Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Doctor calls for ban under 18s playing rugby

  • 03-06-2017 12:20pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭ The Lost Sheep


    Thought this deserved its own thread as very relevant to all grades of rugby and wont be seen in the schools thread as much as in its own thread.
    And here is another article on the same topic
    https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/how-head-injuries-will-end-sport-as-we-know-it-1.3105943

    Dr Omalu, after giving the keynote address at MyHealth public lecture Knocking Out Concussion in Sportthis Tuesday in Dublin, will receive an honorary doctorate from the Royal College of Surgeons.
    The talk will be streamed live at rcsi.ie/myhealth.
    thebaz wrote: »
    Doctor calling for ban of schoolboy rugby and other sports :-

    https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/under-18s-should-not-play-rugby-says-concussion-doctor-1.3105970

    Think it is way over the top, can speak with experience as I suffered concussion playing schoolboy rugby - sure there is risk, there is risk in life, but the benefits of playing rugby, American football and boxing far outweigh the guaranteed safety of playing ther equivalent in a virtual safe world on a playstation. Life is risky and underage sport too, by all means try cut the risk but banning the sport, seams crazy given there enjoyment and health benefits - many I know who gave up sport early went down the road of addiction and much more serious dangerous activities.


«1345

Comments

  • Subscribers Posts: 36,269 ✭✭✭✭ sydthebeat


    Round and Round we go....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,298 ✭✭✭✭ Jawgap


    I would've thought only allowing full contact at age 18 would be a recipe for disaster......if the first experience full grown, or effectively full grown, players have of physicality is at age 18 then the physics, combined with their lack of experience, is going to result in a lot of injuries......you may reduce the incidence of concussion and head trauma, but at what cost? Increased back and joint injuries? And certainly a lot of soft tissue injuries.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,218 ✭✭✭✭ bilston


    I'm only basing this on the headline but what a load of nonsense. Lets van everything with an element of risk for under 18s then. What does that leave for them? Walking around in circles in a locked room?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭ frozenfrozen


    forget banning anything - there should just be emphasis put on testing for concussion and a change in the stigma for coming off the pitch after being hit hard in the head

    happened all the time when I played in school, you'd be walking around gee eyed after a big hit to the head but wouldn't tell anyone


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭ The Lost Sheep


    Jawgap wrote: »
    I would've thought only allowing full contact at age 18 would be a recipe for disaster......if the first experience full grown, or effectively full grown, players have of physicality is at age 18 then the physics, combined with their lack of experience, is going to result in a lot of injuries......you may reduce the incidence of concussion and head trauma, but at what cost? Increased back and joint injuries? And certainly a lot of soft tissue injuries.
    It would cause chaos.
    forget banning anything - there should just be emphasis put on testing for concussion and a change in the stigma for coming off the pitch after being hit hard in the head

    happened all the time when I played in school, you'd be walking around gee eyed after a big hit to the head but wouldn't tell anyone
    How do you do put emphasis on testing for concussion. If any doubt on concussion at any level below pro the player should leave field and cant return for 21/23 days if diagnosed.
    The stigma has changed considerably at age grade and adult and the monitoring/recording of concussive injuries is significantly better than even 2/3 years ago.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 Former Former


    People should read the article


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,815 D14Rugby


    I love this quote from him

    In 2017 there is no justifiable reason why a child under the age of 18 must continue to play rugby.

    I respect the man for all he did in regards to concussion in the nfl and the wider impact that has had,but that is just a ridiculous statement to make. How about for the enjoyment, the numerous health, mental and physical, benefits and because if you tell people that they can only play at 18 there will be tonnes more injuries.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 33,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pickarooney


    People should read the article

    Why?


  • Subscribers Posts: 36,269 ✭✭✭✭ sydthebeat


    People should read the article

    which of the posters here are you assuming hasnt ??


