• 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

LeCheese

Peter Johnson (47)
Just going off basic physics, I can't see how they can prevent a brain's inertia from suddenly being stopped.
It slightly helps to decelerate before impact and cushion the blow - same idea behind a crumple zone at the front/rear of a car
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

RebelYell

Arch Winning (36)
The Michael Lipman interview in The Aus on the weekend was bleak too. He has a book coming up about his early on-set dementia
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Just going off basic physics, I can't see how they can prevent a brain's inertia from suddenly being stopped. I still don't understand why the NFL just don't get rid of helmets - as soon as players feel their head being more vulnerable, maybe they'd stop using it as a force when tackling and running.

As you say, basic physics. There is never an instantaneous deceleration. What the helmet does is change the rate of deceleration. My Jeep stays intact in many accidents where a Hyundai is crumpled. Despite the "look" you are much safer in the Hyundai.
 

LeCheese

Peter Johnson (47)
As you say, basic physics. There is never an instantaneous deceleration. What the helmet does is change the rate of deceleration. My Jeep stays intact in many accidents where a Hyundai is crumpled. Despite the "look" you are much safer in the Hyundai.
"It's not the falling that kills you; it's the sudden stop at the end"
 
  • Like
Reactions: dru

liquor box

Greg Davis (50)
I think World Rugby genuinely doesn't want to give out any more money in these payouts than they have to....these cards and suspensions are a major part of the defence that they did everything possible to protect players.
Surely the risks are well enough known that if you choose to play then you get what comes to you.

I agree with payments to those who played prior to CTE becoming widely accepted but if you choose to play now then it would be the equivalent of starting cigarette smoking and then suing tobacco companies in 20 years time because you get lung cancer.
 

dru

Tim Horan (67)
Surely the risks are well enough known that if you choose to play then you get what comes to you.

I agree with payments to those who played prior to CTE becoming widely accepted but if you choose to play now then it would be the equivalent of starting cigarette smoking and then suing tobacco companies in 20 years time because you get lung cancer.

I'm no lawyer, but if a smoker had started through encouragement from a manufacturer and stayed with that manufacturer throughout and the cancer was attributable to smoking - they'd be successful in suing, wouldn't they?

I agree though there is personal responsibility, I don't think it outweighs the public risk from the sport though. Either way, a responsible sport aught be analysing the science and taking action around the results for something like this.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
I'm no lawyer, but if a smoker had started through encouragement from a manufacturer and stayed with that manufacturer throughout and the cancer was attributable to smoking - they'd be successful in suing, wouldn't they?

I agree though there is personal responsibility, I don't think it outweighs the public risk from the sport though. Either way, a responsible sport aught be analysing the science and taking action around the results for something like this.
Seems unlikely. No liability for the materialisation of an obvious and inherent risk. Everyone knows that smoking is going to fuck you up so you do it at your own risk

Causation is also tricky. For example, smoking is known to increase the risk of emphysema but people also get emphysema without ever smoking.

As an aside, people seem to assume it's a fait accompli that unions are gunna get slugged with enormous civil lawsuits and lose at some point. I don't think the risk is as high as perceived.

As you say - if rugby analyses the science and responds in a way that demonstrates it is taking reasonable steps to limit a known risk they will probably be completely fine.

And even if not, liability in Aus is capped (to limit insurance premiums) so rugby could survive some adverse findings.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dru

LeCheese

Peter Johnson (47)
The "you get what comes to you" approach is probably unwise if you want contact sports to maintain popularity long-term, with the occurrence of CTE becoming increasingly known. Aside from this, there are still so many unknowns when it comes to the required level of exposure, force, etc. that I don't think you can actually have fully informed consent regarding the risk at this stage.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
The "you get what comes to you" approach is probably unwise if you want contact sports to maintain popularity long-term, with the occurrence of CTE becoming increasingly known. Aside from this, there are still so many unknowns when it comes to the required level of exposure, force, etc. that I don't think you can actually have fully informed consent regarding the risk at this stage.
100% - the real risk to the sport is people not wanting to play because of the apparent dangers. Not so much legal risk.
 

LeCheese

Peter Johnson (47)
100% - the real risk to the sport is people not wanting to play because of the apparent dangers. Not so much legal risk.
IMO it's had a massive impact on the decline in participation/popularity of junior and schoolboy rugby in the last 15+ years, and it's not often discussed. The perceived risk is massive incentive for some parents to sway their kids towards soccer, basketball, etc.
 

