Latest CTE Study Calls For No Contact To Age 14

[Sports Prophet]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-08/31-former-rugby-league-players-diagnosed-with-brain-disease-cte/107128192?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link

My position on the dangers of contact at a young age have changed. Whilst I believe studies could learn much by testing a whole range of sports and even those not competing.

With young children playing sports, my wife and I will be making some tough decisions around contact/collision sport for them in the immediate future.

[V02]

6 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-08/31-former-rugby-league-players-diagnosed-with-brain-disease-cte/107128192?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link

My position on the dangers of contact at a young age have changed. Whilst I believe studies could learn much by testing a whole range of sports and even those not competing.

With young children playing sports, my wife and I will be making some tough decisions around contact/collision sport for them in the immediate future.

If we go no contact until age 15, and then introduce it at the point where:

1) boys have often hit puberty, gained height, speed and size

2) boys have often started weight training

3) the game is 13-a-side, full pitch with a decent level of complexity and pace

What do we think happens to concussion rates at age 15-20 for people with as much attacking development as now (if not more), and no exposure to tackling? 

[gavin7094]

1 hour ago, V02 said:

If we go no contact until age 15, and then introduce it at the point where:

1) boys have often hit puberty, gained height, speed and size

2) boys have often started weight training

3) the game is 13-a-side, full pitch with a decent level of complexity and pace

What do we think happens to concussion rates at age 15-20 for people with as much attacking development as now (if not more), and no exposure to tackling? 

Then maybe no contact should be until puberty is finished (usually 17ish in males)?

In either case, the number of potentially concussive collisions over the player's playing career would be much reduced.  The cumulative effect of many 'small' concussions is at least as important as fewer larger ones.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, V02 said:

If we go no contact until age 15, and then introduce it at the point where:

1) boys have often hit puberty, gained height, speed and size

2) boys have often started weight training

3) the game is 13-a-side, full pitch with a decent level of complexity and pace

What do we think happens to concussion rates at age 15-20 for people with as much attacking development as now (if not more), and no exposure to tackling? 

Indeed, contact needs to be introduced (perhaps gradually) from a younger age so that players are at less risk and are more aware of what they are doing.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, V02 said:

If we go no contact until age 15, and then introduce it at the point where:

1) boys have often hit puberty, gained height, speed and size

2) boys have often started weight training

3) the game is 13-a-side, full pitch with a decent level of complexity and pace

What do we think happens to concussion rates at age 15-20 for people with as much attacking development as now (if not more), and no exposure to tackling? 

In a world where it's no contact to 14 then it's not "all the contact, all the time, on a full size pitch" with no lead in at 14.

[Wakefield Ram]

The NFL limit contact training to one session a week. And they play far fewer games and far less game time. 

It's hard to understand why RL hasn't followed suit at full-time level.

This would significantly reduce the number of times a players jelly-like brain is rattled around their skulls.

And give far more time for the brain to recover.

 

Edited September 8 by Wakefield Ram

[The Rocket]

8 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-09-08/31-former-rugby-league-players-diagnosed-with-brain-disease-cte/107128192?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=link

My position on the dangers of contact at a young age have changed. Whilst I believe studies could learn much by testing a whole range of sports and even those not competing.

With young children playing sports, my wife and I will be making some tough decisions around contact/collision sport for them in the immediate future.

Good old ABC, right in time for the finals as usual.

[Charlie]

1 hour ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The NFL limit contact training to one session a week. And they play far fewer games and far less game time. 

It's hard to understand why RL hasn't followed suit at full-time level.

This would significantly reduce the number of times a players jelly-like brain is rattled around their skulls.

And give far more time for the brain to recover.

 

Pretty sure contact training is limited in rl aswell. Definitely is at NRL level not sure there’s much more the game can do at pro level 

[V02]

 

2 hours ago, gavin7094 said:

Then maybe no contact should be until puberty is finished (usually 17ish in males)?

In either case, the number of potentially concussive collisions over the player's playing career would be much reduced.  The cumulative effect of many 'small' concussions is at least as important as fewer larger ones.

But then your first exposure to contact is when players are already upwards of 80kg in any academy system. The margins of error are so much smaller. Worse tackle technique is going to mean greater likelihood of sub-concussive events also.

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Indeed, contact needs to be introduced (perhaps gradually) from a younger age so that players are at less risk and are more aware of what they are doing.

