Concussion in rugby

[tigerburnie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/39630540
I have to say when I watched the recent George North incidents, I wondered if something is wrong in the game.

[BFG]

The HIA isn't really fit for purpose as symptoms can be delayed.
It's a very difficult subject.
I think the modern rugby player has changed, they are more athlete orientated.
I remember when I played it was the toughest lads who made it to the top, not all (posh boys) but in the main and certainly up front.
Nowadays things such as how fast a player can run or how high he can jump take priority over how robust a player is.
The game is the same but the players are not, I think that can explain one contributing factor to why concussion is a bigger issue now.

[Noddy555]

Yes BFG I concur. Even the experts have varying opinions on the long term affects of repeated concussions. I prefer that the current 1 game ban is extended to at least 3 games,which will give medical staff more time to access cranial trauma which is often not easily investigated until at least 3 days after the incident and it takes much longer to diagnose any further side effects.

[northerntiger]

I remember when I played it was the toughest lads who made it to the top, not all (posh boys) but in the main and certainly up front.
Nowadays things such as how fast a player can run or how high he can jump take priority over how robust a player is.
.

That is dangerous rubbish BFG, the sort of thinking that keeps concussed players on the field. When I played, if you got concussed you tended to stay on the field, because you were "tough". Good that that thinking has gone. Playing don't get concussed because they are soft athletes, they get concussed because their head gets smacked.

[strawclearer]

I remember when I played it was the toughest lads who made it to the top, not all (posh boys) but in the main and certainly up front.
Nowadays things such as how fast a player can run or how high he can jump take priority over how robust a player is.
.

That is dangerous rubbish BFG, the sort of thinking that keeps concussed players on the field. When I played, if you got concussed you tended to stay on the field, because you were "tough". Good that that thinking has gone. Playing don't get concussed because they are soft athletes, they get concussed because their head gets smacked.

Of course that's right. Now, forgive me for being far too simplistic but when I played full-back in the middle of the last century, we were always encouraged to tackle low. If I'd tried to tackle 'chest on' as they do these days, a very irate and sadistic Welsh coach would have made sure I spent that night stuffed in an orange crate on a table in the Boarding House refectory! 'Low tackles' were encouraged because "he can't run without his legs, look you!" - and because, if we got it a bit wrong, we were likely to knock our head against a thigh or the ground. A lot softer than the opponent's head!

I don't know if there were fewer concussions but, if there were, isn't this another case where rule changes have had negative implications on the welfare of players at all levels?

[drc_007]

The HIA isn't really fit for purpose as symptoms can be delayed.
It's a very difficult subject.
I think the modern rugby player has changed, they are more athlete orientated.
I remember when I played it was the toughest lads who made it to the top, not all (posh boys) but in the main and certainly up front.
Nowadays things such as how fast a player can run or how high he can jump take priority over how robust a player is.
The game is the same but the players are not, I think that can explain one contributing factor to why concussion is a bigger issue now.

The evidence would suggest otherwise, this issue has come to attention because the "toughest lads" of times gone by are now displaying severe symptoms of repeated brain injury.

The report casts World rugby in a very poor light, I don't if this is accurate but I'd suggest they are more proactive or the decisions will be taken out of their hands.

[jgriffin]

Yes, be harsh on tackles - I'd suggest a chest band as is played in juniors elsewhere maybe for all levels, or even the waist. Secondly get rid of the current rucking, with the shoulder hits and heads in a vulnerable position; go back to foot rucks where it is free ball until binding has occurred, then feet only. I have long held the opinion that most injuries, head, ribcage, shoulder and knee, occur in the 'breakdown'.

[BFG]

I remember when I played it was the toughest lads who made it to the top, not all (posh boys) but in the main and certainly up front.
Nowadays things such as how fast a player can run or how high he can jump take priority over how robust a player is.
.

That is dangerous rubbish BFG, the sort of thinking that keeps concussed players on the field. When I played, if you got concussed you tended to stay on the field, because you were "tough". Good that that thinking has gone. Playing don't get concussed because they are soft athletes, they get concussed because their head gets smacked.

Perhaps tough was not quite the right word as it is open to misinterpretation, a better word would possibly be uncompromising.
IMO the game is essentially the same, it's the participants mind sets and physiques that have changed.
I would also advocate the return to the old ruck laws and IMO the defensive offside line needs dealing with to accommodate the obvious overall increase in speed of the players.
Injuries happen in any activity and yes injuries happened even when I played but there was much more of a acceptance by participants that the safety of the game was very much our own responsibility in how we played it!

[jgriffin]

BFG I have long wittered on about the defensive line going back 5m to allow attacks to develop and begin to pull defensive walls out of shape. Whether it will stop WarrenBall is another matter......

[BFG]

BFG I have long wittered on about the defensive line going back 5m to allow attacks to develop and begin to pull defensive walls out of shape. Whether it will stop WarrenBall is another matter......

I couldn't agree more with you!
Just watching Saracens v Munster and on 40 minutes Saracens turn ball over and get it to the backs, the Munster line is set to attack and therefore has more depth and the game is instantly opened up.

[mightymouse]

Hear hear to care back to old ruck laws... said it for years... not only safer but much more ex it ing for the game and much less "interpretation " from the ref.

