Concussion (Merged Threads)

[RP London]

The advent of professionalism (proper no job professionalism) has been a major issue in this in both sports. Players get bigger and stronger and fitter so the impacts are larger. Today even the small players would be relatively big on an amateur pitch. Sadly you cannot easily put the genie back in the bottle (though some owners and administrators are doing a fine job of proving me wrong!)

I still think the amount of contact they do in training is a major part of it and that we will find that becoming limited before we see too much in the way of game changes now. simply put 1 less contact session in a week makes a much bigger impact to the Drip Drip effect of constant mini concussions than tweaks to the rules on game day (that just mean less of a hit but still a hit).. 2 less contact sessions a week is double the impact on this effect etc. IMHO that is where you get the biggest reward for change. 

[Guest]

It’s a serious dilemma because although we love to see the skilful parts, we also love to see the roughhouse stuff (I’m not talking about dirty play) It’s what sets RL apart from other sports IMO - war minus the bullets type thing. We can watch soccer if we want skilful players or basketball possibly for quick hands or something like that…..but they aren’t RL and I aren’t sure it would be the same game without the gladiatorial aspect.

I say that as someone who doesn’t play and can totally respect anyone who didn’t want to do that for a living, I’m just pointing out what is possibly inevitable.

[Archie Gordon]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

I still think the amount of contact they do in training is a major part of it and that we will find that becoming limited before we see too much in the way of game changes now. simply put 1 less contact session in a week makes a much bigger impact to the Drip Drip effect of constant mini concussions than tweaks to the rules on game day (that just mean less of a hit but still a hit).. 2 less contact sessions a week is double the impact on this effect etc. IMHO that is where you get the biggest reward for change. 

I think this is right and, honestly, contact sessions should anyway be slowed down and be about tekkers.

But I also think protocols for concussions need to be stricter and better enforced, even if this means someone sitting out 2/3 weeks.

And we need to be playing shorter league seasons. Nearer 20 than 30 games.

[cookey]

Contact with the head has now been virtually stopped in rugby union. No sorrys, no I slipped, no, sorry I was off balance, it has been virtually stopped or is followed by a red card.

In the community ru game, there was a radid increase in dismissals for the first month of the season but already it has been accepted and the game is much safer for it. Most high tackles are down to poor technique or thugs playing the sport.

[RP London]

10 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I think this is right and, honestly, contact sessions should anyway be slowed down and be about tekkers.

But I also think protocols for concussions need to be stricter and better enforced, even if this means someone sitting out 2/3 weeks.

And we need to be playing shorter league seasons. Nearer 20 than 30 games.

yes totally agree with the latter 2 points too. 

I know from RU coaching courses that the protocol and "return to Rugby" for the kids especially can be quite long but it is there for a reason. However, when you see some people being helped off the pitch in internationals and club games and then fail an HIA (unsurprisingly) I am shocked by how fast they can be back, some the next week. There should be a mandatory sit down period no questions... independent doctors doing the HIA etc so they cannot be swayed by the clubs/nations. Pardon the expression but its a "no brainer"

I also agree with the limit, however, i would be happy to just limit the players (rather than the clubs) to 20 games per season as that also allows younger players to get starts which may help bring some through that wouldnt normally get seen. 

The key though is enforcement. Players want to play, coaches want their best players to play but they have to just be told " look he failed an HIA, he has to sit down for AT LEAST 2 weeks before contact training or consideration of playing.. no question".

[Damien]

9 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

Ive said this for the last few years that rugby of either code in 30 years will be very different or won't exist. Tackling above the waist I think will be gone maybe within a decade

And that would solve absolutely nothing. If anything it would make things worse.

[Archie Gordon]

30 minutes ago, RP London said:

I also agree with the limit, however, i would be happy to just limit the players (rather than the clubs) to 20 games per season as that also allows younger players to get starts which may help bring some through that wouldnt normally get seen. 

Just on this, I think you're right that the limit should be on players rather than the club. My reason for reducing the number of league games was so that a club could choose to play its best players in 20 league games (if 20 is the cap) if that is what they wanted to focus on and blood others in Cup comps where P&R is not an issue. But I'm open to any idea that reduces the annual number of games from 35 to something much lower for professional players.

[Dunbar]

I can see full contact Rugby League at the professional level continuing.  If a sport is going to fail due to the existence of evidence of head injuries etc then the likes of boxing and MMA would already be banned.  The latter continues to grow.

