Head Injuries

[Wakefield Ram]

I'll no doubt get shot down for this but just when is the game going to wake up? Watched Victor Radley after his latest concussion and he appeared to be fitting on the pitch.

The HIAs are next to worthless. The clampdown on head tackles lasted a few weeks because it was "spoiling the game" - the RFU persisted with it 4-5 seasons ago and tackle techniques have changed - and as far as I am aware there's no limit on contact sessions in training. The NFL limit contact sessions to one a week and I doubt anyone sees NFL as "soft". So what is the RFL actually doing to reduce the risk of brain injuries in the or game? You can't remove the risk but you can take sensible steps to reduce it, like we have speed limits and seat belt laws.

Here's a few

1. Limit contact sessions to one a week like NFL. And their regular season is 17 games and an average player is likely to be in action for 11 mins a game. NFL is no ones definition of soft, but they already have a compensation fund of 1 billion dollars for concussion cases.

2. Maybe reduce 10m to 7m and cut out the lying on to comoensate- it might encourage more creative play and passing (watch games from 80s/90s on YouTube) rather than the one man running 10m into a head on collision with 2-3 tacklers.

3. Clampdown on all head contact. Yes tacklers can get head knocks tackling low (like Radley) but it's lower incidence than head clashes from tackling high. And what"s the benefit to the game and it's image  of letting head contact and neck grappling go unpunished? Do they make the game a better spectacle?

But it'll make the games less exciting is the argument. Young men shouldn't deliberately be risking brain damage for our entertainment. The game only went FT in 1996 so the first players to have completed a FT career will now be approaching 45-50 so the cases we are seeing now are just the start. And no the players don't know the risks unless the clubs are getting ex-players with brain injuries in to tell them.

Read this article and just in case you think he's just some doctor, Dr O Driscoll is a former RU international. 

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/dr-barry-o-driscoll-believes-rugby-s-concussion-protocols-not-fit-for-purpose-1.4481327

[bobbruce]

5 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I'll no doubt get shot down for this but just when is the game going to wake up? Watched Victor Radley after his latest concussion and he appeared to be fitting on the pitch.

The HIAs are next to worthless. The clampdown on head tackles lasted a few weeks because it was "spoiling the game" - the RFU persisted with it 4-5 seasons ago and tackle techniques have changed - and as far as I am aware there's no limit on contact sessions in training. The NFL limit contact sessions to one a week and I doubt anyone sees NFL as "soft". So what is the RFL actually doing to reduce the risk of brain injuries in the or game? You can't remove the risk but you can take sensible steps to reduce it, like we have speed limits and seat belt laws.

Here's a few

1. Limit contact sessions to one a week like NFL. And their regular season is 17 games and an average player is likely to be in action for 11 mins a game. NFL is no ones definition of soft, but they already have a compensation fund of 1 billion dollars for concussion cases.

2. Maybe reduce 10m to 7m and cut out the lying on to comoensate- it might encourage more creative play and passing (watch games from 80s/90s on YouTube) rather than the one man running 10m into a head on collision with 2-3 tacklers.

3. Clampdown on all head contact. Yes tacklers can get head knocks tackling low (like Radley) but it's lower incidence than head clashes from tackling high. And what"s the benefit to the game and it's image  of letting head contact and neck grappling go unpunished? Do they make the game a better spectacle?

But it'll make the games less exciting is the argument. Young men shouldn't deliberately be risking brain damage for our entertainment. The game only went FT in 1996 so the first players to have completed a FT career will now be approaching 45-50 so the cases we are seeing now are just the start. And no the players don't know the risks unless the clubs are getting ex-players with brain injuries in to tell them.

Read this article and just in case you think he's just some doctor, Dr O Driscoll is a former RU international. 

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/dr-barry-o-driscoll-believes-rugby-s-concussion-protocols-not-fit-for-purpose-1.4481327

The RFL is to soft they bring in a clamp down then allow a few journalists and players get it reversed. These same players will likely be the first in the queue for compensation when the finally hits the fan. 

