Could This be the End of Rugby

[GB72]

If the stories this morning are to be believed, it looks like the court action is about to commence in the concussion/early onset dimentia law suits. Can I start this by saying that none of this is a criticism of the action taken (having had a relative with early onset dimentia, I know the horrors that these families have coming) but I do not think I am exagerating when I say that this could actually be the end of a whole sport.

Rugby is trying hard to improve the protocols and football could learn from some of the steps taken but the impacts simply cannot be removed from the game. With the risk of long term physical and mental damage and the risk of further litigation, it would ve hard to see the sport being allowed to continue at a school level or at junior club level and if you cut off the roots, it will shrivel and die.

You also have the funding issue. This is not a billionaires sport like NFL, a sizeable settlement and the RFU, WRFU and even World Rugby could easily be bankrupted overnight. The finances of the sport are shaky enough already and this is, after all, just the first wave of cases from some of the highest profile players. The club level cases wil follow if there is a success.

As sad day on all sides. I have alll of the sympathy in the world for the players taking action but I can also see this as being the first steps towards the end of the sport (certainly in the form I know) that I have loved, played and followed since I was a kid.

 

[Orikoru]

Any potential for them to wear helmets at school level a la American football??

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It has the potential to change the sport dramatically and change it to the point that it could kill the sport at a professional level

The lowest level changes could be to remove scrums and ensure all players wear scrum caps etc

A lot of rule changes have come in to outlaw hits that have the potential to cause head damage

I’m not sure what other steps they can do to remove the danger without removing tackling - and it’s the same with heading in football
The money will be covered by insurance I suspect

 

[KenL]

Surely rugby isn't as risky as boxing?

 

[GB72]

Any potential for them to wear helmets at school level a la American football??

I would suspect not. There have been experiments with scrum caps and soft shoulder padding but annecdotal evidence has seemed to suggest that this simply made players more reckless in the risks they take.

Aside from a number of other issues, one issue has simply become the size of the players and so the size of the impacts. 25 year ago, Johah Lomu was deemed a 'freak' due to his size and pace but that has now become almost normal. Players are bulking up the maximum level their frame will take (or beyond in the case of Manu) and this is starting at school level.

 

[GB72]

Surely rugby isn't as risky as boxing?

Agreed, but the higher level boxers leave the career with a good stack of money in the bank. The best paid rugby players are on £500k a year for a short career and 20 years ago we are talking significantly less.

 

[Imurg]

Rugby, after the age of about 15, becomes a very tough game physically.
I played at school and tried afterwards for a while but, honestly, it became brutal. Injuries were very common...and that was back in the early 80s
These days players are fitted, faster and "hits" are harder. Get your timing wrong and you're flat on the floor.
Hard to see a way around the contact part of the game without completely sanitising the game.
Difficult to see England v Scotland playing tag rugby....

 

[KenL]

Agreed, but the higher level boxers leave the career with a good stack of money in the bank. The best paid rugby players are on £500k a year for a short career and 20 years ago we are talking significantly less.

Money can't protect your health, surely that is what counts?

 

[GB72]

It has the potential to change the sport dramatically and change it to the point that it could kill the sport at a professional level

The lowest level changes could be to remove scrums and ensure all players wear scrum caps etc

A lot of rule changes have come in to outlaw hits that have the potential to cause head damage

I’m not sure what other steps they can do to remove the danger without removing tackling - and it’s the same with heading in football
The money will be covered by insurance I suspect

The scrum has nothing to do with it. Scrums are the most controlled impact in the game and are shoulder on shoulder and at a controled speed with a gentle contact prior to the engagement. Scrums can cause other injuries but concussion or head impact is almost non existent. The issue is in rucks and malls and simply in tackling. Rules have changed to lower the height of tackles and that has helped to a certian exctent but now the issue is also with head on hip and head on knee collisions.

That is why this is seen as a threat to the game as a whole. If it was something as simple as scums then the issue could be addressed but it is an issue with all aspects of hte sport.

 

[GB72]

Money can't protect your health, surely that is what counts?