Undoubtedly many more head injuries and other serious injuries now...nothing to do with tough lads carrying on ... you can't carry on if you're out cold however tough you are.

The other thing that must be changed before someone ends up in a wheelchair or worse is this catching whilst flying through the air nonsense. We must stop penalising the challenger and penalise the man who has put himself at risk. To do what they do is pure foolhardyness. Simply rule could be brought in to receive a ball from a kick you have to have 2 feet on the ground... then take the hit thats coming .. that takes courage ... is less dangerous and will make the kick chase much more interesting.

[kend]

Of course that's right. Now, forgive me for being far too simplistic but when I played full-back in the middle of the last century, we were always encouraged to tackle low. If I'd tried to tackle 'chest on' as they do these days, a very irate and sadistic Welsh coach would have made sure I spent that night stuffed in an orange crate on a table in the Boarding House refectory! 'Low tackles' were encouraged because "he can't run without his legs, look you!" - and because, if we got it a bit wrong, we were likely to knock our head against a thigh or the ground. A lot softer than the opponent's head!

I don't know if there were fewer concussions but, if there were, isn't this another case where rule changes have had negative implications on the welfare of players at all levels?

I think if you you go to any local club and watch their mini and youth training you will see tackling being taught just as you remember it. There are sound coaching reasons why (caveat: if you have the necessary physicality) you might choose an upright tackle. A 'traditional' tackle causes the ball carrier to fall forward and across the gainline, which makes it easier for the attack to get quick ruck ball. Also, it leaves the hands free for an offload. The more aggressive 'hit' tackle can knock the player back and wraps the arms to stop offloads. If executed properly it isn't a high tackle as the wrap is round the chest.

Are these contributors to increased concussions? I'm not sure - nearly half of all injuries to the tackler are concussions and you still see all variations of tackle on the pitch (I would have thought the 'chop' tackle is far worse - if someone important to me goes in for one of those I usually shut my eyes!). Lots of ongoing research into the tackle area, so I guess there might be some proper data soon. Although I think it is highly unlikely that the upright tackle will disappear; Sarries whole game is built around aggressive tackles. It's also worth making the point that elite rugby is a different beast to lower level stuff.

Personally I think Stewart's main point is a good one; the guidelines are being 'interpreted' by referees and we are seeing big variations both within and between games. WR could fix that by reinforcing the message and insisting it is applied to all contact with the head/neck at the tackle/ruck/maul. My particular bugbear is the 'choke' hold in the maul; by any measure that is dangerous, particularly as it is spreading into the lower levels of the game without sanction (IMHO!).

I'm not sure about 'traditional' rucking (I have some interesting scars from that period!). About 50% of match injuries occur at the tackle versus about 10% at the ruck, so it might be solving problem that doesn't exist (or replaces one set of injuries with another).

[jgriffin]

kend would agree with all of you post, but the difference I see between elite and local rugby is the force, frequency and nature of rucking. Levels of fitness dictate that as the local match progresses the hits into the ruck - already relatively few compared to elite - decrease in frequency, technique and force. Indeed I have witnessed matches where proper binding contact has been made with real pushing off the ball as opposed to shoulder-head/trunk hits and bellyflops. The rising tackle to the COG with arms sealing the ball and the tackled being driven backwards to the ground then ripped is a great sight, yet right on the edge of the 'what hit first' result based judgement. I worry that some of the game's good bts are being threatened in the way that the slack put-in regulation by refs has altered both scrum dynamics and player build.

[BFG]

In relation to the concussion issue I think the older ruck laws would be of benefit.
Slowing down attacking ball as they do now with hands in the ruck and then piling through or on top whilst it's slowed is about enabling defence to reset and not actually challenging for the ball and defence is one area of the game that needs to try and loosen up to make less physically dominated IMO.
The laws and interpretations as they currently stand alongside the modern day player attributes effectively give an advantage to defence which IMO means more contact and more contact increases the risk of any type of injury.
Add in the referees reluctance to penalise hands in the ruck, it is an offence and should be penalised straight away but is so common nowadays that we have reached a point where it has become the norm to be warned for it and given time to let go, players own actions count for a lot here IMO as in effect they are trying to cheat more and therefore their own worst enemies in the impact on the game they play elsewhere around the pitch which is something that has changed a lot from the past IMO.
A strict adherence to the offside laws or further extension of them in distance could reduce the risk further.
There is risk in any activity and IMO much is about how responsibly the sport is played.
In pro rugby competition where winning is everything if they can't control themselves responsibly then it needs doing for them, the laws of rugby were made for an amateur sport and perhaps don't take into account just how competitive it is these days, they play over the edge of the laws to gain any advantage and IMO we certainly need some of the old elements of self control reinstating with such things as the foot ruck or we need hands in the ruck treating harshly with a instant yellow card to change the mentality.
I stated the word tough earlier and it's not just about being tough on the opposition but about being tough on yourself with self discipline.

[jgriffin]

So good to have a sensible discussion!
WRugby needs to take a long look at itself, as does the RFU. No good lamenting and prevaricating. Apply the laws!......then look at changing them.
1 5m offside from back foot
2 straight put in at scrum
3 no hands on the ball unless feet pass it (something BOC did when he arrived, stepped over what appeared to be free ball and got penalised).
4 tackle wrap below armpit no exceptions