General Rugby Discussion II

Yeah_Right

sydthebeat wrote: »

i
The incident between david luiz and Raul Jimenez was completely sickening and the fact they allowed Luiz to play on after being knocked out cold was disgraceful.

What makes that incident even worse is that it was only a year or so ago that Vertogen puked on the pitch, collapsed and had to helped down the tunnel after trying to play on following a head clash. I believe Spurs even tried to claim that he was fine as he had passed his HIA (which I think took less than a minute). Anyone watching could see that he was in no fit state to continue.

Quin_Dub

I heard Shane Byrne being interviewed on the Radio and he made the point that for every player finding themselves in the awful position that Thompson and the others are in , there are hundreds and thousands of others that have not and will not see any issues.

Clearly a lot more research is needed to understand why two players could have a near identical profile of injury (or potential injury) , but one ends up getting CTE or similar and the other gets away scot free.

What is different about these players physiology or body chemistry that makes them more susceptible to these injuries.

In Boxing they'd have the pretty rotten term "glass jaw" for guys that had a tendency to go down after a solid head contact whereas others wouldn't be as effected.

They can evaluate players today and tell you that they are pre-disposed to Hamstring issues or whatever because of various physiological characteristics.

We need to get there with those that might have a propensity to head trauma.

In the meantime we need to update/change training methods and have a far greater level of enforcement and adherence to the Concussion protocols.

As someone involved in Youth Rugby , I'd love to see an alignment between the various sports. I know of players that have been stood down in Rugby following the RTP Protocols , but they are still turning out for the local GAA or Soccer teams.

Clearly , parents need to take responsibility there, but sharing information across the organisations can only help.

bob mcbob

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I heard Shane Byrne being interviewed on the Radio and he made the point that for every player finding themselves in the awful position that Thompson and the others are in , there are hundreds and thousands of others that have not and will not see any issues.

Clearly a lot more research is needed to understand why two players could have a near identical profile of injury (or potential injury) , but one ends up getting CTE or similar and the other gets away scot free.

What is different about these players physiology or body chemistry that makes them more susceptible to these injuries.

In Boxing they'd have the pretty rotten term "glass jaw" for guys that had a tendency to go down after a solid head contact whereas others wouldn't be as effected.

They can evaluate players today and tell you that they are pre-disposed to Hamstring issues or whatever because of various physiological characteristics.

We need to get there with those that might have a propensity to head trauma.

In the meantime we need to update/change training methods and have a far greater level of enforcement and adherence to the Concussion protocols.

As someone involved in Youth Rugby , I'd love to see an alignment between the various sports. I know of players that have been stood down in Rugby following the RTP Protocols , but they are still turning out for the local GAA or Soccer teams.

Clearly , parents need to take responsibility there, but sharing information across the organisations can only help.

It is not just CTE, it looks like MND could also be related - you are 8 times more likely to get it if you are a professional sportsman in a contact sport.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/110496431/new-study-links-motor-neurone-disease-to-highlevel-contact-sports

Rather than some players being more susceptible, it may just be a matter of time. Steve Thompson started playing professionally (1998) 3 years after rugby went professional and it is only showing up now.

English Premiership rugby tends to be forward orientated and the players tend to play a lot more games than in Pro 14 which is likely to mean more head collisions.

The Lost Sheep

Quin_Dub wrote: »

As someone involved in Youth Rugby , I'd love to see an alignment between the various sports. I know of players that have been stood down in Rugby following the RTP Protocols , but they are still turning out for the local GAA or Soccer teams.

Clearly , parents need to take responsibility there, but sharing information across the organisations can only help.

This times a million.
Yes parents have to take responsibility but there needs to be coordinated effort with all organisations, schools involved.
We as rugby refs have to record any suspected concussions through our match reports but that needs to be sent to a central database ran by irish sports council or some central authority like that where its sent to the school of kids, as well as all other teams/sports theyre registered for.

Former Former Former

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I heard Shane Byrne being interviewed on the Radio and he made the point that for every player finding themselves in the awful position that Thompson and the others are in , there are hundreds and thousands of others that have not and will not see any issues.

Clearly a lot more research is needed to understand why two players could have a near identical profile of injury (or potential injury) , but one ends up getting CTE or similar and the other gets away scot free.

What is different about these players physiology or body chemistry that makes them more susceptible to these injuries.

In Boxing they'd have the pretty rotten term "glass jaw" for guys that had a tendency to go down after a solid head contact whereas others wouldn't be as effected.

They can evaluate players today and tell you that they are pre-disposed to Hamstring issues or whatever because of various physiological characteristics.

We need to get there with those that might have a propensity to head trauma.

In the meantime we need to update/change training methods and have a far greater level of enforcement and adherence to the Concussion protocols.

As someone involved in Youth Rugby , I'd love to see an alignment between the various sports. I know of players that have been stood down in Rugby following the RTP Protocols , but they are still turning out for the local GAA or Soccer teams.

Clearly , parents need to take responsibility there, but sharing information across the organisations can only help.

While I understand that more research is needed, until that is done, the governing bodies have to work on the assumption that everyone is susceptible.

Now that we have confirmed or very probable cases, World Rugby and the unions can't claim that it's not an issue in rugby, if they don't do something quickly they will definitely be found to be negligent down the road.

limerickabroad

This is a really interesting discussion, and some really good points being made here by knowledgeable posters. Can I suggest a mod or somebody separate out the posts about this law suit (and related discussion ) and maybe set up a new conversation? It's a bit lost in here . . .

AbusesToilets

There's no such thing as mild brain trauma, especially as it's cumulative. I work in a field that deals with repeated concussive exposure, and it causes many additional problems beyond brain issues. It's very disruptive to ones hormones and the like, which feeds into the cycle of degradation.