I totally agree. I guess what I am saying is that legal action for future care costs is less likely with a very full bank account. In the context of the rugby actions being lodged, it would be more akin to suiing a ref, fight doctor or a corner for not pulling a fighter out the ring in time.

 

[GB72]

Rugby, after the age of about 15, becomes a very tough game physically.
I played at school and tried afterwards for a while but, honestly, it became brutal. Injuries were very common...and that was back in the early 80s
These days players are fitted, faster and "hits" are harder. Get your timing wrong and you're flat on the floor.
Hard to see a way around the contact part of the game without completely sanitising the game.
Difficult to see England v Scotland playing tag rugby....

Agreed, I started playing rugby at the age of 6 in 1978 and played in the front row of the scrum until I retired with a shoulder injury in my early 40s. The game is totally different to the one I started playing and the impacts now are just insane.

The first possible solution that I have had to the issue is to ensure that the ball is in play more with the clock stopping more regularly. The number of subs also needs reducing. This would mean that players had to train as much for endurance as just plain power and so could not carry that level of bulk. The front 5 used to have to play for a full 80 minutes and so had to do as much endurance training as lifting but now they are subbed off en-masse on 50 minutes so do not have the same requirements.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Any potential for them to wear helmets at school level a la American football??

Probably not.

1; They don't work. See Concussion, starring Will Smith as Dr. Bennet Omalu who recognised similar symptoms in the NFL. It was based on the book Game Brain by Jeanne Marie Laskas.

2; Players will take bigger risks as they consider themselves safer.

3; In the wrong circumstances (rotational impacts) there is the potential to increase the level of injury.

 

[fundy]

I read an article recently about the way high tackle rules has constantly changed and being officiated and that actually its not going to actually make enough of a difference, whilst direct head injuries and concussion are part of the problem they are not all of it and that another big issue is the number of impacts each players body is taking and how much each of those, even without head contact, has on the brain over time

I came to a similar conclusion to you when reading the article that it will be the beginning of the end of rugby


Edit: Article was this one

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...ncussion-just-is-not-working?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[GB72]

I read an article recently about the way high tackle rules has constantly changed and being officiated and that actually its not going to actually make enough of a difference, whilst direct head injuries and concussion are part of the problem they are not all of it and that another big issue is the number of impacts each players body is taking and how much each of those, even without head contact, has on the brain over time

I came to a similar conclusion to you when reading the article that it will be the beginning of the end of rugby


Edit: Article was this one

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/b...ncussion-just-is-not-working?CMP=share_btn_tw

As I mentioned above, the only way forward I can see is to increase the amount of time that the ball is in play (stop the clock more, speed up the lineout etc) so as players cannot carry as much bulk and need to be leaner for endurance and stamina. Manu is the worst example of this. so much bulk and muscle that his frame cannot take it.
That may reduce the size of some hits but the game needs to regress. Too much is now based on 'winning the contact' rather than simply stopping the player made necessary but rule changes that have stopped it being possible to simply stop the player then drive the oppositoin off the ball.

 

[GB72]

Probably not.

1; They don't work. See Concussion, starring Will Smith as Dr. Bennet Omalu who recognised similar symptoms in the NFL. It was based on the book Game Brain by Jeanne Marie Laskas.

2; Players will take bigger risks as they consider themselves safer.

3; In the wrong circumstances (rotational impacts) there is the potential to increase the level of injury.

Certainly I had first hand experience of points 2 and 3 when scrum caps and shoulder padding were introduced in the early 2000s.

Any more detail on why helmets do not work as I have not seen the film or read the book and would be interested in some more detail (not that rugby would work with helmets anyway).

Continuing on from a point I made before, I notices that rugby league (as far as I am aware) is not experiencing the same issues (at least not that I have seen reported) and that variant has no incentive to 'win the contact or breakdown' and has a massive endurance requirement that is over and above the levels required for union (haivng tried to play both and realising how much fitter you need to be for league).

