Brain impact of rugby

[redjonn]

4 hours ago, wasginger said:

How do we police all head tackles. Do we ban anything above the clavicle, or is that too high ? I appreciate players play because they love the game, whether that be amateur or professional. Perhaps it is time to take that threat of serious head injuries away. How many ex professional players and ex amateur players are suffering from some form of brain disease. Up until a couple of months ago I was of the opinion, well we know what sport we're playing, and take the risks with it. But personally I know of a couple of ex players who are friends that are suffering form some form of brain injury. So it makes you take stock as it brings it close to you.

Don't think many would disagree with trying to make the game safer.

Its not just the high tackles... yep we can police them down towards zero but its still going have brain issues from the high impact tackles and heads rocking/whip leash type. That's the thing the game has to try and grapple with - not sure its possible without slowing the game to a crawl and hence lessen impact or go touch only.

[DC77]

Concur 100% with Shane Williams regarding subs in RU.

“He has joined calls for a limit on replacements, because fresher players coming on to the pitch could cause more damage.”

 

21 stone brutes, “finishers” (as Williams called them) coming on fresh after 55 minutes are an enormous health risk to the others, as well as increasing the attritional nature of the sport and making it more unwatchable. 

Allow maximum 3 subs which will avoid this mass influx that occurs every game. As well as forcing the players to last longer (so they’d have to be trimmer) I’d also look at ways to speed up the game which would see players have to lose a lot more of that bulk they carry around the field. The collisions are like mini car crashes. South Africa have always had some great individuals (Joost Van Der Westhuizen in particular) but overall I’d class them a burden on the sport as their brutish style of play is not only awful to watch but they are a safety hazard. Not a surprise Williams picked out a clash with a South African as his most worrying moment on the field. The bigger issue is most teams now play like South Africa.

 

59 minutes ago, redjonn said:

Don't think many would disagree with trying to make the game safer.

Its not just the high tackles... yep we can police them down towards zero but its still going have brain issues from the high impact tackles and heads rocking/whip leash type. That's the thing the game has to try and grapple with - not sure its possible without slowing the game to a crawl and hence lessen impact or go touch only.

It’s a huge concern. Papenhuyzen went down at the weekend due to whiplash after what looked like an accidental collision with an opponent. How do you stop the sudden head movements unless you ban collisions? Any kind of high speed impact is dangerous, which is the nature of the sport. Lowering the weight of the players (especially so in RU) would at least alleviate some of the effects of the impact. 

The good news is the thing that people like most about the rugby codes is quality passing sequences, dummies and long distance runs through the opposition defence, attractive aspects that have declined due to the increase in player bulk, tighter defences as well as wrestling, stifling play etc. Get back to more of the former and have less of the latter and the game will be fine.

[nadera78]

15 hours ago, jacksy said:

Less games, fewer replacements,reduce 10m distance rule between the teams, slower correct ptb's and move away from the focus on speed, power and impact.

I think this will end being the direction of travel. And the thing is, we can do all of these things within the known and understood parameters of the sport because we have done them at some time or other in the past - we've had fewer replacements, we've had a 5m defensive line, etc, etc. That means we needn't pay any attention to those typing "the game's gone soft" from the safety of their mobile phones.

[barnyia]

That's the reason rl got rid of rolling substitutions, also why the numbers of interchanges have dropped, remember the days when the Bradford pack would just run on and off with their  easy breath on their nose, torpedo pads etc Also longer minutes means the forwards are usually a little lighter. 

[fighting irish]

4 hours ago, nadera78 said:

I think this will end being the direction of travel. And the thing is, we can do all of these things within the known and understood parameters of the sport because we have done them at some time or other in the past - we've had fewer replacements, we've had a 5m defensive line, etc, etc. That means we needn't pay any attention to those typing "the game's gone soft" from the safety of their mobile phones.

Nobody's going to want to hear this but perhaps reducing the number of players, would reduce the number of head-on (jarring) impacts and encourage lighter players due to the need to cover more  ground.

Side on tackles between lighter players are far less forceful.

 

[Alan Robertson]

23 hours ago, jacksy said:

... move away from the focus on speed, power and impact.

How would that be enforced?

[jacksy]

1 hour ago, Alan Robertson said:

How would that be enforced?

I think reducing the 10m to 5m would go a long way towards that.

 

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, jacksy said:

I think reducing the 10m to 5m would go a long way towards that.

 

Just to provide a counter to this. If we moved to 5m the aerobic demands on the players would be lower and so players could potentially bulk up more... negating any benefit.  In Union the defensive line is literally the gain line and they have huge men and just as many issues (although their ball carrying and tackling technique will not help).

I am not trying to be too negative to the idea though, I think we need to look at all the variables to see what works.

