Concussions and Protecting Our Players

[stillmissit]

Will be very interesting to see how it goes when implemented/trialled with pros for a prolonged amount of time. It's much harder to get yourself into a safe tackling position for a low tackle at the speed of the professional and even semi-professional game. This will be even harder if the game speeds up from an attacking point of view.

I know it's about safety and player welfare, but I'm scared of what the refs will do with this. There's already too many stoppages in the game as is which is a big reason why so many have given up on the sport.

I have always had an issue with head clashes at pro level, we have all seen 2 tacklers' head clash around an attacker and all of it seems very dangerous to me. Head clashes and heads hitting the ground seem to be the major concussions but there are many things that can bring them about.
Your thoughts on the difficulty of getting into a safe position to tackle is a fundamental issue that needs to be dealt with at pro level.

 

[Wallaby Man]

I was restating what Ross Tucker said. Your ideas about what is real and what is not are just as much supposition as his or mine. So take your ideas about what is emotional and hide them where the sun doesn't shine.

I personally think there is no solution that doesn't end up with rugby becoming a sport played by those prepared to sign waivers against future prosecutions.

I’m not even convinced the game or administrators can be prosecuted on the laws as they are. My belief is the only thing that can be prosecuted is the handling of someone that’s been unlucky to sustain an injury.

You can’t sue Toyota for crashing your car above the speed limit because the rules have been set to stipulate how fast you can go.

 

[stillmissit]

I’m not even convinced the game or administrators can be prosecuted on the laws as they are. My belief is the only thing that can be prosecuted is the handling of someone that’s been unlucky to sustain an injury.

You can’t sue Toyota for crashing your car above the speed limit because the rules have been set to stipulate how fast you can go.

I hope you're right but I ain't a lawyer and this kind of assumption never seems to stop cases going ahead.

 

[LeCheese]

I was restating what Ross Tucker said. Your ideas about what is real and what is not are just as much supposition as his or mine. So take your ideas about what is emotional and hide them where the sun doesn't shine.

I personally think there is no solution that doesn't end up with rugby becoming a sport played by those prepared to sign waivers against future prosecutions.

Possibly, but my point is that lowering tackle height really isn't changing anything fundamental about the game - the tackle itself is what's fundamental, and it will live on.

The game has survived (some might even say improved) off the back of numerous changes to other fundamental elements (scrums, rucks, mauls, lineouts) to improve safety. I can't see this being different.

 

[stillmissit]

Just to throw another issue into this discussion. I would suggest a head protector might help but not eliminate concussions although there are arguments on both sides this is one report stating the advantages of wearing head protection. https://www.cabi.org/leisuretourism/news/65666

 

[LeCheese]

I’d say the lower you go age grade the propensity of player getting knocked out gets lower. A child would be more likely knocking themselves out on a bike or skateboard than playing rugby. We need to move away from sensationalism to scare people. It’s doing more damage to sports and wider society than the actual issues themselves. There is probably more chance you have been caught up in the sensationalism than a kid at u8s getting a concussion.

Yes concussion is less prevalent as you go in to lower age groups, but every ~1 in 4 games (for Schoolboys) is still pretty sizeable. The fact that they accounted for over a quarter of all reported injuries at that level is further evidence that it isn't a trivial issue imo.

 

[Wallaby Man]

Yes concussion is less prevalent as you go in to lower age groups, but every ~1 in 4 games (for Schoolboys) is still pretty sizeable. The fact that they accounted for over a quarter of all reported injuries at that level is further evidence that it isn't a trivial issue imo.
View attachment 15196

It’s not a 26% chance tho.

Again 4 in 1 sounds bad but broken down is 2 x 23 per game = 46

Then the 46 participants x 4 games is 1 in 184 participants.

That would indicate you have a 1/184 chance of getting a head knock per game and not even per tackles. With improved measures of not allowing players to play a certain amount of weeks after would drop this even more because those that have received a knock are more likely to get reoccurrence than those that haven’t.

Then on top of this, what constitutes a concussion for this research? Not that any concussion shouldn’t be treated seriously, but there is surely grades of it. This is where the data can be weaponised.

I work in research for a living (more media than science) but the hypothesis can be catered to achieve the result your client or at least lean towards the hypothesis they are really wanting.

Once again I will point out that I believe concussions are an issue, but equally I’m not convinced the data leads towards the conclusions that are been made.

People have said they haven’t said it’s only leg tackles but the drop in height will push the vast majority to be done in that area, which actually represents the 2nd and 3rd worst zones Ross Tuckers research has highlighted. Hence I think he’s a little worried in the narrative some are going with this. Progressive Rugby (the lobby group behind a lot of the initial discussions and lawyers for the lawsuit) have even claimed they don’t support the drop in height to where it’s been claimed. They still believe armpit height is the area where it should be.

