Repeated Trauma Encephalopathy

[Jnor]

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.

I actually think the reverse might work. A lot of the realy bad injuries seem to happpen when players hit at v high speed. If everyone was a 130kg prop playing on a 40m by 30m field I think we would see much fewer concussions and head injuries

 

[Thomond78]

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.

The evidence is that it doesn't work; it flatlines at the upper impact ranges, meaning - to quote from one of the abstracts - that it fails players when they need it most.

The fact that the evidence has been there in favour of using SCAT cards since 2007, and many unions are only doing it now, at the behest of the IRB, is scandalous.

 

[Thomond78]

I actually think the reverse might work. A lot of the realy bad injuries seem to happpen when players hit at v high speed. If everyone was a 130kg prop playing on a 40m by 30m field I think we would see much fewer concussions and head injuries

The highest incidence of concussive-style injuries is in the centres for just that reason. Again, there have been studies done on the epidemiology of this.

 

[Bowside]

I actually think the reverse might work. A lot of the realy bad injuries seem to happpen when players hit at v high speed. If everyone was a 130kg prop playing on a 40m by 30m field I think we would see much fewer concussions and head injuries

I meant as in speeding up the breakdown and set piece. But yes you raise a good point.

 

[WB3]

Bowside,

I think the solution is both a combination of increased allowance for headgear and decreased use of body padding. That way collisions would potentially be less powerful and forces to the head dissipated to a greater degree. No shoulder padding unless taped on could mean only those requiring it for AC injuries and the like would use it, though I can imagine some mothers insisting on their kids being padded up regardless.

Just an idea I thought worth raising - do you guys think that the tendency for padding to increase collision forces would be as significant in rugby as in NFL given that padding is
1 - an optional extra - not everyone wears it and yet people without padding still compete at elite levels.
2 - far less extensive

?

 

[WB3]

The evidence is that it doesn't work; it flatlines at the upper impact ranges, meaning - to quote from one of the abstracts - that it fails players when they need it most.

The fact that the evidence has been there in favour of using SCAT cards since 2007, and many unions are only doing it now, at the behest of the IRB, is scandalous.

It sounds like you agree with me? I also though headgear was largely ineffective when it became important.

My question is whether headgear is failing, as I had gathered from reading some interviews (and an SMH article which I will endeavour to find), due to the thickness of the headgear being inadequate and the design ineffective OR that headgear in general is ineffective.
It stands to reason that if the effect of headgear flatlines at higher collision levels thicker headgear would flatline at a higher level and thus increase the threshold for protection that headgear offers.

 

[ChargerWA]

I haven't watched much NFL, but most of their high speed collision seem to when two players are diverging at 90' or an even more acute angle as they work down field. Blocking around the ruck being a legitimate play in NFL reduces the frequency of front on collisions. As opposed to rugby where the collisions are for the majority front on.

I suspect that there is more concussions per capita in Rugby than league also, as the 10m spacing gives the tackler more time to positon their head in the tackle and in League they tackle in a gang, more upright. What the solution is I don't know.

 

[Thomond78]

I haven't watched much NFL, but most of their high speed collision seem to when two players are diverging at 90' or an even more acute angle as they work down field. Blocking around the ruck being a legitimate play in NFL reduces the frequency of front on collisions. As opposed to rugby where the collisions are for the majority front on.

I suspect that there is more concussions per capita in Rugby than league also, as the 10m spacing gives the tackler more time to positon their head in the tackle and in League they tackle in a gang, more upright. What the solution is I don't know.

I think you're correct on all the above. Front-on, high-speed, high-run up tackles are the ones that do the damage.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/3/159.full.pdf

Also, headgear can only protect - if it does at all - against direct impact/trauma; the indirect trauma of the deceleration in the tackle won't be stopped by headgear.

 

[Jnor]

This from a while ago but I was always under the impression that headgear was never designed to protect against concussion, just against cauliflower ears and flesh wounds.

http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/padded-headgear-won-t-stop-concussion/

 

[Richo]

The NFL is a very different proposition in tackle type for a number of reasons. The "poor tackling technique" referred to above is only poor if you consider the purpose of tackle to be pinning a man to the ground. In the NFL, a player is down when their knee (or elbow) hits the ground. This encourages big hits rather than what we think of as "tackles".

The NFL is, incidentally, coming down very hard on missile tackles that lead with the helmet. Players now receive automatic suspensions for these tackles.