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭✭✭ jdeego10


    How can a doctor ban a sport


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 696 ✭✭✭ JPCN1


    bilston wrote: »
    I'm only basing this on the headline but what a load of nonsense. Lets van everything with an element of risk for under 18s then. What does that leave for them? Walking around in circles in a locked room?
    A locked and padded room. Virtually every sport carries risks. Not playing sport carries risks...
    Seems to me like a Dr trying to get a bit of attention for himself.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 irishbucsfan


    JPCN1 wrote: »
    A locked and padded room. Virtually every sport carries risks. Not playing sport carries risks...
    Seems to me like a Dr trying to get a bit of attention for himself.

    Ah now, whatever else this is not someone looking for attention for himself. He already has that.

    I don't doubt at all that he completely believes what he says and the work he's done in the past will save lives. It's important to have doctors like him and O'Driscoll reminding us that there is very real risk involved.

    He's entitled to his opinion. And he's far more qualified to give that opinion than most others. But it's just an opinion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,731 ✭✭✭ Tim Robbins


    My own view, as I have said before the issues at the various levels of the game are very different.

    At mini's, youths etc it can be because the post tackle is a mess, not properly coached and reffed and at the upper levels of the game it's because players are eating 10 chickens a day, playing too many matches in too physical a style.

    Think we need different solutions for different levels of game. If we are talking about grass roots of the game... in terms of health and safety, I think you shouldn't be allowed to coach the game unless you have done a certain number of courses and have been assessed. Similarly, all matches should have properly trained ref's who are also assessed. You also shouldn't be allowed assess unless you are at a certain level. This would inevitably mean more funding needed for the grass roots but I think it would help increase safety levels,

    I am parent and to be honest, I don't like the idea of my own kid playing a match when a ref can't keep up with play, doesn't understand how important it is to keep players on feet post tackle etc. I would prefer increased cost and a guarantee of proper standards.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,098 ✭✭✭ ectoraige


    My own view, as I have said before the issues at the various levels of the game are very different.

    At mini's, youths etc it can be because the post tackle is a mess, not properly coached and reffed and at the upper levels of the game it's because players are eating 10 chickens a day, playing too many matches in too physical a style.

    Think we need different solutions for different levels of game. If we are talking about grass roots of the game... in terms of health and safety, I think you shouldn't be allowed to coach the game unless you have done a certain number of courses and have been assessed. Similarly, all matches should have properly trained ref's who are also assessed. You also shouldn't be allowed assess unless you are at a certain level. This would inevitably mean more funding needed for the grass roots but I think it would help increase safety levels,

    I am parent and to be honest, I don't like the idea of my own kid playing a match when a ref can't keep up with play, doesn't understand how important it is to keep players on feet post tackle etc. I would prefer increased cost and a guarantee of proper standards.

    Personally I would introduce a second official on the pitch who is specifically focused on the breakdown and player safety. There's so much for the ref to do and at underage and amateur levels you can't expect to always have the highest calibre referees.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,249 ✭✭✭✭ Guy:Incognito


    I kn9w rugby has been the big focus I the last couple of years but surely boxing has to be much worse no? The head is the main target and the goal is to knock each other out. Presumably kids train similar amounts in boxing as other sports so 2 - 3 times a week they are getting their brains rattled around their heads?


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 33,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pickarooney


    An extra ref on the sideline with a cheap drone?
    Handy for scrum infringements too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 Former Former


    There are two different arguments here.

    What is best for the sport is the status quo and this guy should f**k off.

    What is best for the prevention of chronic brain injury in rugby players probably isn't the status quo and this guy may have something to contribute.

    Just read it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,731 ✭✭✭ Tim Robbins


    ectoraige wrote: »
    Personally I would introduce a second official on the pitch who is specifically focused on the breakdown and player safety. There's so much for the ref to do and at underage and amateur levels you can't expect to always have the highest calibre referees.
    Refs have different styles and sometimes have to make subjective calls. Players want consistency
    so think an actual second ref on pitch would be difficult.

    Touch Judges should be looking out for anything to do with foul or dangerous play and feeding that back into a ref in an agreed format. They should have more of them and the only way you get that (I think) is to pay them. GAA and Soccer ref's get paid. Rugby ref's get mileage (unless you are doing AIL rugby) but that's it. For youth's, mini's a lot of the time they can't get a ref so it's a Dad or an inexperienced coach.