[Wakefield Ram]

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

The RFL is to soft they bring in a clamp down then allow a few journalists and players get it reversed. These same players will likely be the first in the queue for compensation when the finally hits the fan. 

True but I think the players might prefer not to be brain damaged in the first place. And yes the RFL is too weak.

[bobbruce]

13 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

True but I think the players might prefer not to be brain damaged in the first place. And yes the RFL is too weak.

I’m sure so why were so many pushing to get the crack down lifted. The one that was brought in to protect them. 

[RigbyLuger]

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

The RFL is to soft they bring in a clamp down then allow a few journalists and players get it reversed. These same players will likely be the first in the queue for compensation when the finally hits the fan. 

Yep, we had a crackdown, and they caved in quickly, as they always do to criticism. The game has to change because the world has, and it will be forced into it if we don't.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Wakefield Ram said:

True but I think the players might prefer not to be brain damaged in the first place. And yes the RFL is too weak.

In which case why were they so vocal in pushing back against the fully justified and correct clampdown?
Why did they not adapt their techniques?
Why were the coaches so vocal?
Why did the coaches not coach?

Whilst the RFL should have stuck to their guns they, for one of the first times in their history, were not the main culprits 

[Wakefield Ram]

58 minutes ago, LeeF said:

In which case why were they so vocal in pushing back against the fully justified and correct clampdown?
Why did they not adapt their techniques?
Why were the coaches so vocal?
Why did the coaches not coach?

Whilst the RFL should have stuck to their guns they, for one of the first times in their history, were not the main culprits 

Think the coaches are equally culpable. They have basically put themselves and their jobs ahead of player welfare. Unfortunately hearing some of them at the time, it was a bit of the "games going soft" and "it never did me any harm" mentality. Lee Radford article but he wasn't the only one. But the RFL run the game and they should have stuck with it.

At some point coming soon, the game will be left with no choice but to take action due to litigation.

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/lee-radford-fine-players-dont-ban-them-unless-it-is-really-bad/

[LeeF]

19 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Think the coaches are equally culpable. They have basically put themselves and their jobs ahead of player welfare. Unfortunately hearing some of them at the time, it was a bit of the "games going soft" and "it never did me any harm" mentality. Lee Radford article but he wasn't the only one. But the RFL run the game and they should have stuck with it.

At some point coming soon, the game will be left with no choice but to take action due to litigation.

https://www.loverugbyleague.com/post/lee-radford-fine-players-dont-ban-them-unless-it-is-really-bad/

The RFL do run the game but it is a member’s group so the clubs run the RFL which runs the clubs etc. it is a perfect case of vested interest. 

Lee Radford was one outspoken critic but there were numerous others plus players & owners and the media and don’t forget the fans including some on here with all the #TheGamesGone #TooSoft rubbish

I hope, for the long term good of the game, a zero tolerance is reintroduced next season and stuck with from the first game until the last one

[Chris22]

I seem to recall Lee Radford comparing the sport to netball earlier this season. A totally ridiculous and borderline misogynistic remark. 

The clampdown earlier this season not only sought to protect players from forceful and illegal head contacts, but journalists behind a keyboard who haven't taken a tackle in their life weren't satisfied with the idea, so here we are.

We were as close to the much vaunted 'consistency' that is allegedly 'all that fans want' too. Now we have an instance where Aidan Sezer is sin binned for a late hit on Theo Fages on Wednesday, yet Jack Ashworth received no yellow card for a near identical offence in Huddersfield's loss at Salford.

[RigbyLuger]

54 minutes ago, Chris22 said:

The clampdown earlier this season not only sought to protect players from forceful and illegal head contacts, but journalists behind a keyboard who haven't taken a tackle in their life weren't satisfied with the idea, so here we are.

Not sure it was all journalists. More ones who were wanting clicks and likes.

[yipyee]

18 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I'll no doubt get shot down for this but just when is the game going to wake up? Watched Victor Radley after his latest concussion and he appeared to be fitting on the pitch.

