Could This be the End of Rugby

[GB72]

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

I think that you could achieve some success by reducing subs and making the time on the pitch longer in real terms to ensure that stamina has to be as important as bulk. NZ have had sucess at age grade rugby playing in groups based on size and not age but then you still are only kicking the problem down the road.

 

[Blue in Munich]

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).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concussion_(2015_film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy

Read the details in these two links & you should see a distinct similarity to all that you have mentioned in rugby.

If helmets protected the head as they should this wouldn't happen; that it does means they don't work as far as I'm concerned. You could argue that they work because it doesn't happen to everyone, I'm from the school that says if they worked it shouldn't happen to anyone.

 

[GB72]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concussion_(2015_film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_traumatic_encephalopathy

Read the details in these two links & you should see a distinct similarity to all that you have mentioned in rugby.

If helmets protected the head as they should this wouldn't happen; that it does means they don't work as far as I'm concerned. You could argue that they work because it doesn't happen to everyone, I'm from the school that says if they worked it shouldn't happen to anyone.

It is interesting that football is continually quoted as an example. I was aware of the well documented heading issues but had sort of assumed that some of that would have been tied in with the heave leather balls used at the time. Guess that was my naivity.

Agree what you say about if it does not work for everyone (or at least a very high percentage, then it does not work full stop).

I am worryingly at a loss as to how to actually do anything about it so far as rugby is concerned but then again, having read the article, this is symptomatic of all contact sports and, whilst rugby may be the first to do, it's demise will be used as the weapon to take down other sports.

 

[D-S]

They are already experimenting this year with no-heading in under 12s football, so this is a potential change to that sport which is coming down the road.

 

[GB72]

They are already experimenting this year with no-heading in under 12s football, so this is a potential change to that sport which is coming down the road.

Is that with a view to stopping damage caused on still developing children or with a view to moving that restriction up through the age groups.

 

[D-S]

Is that with a view to stopping damage caused on still developing children or with a view to moving that restriction up through the age groups.

Its an experiment at this stage and has already been introduced at earlier ages. I guess its results will tell if it will be rolled out through the age ranges, certainly some pundits believe that it is inevitable.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Any contact sport could be drastically changed - heading in football , and then combat sports etc If they want to fully protect everyone

But I suspect there will be risk waivers etc

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Personally I think the way they have altered the rules on tackling is creating issues with head contact on hard bone.
As an aside, I do feel that if someone is paid to play a sport (and not forced to) should they be able to then make a claim later on in life?

 

[GB72]

Personally I think the way they have altered the rules on tackling is creating issues with head contact on hard bone.
As an aside, I do feel that if someone is paid to play a sport (and not forced to) should they be able to then make a claim later on in life?

I think much will depend on how much was known and ignored about concussion etc. This was all pre concussion protocols when players were just told to run it off

 

[fundy]

Similar take from the NFL:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_pPc6-qR9ZzT0z2OrNm0GvN6n0yyrsiz

 

[greenone]

Best thing they could do is get rid of tactical subs. If players had to play 80 mins everyweek unless injured during the game the players would have to loose bulk.

 

[Robster59]

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.

Don't forget Rob Burrow.

 

[HeftyHacker]

I have to say I'm not sure how it can be made safer without removing the fundamental aspects of the game. I think the easiest fix is, as suggested, reducing the number of subs in an effort to manage the size of the players to shift the focus onto aerobic fitness but then there's an argument that a lot of these concussions could occur from bad decisions made by knackered players.

Its a minefield - I played for 20 years and would consider myself to have suffered 4 proper concussions in that time but countless "sub-concussions" that left me seeing stars or dizzy etc followed by a few days of dizziness. The last one in January 2020 left me in hospital unable to remember the Christmas that had just gone (I thought it was November) and stuck in a 20 minute loop of conversations. That along with the enforced break through covid and getting hooked on golf meant my fight had gone to be honest.

Just this morning I received news that a league playing mate of mine has been diagnosed with MND at the age of 43. Its absolutely heartbreaking and the parallels to myself with regards to ages of kids and background have really knocked me and got me thinking about what lays ahead for me.

 

[greenone]

As an aside, I do feel that if someone is paid to play a sport (and not forced to) should they be able to then make a claim later on in life?

