Repeated Trauma Encephalopathy

[Newb]

So long as whatever is done at the top level is echoed down into schoolboy grades I'm happy. Schoolboys trying to get back up and play on after concussion just because they see their heroes on TV do it shouldn't be encouraged. Recipe for disaster waiting to happen, should be a week off minimum, of course depending on the seriousness of the concussion but teams should try and enforce it for the wellbeing of the player

in my opinion echoed, but with more stringent treatment and enforcement. dealing with adult brains is one thing, but i'm pretty sure that there is enough research and proof out there that young adults and children are more at risk for long term damage and should actually be categorized somewhat independently.

 

[Rob42]

Thomond, thanks for that link, it seems like a good policy and particularly a very thorough examination of the player returning after a concussion. I can see how Berrick was struggling through those middle stages of the recovery process with feeling nauseous after training sessions, etc. It does highlight the importance of being extra careful with the child as well.

Also note that the disoriented player is not capable of making a decision about their own condition.

Just have to be sure that teams follow this thoroughly.

 

[daz]

Not looking good for the lad.

http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-unio...r-latest-migraine-episode-20110612-1fzdg.html


"BERRICK BARNES is unlikely to see out the Super Rugby season and must assess his future after suffering another bout of footballer's migraine during Saturday's match.

Barnes has had three bouts of footballer's migraine in four weeks and physical exertion seems to be the trigger.

Originally it was believed Barnes, who has had a history of concussion in his rugby and rugby league careers, was susceptible to migraine after 60 minutes of exercise.

That theory was shattered at the Sydney Football Stadium when Barnes began feeling nauseous after just half an hour of play.

An undoubted match-winner and one of the best players in the country, Barnes is vital to the success of rugby in Australia. But any decision to continue playing can only come after Barnes and Waratahs or Wallabies officials are convinced his body can hold up to the extreme physical stress of professional sport."

 

[Groucho]

It's interesting reading the posts on this thread describing the diagnosis of footballer's migraine as bollocks and that Barnes' condition (poor bloke) must instead be something more consistent with our collective sport-watching experience, like concussion or (worse) RTE.

My money is on the neurologists getting it right, no matter how unlikely their diagnosis might sound to us. If they decide it is safe for him to play then he should have the chance to do so. They won't make that decision lightly. No one wins if his career is unnecessarily ended.

Anyway, I wish him the best of luck.

 

[vidiot]

Archetypal Neurologist Kenneth Heilmann

Sheesh, neurologists are just uber-nerds with bow ties and bad suits who wet themselves about thrombolysis in strokes because it's the first time EVER they have had a shot at curing someone rather than labeling them and telling them that things will just get worse from here. Don't give them too much credit!

Seriously though, a variety of people who know what they are doing wil have sifted through the options and it's not like they made this up - Footballer's migraine has been described for almost 40 yrs in medical literature. As with most neurology, describing it doesn't mean that you can do anything about it.

Management plans like take a neurofen pre-game, it might help, stepping up to stop playing are not making it any more likely for Berrick to get on the park and stay there.

 

[Richo]

That man has style.

 

[matty_k]

Bow ties are cool.

 

[Groucho]

No one mention this, but he looks a wee bit like Bruce Ross.

 

[Groucho]

The question of whether or not we should err on the side of caution has a wider context for rugby fans.

The point of the debate on Repeated Trauma Encephalopathy is that young people may suffer lasting trauma from low level collisions, which in rugby means virtually any collision at all. We need to find out if that is true, and then accept the verdict the doctors and scientists come up with. Doctors err on the side of caution anyway. The consequence of sports administrators adding a further layer of caution could be that we unnecessarily stop young people playing rugby at all, and that would be the end of that game.

Unfortunately, even if the doctors and scientists come up with the verdict that the sport is safe, there will be people in the wider public who will argue for the sport (and indeed all collision sports) to be shut down.

 

[Bowside]

One argument I always found interesting, was that all padding(shoulders, head) should be banned as it means players don't feel the 'hit' as much and therefore hit harder....

Do you think there is any merit to the idea?

 

[cyclopath]

One argument I always found interesting, was that all padding(shoulders, head) should be banned as it means players don't feel the 'hit' as much and therefore hit harder....

Do you think there is any merit to the idea?