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
Surely the risks are well enough known that if you choose to play then you get what comes to you.

I agree with payments to those who played prior to CTE becoming widely accepted but if you choose to play now then it would be the equivalent of starting cigarette smoking and then suing tobacco companies in 20 years time because you get lung cancer.
There are 2 things to consider:

1. If the sport wants more people to be involved and play then it needs to show it is serious about protecting players.

2. Even if players makes an informed decision to play the sport, that doesn't indemnify the sport for being reckless or negligent in the care of the players.
 

Tex

Greg Davis (50)
I'm curious whether GARG members and posters in this thread would reconsider their approach to rugby, knowing what they do now about the risks of head injuries and CTE?

Admitting that 15yo me knew "far more" than I do now, particularly around things like personal risk, I'd be very cautious about playing the game. I don't have kids but would probably be steering them towards non-contact sports.

It's a tough call as I loved every minute of playing rugby, but as an adult with a finer appreciation of health and longevity, my risk aversion is a lot stronger.
 

Dctarget

John Eales (66)
I'm curious whether GARG members and posters in this thread would reconsider their approach to rugby, knowing what they do now about the risks of head injuries and CTE?

Admitting that 15yo me knew "far more" than I do now, particularly around things like personal risk, I'd be very cautious about playing the game. I don't have kids but would probably be steering them towards non-contact sports.

It's a tough call as I loved every minute of playing rugby, but as an adult with a finer appreciation of health and longevity, my risk aversion is a lot stronger.
Uneducated opinion but do grassroot rugby players play enough to develop CTE? Am I only seeing the high profile players because of their identity or because it occurs more at a higher grade?
 

Tex

Greg Davis (50)
Generally it's the higher grades and professional ranks.

But...


Some highlights:
- CTE was identified in the brains of older former professionals with long playing careers, but also in younger, non‐professional sportsmen and in recent professionals who had played under modern concussion guidelines.
- The mean age at death of the donors with CTE (48 years; standard deviation [SD], 19 years) was lower than for those without CTE (75 years; SD, 19 years), but mean duration of sport participation was similar for the two groups.
- Six of the 12 donors with CTE and one of nine without CTE had died by suicide (P = 0.042), suggesting CTE may be a suicide risk factor.

From memory (and very happy to be corrected) one of the donors had played contact sport in high school only.
 

Tex

Greg Davis (50)
Which presents the conundrum. It's the repeated 'sub-concussive' impacts that contribute, not just the knock-out traumas. Think heading the ball in soccer, tackle practice, sparring in the boxing gym.
 

Derpus

George Gregan (70)
Which presents the conundrum. It's the repeated 'sub-concussive' impacts that contribute, not just the knock-out traumas. Think heading the ball in soccer, tackle practice, sparring in the boxing gym.
I wonder also if it's a spectrum disease. Like - do I have a little bit of CTE from playing amateur rugby?
 

LeCheese

Peter Johnson (47)
I wonder also if it's a spectrum disease. Like - do I have a little bit of CTE from playing amateur rugby?
More than likely yes, as atrophy is thought to be directly linked with exposure - as in the paper @Tex just linked, you don't have to be taking knocks 6 days a week for 30 years for it to occur. Obviously a lot of what we know stems from professionals who've often donated their brains based on suspicion of CTE, which means our understanding of the impacts of lower-levels quite limited. The tragic part is that it won't often show on MRIs and CTs, with post-mortem being the only way to diagnose, so we've got no idea until it's too late.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tex

liquor box

Greg Davis (50)
Which presents the conundrum. It's the repeated 'sub-concussive' impacts that contribute, not just the knock-out traumas. Think heading the ball in soccer, tackle practice, sparring in the boxing gym.
I think I read that in the USA junior soccer players don't head the ball until they are about 12 years old.
 

liquor box

Greg Davis (50)
IMO it's had a massive impact on the decline in participation/popularity of junior and schoolboy rugby in the last 15+ years, and it's not often discussed. The perceived risk is massive incentive for some parents to sway their kids towards soccer, basketball, etc.
It is a concern for parents, my 5 year old son plays soccer as it develops good coordination, team work and kicking skills. I don't practice headers with him and don't really want him playing any full contact sports including Rugby until he is older, if he chooses to.
 
Top