Agree, and far more coach development on how to actually coach tackling and defensive movement generally.

2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

In a world where it's no contact to 14 then it's not "all the contact, all the time, on a full size pitch" with no lead in at 14.

So then what are the subsequent proposals? Do we stay at 10 a side touch until then, and go to 10 a side contact? Do we go from 13 v 13 touch to 10 a side contact? Do we scrap the academy system given we are signing kids on less than 2 years of playing the actual sport?

2 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

The NFL limit contact training to one session a week. And they play far fewer games and far less game time. 

It's hard to understand why RL hasn't followed suit at full-time level.

This would significantly reduce the number of times a players jelly-like brain is rattled around their skulls.

And give far more time for the brain to recover.

 

In part, a far stronger players union and far stronger finances. NFL is also old-school in that contact training means full speed 11v11. Elite RL teams are not often going full contact 13v13 in training.

 

1 hour ago, Charlie said:

Pretty sure contact training is limited in rl aswell. Definitely is at NRL level not sure there’s much more the game can do at pro level 

It is at NRL level. Not at Super League. 

[Sports Prophet]

For those who have responded to me… I am not necessarily saying this needs to be implemented to the letter, but if it were, it would seem that a gradual tackling approach be adopted. 

My biggest fear for all of this is that at this point in time, tackling is being introduced at a very young age, where players are coached by volunteers who much more often than not, under-skilled and under resourced to coach tackle technique. 

The problem is only going to get bigger, before it gets better. I certainly don’t have the answer, but I am concerned like I never have been before that pre-teens are more vulnerable to most. Their listening and attention spans are predominantly very, very short. The attentive ones are mixed with less attentive ones which doesn’t improve the situation.

If someone told me that I have to make a decision right this very moment or RL would be scrapped, then I would say:

1. No tackling in community clubs to age 13.

2. Introduce Grab from 10s - 12s. Consider weight divisions for these ages, rather than specified by age.

3. Players required to undertake mandatory 5 one hour pre-season Tackling Camp sessions delivered by specialist, governing body qualified coaches, for every age group from 13-18. Mandatory for every age group, even if you did it the year before.

Thats me thinking off the cuff. I am sure people could pick holes in it and I am not convinced an off the cuff proposal like this will be the answer, but it’s all I had in the moment.

[StandOffHalf]

Have kids play touch footy. It's better for them. Progression to full tackle should be incremental. Teaching and learning proper technique should be essential.

Alongside contact sessions, I'd limit weight sessions in the pro game and prioritise skills and shape in training over grunt.

[eal]

Sadly, I believe schools could start cigarette smoking teams that would cause less harm than many contact sports.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, eal said:

Sadly, I believe schools could start cigarette smoking teams that would cause less harm than many contact sports.

Tens and tens of thousands of children have played Rugby League going back a hundred years and in eras when the game was far rougher and less strictly refereed than it is now, I`ve met literally hundreds of ex-players of all ages, many in their eighties and nineties, and can honestly say I`ve probably only know of one or two that have obvious signs of being mentally affected by the game, skeletal problems with joints etc seems to be far more common and I`m sure this can happen with most sports. And there is the issue whether other lifestyle factors or even just age may be responsible for any issues.

I`m not suggesting in any way we go back to the way it was but do wonder if sometimes this issue is overblown and the protocols that are being introduced now will ensure that this never becomes the disaster that some in the media seem to delight in when criticising contact sports.

 

 

[StandOffHalf]

5 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Tens and tens of thousands of children have played Rugby League going back a hundred years and in eras when the game was far rougher and less strictly refereed than it is now, I`ve met literally hundreds of ex-players of all ages, many in their eighties and nineties, and can honestly say I`ve probably only know of one or two that have obvious signs of being mentally affected by the game, skeletal problems with joints etc seems to be far more common and I`m sure this can happen with most sports. And there is the issue whether other lifestyle factors or even just age may be responsible for any issues.

I`m not suggesting in any way we go back to the way it was but do wonder if sometimes this issue is overblown and the protocols that are being introduced now will ensure that this never becomes the disaster that some in the media seem to delight in when criticising contact sports.

 

 

It was rougher, but players were generally quite a bit smaller.

I'm not a fan of 6 agains, but I am on board with the prioritisation of skill and ball promotion.