Professional players who are prepared to balance the risks and rewards and play with informed consent will continue.

The urgency is how do we ensure that the junior and community instances of the game evolve to make all participants and parents feel comfortable that they can play with their welfare being protected as much as possible. 

We already have different laws for different versions of the sport and I think will continue to at pace - perhaps with full contact Rugby League as we know it today only played at the fully professional level.

[DavidM]

Without ‘ full contact ‘ rugby league you don’t have rugby league . You can only do so much , the  nature of the sport means there’s inherent risk , it’s a big part of why we love it . You can’t eliminate it , it’s impossible . You just need to look at concussion from tackling. Some of the proposed solutions give you a game not worth watching anyway 

[Blind side johnny]

9 minutes ago, DavidM said:

Without ‘ full contact ‘ rugby league you don’t have rugby league . You can only do so much , the  nature of the sport means there’s inherent risk , it’s a big part of why we love it . You can’t eliminate it , it’s impossible . You just need to look at concussion from tackling. Some of the proposed solutions give you a game not worth watching anyway 

Then maybe the game will cease to be played. Regrettable, of course, but if people are saying that others should take risks with their future mental health so that we can have an enjoyable afternoon out then they need to think just a little longer.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

And that would solve absolutely nothing. If anything it would make things worse.

No it wouldn't 

The guy being tackled has a massive reduction of head injury risk

Emphasis on the tackler to protect themselves by only tackling with very good technique. If he does tackle properly then his head injury risk is reduced too 

Two things 

1. Rubbish tackling technique may still mean injury to the tackler. Crucially though it is the tackler who is responsible for thier own safety. 

2. I am desperate to avoid any such rule to come into force as both codes will be diminished and maybe even die

If you are going to tell me tackling below the waist is dangerous then you've never been taught to tackle properly. Head l/shoulder position and timing are key

 

 

 

[DavidM]

4 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Then maybe the game will cease to be played. Regrettable, of course, but if people are saying that others should take risks with their future mental health so that we can have an enjoyable afternoon out then they need to think just a little longer.

Ask the ‘ others ‘ , ie the players , what they think ? You think they want to radically change the nature of the game they choose to play 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

6 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

Then maybe the game will cease to be played. Regrettable, of course, but if people are saying that others should take risks with their future mental health so that we can have an enjoyable afternoon out then they need to think just a little longer.

I have to say I think this will be the case. 30 years i give both codes

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

Sad I know Dave but I'm resigned to it

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

Plus I'll probably be dead then

[DavidM]

9 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

No it wouldn't 

The guy being tackled has a massive reduction of head injury risk

Emphasis on the tackler to protect themselves by only tackling with very good technique. If he does tackle properly then his head injury risk is reduced too 

Two things 

1. Rubbish tackling technique may still mean injury to the tackler. Crucially though it is the tackler who is responsible for thier own safety. 

2. I am desperate to avoid any such rule to come into force as both codes will be diminished and maybe even die

If you are going to tell me tackling below the waist is dangerous then you've never been taught to tackle properly. Head l/shoulder position and timing are key

 

 

 

Doesn’t have to be rubbish tackling technique or not being taught to tackle properly . I’m sure NRL players are taught plenty of defence . But things go wrong in split second high speed collisions , some things are just accidents , collisions etc . Things look great and simple written down or in a edict but it’s not simple or cut and dry in action . We can bring in all kinds of measures but guys will still by definition get concussion and injury 

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

No it wouldn't 

The guy being tackled has a massive reduction of head injury risk

Emphasis on the tackler to protect themselves by only tackling with very good technique. If he does tackle properly then his head injury risk is reduced too 

Two things 

1. Rubbish tackling technique may still mean injury to the tackler. Crucially though it is the tackler who is responsible for thier own safety. 

2. I am desperate to avoid any such rule to come into force as both codes will be diminished and maybe even die

If you are going to tell me tackling below the waist is dangerous then you've never been taught to tackle properly. Head l/shoulder position and timing are key

 

 

 

Many head clashes are a result of tacklers going low and accidentally clashing heads with their own teammates. What you say will exacerbate this.

Other concussions also arise purely accidentally through getting bumped off, head contact with knees, hips and other bones. What you say will again make this worse.

It also does nothing for concussions that arise with head contact to the ground and whiplash type concussions.