    When a pitch is flooded, we say unplayable match too dangerous. If you haven't got a properly trained ref for a contact sport, it should be the same.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭ The Lost Sheep


    My own view, as I have said before the issues at the various levels of the game are very different.

    At mini's, youths etc it can be because the post tackle is a mess, not properly coached and reffed and at the upper levels of the game it's because players are eating 10 chickens a day, playing too many matches in too physical a style.

    Think we need different solutions for different levels of game. If we are talking about grass roots of the game... in terms of health and safety, I think you shouldn't be allowed to coach the game unless you have done a certain number of courses and have been assessed. Similarly, all matches should have properly trained ref's who are also assessed. You also shouldn't be allowed assess unless you are at a certain level. This would inevitably mean more funding needed for the grass roots but I think it would help increase safety levels,

    I am parent and to be honest, I don't like the idea of my own kid playing a match when a ref can't keep up with play, doesn't understand how important it is to keep players on feet post tackle etc. I would prefer increased cost and a guarantee of proper standards.
    Some very big generalisations there Tim. Like saying areas of game are not refereed.
    All well and good saying you cant coach until you attend courses and be assessed but that is far from feasible across the entire country. And how many courses should you need to attend before coaching a team?
    Development officers will get involved if called upon or if they see they need to.
    Ideally every game would have a branch association/society referee in charge but unless you get a couple of hundred people to join the 4 associations/societies then that wont happen
    And you are not officially an assessor unless you are an experienced referee and even then you are really a coach to the referee you are watching and not simply assessing them.
    ectoraige wrote: »
    Personally I would introduce a second official on the pitch who is specifically focused on the breakdown and player safety. There's so much for the ref to do and at underage and amateur levels you can't expect to always have the highest calibre referees.
    Its difficult enough to get one official for most games and a second official isnt needed. You need to work harder with the training and development of referees and that is happening through P Fitzgibbon, S Gallagher etc in refs department.
    An extra ref on the sideline with a cheap drone?
    Handy for scrum infringements too.
    And who funds that and that isnt really going to help..
    Refs have different styles and sometimes have to make subjective calls. Players want consistency
    so think an actual second ref on pitch would be difficult.

    Touch Judges should be looking out for anything to do with foul or dangerous play and feeding that back into a ref in an agreed format. They should have more of them and the only way you get that (I think) is to pay them. GAA and Soccer ref's get paid. Rugby ref's get mileage (unless you are doing AIL rugby) but that's it. For youth's, mini's a lot of the time they can't get a ref so it's a Dad or an inexperienced coach.

    When a pitch is flooded, we say unplayable match too dangerous. If you haven't got a properly trained ref for a contact sport, it should be the same.
    Tim that already happens. Paying is far from the only way to get more people involved in officiating and even if you do you will far from likely get the best people most suited to being in the middle of a game.
    And while Soccer referees get an actual match fee do GAA refs? Isnt it just expenses???
    And AIL refs dont get paid. If amatuer they get expenses just like anyone else.
    Well you dont need a qualified branch referee to do minis and the associate and community refereeing schemes were created to help give coaches who end up refereeing quite a bit some direction and coaching to help them for when they do have to referee.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,815 D14Rugby


    There are two different arguments here.

    What is best for the sport is the status quo and this guy should f**k off.

    What is best for the prevention of chronic brain injury in rugby players probably isn't the status quo and this guy may have something to contribute.

    Just read it.

    But that's not what he's saying. He's saying u 18's shouldn't play at all. Not let's look at how to prevent head injuries.
    There is a mix, something needs to be done but this guy hasn't put any thought into it other than not play the sport which is lazy and stupid


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 Former Former


    D14Rugby wrote: »
    But that's not what he's saying. He's saying u 18's shouldn't play at all. Not let's look at how to prevent head injuries.
    There is a mix, something needs to be done but this guy hasn't put any thought into it other than not play the sport which is lazy and stupid

    World renowned medical expert on sport-induced brain trauma is lazy and stupid?

    READ. IT.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,815 D14Rugby


    World renowned medical expert on sport-induced brain trauma is lazy and stupid?

    READ. IT.