[Alan Robertson]

7 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Just to provide a counter to this. If we moved to 5m the aerobic demands on the players would be lower and so players could potentially bulk up more... negating any benefit.  In Union the defensive line is literally the gain line and they have huge men and just as many issues (although their ball carrying and tackling technique will not help).

I am not trying to be too negative to the idea though, I think we need to look at all the variables to see what works.

I agree with all of this. So much so, I can't add much (without going into unnecessary detail).

[RayCee]

I wrote this a while back:

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

[Wakey Til I Die]

On 31/08/2021 at 09:22, whatmichaelsays said:

A litigation claim from an ex-professional is surely in the post. I get the feeling that a lot of the game's stakeholders are probably hoping that they are no longer involved in the sport by the time it lands on the door mat. RL has to get involved in this discussion, no matter how uncomfortable it might be. 

What's worrying is that there seems to be a cohort of people in the sport - fans included - who seem to think that this sort of thing should be "part and parcel" of playing contact sports. as if the players are some sort of circus freaks, giving themselves serious injuries for our entertainment. We've had a narrative developing around "the game going soft" in response to the increase in penalties and disciplinary incidents and I've even seen suggestions of making parents sign disclaimers before their kids can play, as if that isn't going to make our participation problem even worse.

Yes, contact sports have risks, but the onus is on the sport to mitigate the most serious and that mitigation goes a lot further than just handing out longer bans at the match review hearings (whilst, at the same time, insisting on increasing the work load and work intensity on the players). As a player, I could understand and accept that rugby might give me a broken leg of a dicky knee, but that it could increase the risk of developing dementia in my 30s? That's a different story. 

It's obvious which way the wind is blowing, and people still want to pee in the wrong direction. 

 

Already happening i believe. 
 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.rugby365.com/countries/england/league-players-join-in-on-concussion-law-suit/

[The Frying Scotsman]

Tempelhofer RL in Berlin are looking at running a discussion on this very subject if anyone is interested in joining.

Seems very topical/relevant to the game at the moment, so if anyone has anything they feel they can add, I would encourage them to join the discussion.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tempelhofer-rugby-league_mitigating-the-risks-of-concussion-through-activity-6839102004313300992-BOez

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

Tempelhofer RL in Berlin are looking at running a discussion on this very subject if anyone is interested in joining.

Seems very topical/relevant to the game at the moment, so if anyone has anything they feel they can add, I would encourage them to join the discussion.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tempelhofer-rugby-league_mitigating-the-risks-of-concussion-through-activity-6839102004313300992-BOez

This is confusing.  Templehof ‘Rugby League’ appears to have been set up in 2021 by Berlin Bruisers (1 of 3 Templehof located RU teams).  No Templehof RL team but only a LinkedIn Membership 

I might be reading into this too much but considering Templehof represent RU teams, why are they associating themselves with RL?  

[The Frying Scotsman]

4 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

This is confusing.  Templehof ‘Rugby League’ appears to have been set up in 2021 by Berlin Bruisers (1 of 3 Templehof located RU teams).  No Templehof RL team but only a LinkedIn Membership 

I might be reading into this too much but considering Templehof represent RU teams, why are they associating themselves with RL?  

It's a new Rugby League club . Just for you, I had a chat with the guy who started it. Most of his response isn't repeatable on here. 

However, he did say at one point:

"What does he think the union cabal is going to do when it lures all the leaguies onto this bogus zoom call? Force them to wear ties and eat quiche? Fark, what if he hears my accent!? The jig is up then for sure."

Personally, I have no idea what the point of your post was, it has absolutely zero to do with head injuries or concussions in Rugby League. 

 

[Lowdesert]

33 minutes ago, The Frying Scotsman said:

It's a new Rugby League club . Just for you, I had a chat with the guy who started it. Most of his response isn't repeatable on here. 

However, he did say at one point:

"What does he think the union cabal is going to do when it lures all the leaguies onto this bogus zoom call? Force them to wear ties and eat quiche? Fark, what if he hears my accent!? The gig is up then for sure."

Personally, I have no idea what the point of your post was, it has absolutely zero to do with head injuries or concussions in Rugby League. 

 

Thanks. 

 

[Alan Robertson]

Providing context for the below comment, I have watched and loved rugby league for over thirty years. 

 

However, sadly, any 'safe' version of rugby league would involve playing a game/sport that looks VERY different to what we watch now - in my opinion.

[Wakefield Ram]

On 01/09/2021 at 00:05, Saint 1 said:

I vaguely remember checking the data on this and I don't think that was the cause. I think the majority of concussions were on defending players though, so potentially tinkering with the high tackle level may not have too great an impact.

I seem to remember that a lot of the concussions on defending players were from going high (head clashes etc) and going high was twice as likely to suffer a head injury as going low. I can't see any benefit from allowing head contact of any sort.