[MZH]

Is there any evidence to back up the "no contact up until 14" call? Is it actually based on anything? I can only give anecdotal evidence on the subject, but I certainly never received a concussion or serious head knock playing rugby league up to that age, and I don't really remember any instances where team mates did either. It was only after that when kids became a lot bigger and stronger when it became a thing. Sure there will be a few freak incidents, but probably a lot less than kids falling off bikes for example.

My concern would be that protecting kids from contact, and then all of a sudden exposing them to it at a age when they are actually are big enough to hurt each other, would actually do even more harm. Their technique and game sense just isn't going to be where it needs to be. 

[Wakefield Ram]

3 hours ago, The Rocket said:

Tens and tens of thousands of children have played Rugby League going back a hundred years and in eras when the game was far rougher and less strictly refereed than it is now, I`ve met literally hundreds of ex-players of all ages, many in their eighties and nineties, and can honestly say I`ve probably only know of one or two that have obvious signs of being mentally affected by the game, skeletal problems with joints etc seems to be far more common and I`m sure this can happen with most sports. And there is the issue whether other lifestyle factors or even just age may be responsible for any issues.

I`m not suggesting in any way we go back to the way it was but do wonder if sometimes this issue is overblown and the protocols that are being introduced now will ensure that this never becomes the disaster that some in the media seem to delight in when criticising contact sports.

 

 

I agree. Think the risk for children is negligible. I mean do we ban cycling due to the number of children injured in accidents?

But at elite level the game has changed massively in the last 30 years.

Players have got much bigger and faster increasing the impact of collisions and therefore the impact on brains being rattled around inside their skulls.

Full time training has meant more contact training and less time to recover.

The game has become much more attritional with relentless hit ups. The 10m law was brought in to encourage attacking play. It's had the opposite effect. 

Tackling contact is upright so again more brains being rattled around.

At the very basic level having your brain repeatedly twisted and banged around inside your hard skull is not good for you. People who played and are now in their 60s/70s/80s weren't exposed to these factors.

But at elite level we are getting young men now with bleeds on the brain, MND, repeated concussions etc Think that is is the big issue - not a risk - rather than young children playing contact rugby. 

 

 

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, MZH said:

Is there any evidence to back up the "no contact up until 14" call? 

Yes.

Whether you think the evidence is compelling or not is a different question.

But, yes, there is plenty of evidence to back it up.

For starters: https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/archive/2017/07/bankidsrugbytackling/

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

I mean do we ban cycling due to the number of children injured in accidents?

That's an interesting one because a key reason we have relatively few cycling injuries is because cycling for children is so dangerous that it statistically doesn't happen in swathes of the country.

And, obviously, if the perception for rugby (league and union) ends up mirroring that then we'll head towards the same outcome.

[Just Browny]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yes.

Whether you think the evidence is compelling or not is a different question.

But, yes, there is plenty of evidence to back it up.

For starters: https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/archive/2017/07/bankidsrugbytackling/

I'm not sure that says why '13 bad, 14 ok' though? In fact it is described as a 'compromise' in that link.

[gingerjon]

8 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

I'm not sure that says why '13 bad, 14 ok' though? In fact it is described as a 'compromise' in that link.

I think most people would lean towards graduated introduction of contact.

Plus that one is ten years old, referencing work covering the previous two decades.

These things don't come out of nowhere.

[MZH]

20 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yes.

Whether you think the evidence is compelling or not is a different question.

But, yes, there is plenty of evidence to back it up.

For starters: https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/archive/2017/07/bankidsrugbytackling/

I don't consider that to be evidence at all tbh. No facts, no figures, except for a statistic about how removing body checks has reduced concussions in ice hockey, which may or may not be relevant here. They do say that rugby has the highest rate of concussions. I don't doubt that. But what numbers are we talking about here? That also seems to refer specifically to rugby union. Obviously there are a lot of similarities, but a lot of differences too.

If someone does a study where they can actually substantiate these claims, and prove that removing contact under 14 will outweigh the risk of 15 and 16 year olds being unprepared for full contact rugby, then I will bow to that. But I have never seen anything close to a persuasive arguement.

[Cerulean]

RL was once labelled as a contact sport, now it is an impact sport. In the areas where it dominated, it was played by a large percentage of kids, at all levels of intensity - touch and pass, grab, tackle. It was played by large numbers of pub teams, it was played as a Sunday morning diversion. Schools in RL areas had teams throughout the age groups. It was played for many years by me, who was and am something of a coward when it comes to physical pain. We played for the fun, for the exhilaration, and we enjoyed the contact nature of it.

