• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Concussions and Protecting Our Players

Cat_A

Cat_A

Arch Winning (36)
It's incredibly valuable information that they're gathering, no doubt. But as a word of caution, they're collecting baseline data. The information collected in the Randwick study will have no impact on the incidence of concussion and head injury and, from the perspective of scientific methodology, if simply being aware of forces using the accelerometers is enough to make a difference in the incidence of concussion, then the study will be scientifically worthless.

The scientific community needs baseline data on what the forces are first- that's this study. And they need it from a shitload of players at a shitload of levels. This will take a long time. The next step is correlating forces with concussive events. Then it needs to be repeated (validated) for a shitload of players at a shitload of levels. Every single one of those players will need to have a comprehensive assessment to determine concussion. If a foolproof or highly sensitive & scientifically valid method existed to do this yet, I think contact sports of all codes would be using the same test. They aren't. Then, assuming we come up with an awesome test suitable for hundreds of players, link it to the accelerometer data, we can establish a correlation between forces and concussion. We may not find any relationship whatsoever though and even though it's be frustrating, it'd still be more than we know now.

Then (and only then) will we know enough to start guessing (it'll still only be a guess for a really long time) what can be done to reduce them.

I don't want to be a naysayer, but as someone who has studied for a Masters degree in the relationship between workloads and injury in rugby union, I know the quality of available research in rugby, and I know scientific methodology.

This is a HUGE first step, but we might need to temper our expectations at some point.
 
D-Box

D-Box

Ron Walden (29)
uploadfromtaptalk1429700611848.jpg
The sensors being used if anyone is interested
Hugh Jarse said:
Interesting article in todays SMH on Randwick First Grade, who will be fitted with tri-axial accelerometer patches behind their ears to gather data on G Force impacts during the game.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...neering-concussion-study-20150319-1m376p.html
Click to expand...
 
Wilson

Wilson

David Codey (61)
Was that coin chosen as a subtle piece of commentary on the dystopian future we're heading to, where big brother is always watching, even monitoring the very movement of our brains within our heads? :eek:
 
Hugh Jarse

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
American NFL to pay millions of dollars to former players in concussion settlement

In a landmark case involving the American National Football League (NFL), a settlement has finally been reached and could see the NFL paying around $1 billion to former and current players.

The case was brought by thousands of former players who say the NFL hid the harms of concussion.

The League has always denied the link between concussion and neurological diseases.


To read the full ABC Radio 702 report on "The World Today" from 23 April: http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2015/s4222149.htm

Click here to listen:
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/twt/201504/20150423-twt13-concussioncompo.mp3

The Randwick Rugby biosensors data collection project gets a mention in the ABC report.

Dr Adrian Cohen, the director of Neck Safe - a not-for-profit group focused on the prevention of head and neck injuries, says:
"The answer is knowledge. We have to know therefore we have to ask the questions, we have to do the research and we have to find the information.

If you can measure it, you can monitor it.

We can look after people and we have to accept now that we all understand that sport and high impact sports played for a long period of time have the potential to do damage.

If we don't look for that damage, we'll never find it."
 
Hugh Jarse

Hugh Jarse

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Heard on the sidelines over the weekend, from a source that is usually fairly reliable, that the initial data from the on going Randwick data logging study was finding that the biggest "g" force smacks on the melon were being registered by front rowers, No 8's and Fullbacks. The first two being rather obvious but the last is a bit of a surprise.

Also talk was that the Newington 1st XV were wearing the same devices as the Wix to study if there is any difference in the collision data at schoolboy level.

Any Gaggerlanders associated with Newington College able to confirm if the 1st XV are wearing the head impact devices?
 
D-Box

D-Box

Ron Walden (29)
You have to remember that they don't actually measure impact but rather acceleration (deceleration). If you are running and get hit low and hard and stop your head can whip forward and back with high accelerations. This can be mitigated by neckb strength and if you contract the muscles. As it is just one team it could just be the full back has weak neck muscles or doesn't contract them
 
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Inside Shoulder said:
I read an article (which I have not been able to find) in the last week which had a neurosurgeon suggesting that in the US a child was more likely to suffer a brain injury driving to the game than playing in it.
The link below records some of the arguments: http://www.livescience.com/53208-will-concussion-risk-keep-kids-out-of-youth-football.html
Click to expand...