 

[Rob42]

Just an idea I thought worth raising - do you guys think that the tendency for padding to increase collision forces would be as significant in rugby as in NFL given that padding is
1 - an optional extra - not everyone wears it and yet people without padding still compete at elite levels.
2 - far less extensive?

Agree, WB3, defensive players in the NFL view the padding as a means to allow them to hit harder, rather than to protect the tackled player. Whilst they may be cracking down on the most egregious head-first hits, the head is still involved in a large number of those tackles.

Also note that one of the most dangerous positions in an NFL team in terms of likely brain injury is the running back - the guy who takes the ball up in endless short distance crashing runs through the pack - because of their tendency to run head-down and take a lot of impacts on the helmet. These impacts are mostly not the high-velocity tackles that cause unconsciousness, but the repeated "sub-clinical" hits are one of the NFL's major concerns.

 

[Rob42]

...I suspect that there is more concussions per capita in Rugby than league also, as the 10m spacing gives the tackler more time to positon their head in the tackle and in League they tackle in a gang, more upright. What the solution is I don't know.

Agree in theory, but there's still a lot of head impacts in league - I would have thought more than rugby, actually. Shoulder charges that maybe don't primarily hit the head, but the head still cops some of the blow, guys who cop forearms as a second or third tacklers come in, there's plenty of it. The head should be considered untouchable, but that's definitely not the case.

 

[Richo]

Agree in theory, but there's still a lot of head impacts in league - I would have thought more than rugby, actually. Shoulder charges that maybe don't primarily hit the head, but the head still cops some of the blow, guys who cop forearms as a second or third tacklers come in, there's plenty of it. The head should be considered untouchable, but that's definitely not the case.

You'd think there would be some pretty interesting and worthwhile academic study to be done on this. Any sports medicine types out there looking for a PhD topic?

 

[rugbyisfun]

As I said earlier in this thread. The NSW Waratahs medical staff are doing a great dis-service to Berrick Barnes. He should be stopped from playing immediately. This is becoming extremely serious now. 'Rugby Players Headache'. Seriously....how stupid can these people be....?

 

[TheNextBigThing]

As I said earlier in this thread. The NSW Waratahs medical staff are doing a great dis-service to Berrick Barnes. He should be stopped from playing immediately. This is becoming extremely serious now. 'Rugby Players Headache'. Seriously....how stupid can these people be....?

As of 9.45 this morning Barnes will be taking no further part in Super rugby.

 

[Nusadan]

Agree in theory, but there's still a lot of head impacts in league - I would have thought more than rugby, actually. Shoulder charges that maybe don't primarily hit the head, but the head still cops some of the blow, guys who cop forearms as a second or third tacklers come in, there's plenty of it. The head should be considered untouchable, but that's definitely not the case.

Remember Martin Lang? He's been retired now for several years I believe, and wonder now how he is doing...with all that hit ups he did with no thought of self preservation...

 

[Bruce Ross]

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

Bowside,

I think the solution is both a combination of increased allowance for headgear and decreased use of body padding. That way collisions would potentially be less powerful and forces to the head dissipated to a greater degree. No shoulder padding unless taped on could mean only those requiring it for AC injuries and the like would use it, though I can imagine some mothers insisting on their kids being padded up regardless.

Just an idea I thought worth raising - do you guys think that the tendency for padding to increase collision forces would be as significant in rugby as in NFL given that padding is
1 - an optional extra - not everyone wears it and yet people without padding still compete at elite levels.
2 - far less extensive

?

A thought provoking piece of lateral thinking, Bowside and WB. Decades ago we thought that the IRB was far behind the times in not allowing the shoulder padding extensively used in Rugby League, which meant that in our sport there was probably increased prevalence of shoulder injuries. But if shoulder protection allows players to make huge hits with relative impunity then it seems clear that there is much greater potential for brain trauma. Bunged shoulders are less of a concern than scrambled brains.

 

[AngrySeahorse]

Remember Martin Lang? He's been retired now for several years I believe, and wonder now how he is doing...with all that hit ups he did with no thought of self preservation...

Apparently a S+C coach.

http://www.martinlang.com.au/

I'm really surprised, I always used to look at the way he'd take hit-ups and think "how the hell does he keep getting up to do that? surely he's going to have some issues come retirement" but he seems to be fine, which is great, maybe he was one of the lucky ones.

 

[Richo]

Bunged shoulders are less of a concern than scrambled brains.

Indeed. The former might end your career, the latter ruin your life.

 

[rugbyisfun]

and remember Adam Ritson....he is basically a walking vegetable apparently