The Future of Contact Sports

[graveyard johnny]

going "contactless" has not improved anything for me  so far , from my bank card to my sex life!

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

10 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. 

Out of curiosity what headgear and how does it help with concussions/brain injuries?

I've explained this at length elsewhere as to why this doesn't work and will only make matters worse but interested as to why you suggest headgear wearing will reduce the problem being discussed?

In addition to the general discussion, we have in England and Wales (or the UK I forget which) approx 1.3million head injuries reported to a medical professional every year, from that there are approx 160,000 hospital stays, a very large portion of those are from motorists and those caused by motorists, pedestrians are also a very large % of the number.

Maybe we should give up driving, walking, travelling up/down stair on our own legs, going up ladders, playing outdoors, ban playgrounds, cycling(though this has a lower head injury rate un-helmeted than walking) etc etc.

Can we do better to protect participants, absolutely, particularly at the higher competitive levels where there is a lot at stake, but Omalu himself knows that headgear in any form is not the solution, in fact it increases the problem.

He seemingly ignores that brain injury/CTE is prevalent massively more in the general population than through controlled sports such as rugby then that compared to gridiron and Ice hockey - which also saw huge increases in head injuries post helmet/headgear wearing, which meant far less control of the participants actions. This is replicated in every single sport/activity that does same with regards to head protection.

it's also significant that since RIDDOR started, PPE for the head in the workplace has had very limited effect due to shift in responsibility for safety and also significant changes in behaviour with regards to risk (as in risk homeostasis)

He wants children banned from playing contact sport, define contact sport because soccer also has a major CTE problem on its hand and not just through heading a ball, Dr Gill Brooks in the US found that around a 1/4 of all college soccer players had concussions but were actually probably many more as they were more likely to cover up the fact they had a concussion.

Omalu again ignores the stats for deaths of children through head injury in motor vehicles which exceed that of children on bicycles in the UK at least. According to him forcing children to travel in motor vehicles with the increased risk of head/brain injury is abuse, but then again so is walking and to a lesser degree so is cycling and being allowed to play full stop, just keep children bubble wrapped/wearing headgear, except that actually wouldn't work, again he knows this but ignores human interactions in normal everyday life!

Whilst I respect his findings with regard to CTE in gridiron and that gives hope to addressing the long term problem and for other sports too (as in what route NOT to follow as a solution) he is way off the mark and utterly ignores what goes on in the world in life in general where we are making our own choices and making choices for children without their say so or influencing them to chose to do something that has a higher chance of head/brain injury than other aspects in life.

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

8 hours 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.

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

Yes, it's not what the headgear might do to protect but how it changes the person wearing it psychologically and even those around them too. Notice how chris Hill is far more aggressive than most and in return he cops a lot more, lomax at Saints is similar and Thurston even.

The effects of wearing headgear even in a non head threatening scenario have been noted in tests including on children were a significant portion took greater risks (being braver) when wearing even as I said if the actual threat of harm to the head wasn't part of the activity.

Also soft headgear does absolutely zip for protection aside from grazes/cuts, but as boxing found out this simply increased concussions massively due to the aforementioned increase in risk taking (and increasing head size/target size)

[Rupert Prince]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

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.

This is not right.

The accusations about concussion are not just about 1 blow.  They are also  about the accumulation of blows.  A boxer does not go for an assessme after he has been hit just once.  He might go for a test if he is k ocked out or after tbe game.

So likewise if a player gets a head knock after a foul and the attacker just gets a penalty or a sin bin or a reference, but the defending player is taken off (either immediately or subsequently) well is it not right that the player who caused the concussion should not go off as well?

The point is that by taking these measures to extremes the game would be closed down.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

This is not right.

The accusations about concussion are not just about 1 blow.  They are also  about the accumulation of blows.  A boxer does not go for an assessme after he has been hit just once.  He might go for a test if he is k ocked out or after tbe game.

So likewise if a player gets a head knock after a foul and the attacker just gets a penalty or a sin bin or a reference, but the defending player is taken off (either immediately or subsequently) well is it not right that the player who caused the concussion should not go off as well?

The point is that by taking these measures to extremes the game would be closed down.

I'm not really sure what you are arguing for. Are you advocating for stiffer punishments for head shots as your last line seems to suggest otherwise?

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

5 hours 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

Agree with everything barring full contact, learning about what is and what is not acceptable and tackling technique needs to start far, far earlier, otherwise you run the risk of players at that age running amok as they've been unleashed and not actually knowing the pain of doing things wrong. You learn by your mistakes in the home, in work and play/leisure, to restrict is not beneificial in the medium to short term IMHO.