The HIAs are next to worthless. The clampdown on head tackles lasted a few weeks because it was "spoiling the game" - the RFU persisted with it 4-5 seasons ago and tackle techniques have changed - and as far as I am aware there's no limit on contact sessions in training. The NFL limit contact sessions to one a week and I doubt anyone sees NFL as "soft". So what is the RFL actually doing to reduce the risk of brain injuries in the or game? You can't remove the risk but you can take sensible steps to reduce it, like we have speed limits and seat belt laws.

Here's a few

1. Limit contact sessions to one a week like NFL. And their regular season is 17 games and an average player is likely to be in action for 11 mins a game. NFL is no ones definition of soft, but they already have a compensation fund of 1 billion dollars for concussion cases.

2. Maybe reduce 10m to 7m and cut out the lying on to comoensate- it might encourage more creative play and passing (watch games from 80s/90s on YouTube) rather than the one man running 10m into a head on collision with 2-3 tacklers.

3. Clampdown on all head contact. Yes tacklers can get head knocks tackling low (like Radley) but it's lower incidence than head clashes from tackling high. And what"s the benefit to the game and it's image  of letting head contact and neck grappling go unpunished? Do they make the game a better spectacle?

But it'll make the games less exciting is the argument. Young men shouldn't deliberately be risking brain damage for our entertainment. The game only went FT in 1996 so the first players to have completed a FT career will now be approaching 45-50 so the cases we are seeing now are just the start. And no the players don't know the risks unless the clubs are getting ex-players with brain injuries in to tell them.

Read this article and just in case you think he's just some doctor, Dr O Driscoll is a former RU international. 

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/dr-barry-o-driscoll-believes-rugby-s-concussion-protocols-not-fit-for-purpose-1.4481327

Whos Victor Radley?

[Farmduck]

38 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Whos Victor Radley?

 

[Padge]

11 hours ago, Chris22 said:

I seem to recall Lee Radford comparing the sport to netball earlier this season. A totally ridiculous and borderline misogynistic remark. 

The clampdown earlier this season not only sought to protect players from forceful and illegal head contacts, but journalists behind a keyboard who haven't taken a tackle in their life weren't satisfied with the idea, so here we are.

We were as close to the much vaunted 'consistency' that is allegedly 'all that fans want' too. Now we have an instance where Aidan Sezer is sin binned for a late hit on Theo Fages on Wednesday, yet Jack Ashworth received no yellow card for a near identical offence in Huddersfield's loss at Salford.

So not identical then. Just saying.

[Liverpool Rover]

13 hours ago, Chris22 said:

I seem to recall Lee Radford comparing the sport to netball earlier this season. A totally ridiculous and borderline misogynistic remark. 

The clampdown earlier this season not only sought to protect players from forceful and illegal head contacts, but journalists behind a keyboard who haven't taken a tackle in their life weren't satisfied with the idea, so here we are.

We were as close to the much vaunted 'consistency' that is allegedly 'all that fans want' too. Now we have an instance where Aidan Sezer is sin binned for a late hit on Theo Fages on Wednesday, yet Jack Ashworth received no yellow card for a near identical offence in Huddersfield's loss at Salford.

I’m sure it was also Radford who mentioned that player insurance was starting to become an issue and then complains about turning the sport into netball.

[JohnM]

19 hours ago, Chris22 said:

I seem to recall Lee Radford comparing the sport to netball earlier this season. A totally ridiculous and borderline misogynistic remark. 

The clampdown earlier this season not only sought to protect players from forceful and illegal head contacts, but journalists behind a keyboard who haven't taken a tackle in their life weren't satisfied with the idea, so here we are.

We were as close to the much vaunted 'consistency' that is allegedly 'all that fans want' too. Now we have an instance where Aidan Sezer is sin binned for a late hit on Theo Fages on Wednesday, yet Jack Ashworth received no yellow card for a near identical offence in Huddersfield's loss at Salford.