 

[Robster59]

I'm a Rugby League fan more than Rugby Union, and I think the way the two codes have moved forward means the impacts on Union forwards are higher than those in League. It is well known that, in Union, players have got progressively bigger, and there are very few small players now in Union. Also, the nature of the game (repeated scrums, mauls, loose scrums, etc.) cause more impact on the players. You look at how hard the players go into mauls and scrums to win the ball. In League, you get tacked and play the ball, so it's a faster game in terms of ball turnaround.
The ability to interchange the players also means that heavier players, who would struggle to do 80 minutes, can now take part.
There are certainly impacts in League as well, but I think it is even more of an issue in Union due to the way the game has evolved.

 

[GB72]

I'm a Rugby League fan more than Rugby Union, and I think the way the two codes have moved forward means the impacts on Union forwards are higher than those in League. It is well known that, in Union, players have got progressively bigger, and there are very few small players now in Union. Also, the nature of the game (repeated scrums, mauls, loose scrums, etc.) cause more impact on the players. You look at how hard the players go into mauls and scrums to win the ball. In League, you get tacked and play the ball, so it's a faster game in terms of ball turnaround.
The ability to interchange the players also means that heavier players, who would struggle to do 80 minutes, can now take part.
There are certainly impacts in League as well, but I think it is even more of an issue in Union due to the way the game has evolved.

I think that league has been helped by an intention to go round and past the oppostion whereas union has definitely moved more towards going through them. The rucks are a real problem but actually mauls, scrums and lineouts are some of the lowest areas of impact. My back is knackred from the forces driving through it but I rarely had any forceful impacts at those. At the moment we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Lowering the tackle has reduced head contact in some ways but now we are getting more contact with the head on the hip or knee, which is just as bad. Sadly Tigers lost another player this year who had to retire through concussion and then we have the rumours starting about connections between rugby and MND as seen to tragically with players like Ed Slater and Doddie Weir.

 

[Hobbit]

I played from 1970 through to 1992, the majority of the time as a lean, fast fullback. I received less niggling injuries playing rugby but 2 fractured skulls and, finally, a broken neck suggests it might be a more dangerous sport.

In the early days you might see the odd big centre but they were rare. Wing forwards were more of an issue, big but still not overly fast. By the time I retired from the game almost every back was built like a shed and had speed to match.

Another issue creeping into the game was the ‘wrap’ tackle which looks to smother the ball and stop it being released. In my opinion, the chest-2-chest ‘wrap’ tackle, which sees too many head to head contacts, should be banned. And then there’s the forward pick up and drive, which sees the opposing forward also drive forward, both basically being battering rams. Quite how that might be changed, I’d leave to wiser heads.

 

[GB72]

I played from 1970 through to 1992, the majority of the time as a lean, fast fullback. I received less niggling injuries playing rugby but 2 fractured skulls and, finally, a broken neck suggests it might be a more dangerous sport.

In the early days you might see the odd big centre but they were rare. Wing forwards were more of an issue, big but still not overly fast. By the time I retired from the game almost every back was built like a shed and had speed to match.

Another issue creeping into the game was the ‘wrap’ tackle which looks to smother the ball and stop it being released. In my opinion, the chest-2-chest ‘wrap’ tackle, which sees too many head to head contacts, should be banned. And then there’s the forward pick up and drive, which sees the opposing forward also drive forward, both basically being battering rams. Quite how that might be changed, I’d leave to wiser heads.

Thing is, if you watch the womens' team, the game is very much played how you and I remember it before the power game that Lomu accellerated into the mainstream. The trouble is trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube. It woul take a team to dominate with smaller and faster players for others to follow suit and I cannot see that happening. It is a pity as I think rugby would be a better game to both play and spectate with a reversion to pace and skill over battering ram tactics.

 

[fundy]

Thing is, if you watch the womens' team, the game is very much played how you and I remember it before the power game that Lomu accellerated into the mainstream. The trouble is trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube. It woul take a team to dominate with smaller and faster players for others to follow suit and I cannot see that happening. It is a pity as I think rugby would be a better game to both play and spectate with a reversion to pace and skill over battering ram tactics.

The only way you achieve that is by reducing the number of players on the field (as League did all those years ago) but probably more drastically. Not sure as far as 7 a side but probably down to 9/10/11 a side. But youre still going to have a decent amount of large impact contacts