That said it's no good 'punishing' the effected player/team, that's simply putting a sticking plaster to the outcome, it's preventing the action/injury in the first place, so it must start and be the focus of attention on those those that are doing the harm/not playing within the law of the game.

The laws themselves are not strict enough as it is but the RFL/Ganson are not protecting the players enough simply by not enforcing the laws of the game that are currently in place and failing to understand basic human psychology. They are very much symbiotic with regards head/any body part injury as well as what we discussed previously re the Catalans game and the ugly nature of how RL has descended in general.

[CanadianRugger]

The easiest way to make the game safer is to reduce the defensive line to five meters which will reduce the speed at which the contact occurs.  It's simple physics really.  The problem with this is it will also make the game less exciting to watch but maybe that is the trade-off we need. 

The same discussions are occurring in North America with respect to Ice Hockey and American/Canadian Football.  I don't know how you make American/Canadian Football any safer.  In order to do so you would probably need to eliminate blocking which is a fundamental part of the game. 

Ice Hockey has a far higher incidence of concussions than Rugby due to the speed at which contact occurs.  The problem is that the game eliminated a bunch of rules to make it "faster" and "more exciting" like clutching and grabbing as well as the two line pass.  What has happened is hits are now occurring at a higher speed.  Everyone wants them to eliminate contact but what I would like to see is bring back the rules that make the game safer and stop with the wishy washy rules like "hitting to the head" etc as contact is a fundamental part of ice hockey.  I'm generally very frustrated with the officiating in ice hockey now because there is no continuity in any refereeing now. 

How many tackles have you seen where someone got a "hit to the head" because they in fact led with the head or in the case of ice hockey, tried to turtle on a guy that was coming to deliver a body check? 

[RayCee]

1 hour ago, CanadianRugger said:

The easiest way to make the game safer is to reduce the defensive line to five meters which will reduce the speed at which the contact occurs.  It's simple physics really.  The problem with this is it will also make the game less exciting to watch but maybe that is the trade-off we need. 

The same discussions are occurring in North America with respect to Ice Hockey and American/Canadian Football.  I don't know how you make American/Canadian Football any safer.  In order to do so you would probably need to eliminate blocking which is a fundamental part of the game. 

Ice Hockey has a far higher incidence of concussions than Rugby due to the speed at which contact occurs.  The problem is that the game eliminated a bunch of rules to make it "faster" and "more exciting" like clutching and grabbing as well as the two line pass.  What has happened is hits are now occurring at a higher speed.  Everyone wants them to eliminate contact but what I would like to see is bring back the rules that make the game safer and stop with the wishy washy rules like "hitting to the head" etc as contact is a fundamental part of ice hockey.  I'm generally very frustrated with the officiating in ice hockey now because there is no continuity in any refereeing now. 

How many tackles have you seen where someone got a "hit to the head" because they in fact led with the head or in the case of ice hockey, tried to turtle on a guy that was coming to deliver a body check? 

Your comment is spot IMO. 

As you say, 5 metre defence will reduce impact. It still wouldn’t guarantee no concussion but greatly reduce the risk. It would require a rethink of tactics, less up the middle third of the field. Watching games from the time before the 10 metre defence saw more sidewards passing, more of the field being used.

[Lobbygobbler]

Why was soccer not mentioned? Surely there are just as many head injuries due to heading clashes and generally heading the ball?

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

What you seem to be arguing is that nobody would want to be on a governing body if that governing body was responsible for reducing the risk to players. This is despite RL already having a governing body that has taken responsibility on this very issue by introducing a range of concussion protocols in recent years.

Your argument is that the players should assume responsibility for the risk of life-changing and life-limiting head injuries. In that scenario, how many parents do you believe will be taking their children to their local RL club? 

 

A governing body that simply addresses the outcomes is moronic, it's seen to be doing something but doesn't actually do anything to protect the people they are supposed to be. They've addressed concussion protocols but done diddly squat to actually reduce the levels of concussion in the first instance, prevention is by far better than a non existent 'cure' and prevention through PPE has been proven throughout history in sport, in the work place and in the home not to work, only make matters worse.

This is like putting airbags/seatbelts/crash cells/ABS/anti skid, bigger tyres, brighter lights etc in motorvehicles to prevent motorists from killing others and themselves, yet fails to address the root cause of deaths and injuries, the human operating the killing machine. Motorists like players in gridiron can basically do what they like, they are cocooned so feel totally protected, so what do they do, they act in a manner that presents danger/harm often.

