Rugby players to sue for brain damage!

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

You used to not be allowed to wear padding, it had to be stitched into the shirt mainly for forwards on the shoulders & that was minimal, it was a shock when you used to see Leon playing with an "arm guard", scrum caps were as rare as try scoring props.
Sir was often well padded as well!

[mol2]

The nearer we get to rugby league in the name of allowing faster ball to make the game more “entertaining” the greater the premium icon dislodging the ball in the tackle. So impacts rise to make it happen. Go back a year or two when Freddy Tuillagi was one of the few doing this, now they are all doing it. Head on impacts with heads or knees are concussion waiting to happen. Lowering the tackle height may be counter productive with tacklers putting their heads in the viscinity of pumping knees. Players seem to run leaning forward to make themselves harder to tackle - putting their own heads in the path of the tackler’s head.

Could do what they do in rowing where they have lightweight events? Have a maximum weight for the teams with front row players excluded to keep the fatties in the game? No backs over 14 stone, 15 stone for the rest of the pack? Remove the muscle bound giants?

Is that what we want? It might be a more exciting game than the giants’ slugfest we see in many games.

[Tiglon]

Still so much more to do - the "rutting stags" comment above is a good one, you often see players smashing into each other in rucks when the ball is already secured and there is nothing to be achieved.

A big hit (tackle) should be about timing and technique, not just sheer power and force.

Unfortunately professionalism has led to the situation we are now in, with modern players (particularly the Underhill types) being conditioned and trained to simply hit each other as hard as possible as often as possible for as long as possible. What does Underhill (and others like him) do in every match? Very little other than try to smash into someone else as hard as he can, then jump up and do it again, with or without ball. Occasionally he'll try to win a turnover, but mostly it's just smashing people.

You watch an England game over the last year or two and you have to think that the likes of Steve Thompson got off lightly compared to many current players, despite the extra precautions. I wouldn't like to think what Underhill's physical health will be like after he retires.

The other problem is the fitness of current players. Amateurs weren't able to stay in position so often or cover as much of the pitch so there was more space to exploit. Maybe keeping the laws exactly as they are but reducing the number of players on each team by 1 or 2 would have the desired effect. The more space there is, the less need there is to smash through each other.

[BrightonTiger]

The NFL introduced a law in 2018 preventing Running Backs lowering the crown of their head when going into contact.

You regularly see rugby players lowering their heads into contact, especially near the try line.

How can you tackle someone when their heads are at knee height? Plus as anyone who watches MMA will testify, a knee to the head is pretty lethal.

[Old Hob]

The NFL introduced a law in 2018 preventing Running Backs lowering the crown of their head when going into contact.

You regularly see rugby players lowering their heads into contact, especially near the try line.

How can you tackle someone when their heads are at knee height? Plus as anyone who watches MMA will testify, a knee to the head is pretty lethal.

Is the lowering of the head a deliberate (and dangerous, if true) tactic to try and get a high tackle penalty?

[northerntiger]

The NFL introduced a law in 2018 preventing Running Backs lowering the crown of their head when going into contact.

You regularly see rugby players lowering their heads into contact, especially near the try line.

How can you tackle someone when their heads are at knee height? Plus as anyone who watches MMA will testify, a knee to the head is pretty lethal.

Is the lowering of the head a deliberate (and dangerous, if true) tactic to try and get a high tackle penalty?

I don’t think so. I used to do it when I played. It’s an instinctive reaction when you go into contact

[BrightonTiger]

The NFL introduced a law in 2018 preventing Running Backs lowering the crown of their head when going into contact.

You regularly see rugby players lowering their heads into contact, especially near the try line.

How can you tackle someone when their heads are at knee height? Plus as anyone who watches MMA will testify, a knee to the head is pretty lethal.

Is the lowering of the head a deliberate (and dangerous, if true) tactic to try and get a high tackle penalty?

I don’t think so. I used to do it when I played. It’s an instinctive reaction when you go into contact

You can completely understand why players do it, lower centre of gravity, harder for the tackler to get underneath you...

The experts believe that taking the full force of a tackle through the crown of your head and down your spine isn't a good thing.

[BrightonTiger]

I know some people on here don't like the NFL but they they are way ahead of Rugby in the study of CTE (mainly due to multi million dollar lawsuits.)

Here is an article I found interesting saying that it is repetitive blows to the head not just 1 knockout concussion "the pain you feel is not necessarily a good indicator of the damage that it does to your brain"

Also playing below 12 years old can increase the risk as can playing for longer.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... kU&ampcf=1

[Old Hob]

Interview in the Times with Dr Jamie Roberts who has an interesting perspective being both a current player and a qualified medical doctor. He talks about the dilemma of contact training. On the one hand it increases the risk of injury in training, on the other if the body is unprepared it is more likely to suffer injury in a game. He notes that players recently returned from injury are more likely to be re-injured because of lack of contact conditioning. Damned if you do...

[Cagey Tiger]

Interview in the Times with Dr Jamie Roberts who has an interesting perspective being both a current player and a qualified medical doctor. He talks about the dilemma of contact training. On the one hand it increases the risk of injury in training, on the other if the body is unprepared it is more likely to suffer injury in a game. He notes that players recently returned from injury are more likely to be re-injured because of lack of contact conditioning. Damned if you do...

I read the article as well. I commented about this a long while ago with regards to players who spend the early part of their career injury free, then get one which keeps them out of the game for a couple of months or more. When they come back, they often get injured soon after they return. They probably didn't realise that the body had become conditioned over their early years and this had been lost while injured. Then, although their physical fitness had returned, the body was still 'soft' for want of a better word.

[LE18]

Lewis Moody, in todays Telegraph, says he would not change his decision to play rugby, he went into it knowing full well it was a contact sport, which begs the devil advocates question, do guys have a legal claim, or will this fact be the defence of clubs and authorities and a verdict of no case to answer? Perhaps that's why Lewis got the "Mad Dog" nickname.

[TigerFeetSteve]

To my mind the being willing to risk injury is different to knowingly sending a player to get long term injuries.

Regardless of whether I'm willing to do something dangerous my employer shouldn't send me to do something that has excessive risks attached.

If I know the risks and have accepted them it doesn't mitigate my employer's responsibility for my welfare.

So a player's willingness to play shouldn't affect whether rugby employers have been negligent in this regard

[jgriffin]

Lewis Moody, in todays Telegraph, says he would not change his decision to play rugby, he went into it knowing full well it was a contact sport, which begs the devil advocates question, do guys have a legal claim, or will this fact be the defence of clubs and authorities and a verdict of no case to answer? Perhaps that's why Lewis got the "Mad Dog" nickname.

The game that Moody went into is not the game he was in by 2003.A few years earlier, the only injuries a back would get was brainfreeze (if your 10 thought he was Rob Andrew) or dandruff from a poor choice in hair products. If forwards got injured it wasn't from speedily arriving at a ruck and diving in - just watch the speed of games in the second half!
RU needed to depower the RL style defences and equally not go into the jackalling route. Studs across your back better than a flying shoulder to the head!

[ourla]

You can't go back, only forward.

[Old Hob]

The NFL case succeeded because the players were able to prove that the owners knew about the risk and either covered it up or ignored it. Now I know we are not the US (thank goodness) but that seems a pretty similar legal principle to me. (I'm not a lawyer either)