The Future of Contact Sports

[RayCee]

It's becoming an issue but I do feel RL and contact sports will disappear unless something is done. Mandatory head gear (not helmets) could help but a return to a five metre defensive lines would reduce impact in tackles. It may be too little too late. 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/114909303/rugby-codes-will-cease-to-exist-within-a-generation-says-medical-pioneer

Some may feel its hyped but the way the world is going, risk is being taken out of everything and sport cannot expect exemption. 

[Scubby]

1 hour ago, RayCee said:

It's becoming an issue but I do feel RL and contact sports will disappear unless something is done. Mandatory head gear (not helmets) could help but a return to a five metre defensive lines would reduce impact in tackles. It may be too little too late. 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/114909303/rugby-codes-will-cease-to-exist-within-a-generation-says-medical-pioneer

Some may feel its hyped but the way the world is going, risk is being taken out of everything and sport cannot expect exemption. 

I have said this a few times to friends and it is something that does concern me. Rugby League isn't a wealthy sport and a huge group lawsuit could pretty much cripple it.

Less parents will want children to play. You cannot make it non-contact until 16 Tackle technique, and resistance to contact, is important for development. As is being able to break a tackle, or make metres in contact.

[muckymunksy]

Snowflake society 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

2 hours ago, RayCee said:

It's becoming an issue but I do feel RL and contact sports will disappear unless something is done. Mandatory head gear (not helmets) could help but a return to a five metre defensive lines would reduce impact in tackles. It may be too little too late. 

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/114909303/rugby-codes-will-cease-to-exist-within-a-generation-says-medical-pioneer

Some may feel its hyped but the way the world is going, risk is being taken out of everything and sport cannot expect exemption. 

Headgear doesn’t protect against concussions, in fact it does the opposite as people are more likely to lead with the head and pick up a concussion. Banning head gear would be more effective than making it mandatory.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

24 minutes ago, muckymunksy said:

Snowflake society 

Do you believe concussions and the resulting brain injuries are not a real threat?

While I don’t agree with the doctor contact Sports will cease to exist, more must be don’t to protect players and tag should be played instead of contact at a young age.

[sentoffagain2]

   Tackling round the head and neck area is rightly penalised but before contact in Rugby is banned surely Boxing,Wrestling,and MMA. will be banned as they are much more dangerous.

[RayCee]

24 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

Headgear doesn’t protect against concussions, in fact it does the opposite as people are more likely to lead with the head and pick up a concussion. Banning head gear would be more effective than making it mandatory.

Even the soft sort used in RL, which is what I referred to? I've not seen RL players such as JT lead with the head. As to how effective they are is a moot point. A quote I just found:

A recent laboratory study of the impact energy attenuation properties of headgear showed that current models have a very limited capacity to reduce the likelihood of concussion.

Reducing the impact of tackling with a 5 metre defensive line would be surely worth looking at.

[Curly perm]

Have to admit, I really wasn’t sure about introducing my lad to RL. He’s played in the u7s full contact for 18mths...loves competing to score tries but is scared of the big kids sprinting at him. He generally makes a half attempt. I’m still not 100% about it if I’m honest. Would back a move to the 5m rule in the adult game on safety grounds, or a trial at least. 

MMA is going from strength to strength though, where the aim is to literally concuss your opponent, hit them when they’re obviously already hurt. Can’t understand it at all. 

[Oxford]

26 minutes ago, Curly perm said:

MMA is going from strength to strength though, where the aim is to literally concuss your opponent, hit them when they’re obviously already hurt. Can’t understand it at all.

Could it be cruelty is up but risk taking is down for children?We also have the sensationalist outlook looking for extreme thrills which are probably far more dangerous than RL but will not have the same long term results; and reacting to headlines rather than actually reading for meaning.

This would give a skewed picture.

Whenever I coached I never used 10 metres anyway for young children.

Though I'm not sure going backwards is the answer better headgear should be the first call.

 

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

36 minutes ago, RayCee said:

Even the soft sort used in RL, which is what I referred to? I've not seen RL players such as JT lead with the head. As to how effective they are is a moot point. A quote I just found:

A recent laboratory study of the impact energy attenuation properties of headgear showed that current models have a very limited capacity to reduce the likelihood of concussion.

It makes no difference if you wear hard headgear or soft headgear, it offers absolutely no protection to the brain. The film concussion is certainly worth a watch. This is from the article in the OP

"Your brain is 60-80 per cent water, it's a very sensitive and vulnerable organ that floats freely inside your skull. There's nothing holding it down. So every sudden change in motion, the brain jolts around in your skull."