Anecdotally, from watching NFL, I would agree. Sure, the "big" players in NFL are ridiculously huge which will increase the collisions. But the amount of severe knee and hip injuries is pretty high, I believe, and I think is attributable to these massive guys , helmeted and padded to the hilt, smashing each other like missiles. The forces involved are very large. Muscle and fat will help in some places, joints don't get bigger, ligaments don't get bigger.
With respect to the head, the decelerations will be bigger, and having a helmet doesn't stop your brain flopping around inside your skull. Interesting too that these guys use the helmet as an offensive weapon too.
What does this mean for rugby? Well, if it is going to be muscle on muscle, bone on bone, I am assure some of these guys might limit the way they hit. Some of the backs look like Michelin men these days.

 

[GC]

For an idea on how hard the NFL guys hit, watch thespian-filled arthouse flick "Jackass 3". Shown in glorious slow-motion, Johnny Knoxville gets absolutely annihilated by Jared Allen. Don't see how the human body can take that week in week out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCx4YfP8l1A

 

[darkhorse]

Anecdotally, from watching NFL, I would agree. Sure, the "big" players in NFL are ridiculously huge which will increase the collisions. But the amount of severe knee and hip injuries is pretty high, I believe, and I think is attributable to these massive guys , helmeted and padded to the hilt, smashing each other like missiles. The forces involved are very large. Muscle and fat will help in some places, joints don't get bigger, ligaments don't get bigger.
With respect to the head, the decelerations will be bigger, and having a helmet doesn't stop your brain flopping around inside your skull. Interesting too that these guys use the helmet as an offensive weapon too.
What does this mean for rugby? Well, if it is going to be muscle on muscle, bone on bone, I am assure some of these guys might limit the way they hit. Some of the backs look like Michelin men these days.

The NFL has so many knee injuries because they're not taught proper tackling technique because they don't need it. The biggest danger with tackling is getting your head in the wrong spot, but with a helmet what's the worry?

It also doesn't help when a helmet is launched at your knee. I would prefer someone's skull hitting me any day than a chunk of metal.

 

[cyclopath]

The NFL has so many knee injuries because they're not taught proper tackling technique because they don't need it. The biggest danger with tackling is getting your head in the wrong spot, but with a helmet what's the worry?

It also doesn't help when a helmet is launched at your knee. I would prefer someone's skull hitting me any day than a chunk of metal.

It's also the exaggerated lateral and rotational forces imparted by the way they play, safe in the knowledge they can smash each other with abandon using padded head, shoulder, arms. Except the helmet won't stop you getting concussed. May explain the state of many ex-NFL players, especially the guys up front.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

It seems to me that there is an argument to be made for less padding in our game, not more. This is especially the case if there is some science behind the proposition that helmets offer no protection against head trauma.

 

[Thomond78]

One argument I always found interesting, was that all padding(shoulders, head) should be banned as it means players don't feel the 'hit' as much and therefore hit harder....

Do you think there is any merit to the idea?

There's evidence to that effect.

http://www.orthosports.com.au/content_common/pg-padded-clothing-rugby.seo

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1756233/pdf/v034p00348.pdf

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/3/200.abstract?sid=67a5fde0-78b3-48c5-a980-8d755c34bff0

 

[Bowside]

Another option is also to speed up the game, meaning the players have to be fitter, and the smaller guys will start to be picked over the bigger guys. Crude logic being smaller guys dont hit as hard. I think this could also have merit.

 

[WB3]

It seems to me that there is an argument to be made for less padding in our game, not more. This is especially the case if there is some science behind the proposition that helmets offer no protection against head trauma.

I was under the impression the science was saying that headgear with padding of less than 1cm had no discernible effect in reducing severe head injuries. There is a lot of scope to move around that statement. If you are referring to the NFL head-weapon, then there is still a legitimate argument for the Berrick Barnes/Boxing headgear which is soft (thus preventing danger to others) and dispels force more effectively for the player wearing it. I doubt anybody would go around tackling with their head because they were wearing one of those.

 

[Bowside]

I was under the impression the science was saying that headgear with padding of less than 1cm had no discernible effect in reducing severe head injuries. There is a lot of scope to move around that statement. If you are referring to the NFL head-weapon, then there is still a legitimate argument for the Berrick Barnes/Boxing headgear which is soft (thus preventing danger to others) and dispels force more effectively for the player wearing it. I doubt anybody would go around tackling with their head because they were wearing one of those.

Yes but less shoulder padding could mean barnes may not get hit so hard.

 

[Victorian Reds Fan]

Another option is also to speed up the game, meaning the players have to be fitter, and the smaller guys will start to be picked over the bigger guys. Crude logic being smaller guys dont hit as hard. I think this could also have merit.

Makes sense. I think that is why there are less incidence in footy, although the fact that they cannot tackle also helps.