    I HAVE, MULTIPLE TIMES
    He's not lazy and stupid, his "solution" is and would only cause more injuries and of increased severity.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 Former Former


    D14Rugby wrote: »
    I HAVE, MULTIPLE TIMES
    He's not lazy and stupid, his "solution" is and would only cause more injuries and of increased severity.

    There is no other solution.

    We either ban full-contact for under 18s

    Or

    We accept the significant possibilty of brain injury.

    After 18, the risk is still there but at least you're an adult and you can make your own decisions. That's not the case for kids at schools level.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,815 D14Rugby


    There is no other solution.

    We either ban full-contact for under 18s

    Or

    We accept the significant possibilty of brain injury.

    After 18, the risk is still there but at least you're an adult and you can make your own decisions. That's not the case for kids at schools level.

    There are many other solutions to not even attempt to firstly think of any or to entertain any suggestions made is lazy.
    Football is being linked to concussion too do we banned that? You could get hit by a cricket ball, ban it. Oh tennis you could get hit by the ball with that too, ban it. Chasing you could trip and hit your head. Getting the point? Every piece of exercise has risk, you can't just say let's ban it and call that a solution.
    We can't wrap kids in cotton wool or else all they'll have is their PC friendly video games and TV and then we'll have a bunch of overweight lazy 18 year old who won't want to play sports.
    Rugby should be made safer, yes, and people are working towards that. Banning it until you're 18 is a good way to end up with a lot more severe injuries to a lot more people.


  • Subscribers Posts: 36,269 ✭✭✭✭ sydthebeat


    everyone who steps onto a field, court, arena, track etc knows there is a risk of injury, and potential serious injury at that.

    the administrators of the game have the responsibility to make the game as safe as possible while still maintaining the ethos of the game.

    calling a spade a spade, this doctor wants to make rugby "adults only". that wont happen.

    the administators of the game constantly update the laws to make it a safer game while maintaining the ethos of the game.
    there will still be serious injuries, and no doubt, fatalities in the future... in rugby as well as other sports... but i believe that is human nature, and the human condition, and we cannot protect our kids from every ill in the world no matter how much we'd like to.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,731 ✭✭✭ Tim Robbins


    Tim that already happens. Paying is far from the only way to get more people involved in officiating and even if you do you will far from likely get the best people most suited to being in the middle of a game.
    And while Soccer referees get an actual match fee do GAA refs? Isnt it just expenses???
    And AIL refs dont get paid. If amatuer they get expenses just like anyone else.
    Well you dont need a qualified branch referee to do minis and the associate and community refereeing schemes were created to help give coaches who end up refereeing quite a bit some direction and coaching to help them for when they do have to referee.
    GAA refs get paid even at U8.
    AIL refs used to get different fees depending on the level.

    Paying rugby refs and TJs would mean we could demand higher levels of fitness and standards at all levels from U8 right up.

    Most assessors are very good but think standards would be better again if they were paid. Paying refs, TJs and assessors would attract more talent into the game. For example, if a TJ was getting paid 50 euro for doing a J4 game and had to be of a certain standard, you are more likely to get one. But it all comes at a cost - it would mean an average of a fiver per player for every game they play.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,414 Testosterscone


    D14Rugby wrote: »
    Rugby should be made safer, yes, and people are working towards that. Banning it until you're 18 is a good way to end up with a lot more severe injuries to a lot more people.

    I agree with the point that banning u18's is a recipe for disaster.

    The last 15 years have seen rugby players dramatically change. The hits haven't changed that much but the explosive power behind them definitely has.

    For me I would probably be more incline to make changes to try and change the dynamics of underage rugby - reduced pitch size for example. Things that can change the sport at underage level to reduce the physical aspect while still preparing players for long term development.

    Having a more skill based emphasis at underage level while players are still physically maturing can only be a good thing for developing the sport while protecting players.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 irishbucsfan


    A reduced pitch size would have the opposite effect.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,414 Testosterscone


    A reduced pitch size would have the opposite effect.

    Might be wrong but I would imagine it would reduce some of the high velocity hits.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 33,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pickarooney


    Might be wrong but I would imagine it would reduce some of the high velocity hits.

    It would definitely increase the total number of collisions.


Advertisement