 

[LeCheese]

It’s not a 26% chance tho.

Again 4 in 1 sounds bad but broken down is 2 x 23 per game = 46

Then the 46 participants x 4 games is 1 in 184 participants.

That would indicate you have a 1/184 chance of getting a head knock per game and not even per tackles. With improved measures of not allowing players to play a certain amount of weeks after would drop this even more because those that have received a knock are more likely to get reoccurrence than those that haven’t.

Then on top of this, what constitutes a concussion for this research? Not that any concussion shouldn’t be treated seriously, but there is surely grades of it. This is where the data can be weaponised.

I work in research for a living (more media than science) but the hypothesis can be catered to achieve the result your client or at least lean towards the hypothesis they are really wanting.

Once again I will point out that I believe concussions are an issue, but equally I’m not convinced the data leads towards the conclusions that are been made.

People have said they haven’t said it’s only leg tackles but the drop in height will push the vast majority to be done in that area, which actually represents the 2nd and 3rd worst zones Ross Tuckers research has highlighted. Hence I think he’s a little worried in the narrative some are going with this. Progressive Rugby (the lobby group behind a lot of the initial discussions and lawyers for the lawsuit) have even claimed they don’t support the drop in height to where it’s been claimed. They still believe armpit height is the area where it should be.

I understand the stats, how they can be manipulated, and what conclusions can/cannot be drawn - I also work in and around research and have a background in psychology, social science, and biology/neuroscience.

The data doesn't suggest the risk is abundantly high for an individual (and I'm not trying to say it does) - the issue is that collectively, across all forms, the game creates a large number of concussions that would otherwise not have occurred. By way of comparison, around 1 in 180 women will develop cervical cancer by age 85 - the risk for an individual is low, but collectively the impact to public health is huge (of course recognising that the population of rugby players is much smaller).

People will shout about wrapping people in cotton wool, not having autonomy over decision making, etc. The fact is that, as science continues to learn (and communicate) more about the immediate and long term impact of concussions to individuals' quality of life and broader public health, all forms of sport - particularly those involving collisions - will come under the spotlight. Adapt or die.

 

[Wallaby Man]

I understand the stats, how they can be manipulated, and what conclusions can/cannot be drawn - I also work in and around research and have a background in psychology, social science, and biology/neuroscience.

The data doesn't suggest the risk is abundantly high for an individual (and I'm not trying to say it does) - the issue is that collectively, across all forms, the game creates a large number of concussions that would otherwise not have occurred. By way of comparison, around 1 in 180 women will develop cervical cancer by age 85 - the risk for an individual is low, but collectively the impact to public health is huge (of course recognising that the population of rugby players is much smaller).

People will shout about wrapping people in cotton wool, not having autonomy over decision making, etc. The fact is that, as science continues to learn (and communicate) more about the immediate and long term impact of concussions to individuals' quality of life and broader public health, all forms of sport - particularly those involving collisions - will come under the spotlight. Adapt or die.

Cancer is not a great example to compare. Unfortunately those 1 in 180 women have an immediate life threatening issue.

Almost all those 1 in 184 children will not get dementia or brain related issues related to rugby trauma. Maybe only 1 in 184 of those 1 in 184 children will, which means the probability is in the tens of thousands to get it, if you are a child rugby player. It’s hardly placing a strain on health resources down the line.

 

[LeCheese]

Cancer is not a great example to compare. Unfortunately those 1 in 180 women have an immediate life threatening issue.

Almost all those 1 in 184 children will not get dementia or brain related issues related to rugby trauma. Maybe only 1 in 184 of those 1 in 184 children will, which means the probability is in the tens of thousands to get it, if you are a child rugby player. It’s hardly placing a strain on health resources down the line.

Agreed that it's not the best example and has very different impacts and prognoses, but it's food for thought regarding awareness and potential impact. The science isn't at a point yet where we can say with any specificity what the effects, specifically related to number of instances, are on longevity - maybe 1 in 10 who've been exposed develop a neurodegenerative diseases, maybe 1 in 184, maybe 1 in 10,000 - but we do know that it's detrimental. That should be enough to take (measured) steps towards reducing risk where we can, and adapt as we learn more.

 

[stillmissit]

I understand the stats, how they can be manipulated, and what conclusions can/cannot be drawn - I also work in and around research and have a background in psychology, social science, and biology/neuroscience.

The data doesn't suggest the risk is abundantly high for an individual (and I'm not trying to say it does) - the issue is that collectively, across all forms, the game creates a large number of concussions that would otherwise not have occurred. By way of comparison, around 1 in 180 women will develop cervical cancer by age 85 - the risk for an individual is low, but collectively the impact to public health is huge (of course recognising that the population of rugby players is much smaller).