1.25million road deaths and tens of millions maimed/seriously injured every year but not one country, not one global organisation has stood up and actually addressed the problem at its root and they've all failed to see that 'armouring up' has caused more problems than it solved, yes seatbelts have a massive effect in terms of risk taking, the hidden Isles report tells us that drivers wearing them caused more injuries to those outside the vehicle (pedestrians/cyclists/equestrians) and unbelted back seat passengers, hidden so the law could go through unopposed.

Upholding the laws of RL for a start would make a difference, penalise ALL the time, stop ignoring offences, introduce harsher penalties both on field and in terms of game bans and financial punishments for players £300 is a stupidly low amount. A sliding scale based on salary would be good. these are things that can be done instantly from the start of next season, at the same time open dialogue (open survey would be perfect) with professionals outside the game as well as getting input from players past an present, officials past and present and even fans as to how the sport can move forward in terms of protecting players from the occurrence (to head and any other part of the body) but still allowing the physicality that those who play enjoy. BUT also understanding that you cannot totally eliminate risk, it simply is not possible, to attempt to do so is dumb and would also fail to acknowledge life as humans live it in all areas of the globe.

 

 

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

21 minutes ago, Lobbygobbler said:

Why was soccer not mentioned? Surely there are just as many head injuries due to heading clashes and generally heading the ball?

A Norwegian study from 1991 https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/38/6/690 suggested CTE was a significant issue for soccer players

[Chris22]

It's an interesting thread and debate. There can be little doubt that we have much still to learn about concussions. I've learned a lot simply by reading this thread about the brain and how headgear actually increases head injuries. I read an article on the BBC that rugby union recently trialled lowering the height for a legal tackle and that also increased the number of head injuries. The obvious answers don't seem to have worked.

I wonder what impact if any banning the shoulder charge has had? Players now have to tackle more "front on" instead of leading with the shoulder, which would seem to leave the head more exposed.

Firstly, anything we can do to reduce or possibly reduce the risk of injury to participants must be considered. An obvious solution would be to impose lengthy suspensions rather than the ones we have at the moment. Deliberate attacks to the head carry little punishment compared to their risk for injury. Big bans would cause players to think about the consequences for themselves and adjust their technique accordingly, leading to increased safety.

We also need to get away from an attitude that it's part of the game. Yes, our sport is physical, but that doesn't mean we should be reckless and making our sport as safe as possible should be paramount.

It's also important to dispel wider societal myths, such as a "compensation culture". The limited statistics that are available show significant drops in recent years in the number of claims being pursued (an 18% drop since 2012/13), despite what some tabloid papers or even government ministers may say.

[GUBRATS]

46 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

A governing body that simply addresses the outcomes is moronic, it's seen to be doing something but doesn't actually do anything to protect the people they are supposed to be. They've addressed concussion protocols but done diddly squat to actually reduce the levels of concussion in the first instance, prevention is by far better than a non existent 'cure' and prevention through PPE has been proven throughout history in sport, in the work place and in the home not to work, only make matters worse.

This is like putting airbags/seatbelts/crash cells/ABS/anti skid, bigger tyres, brighter lights etc in motorvehicles to prevent motorists from killing others and themselves, yet fails to address the root cause of deaths and injuries, the human operating the killing machine. Motorists like players in gridiron can basically do what they like, they are cocooned so feel totally protected, so what do they do, they act in a manner that presents danger/harm often.

1.25million road deaths and tens of millions maimed/seriously injured every year but not one country, not one global organisation has stood up and actually addressed the problem at its root and they've all failed to see that 'armouring up' has caused more problems than it solved, yes seatbelts have a massive effect in terms of risk taking, the hidden Isles report tells us that drivers wearing them caused more injuries to those outside the vehicle (pedestrians/cyclists/equestrians) and unbelted back seat passengers, hidden so the law could go through unopposed.

Upholding the laws of RL for a start would make a difference, penalise ALL the time, stop ignoring offences, introduce harsher penalties both on field and in terms of game bans and financial punishments for players £300 is a stupidly low amount. A sliding scale based on salary would be good. these are things that can be done instantly from the start of next season, at the same time open dialogue (open survey would be perfect) with professionals outside the game as well as getting input from players past an present, officials past and present and even fans as to how the sport can move forward in terms of protecting players from the occurrence (to head and any other part of the body) but still allowing the physicality that those who play enjoy. BUT also understanding that you cannot totally eliminate risk, it simply is not possible, to attempt to do so is dumb and would also fail to acknowledge life as humans live it in all areas of the globe.