Good article and I generally agree with the arguments. Like most injuries, I suspect that concussion (and more specifically CTE) are mainly confined to adult sport in general and elite adult sport in particular. My take is that the collisions are harder and heavier there, the games are more intense and there is far more pressure for players to resume playing immediately or far too early.
 
D-Box

D-Box

Ron Walden (29)
Surprised no one has posted this yet. As was reported widely a bunch of clinicians and doctors have written a letter calling on tackling to be banned from schools rugby in the UK. See the letter and the World Rugby response below.

Actual Letter http://www.sportcic.com/resources/Open Letter SportCIC March1st 2016.pdf

World Rugby Response http://www.worldrugby.org/news/142105

To declare my hand here I am a university academic who does research into sports injury prevention, including recently starting to move into concussion research.

I think that the letter very much overstated the risks associated with the sport and are suggesting that serious injuries are a regular occurrence. The response from World Rugby is probably a much better representation of the facts and is presented very well.

Rugby is already doing lots to reduce the risk of these major injuries through programs such and Smart Rugby in Aus and NZ as well as BokSmart in South Africa which has been shown to reduce the risk of serious injuries in Youth Rugby (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=EE5CF4E701C16DD5FD820002EA829982.f03t03) There is also currently studies running in the UK to develop injury prevention training programs such as FIFA11+ that can be rolled out to help community coaches. If we improve the ability of our coaches, we will improve our player and make the contact zone safer
 
D-Box

D-Box

Ron Walden (29)
Another well resoned and explained response to the call to ban tackling in school rugby from Professor Ross Tucker from South Africa http://sportsscientists.com/2016/03/banning-tackle-rugby-lesson-vs-z/

Much of the argument come from the background of there is plenty of research supported by rugby boards that has resulted in us being well along the way to know what works to prevent these injuries so why come out with ridiculous scaremongering statements. The conclusion form the article is below


But what happens when you come into a discussion and propose an extreme solution that is ignorant of progress already made is that you not only ignore what is on the table, you overturn the table and send all its content flying and the people sitting around it scattering.


What will that achieve? Precisely nothing. And that’s the problem here – this is not dialogue, because it polarises the issue. The media in particular either take the side of “ban rugby” advocates, and rugby becomes like sharks – feared because of disproportionate, unbalanced reporting in the face of a problem that exists, but not as bad as portrayed.

Or the media circle the wagons and reject out of hand the idea that risk must be reduced. “Leave us alone”. This happened too yesterday, and it’s equally bad. We can’t leave it alone – World Rugby, the RFU, NZRU and many others are NOT leaving it alone – it’s a situation that must be addressed no matter how small the Y in (X minus Y) might be. Ultimately, you know who loses? People who are actually in position to effect change, and more than that, people who hope to benefit from that change.

So my message, in conclusion, to 70 academics and researchers, is three-fold:

  1. Instead of stirring up mass hysteria by basing extreme proposals on cherry-picked partial data that is heavily criticised by other academics, why not channel your noble incentives into stirring up a passion to address the root causes of the problem – policies, application of rugby and who knows, better education for parents, teachers and coaches about tackle technique and other ways to make the existing sport safer?
  2. Instead of offering absolutely ludicrous comparisons like that offered on a radio debate yesterday when one of the 70 said that if you allow your child to play rugby you may as well throw them under a bus traveling 30 km/h (you should be ashamed of this stupid analogy, sir), why don’t you instead direct that passion towards understand what kinds of solutions would actually have the best LONG-TERM outcomes for children, who are going to go on to become adults?
  3. Rather than offering what is clearly not going to be embraced as a solution, why not get onto the full picture of data, take the emotion and your personal agendas out of it (you know exactly who you are and what I mean), and I guarantee you, you will find a bunch of very dedicated people who are doing pretty much the same thing you are, with the same intention.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top