As in most cultures, it had thugs, sometimes dangerous ones. There were players who would happily end an opponent’s career if they could get away with it. Older football fans will tell you there were such players in their sport, also. The thugs are still there, but there is very little such thuggery now, thank goodness, because of widespread scrutiny, cameras, video evidence, referees trained in observation.

High speed collisions are a massive issue now. Once, you mostly tackled low, hips and legs, your objective to put the man on the ground as quickly and efficiently as possible. One or two players for nearly all tackles. Now the objective is to control the play-the-ball, delay the grounding: you tackle upright, chest to chest, heads close together. For the first drives of a set of tackles, celebrated with glee by the commentators, the sole objective is to hit the defensive line so hard, you will not get forced back by two or three times your own weight. These impacts are brutal, potentially dangerous.

The sport will have to change the way it is played. Law interpretations to reduce the benefits of controlling the play-the-ball would probably help, but it will be very difficult to retreat from the present culture where size, weight, the ability to deliver and receive impact, are built in to recruitment and training. The first thing said of a talented new youngster is “He could be good when he bulks up”. This was never said of Roger Millward.

[gingerjon]

7 minutes ago, MZH said:

I don't consider that to be evidence at all tbh. No facts, no figures, except for a statistic about how removing body checks has reduced concussions in ice hockey, which may or may not be relevant here. They do say that rugby has the highest rate of concussions. I don't doubt that. But what numbers are we talking about here? That also seems to refer specifically to rugby union. Obviously there are a lot of similarities, but a lot of differences too.

If someone does a study where they can actually substantiate these claims, and prove that removing contact under 14 will outweigh the risk of 15 and 16 year olds being unprepared for full contact rugby, then I will bow to that. But I have never seen anything close to a persuasive arguement.

There are links from that page. There are also masses of links from a quick google.

I don't know enough to judge whether that's enough evidence. I'm not medically qualified.

[Martyn Sadler]

It would be interesting to know whether there is a correlation between the number of CTE cases and moving the defensive line to 10 metres from its previous 5 metres, which allowed far greater momentum in collisions.

Shortening the gap between the teams would possibly contribute to a lower number of brain injuries.

[StandOffHalf]

1 hour ago, Cerulean said:

RL was once labelled as a contact sport, now it is an impact sport. In the areas where it dominated, it was played by a large percentage of kids, at all levels of intensity - touch and pass, grab, tackle. It was played by large numbers of pub teams, it was played as a Sunday morning diversion. Schools in RL areas had teams throughout the age groups. It was played for many years by me, who was and am something of a coward when it comes to physical pain. We played for the fun, for the exhilaration, and we enjoyed the contact nature of it.

As in most cultures, it had thugs, sometimes dangerous ones. There were players who would happily end an opponent’s career if they could get away with it. Older football fans will tell you there were such players in their sport, also. The thugs are still there, but there is very little such thuggery now, thank goodness, because of widespread scrutiny, cameras, video evidence, referees trained in observation.

High speed collisions are a massive issue now. Once, you mostly tackled low, hips and legs, your objective to put the man on the ground as quickly and efficiently as possible. One or two players for nearly all tackles. Now the objective is to control the play-the-ball, delay the grounding: you tackle upright, chest to chest, heads close together. For the first drives of a set of tackles, celebrated with glee by the commentators, the sole objective is to hit the defensive line so hard, you will not get forced back by two or three times your own weight. These impacts are brutal, potentially dangerous.

The sport will have to change the way it is played. Law interpretations to reduce the benefits of controlling the play-the-ball would probably help, but it will be very difficult to retreat from the present culture where size, weight, the ability to deliver and receive impact, are built in to recruitment and training. The first thing said of a talented new youngster is “He could be good when he bulks up”. This was never said of Roger Millward.

Wonderful post, Cerulean!

I love what you say about the pro game being a game of physical impact. Personally, I would re-introduce the 5-metre defensive line, limit players' gym sessions. I think doing away with the 10 metres would limit the wresting, slowing down, rolling, and the holding up and finishing off, as the tacklers would get back in line more quickly. Having a closer defensive line would also promote more spreads to get outside the defence rather than bashing up the middle, the attack having more depth to their attack, and it would also open up the back-field for chips, grubbers and attacking kicks in behind. I think 10 metres has led to a more physical and forward-oriented game in general.

Edited September 9 by StandOffHalf