People will shout about wrapping people in cotton wool, not having autonomy over decision making, etc. The fact is that, as science continues to learn (and communicate) more about the immediate and long term impact of concussions to individuals' quality of life and broader public health, all forms of sport - particularly those involving collisions - will come under the spotlight. Adapt or die.

I'd like to see real-world data as opposed to an analysis of potential. We all know they can be very unreliable. I understand that with some brain damage, you cannot analyse it until they are dead but all data regarding rugby players with brain damage needs to be gained apart from the one that was collated over 9 years on professional players only. Then scientists could do some analysis that would relate to the average kid/young adult playing rugby.

Le Cheese said: That should be enough to take (measured) steps towards reducing risk where we can, and adapt as we learn more.
No, it should not, I would have assumed we had learnt our lesson regarding taking these steps to prevent a future event. Let's react to what is real and at this time it seems to be prevalent in pro sports, to add in every kid, youngster or 33year old running around in the thirsty 3rds, has no proof of necessity yet.

 

[LeCheese]

I'd like to see real-world data as opposed to an analysis of potential. We all know they can be very unreliable. I understand that with some brain damage, you cannot analyse it until they are dead but all data regarding rugby players with brain damage needs to be gained apart from the one that was collated over 9 years on professional players only. Then scientists could do some analysis that would relate to the average kid/young adult playing rugby.

I know of one study doing exactly this currently, so no doubt there would be many more globally. Of course these studies require decades of data collection that we'll be waiting for for some years. Data availability will become increasingly easier due to the much more rigorous concussion testing and recording that occurs now even compared to 5yrs ago. Some more compelling research is beginning to emerge though.

https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/neu.2013.3219

This study compared 20 retired elite-level aussie rules players (average of 3.2 concussions in the last 22yrs) to an age-matched control group. Along with a number of physiological differences, the player group performed worse than the control on measures of dexterity, reaction, and movement time - measures you would expected ex-elite athletes to outperform non-athlete peers on.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920306686

This study compared 51 older individuals (average age 65) who had a history of concussion (average of 23yrs prior) to 150 (average age 66) with no history of concussion. They found those with a history of concussion to have a greater level of brain atrophy across many functional areas than those with no concussion history, and that this difference was maintained over multiple visits spanning years.

 

[Dan54]

I (and a few others) were around when the broken neck thing was the thing that seemed to be a huge worry (rightfully), and I was actually on sideline of a game when one happened. Now every broken neck wasn't caused by a scrum, but by changing the scrum laws (despite angst) it seemed to cut out a good percentage. I don't think in anyway that rugby will cut out all head knocks etc, but if the number of incidents is lowered, I believe (like the broken neck thing) it is a help to the game etc that something is done.

 

[Drew]

^Agreed. High tackles aren’t the only cause of head knocks. Defenders mistiming a low tackle and getting their head in the wrong place would be as much of a contributing factor, as would reckless clean outs. But it’s a start.

 

[stillmissit]

^Agreed. High tackles aren’t the only cause of head knocks. Defenders mistiming a low tackle and getting their head in the wrong place would be as much of a contributing factor, as would reckless clean outs. But it’s a start.

When I was involved in rugby in the western suburbs of Sydney, there was a young guy at the club I was involved with who broke his neck in a head-on tackle with his head in the wrong position and another I heard about also related to a tackle that went wrong.
Don't know the stats but I suspect broken necks were more prevalent in tackles than scrum collapses.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Very Click baity but still a strange thing for a current international coach to bring up.

 

[stillmissit]

I saw part of a concussion discussion on the ABC last night - odd as I haven't watched ABC in years. The guy stated 'this is not an issue just for 120kg rugby players but affects all areas' I assume he was talking about sports.

If this proves correct (a big IF) then it is 'sayonara' to all contact sports because the guy was saying one concussion where you lose consciousness can have lifelong impacts and 3 is a high risk of impacts. How do you play contact sport without risk of a head knock?

 

[stillmissit]

View attachment 15209
Very Click baity but still a strange thing for a current international coach to bring up.

Could see this coming. Let's see who else in rugby agrees. There will be plenty in the medical sciences who agree.

 

[LeCheese]

Don't know the stats but I suspect broken necks were more prevalent in tackles than scrum collapses.

Two seasons is only a small sample, but this would suggest you’re correct. Makes sense considering tackles are more frequent than scrums too.

Incidence, severity, aetiology and type of neck injury in men's amateur rugby union: a prospective cohort study

There is a paucity of epidemiological data on neck injury in amateur rugby union populations. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence, severity, aetiology and type of neck injury in Australian men's amateur rugby union.Data was collected ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Derpus]

View attachment 15209
Very Click baity but still a strange thing for a current international coach to bring up.

Rugby league here we come.