Borderline misogynistic?  Can you grind an axe when you are up on a high hobby-horse?

Near identical? You mean like a near death experience is the same as death itself?

Sure, the causes and effects of repeated head contact over time need to be investigated, remedied etc etc maybe it'll be the insurers and fat-cat lawyers who'll drive any change.

Maybe even get Allyson Pollock involved.  

Evidence in support of the call to ban the tackle and harmful contact in school rugby

https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/239757

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by John Drake
political comment removed

[yipyee]

6 hours ago, Farmduck said:

 

He doesn't look very good.. 

[Wakefield Ram]

3 hours ago, JohnM said:

Borderline misogynistic?  Can you grind an axe when you are up on a high hobby-horse?

Near identical? You mean like a near death experience is the same as death itself?

Sure, the causes and effects of repeated head contact over time need to be investigated, remedied etc etc maybe it'll be the insurers and fat-cat lawyers who'll drive any change.

Maybe even get Allyson Pollock involved.  

Evidence in support of the call to ban the tackle and harmful contact in school rugby

https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/239757

 

Not sure exactly how much more investigation is needed to decide that head tackles should be eradicated as far as possible. My comments were about the pro game with greater number of higher impact collisions at greater speed. 

Waiting till the insurers and lawyers force the change is the worst outcome for the game (litigation) and more players suffering head injuries.

[JohnM]

16 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Not sure exactly how much more investigation is needed to decide that head tackles should be eradicated as far as possible. My comments were about the pro game with greater number of higher impact collisions at greater speed. 

Waiting till the insurers and lawyers force the change is the worst outcome for the game (litigation) and more players suffering head injuries.

Did you read Pollock's paper and associated documentation?

[JohnM]

27 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

Not sure exactly how much more investigation is needed to decide that head tackles should be eradicated as far as possible. My comments were about the pro game with greater number of higher impact collisions at greater speed. 

Waiting till the insurers and lawyers force the change is the worst outcome for the game (litigation) and more players suffering head injuries.

Is  anyone arguing that head tackles should not be eradicating as far as possible? Is not a given that involving insurance etc is the worst outcome.

[Wakefield Ram]

Pollock's paper is about junior RU not pro RL.

[Wakefield Ram]

Just now, JohnM said:

Is  anyone arguing that head tackles should not be eradicating as far as possible? Is not a given that involving insurance etc is the worst outcome.

I would suggest the likes of Lee Radford (see above) and others aren't seeing it as that important. Not seeing the benefit of waiting until insurers force the game to change as anything but a bad outcome.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Is  anyone arguing that head tackles should not be eradicating as far as possible? 

Do you remember the start of the season and the fury that contact with the head should be punished?

[JohnM]

1 hour ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I would suggest the likes of Lee Radford (see above) and others aren't seeing it as that important. Not seeing the benefit of waiting until insurers force the game to change as anything but a bad outcome.

I like to think that that the insurers/ underwriters/actuaries have access to data across codes and sports, plus head injury claims records etc that give them a good insight. After all, they still want to get a return from insurance, rather than not having the income and profit at all. I would though, be interested in how much the premiums are for the various insurances.

In motor insurance, the insurers impose conditions, especially with young drivers, to minimise the need to pay out. The mandatory fitting of black boxes is a case in point. Anyway, I'm out of this now, and I'll leave you all to argue amongst yourselves in a phone box.

Edited August 29, 2022 by JohnM

[Chris22]

3 hours ago, JohnM said:

Borderline misogynistic?  Can you grind an axe when you are up on a high hobby-horse?

Near identical? You mean like a near death experience is the same as death itself?

Sure, the causes and effects of repeated head contact over time need to be investigated, remedied etc etc maybe it'll be the insurers and fat-cat lawyers who'll drive any change.

Maybe even get Allyson Pollock involved.  

Evidence in support of the call to ban the tackle and harmful contact in school rugby

https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/239757

 

I didn't think it was possible to make a fool of yourself so many times in just a few sentences but there you go.