[DC77]

Think the biggest issue (and the main reason for the decline in participation in collision sports) is the increase in physicality. Players are bigger and bulkier than previously, there is a greater emphasis to beef up. More gym work accompanied with more supplements on the market. Rugby Union has been wrecked by this with games now very attritional. In the past Wales and France were two flamboyant, attacking teams...now they are the same brutish outfits that South Africa are. The great Welsh backline, JPR Williams would get snapped like a twig in the game today. A wispish figure like Simon Gheoghan (my favourite Irish winger), he’d get clobbered and carried off. A stand out freak that was Jonah Lomu wouldn’t be a star now like he was in his day as he would be facing players of similar bulk. 30 huge blokes, swamping the field, space and line breaks at a premium. There are no rugby union stars as there is no longer the platform for one. And without a star there is no-one for kids to want to emulate. Stars attract participants, attract viewership, and grow the sport.

While not as extreme in the change in physicality Rugby league has beefed up too, then there’s the wrestle from Australia thrown in. The five quick drives and a kick makes Rugby league more attritional too...the Wigan vs Leeds Challenge Cup final from the 90s that i watched last week was unrecognisable from the game today. The NRL is even further down the attritional road than Super League.

A game that’s more brutish with greater physicality and bulk makes it less accessible to kids (and the general populous). Kids are crucial to increasing the future player pool, but they’d rather just be having fun with a ball rather than getting a bashing. Teens having to bulk up and spend hours in the gym is not appealing to most.

How you reverse this emphasis on bulk/physicality by making the game more open and accessible I believe is the key to growing the numbers.

[Copa]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

The game will naturally evolve with rules to minimise this issues and forms which are more suitable. 

With kids I do think we move to full contact far too early and prioritise it far too much. I'm not sure why 9,10,11 year olds need to be playing so much full contact and 13 aside. It should be nearly all 9s, 7s, touch, below waist tackling etc

And when we do go full contact in the pro game etc I think we will see high tackle stamped.out of the game. I actually think we could virtually get rid of them in a  year or so.by making every high tackle a 5min sin bin, 3 in a game is a red. Tackle technique will change very quickly.

It’s full contact from U6s in Australia.

[Tommygilf]

I think its becoming another example of how 'living is going to kill us one day'.

 

[Copa]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

That's honestly crazy, how many kids are put off by not wanting to get smashed by a big kid at 6 years old

The sport is very popular so not that many really. At that age the refs call held extremely early if a ball carrier or tackler looks very nervous.

Having said that, this clip with millions of views that was also in the media around the world was taken at my local ground.. but kids like this aren’t that common in Canberra.

 

[TheReaper]

53 minutes ago, Copa said:

The sport is very popular so not that many really. At that age the refs call held extremely early if a ball carrier or tackler looks very nervous.

Having said that, this clip with millions of views that was also in the media around the world was taken at my local ground.. but kids like this aren’t that common in Canberra.

 

Someone needs to coach those kids to go for the legs when tackling a bigger player.

[Dunbar]

5 hours ago, muckymunksy said:

Snowflake society 

I think you need to get yourself an urban dictionary if you think is what people mean by 'snowflake'.

[Dunbar]

17 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Sorry, but this is just wrong on so many levels. 

Firstly, we don't all know the risks. CTE as we know it s a relatively recent discovery (Bennet Omalu's work on the condition in NFL players was around the early 2000s). That means that we aren't just dealing with an issue that affects the long-since retired - there are current players who were playing this sport before the effects of head contact on the brain were really understood. 

But above all else, this is an issue of the duty of care the sport has to the players. We used to think it was acceptable for people to work in factories made from asbestos. It was only when those workers started contracting mesothelioma that society decided that it wasn't acceptable, and that something should be done about it. We didn't say to those workers "you knew that there was asbestos in the building, so you knew you could have got cancer". 

If the sport and the clubs are going to profit from these players, they have a duty to ensure that they aren't giving themselves life-impacting or life-limiting conditions to generate those profits. 

Even if we entertain the "snowflake society" idea (we shouldn't, but for the purpose of this debate, let's), the game has two choices. Either it decides that it doesn't do anything and puts the burden of risk on the players. We'll then be sat here waiting for the first lawsuit and wondering why no parent wants to let their child play a sport that could give them severe neurological conditions. Or the game can do the right thing by taking care of playing talent that is so fundamental to this sport, ensuring that we minimise the risks as much as reasonably possible and ensuring that those players who are harmed by this game are suitably looked after.  

Very well said.