 

 

Your point on motoring is absolutely spot on ( yes my post is a massive thread drift but sod it ) , something I've highlighted on the AOB board 

AUDI , the car of choice for the moron these days , their adverts , showing their latest car driving in the pouring rain with 150 different sensors checking the car 5,000 times a second , another one showing a gang war going on outside while one particular gang member gets a foot massage in a parked up Audi , essentially protected from the world , and finally the best of the lot , the ' clown proof ' car , well they are correct , the clowns are all on the inside 

Basically the idiots who buy and drive these things actually believe they are indistructable , and drive accordingly , for Christ's sake which idiot requires a ' lane departure warning ' ? , Maybe the ones driving down the fast lane at 90 while they check their Facebook ?

Sorry about the rant

[Mister Ting]

16 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

It's an interesting thread and debate. There can be little doubt that we have much still to learn about concussions. I've learned a lot simply by reading this thread about the brain and how headgear actually increases head injuries. I read an article on the BBC that rugby union recently trialled lowering the height for a legal tackle and that also increased the number of head injuries. The obvious answers don't seem to have worked.

I wonder what impact if any banning the shoulder charge has had? Players now have to tackle more "front on" instead of leading with the shoulder, which would seem to leave the head more exposed.

Firstly, anything we can do to reduce or possibly reduce the risk of injury to participants must be considered. An obvious solution would be to impose lengthy suspensions rather than the ones we have at the moment. Deliberate attacks to the head carry little punishment compared to their risk for injury. Big bans would cause players to think about the consequences for themselves and adjust their technique accordingly, leading to increased safety.

We also need to get away from an attitude that it's part of the game. Yes, our sport is physical, but that doesn't mean we should be reckless and making our sport as safe as possible should be paramount.

It's also important to dispel wider societal myths, such as a "compensation culture". The limited statistics that are available show significant drops in recent years in the number of claims being pursued (an 18% drop since 2012/13), despite what some tabloid papers or even government ministers may say.

Can any contact sport move forward without the risk of head injuries?

If the thrill of watching a sport is partly due to the an emphasis on the physicality of that sport, once that element of the sport disappears, apart from skill, what are we left with?

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

How about switching from 10 metres to 10 yards which is about 9 metres. This will have less of an impact on the game than going all the way down to 5 metres and get the support of the Brexit fanatics, any publicity is good publicity they say. 

[RayCee]

23 minutes ago, Mister Ting said:

Can any contact sport move forward without the risk of head injuries?

If the thrill of watching a sport is partly due to the an emphasis on the physicality of that sport, once that element of the sport disappears, apart from skill, what are we left with?

That is the dilemma the game faces. 

[Mister Ting]

5 minutes ago, RayCee said:

That is the dilemma the game faces. 

Basketball is very popular.

Are we heading towards a situation lower contact team sports become the norm?

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

2 hours ago, RayCee said:

As you say, 5 metre defence will reduce impact. It still wouldn’t guarantee no concussion but greatly reduce the risk.

Is it a given that cutting to 5m defence will reduce impact and risk? If players only have to cover half the distance over the course of a game, will this reduce the aerobic demands and see their training emphasis shift to more strength and power, consequently not affecting impact or risk at all? I'm not necessarily suggesting it would, but just making a point that it perhaps isn't as straightforward as we may think.

[RayCee]

19 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Is it a given that cutting to 5m defence will reduce impact and risk? If players only have to cover half the distance over the course of a game, will this reduce the aerobic demands and see their training emphasis shift to more strength and power, consequently not affecting impact or risk at all? I'm not necessarily suggesting it would, but just making a point that it perhaps isn't as straightforward as we may think.

Fair point. Surely, less velocity has to count though. 

I've put together a slightly wordy article on my blog. I haven't posted it here as I don't want to have a tome -like comment. It's there if anyone wants a look. 

https://rugbyl.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-future-of-contact-sport.html

[Rupert Prince]

5 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I'm not really sure what you are arguing for. Are you advocating for stiffer punishments for head shots as your last line seems to suggest otherwise?

I'm pointing out that players are having to go off for concussion protocols whilst the opposing player is just getting a caution. Even if the player had stayed on not recognised as concussed a further hit of some kind could have been contributed to taking him off. Shouldn't the original hit be taken in to consideration?

How do we know how a head hit contributes?  The logic is getting tortuous and hysterical.