I think anyone that has played the game knows that banning tackles above the waste would achieve nothing. Its a very lazy solution that completely ignores how many concussions are caused.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

Just on this, I think you're right that the limit should be on players rather than the club. My reason for reducing the number of league games was so that a club could choose to play its best players in 20 league games (if 20 is the cap) if that is what they wanted to focus on and blood others in Cup comps where P&R is not an issue. But I'm open to any idea that reduces the annual number of games from 35 to something much lower for professional players.

I agree with you.. just remember the "we need x home games to make it pay" argument that always pops up around game reduction (and dont want to derail the thread with "make more of the games youve got rather than just adding more games" argument).

[RP London]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

Many head clashes are a result of tacklers going low and accidentally clashing heads with their own teammates. What you say will exacerbate this.

Other concussions also arise purely accidentally through getting bumped off, head contact with knees, hips and other bones. What you say will again make this worse.

It also does nothing for concussions that arise with head contact to the ground and whiplash type concussions.

I think anyone that has played the game knows that banning tackles above the waste would achieve nothing. Its a very lazy solution that completely ignores how many concussions are caused.

the game is 60-80 minutes long for most players (some will be 40 minutes).. the number of tackles players make and run ins is normally between say 40 and 60 (plucking figures but you get the idea)... a full contact training session is an intense workout of continually running into tackle pads, each other, getting bounced back and getting hit/driven/fall onto the floor. In a compressed time frame you can be doing the same amount of high intensity work during a session as you do in a game, for some people (outside backs etc) you may find you are doing significantly more.. 

Yes there is control, but high shots will still occur (human error).. the "car crash" and "whiplash" can still be found running into bags or with padded protection on individuals. 

These sessions can run quite long. They also run through pre season as well as during the season..  

Where is there most to be gained? tinkering around the rules on match day or from limiting the contact training by 1 session a week... (could be around 40 session taken out over a year)... I know what i would be looking at more intently and the NFL have done just that too.

[Chris22]

I see the 10m rule going to 5m to reduce impact and a reduction in sub numbers to stop 'impact' players crashing into tired bodies.

[The Rocket]

I`ve said this before and I`ll say it again with all the billions spent by car makers on impact absorbing technology why can`t some of that science and engineering be used to manufacture a light weight disposable helmet that will ensure that those accidental head knocks don`t result in head trauma.

You might go through a few them per game but if the game was tidied up to avoid most deliberate and careless head knocks this could eliminate the accidental.

Two of the worst that occurred in SOO a couple of years ago was Teddy slipping and banging his head on someone`s knee and someone slipping while taking a bomb (uncontested) and banging their head on the ground. Both were nasty knocks that could have been avoided with the appropriate head protection.

I`m assuming of course that all deliberate and careless head contact is stamped out of the game.

[Griff]

18 minutes ago, RP London said:

I agree with you.. just remember the "we need x home games to make it pay" argument that always pops up around game reduction (and dont want to derail the thread with "make more of the games youve got rather than just adding more games" argument).

How do you explain the financial success of many clubs during lockdown ?

[Damien]

38 minutes ago, Griff said:

How do you explain the financial success of many clubs during lockdown ?

Furlough.

[RP London]

40 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

I`ve said this before and I`ll say it again with all the billions spent by car makers on impact absorbing technology why can`t some of that science and engineering be used to manufacture a light weight disposable helmet that will ensure that those accidental head knocks don`t result in head trauma.

You might go through a few them per game but if the game was tidied up to avoid most deliberate and careless head knocks this could eliminate the accidental.

Two of the worst that occurred in SOO a couple of years ago was Teddy slipping and banging his head on someone`s knee and someone slipping while taking a bomb (uncontested) and banging their head on the ground. Both were nasty knocks that could have been avoided with the appropriate head protection.

I`m assuming of course that all deliberate and careless head contact is stamped out of the game.

You would certainly think there was something that could be done. However, a lot of the issues that are talked about with long lasting issues (the dementia cases etc) are not necessarily about the big hit and the proper sparked out concussions its about the little mini concussions that occur from general impact and the "sponge in a bucket" explanation of the brain. The little rattle around on each contact. Of course they should look at everything and if they can minimise what you mention then absolutely they should, but that is happening more with the rules at the moment. 

[RP London]

38 minutes ago, Griff said:

How do you explain the financial success of many clubs during lockdown ?

if we go into this we'll derail the thread which i dont want to do... also, for the record, I am not from the school of pile it high sell it cheap..