[Rupert Prince]

1 hour ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

If those making the rules of the game know the risks of concussion and don’t do enough to protect players they are at fault.

Some things we could do;

Any player with a head knock plays no further part in that game regardless of whether they pass the test or not they don’t go back on, this needs to be decided by an independent doctor. If they fail the concussion test they play no part next week and retake the test until pass.

A 2nd head knock in a season means a mandatory 2 week break.

A 3rd head knock in a season means a mandatory 3 week break, and so on.

If a concussion is caused by foul play, bans need to be much stricter.

Start contact later, say U14’s

What about the player who caused the head knock?  Does he go off as well?

[Dunbar]

10 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

What about the player who caused the head knock?  Does he go off as well?

If the head knock is caused by foul play then that will be dealt with under the laws of the game.

However, many head injuries are caused by poor tackling technique or accidental collisions.

A study from the other code showed that the tackler is 2.6 times more likely to suffer a head injury than the tackled player... and this is rarely a result of foul play on the part of the ball carrier.

[Curly perm]

2 hours ago, Copa said:

The sport is very popular so not that many really. At that age the refs call held extremely early if a ball carrier or tackler looks very nervous.

Having said that, this clip with millions of views that was also in the media around the world was taken at my local ground.. but kids like this aren’t that common in Canberra.

 

This feels familiar. My lad often comes up against kids who are MUCH bigger/heavier than an average 7yr old...generally with the aggression to match (which is interesting but prob a different topic). 

His team usually do ok with them but one or two inevitably get hurt at some point. 

My local RU club do touch/tag rugby until around u9s or u10s. I’ve wondered for a while now whether that should’ve been the route I took him down. 

[Scubby]

6 hours ago, muckymunksy said:

Snowflake society 

It's just life now. Unlike 25 years ago, there are hundreds of hobbies and pursuits available to children locally that don't involve heavy contact. It is modern parenting. My parents literally didn't care if I was concussed or not. Different time.

[Ackroman]

2 hours ago, Copa said:

The sport is very popular so not that many really. At that age the refs call held extremely early if a ball carrier or tackler looks very nervous.

Having said that, this clip with millions of views that was also in the media around the world was taken at my local ground.. but kids like this aren’t that common in Canberra.

 

If ever there was an example needed of young players not being graded on age, this is it. That fat kid doesn't have better skills, just more mass. He is the only kid getting any fun out of that, apart from some moronic parents. All the others are getting hurt or spectating.

IMO it would be a better way forward for developing the game at youth level if you graded kids on size and ability, and not age. That way you can keep kids engaged in the game and justify keeping contact sports the way they are.

[Cardypaul]

I think there is too much of an emphasis on kids playing full contact sport at too younger age would rather see them playing skill based games to develop their skill level and can learn the contact side later.

[GUBRATS]

11 minutes ago, Ackroman said:

I'm being factual, the kid isn't a beast, he's over weight. At that age he shouldn't be in the obese category running amok among far smaller kids making their lives a misery for his and his parents amusement. 

Bottom line is the kid is just bigger , he runs as fast if not faster than the rest , seen plenty of this type of stuff when coaching at junior levels , in fact I myself was an early developer , I was essentially the biggest kid in my class , the game was relatively easy for me , quite possibly this kid will be fine until his teens , when everybody else catches up and he won't then be able to compete with his peers as they will be better players than him 

Should he be put into a higher age group by a couple of years ? , Perhaps ? , that's what I thought they did in Oz and NZ 

If I was coaching him , he would have to offload the ball after his first contact , this is what a proper coach should be looking at , unfortunately all too often junior coaches are just interested in winning , not developing , I had plenty of arguments with my fellow coaches over this 

[Ackroman]

18 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Bottom line is the kid is just bigger , he runs as fast if not faster than the rest , seen plenty of this type of stuff when coaching at junior levels , in fact I myself was an early developer , I was essentially the biggest kid in my class , the game was relatively easy for me , quite possibly this kid will be fine until his teens , when everybody else catches up and he won't then be able to compete with his peers as they will be better players than him 

Should he be put into a higher age group by a couple of years ? , Perhaps ? , that's what I thought they did in Oz and NZ 

If I was coaching him , he would have to offload the ball after his first contact , this is what a proper coach should be looking at , unfortunately all too often junior coaches are just interested in winning , not developing , I had plenty of arguments with my fellow coaches over this 

My lad plays U10's and by and large they have the bigger kids playing the way you've described, going into contact and laying off the ball where possible. My lad is a skinny little thing with a big heart, he just needs to catch up and they seem to be encouraging that as much as possible, even at the festivals.