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Your point on motoring is absolutely spot on ( yes my post is a massive thread drift but sod it ) , something I've highlighted on the AOB board 

AUDI , the car of choice for the moron these days , their adverts , showing their latest car driving in the pouring rain with 150 different sensors checking the car 5,000 times a second , another one showing a gang war going on outside while one particular gang member gets a foot massage in a parked up Audi , essentially protected from the world , and finally the best of the lot , the ' clown proof ' car , well they are correct , the clowns are all on the inside 

Basically the idiots who buy and drive these things actually believe they are indistructable , and drive accordingly , for Christ's sake which idiot requires a ' lane departure warning ' ? , Maybe the ones driving down the fast lane at 90 while they check their Facebook ?

Sorry about the rant

Rant allowed and in fact it's relevant. When there's talk of headgear as a part solution to concussions then what happens with motorists and their weapon of choice is absolutely relevant. All these other aspects in life not just sport show us this would be totally the wrong way to go, even with kids, I notice the Australian video with the large lad they all had headgear, but then Australian higher ups actualy believe headgear is the solution, they've had their unlawful cycle helmet laws which have not just turned people off cycling, young girls particularly and two generations taking up driving instead (hence why their obesity rates are massive) but cycling injuriy rates went up at the same time. The headgear for kids makes no logical sense whatsoever, offers no protection against head collisions and as I explained earlier children are affected when they feel protected to be more reckless/take more risks.

I'm not a betting man but I'd be extremely surprised if they bucked a global trend of headgear = more injuries/higher incidence rate. But again, it's seen to be doing something, but the something is the wrong thing.

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

5 hours ago, CanadianRugger said:

The easiest way to make the game safer is to reduce the defensive line to five meters which will reduce the speed at which the contact occurs.  It's simple physics really.  The problem with this is it will also make the game less exciting to watch but maybe that is the trade-off we need. 

The same discussions are occurring in North America with respect to Ice Hockey and American/Canadian Football.  I don't know how you make American/Canadian Football any safer.  In order to do so you would probably need to eliminate blocking which is a fundamental part of the game. 

Ice Hockey has a far higher incidence of concussions than Rugby due to the speed at which contact occurs.  The problem is that the game eliminated a bunch of rules to make it "faster" and "more exciting" like clutching and grabbing as well as the two line pass.  What has happened is hits are now occurring at a higher speed.  Everyone wants them to eliminate contact but what I would like to see is bring back the rules that make the game safer and stop with the wishy washy rules like "hitting to the head" etc as contact is a fundamental part of ice hockey.  I'm generally very frustrated with the officiating in ice hockey now because there is no continuity in any refereeing now. 

How many tackles have you seen where someone got a "hit to the head" because they in fact led with the head or in the case of ice hockey, tried to turtle on a guy that was coming to deliver a body check? 

There are more concussions/head injuries in Ice Hockey primarily because of helmets and face masks, this was made clear in a 1987 study on the data from the 60s through to the 80s and backed up again in another study in 2002 (Biasca, Wirth and Tegner). There were more lacerations but significantly more head/neck injuries, players play faster/more aggressive due to having less regard for safety thus less thinking time spent on safety (much like armoured up gridiron players and motorists in their protected bubble), this produces faster unadulterated play, they have less regard for safety because of feeling protected.

Even the old guard who didn't wear stated how there was a significant difference in style of play since helmets and face masks were introduced and even more so when they were mandated, they also said that it was actually safer before they were introduced despite the higher incidence of cuts. Superficial wounds are a better trade off to head/brain/neck injuries all day long and that's why boxing removed head gear from the amateurs (though sadly not right across the board).

 

[Mister Ting]

This isn't a problem that's going to disappear. There are no easy answers and it's not going to happen overnight.

It is almost certain that rugby league will gradually become less of a contact sport. It is now cleaner than it has ever been. However, we can't ignore the pressures demanded by the wider society. 

[RayCee]

43 minutes ago, Celt said:

I had a read of your blog Ray, and it is good to see an active RL blog like that.  I will keep checking it.

FWIW, I didn't like any of your ideas to 'improve' the game.  Just my opinion of course, but I thought they would all detract from the sport rather than improve it.  

Glad you liked it.

Fair enough. Any intended improvements would need to be trialed because it is hard to predict if a change would work as expected. 

[Mister Ting]

56 minutes ago, Celt said:

I had a read of your blog Ray, and it is good to see an active RL blog like that.  I will keep checking it.

FWIW, I didn't like any of your ideas to 'improve' the game.  Just my opinion of course, but I thought they would all detract from the sport rather than improve it.  

Although I agree, fans of most sports have the same attitude.

I don't think the actual game needs improve much if at all. Our problem has always agreeing how we could agree to sell it to the masses.

There is far too much northern small town chippiness holding us back.