Whats the difference between this any other workplace injury such as silicosis or asbestosis? Their employers have a duty of care.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Whats the difference between this any other workplace injury such as silicosis or asbestosis? Their employers have a duty of care.

Yes, but insofar as not putting someone at risk against their will or knowledge.
However,,
If you enter a sport knowing the risks and someone pays you for it, why do you think you have a right to go to them for money when you fall foul of that risk.?
E.g. A skier breaks a leg, badly, etc and then sues someone for , what, ? Not preventing that? Not treating it properly?, what?
Yes, I know that those unfortunate enough to have contracted such awful disease need extra money to live with it etc, but why is it the employer/ ruling body/ whatever organisation (worthwhile suing ) that has to pay it?

There is clearly some change required in the laws of Rugby, as many here are thinking about, and coming up with sensible suggestions. As a fan of League rather than Union, I can see that the former has more "predictable?" Types of contact than Union. Things like mauls, is it? Or rucks? where blokes charge into a guy or guys on the ground , boots flying etc to get to the ball, seem to me to be the sorts of areas where heads get kicked etc.

Rugby and all contact sports where such tragedies may result will not be able to continue if the employers/organisers are open to such legal actions .
The only answer I can see is taking out insurance. It will be expensive , I imagine, but there doesn't seem to be any other way that is fair.

 

[Deleted member 31467]

I understand and respect people seeking compensation now because the dangers weren't known when they started playing the game. However if people want to carry on playing then they sign a disclaimer that they do so at their own risk. If not, we end up taking away all forms of enjoyment and life will become incredibly sterile and boring.
I once did my back in having sex with a girl at a party, can I sue her or some authority for not warning me beforehand? Her boyfriend wasn't too pleased either but that's another story........

 

[Robster59]

You won't stop people playing, as you won't stop people boxing or UFC or other high impact sports. I still miss my Rugby and would play it again tomorrow if I could. I may wear a headguard, but that would be it, I imagine. I never shied from a tackle (you get more hurt that way), and playing at hooker you do get involved a lot. But I can say from playing both codes that I can understand why there is more concern in Union than in League.
The governing bodies will be worried by this, and understandably so. Not just against current potential litigation, but also in terms of how it will impact on the sport going into the future. And all sport requires on people starting young. How much will this impact on kids taking up the game in the future, when parents are worried about their children getting hurt, or the long-term impact.

 

[greenone]

If you enter a sport knowing the risks and someone pays you for it, why do you think you have a right to go to them for money when you fall foul of that risk.?
E.g. A skier breaks a leg, badly, etc and then sues someone for , what, ? Not preventing that? Not treating it properly?, what?
Yes, I know that those unfortunate enough to have contracted such awful disease need extra money to live with it etc, but why is it the employer/ ruling body/ whatever organisation (worthwhile suing ) that has to pay .

Because they are the employers paying the player's to play (and train everyday which is probably the bigger problem). I don't know what the training is like these days but my cousin was a former u20 at a premiership club back in the early 2000s and they were training full contact 4 days a week in addition to matchs.

 

[Hobbit]

I understand and respect people seeking compensation now because the dangers weren't known when they started playing the game. However if people want to carry on playing then they sign a disclaimer that they do so at their own risk. If not, we end up taking away all forms of enjoyment and life will become incredibly sterile and boring.
I once did my back in having sex with a girl at a party, can I sue her or some authority for not warning me beforehand? Her boyfriend wasn't too pleased either but that's another story........

I agree with this, up to a point. I’d be inclined to ask an almost rhetorical question. Were the trainers/coaches 40+ years ago good enough and aware of the risks?

Aware of the risks? No they probably weren’t. Good enough? Oh please, my sides are splitting. A guy that’s got a bit long in the tooth trying to tell you how to tackle… I had a couple of excellent coaches and even more that by today’s standards were awful.

As for sex coaches… made for a good video!

 

[GB72]

I think that the attitude around rugby was, how can I put this politely, not ideal when I was younger and it has not changed that much now outside of the professional ranks. It has always been an case of 'man up and play on' and then in the bar afterwards rather than going for a check up or a scan (I remember dislocating my shoulder, watching the rest of my club game and the first half of England v Ireland before getting it checked out at half time). Even now people still live and play by that mantra whilst chastising other sports for feigning injury or not playing on with any knock that did not remove a limb. That needs to be addressed at all levels as much as anything.