Jump to content

Concussion (Merged Threads)


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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 ?

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dallas Mead said:

Yep, there won’t be anyone playing is kind of the point I’m making. 🤷‍♂️

I remember when all of the concussion stuff started to really come out in American football, there were a number of players who basically said look, I'd be a total nobody without the NFL. It's given me everything I could have ever dreamed of when the alternative was a dead end job or being in a gang or whatever. So if I end up with problems in later life then so be it.

The difference is, if you are a decent American football player it will make you a multi millionaire, and I'm sure there will still be lots of people willing to take the risk. Who's going to risk their health for a salary barely above the national average?

I agree with you it's a real concern for the future of the sport.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Damien said:

Furlough.

Are you assuming that players would get the same money for playing, say, half as many games ?  I think not.

Furlough just doesn't explain it.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

Nobody is being forced to take risks with their future mental health. They're choosing to do it because they enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There`s a consensus we should do everything practicable to eliminate direct contact with the head. However, to address the strictures in the OP about legal heavy contact (big hits, massive collisions, head jolting back), we have to look at the way the game is played. Specifically, how today`s game contrasts with previous eras when these sort of mental health conditions seem to have been less common among former players.

Teams are frightened of turning the ball over in their own half. Thus they concentrate on bash and crash close to the ruck to gain territory and "get to the kick". Which means far more irresistible force meets immovable object impacts than in the past. Again and again, just to pick up a few metres.

I might be alone in continually claiming this, but I believe the style of refereeing through the past 20 years has played a part in compressing the game. Teams don`t just have to worry they may turn the ball over from an actual error, but also through calls of phantom knock-ons, phantom forward passes, phantom obstructions. Basically, bash and crash is the only certain way to keep the officials out of the game when you`re in possession.

There`s an obvious limit to how far risk can be reduced. Loosening the play up wouldn`t be the whole answer, but trying to discern links between styles of play and applications of rules is one thing we can do without altering the fundamental nature of RL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Griff said:

Are you assuming that players would get the same money for playing, say, half as many games ?  I think not.

Furlough just doesn't explain it.

There wasn't just furlough though, there were other business grants available. As well as the reduced costs of not opening a stadium. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Griff said:

Are you assuming that players would get the same money for playing, say, half as many games ?  I think not.

Furlough just doesn't explain it.

You asked a question and yes furlough does explain it.

Super league clubs lost vast amounts of money. The clubs that did better in the lower reaches did so because of furlough as it covered most of their costs and many supporters and sponsors still financially supported their club through things like season tickets despite not getting games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

There wasn't just furlough though, there were other business grants available. As well as the reduced costs of not opening a stadium. 

Other business grants ?   If you owned the ground - which few do these days.

Reduced costs ?  Well, yes, which is why we should play less games.  My point entirely.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

You asked a question and yes furlough does explain it.

Super league clubs lost vast amounts of money. The clubs that did better in the lower reaches did so because of furlough as it covered most of their costs and many supporters and sponsors still financially supported their club through things like season tickets despite not getting games.

Superleague is a different scenario.

 

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Tabby said:

Then simply don’t play it. 

And when everybody stops playing it?

When parents don't take their kids to play?

"I am the avenging angel; I come with wings unfurled, I come with claws extended from halfway round the world. I am the God Almighty, I am the howling wind. I care not for your family; I care not for your kin. I come in search of terror, though terror is my own; I come in search of vengeance for crimes and crimes unknown. I care not for your children, I care not for your wives, I care not for your country, I care not for your lives." - (c) Jim Boyes - "The Avenging Angel"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

This.

The potential catalogue of injury and subsequent liability continues to grow.

Edited by Blind side johnny

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Griff said:

Other business grants ?   If you owned the ground - which few do these days.

Reduced costs ?  Well, yes, which is why we should play less games.  My point entirely.

For instance, If you were operating as a business (before covid kicked in, so no just starting one on the hoof) you could get a £10K grant. Whether you ran a pub or a corner shop. One guy I know bought a new Merc with his.

Free gratis and for nowt. Other types of business help was available too. 

Its rather like asking why did people on low incomes manage to save money during C19? Not because they had more coming in but less coming out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DavidM said:

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 

I don't know what employment you have/had Dave but I'm sure that, if you had suffered any industrial injury you would have been happy for your employer to trot out this lame excuse.

  • Like 1

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, MZH said:

I remember when all of the concussion stuff started to really come out in American football, there were a number of players who basically said look, I'd be a total nobody without the NFL. It's given me everything I could have ever dreamed of when the alternative was a dead end job or being in a gang or whatever. So if I end up with problems in later life then so be it.

The difference is, if you are a decent American football player it will make you a multi millionaire, and I'm sure there will still be lots of people willing to take the risk. Who's going to risk their health for a salary barely above the national average?

I agree with you it's a real concern for the future of the sport.

Peculiarly, sportsmen in the USA are excluded from the normal protections offered to "regular" employees.

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

Nobody is being forced to take risks with their future mental health. They're choosing to do it because they enjoy it.

They are employees and their employers have a statutory duty of care, just like yours does/did.

  • Like 2

Sport, amongst other things, is a dream-world offering escape from harsh reality and the disturbing prospect of change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Damien said:

You didn't specify a scenario to make it different.

You can't talk about the financial success of many clubs and just decide ignore the ones that struggled. 

I'm specifying it now.

  • Haha 1

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chris22 said:

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.

There could be nothing done while the data from the new mouth guards is examined.

A real issue, which is the elephant in the room, is just playing to the laws of the game.  Far too many laws are ignored by officials and players.  Based on what I’ve seen over the last 10 years, playing to the laws would be a step change and if we can’t deal with those, we will struggle with something as complex as concussion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • John Drake changed the title to Concussion (Merged Threads)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...