

Times & trends change unfortunately - how many people are into jousting, gladiators or even croquet these days???

 

[qwerty51]

I agree. Just trying to illustrate that participation numbers are higher than Qwerty is suggesting.

Guess we'll have to wait and see who's right in the long run. Think you are underestimating human appetite for self destruction.

That’s the difference with an individual sport and a team. Combat sports will be here forever since it just requires 1 person each time (as an individual to participate). Rugby isn’t going to die as soon as there’s only 1 player left. The playing numbers are going to decrease, they’ll never increase and therefore it dies when it can’t support itself at the community level.

 

[KOB1987]

You would think the precursor in this country would be a reduction from two rugby codes to one. At this point in time you would put your money on the other code bring the one that survives. However, that could be unique to Australia, and if there is no one to play against it could actually be rugby that prevails. The sport that is, not the clubs - NRL becomes the NRU and they play our game instead. I’m not sure I will need to be too concerned about it in my lifetime.

 

[Bullrush]

I think it is inevitable and right that the contact rules change. They have to the risk of permanent damage is too great. I completely support any changes that help minimise head injuries.
However, it will have a detrimental effect on kids coming up playing sport. Rugby is unique in that it has a role for every single body type. I was a big kid, solid build, broad shouldered but not athletic so the front row suited me growing up. The only other team sport that really catered for my size and athletic prowess (or lack there of) was cricket and it is just not the same. I never would have started playing if it had been touch as a kid because I would have been awful at it.
If you take the contact out of the game for anyone under say 16 there will be no forwards coming through. The poor old forwards will be replaced with a team full of athletic backs who just run and run and run. And I can't help but think the game will be poorer for it and it will be just another knife in the back of the game I love.

The push against bigger, stronger kids already started to a certain extent. Kids in U12's can already get penalised if they fend too hard. It pisses me off. No-one penalises the small, quick, nippy kids for running too fast or stepping too much.

 

[Bullrush]

Yes but as others have stated it is the impact on the young players that is the issue. They won't ban the game but they very likely will ban contact before 16 years old. This will stop some kids playing the game. No one is starting UFC at 12.

I dunno. I go to a fight gym and there are a number of kids who do Muay Thai and Ju-Jitsu

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

Then there are these pumpkins