Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
I’ve a hunch you may be right about the impact of current breakdown laws...my impression is of seeing more head injuries in the circumstances you describe. I’ve not seen any stats that back this up, however, (in essence, disaggregating concussion figures into particular phases of play). Does anybody have more on this?
This study suggests the most likely cause is tackling higher up on the body.chris111 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 8:59 amI’ve a hunch you may be right about the impact of current breakdown laws...my impression is of seeing more head injuries in the circumstances you describe. I’ve not seen any stats that back this up, however, (in essence, disaggregating concussion figures into particular phases of play). Does anybody have more on this?
We know that the tackle is where the overwhelming majority of concussions occur and welcome the recent initiatives around zero tolerance to contact with the head from World Rugby. We anticipate that these initiatives are most likely to reduce the risk to the ball carrier. Two thirds of all concussions are sustained by the tackler; 47% of all injuries to the tackler are now concussions and developing interventions to reduce the risk to the tackler must now be the priority
The 55% refers to all injuries, not just concussion I think.jgriffin wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:33 pm Mr Icky-Picky statsman - RFU statement -55% of injuries were not sustained in the tackle. I would expect more concussions to the tackler in a tackle, for obvious technical and simple physical reasons.
Reading the actual Cardiff report, they do not conclude increase in concussion due to tackling higher up, they speculate in the discussion. Moreover, it says upper body injury in particular more likely for players who have previously been concussed, that for others, not as a causal factor in concussion.
I will read them further as there are several other issues that seem to have been misunderstood by the casual reader, and report back.
Edit: PRISP report for the 2015-16 suggests 1) that something (or set of things) occurred in the game around 2012-3 that changed the concussion incidence (this could be increased contact, law change, coaching trend, increased diagnosis, social change in player cohort composition or any combination) and 2) the high tackle law made no difference whatsoever (which you would expect if concussion is more likely in the tackler). Since figures suggest a change in the incidence of concussion, then the game itself looks likely to have a stable incidence historically that has been influenced by either management changes (laws, ref practices), spread of poor tackling skill, increase in mass/velocity of tackled or any combination of them. What is also problematic is treating the identified incident as the cause of the concussion; many players could have sustained the concussion in earlier circumstances but not become apparent until they totally mistimed an tackle, for example.
Just shows the difficulty of interpreting stats!
BTW the stats do suggest that there may be an increased incidence of injury as the number of artificial surfaces increases, but it would need another two seasons to firm up a relationship, if one exists (my bias is to the affirmative).
Yes, the chop tackle is a curse of the modern game.
That's because you quite frequently see tacklers getting the technique wrong. If they put their head where they are taught to at a young age, the injuries would decrease significantly.biffer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:46 amThis study suggests the most likely cause is tackling higher up on the body.chris111 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 8:59 amI’ve a hunch you may be right about the impact of current breakdown laws...my impression is of seeing more head injuries in the circumstances you describe. I’ve not seen any stats that back this up, however, (in essence, disaggregating concussion figures into particular phases of play). Does anybody have more on this?
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2018 ... 017-098417
Confirmed here as well - more injuries to tackler than tackled player
https://www.premiershiprugby.com/news/r ... published/
We know that the tackle is where the overwhelming majority of concussions occur and welcome the recent initiatives around zero tolerance to contact with the head from World Rugby. We anticipate that these initiatives are most likely to reduce the risk to the ball carrier. Two thirds of all concussions are sustained by the tackler; 47% of all injuries to the tackler are now concussions and developing interventions to reduce the risk to the tackler must now be the priority
I think the injury surveillance reports (unless things have changed, Bath Uni rather than Cardiff?) have consistently shown the ruck accounts for 10% of match injuries, so if you want to reduce injury rates, it's probably not the place to start. The shoulder charge is illegal anyway, enforce the current guidelines and that problem resolves? The rates of injury to the tackler have been rising so that is a good place to look?IMO we should also stop the stupid breakdown farce that leaves people with their heads exposed to shoulder charges, and go back to feet only with correct engagement that is pinged if it doesn't happen. Scars on your back heal.
At pro level? The dominant tackle is much more upright (Pat Lam style) tackle anyway, so the classic 'cheek to cheek' stuff of mini rugby isn't really relevant. Besides, even with exemplary technique, you will sometimes get in the wrong position and end up tacking someone with your faceThat's because you quite frequently see tacklers getting the technique wrong. If they put their head where they are taught to at a young age, the injuries would decrease significantly.
. Given the number of 'tackle events' in the pro game, that will be a reasonable number of times?It's not relevant as you don't see it very often. That's my point. We should see it more often, then injuries would decrease.kend wrote: ↑Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:00 pm Trial of new tackle laws to reduce the height of the tackle:www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44950380
IMHO World rugby have been pretty good of late in taking an evidence led approach to changes. Rather than relying on 'anacdata'.
I think the injury surveillance reports (unless things have changed, Bath Uni rather than Cardiff?) have consistently shown the ruck accounts for 10% of match injuries, so if you want to reduce injury rates, it's probably not the place to start. The shoulder charge is illegal anyway, enforce the current guidelines and that problem resolves? The rates of injury to the tackler have been rising so that is a good place to look?IMO we should also stop the stupid breakdown farce that leaves people with their heads exposed to shoulder charges, and go back to feet only with correct engagement that is pinged if it doesn't happen. Scars on your back heal.
At pro level? The dominant tackle is much more upright (Pat Lam style) tackle anyway, so the classic 'cheek to cheek' stuff of mini rugby isn't really relevant. Besides, even with exemplary technique, you will sometimes get in the wrong position and end up tacking someone with your faceThat's because you quite frequently see tacklers getting the technique wrong. If they put their head where they are taught to at a young age, the injuries would decrease significantly.