I thought I had read that a test had been developed for CTE, possibly involving protein markers or the like.

thebaz

twinytwo wrote: »

No more 20 stone players would be a good start, force the players to slim down. somewhere along the way rugby became about winning the collisions at all costs .

Do you ban people who are 20 stone from playing from rugby?

when I played Neil Francis was the only 6 5 player around - Ciaran Fitzgerald who captained Lions was about 5 10 and maybe 13 stone - ther were no players like Porter around Ireland that I remember, not sure what the solution is - something changed around the mid 90s players seamed to get so much bigger , same time as professionalism, although back then the Southern Hemisphere players were a a bigger than us, and we got a lot more smashed up against them than at home.

bob mcbob

Behind a paywall but you get the message - over 110 ex-pro's could be included in the lawsuit, each seeking 7 figure compensation.

This could bankrupt the Rugby

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/more-than-110-former-players-to-make-seven-figure-compensation-claims-over-brain-injuries-2s8vs5n9j

sydthebeat

bob mcbob wrote: »

Behind a paywall but you get the message - over 110 ex-pro's could be included in the lawsuit, each seeking 7 figure compensation.

This could bankrupt the Rugby

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/more-than-110-former-players-to-make-seven-figure-compensation-claims-over-brain-injuries-2s8vs5n9j

from the article....

The legal claim will be made against World Rugby, the Rugby Football Union and the Welsh Rugby Union, and Boardman believes — as reported by The Times today — that the RFU is insured against such a claim even if it does run into tens of millions.

sydthebeat

also

He also thinks their case, which ultimately rests on whether they can prove that the authorities have been negligent, has a strong chance of success. “We can’t progress this unless the insurers think we have at least a 50 per cent chance of success and, while I’m not prepared to share the figure with you, we have insurance,” he said.

Boardman, a former rugby player, says he has been working on the case for 14 months with the assistance of Susan Rodway, QC, a leading neurologist and a neuro-psychologist. The letter of claim is still being drafted but he expects it to detail “20 examples of what we believe are breaches of their [the rugby authorities] duty of care” when it is submitted in the next few days.

so there has to be a proof of abdication of duty of care by the rugby authorities, through negligence or otherwise... .its not simply a case of proving "rugby is dangerous"... though obviously im no legal expert

the NFL case was clearly a case of negligence and a lack of duty of care by the authorities as they KNEW that there was evidence of TBIs and they tried to hide it.

ersatz

Podge_irl wrote: »

Its not even really contentious, its almost definitely making things worse.

Yes, they have banned helmet on helmet but really their commitment to "safe" tackling is non-existent. The general technique is focused on stripping the ball and its incredibly common to lead with the head still. Rugby has its problems but it is light years ahead of NFL for player safety.

You see this in every NFL game, players leading with the head into tackles. I'm amazed there aren't more broken necks and spinal compression injuries when you see 200lb+ guys go head first into another 200lb+ guy at speed. It's totally insane and not even commented on by fans or analysts. You also see incidental head contact routinely in tackles, again without comment and it's never penalised. Fouls are only given when it's obvious that the head has been targeted, which still happens fairly often. Tackle technique in the NFL is absolutely dreadful and the head stuff is trained into the players. I think the idea is to stop people dead so as to give up as few yards as possible but I have never believed that using the head achieves that any more than proper technique using the shoulder would. It's a culture of hardness in the NFL, unfortunately.

CatFromHue

sydthebeat wrote: »

so there has to be a proof of abdication of duty of care by the rugby authorities, through negligence or otherwise... .its not simply a case of proving "rugby is dangerous"... though obviously im no legal expert

the NFL case was clearly a case of negligence and a lack of duty of care by the authorities as they KNEW that there was evidence of TBIs and they tried to hide it.

Is there evidence that the rugby authorities knew and ignored it like the NFL?

Steve Thompson retired in 2011 which is also when the NFL lawsuit began.

My dates could be wrong but I seem to remember concussion and how it was dealt with changing from around this time on.

Quin_Dub

Former Former Former wrote: »

While I understand that more research is needed, until that is done, the governing bodies have to work on the assumption that everyone is susceptible.

Now that we have confirmed or very probable cases, World Rugby and the unions can't claim that it's not an issue in rugby, if they don't do something quickly they will definitely be found to be negligent down the road.

I don't disagree in the slightest , like I said there needs to be new guidelines on training and a much much greater focus on Concussion awareness and the enforcement of the RTP protocols etc. etc.

Sadly , I think that the very 1st rugby player diagnosed with CTE was an Irishman - Ken Nuzum who played for Lansdowne in his prime and had he a better disciplinary record might have achieved higher honours..

Kenny was still playing into his late 40's for Aer Lingus and others.

The linked article is a sobering read - From 6 years ago now...

sydthebeat

CatFromHue wrote: »

Is there evidence that the rugby authorities knew and ignored it like the NFL?

Steve Thompson retired in 2011 which is also when the NFL lawsuit began.

My dates could be wrong but I seem to remember concussion and how it was dealt with changing from around this time on.

well that pretty much what the law suit will be about......

bilston

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but I was thinking about this a week or two ago, when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s I was always taught to tackle low, nowadays teams tackle higher to try and dislodge the ball or stop the offload.

Maybe a high tackle needs redefined, maybe a high tackle should be defined as above the waste. It would surely reduce the risk of head on head collisions (in the tackle anyway) and actually make for a better spectacle with more offloads. Obviously head on knee is still a risk, but that mostly comes down to good tackling technique.

Not sure what you do about rucking, where probably as many, if not more, head contacts occur.

I have wondered whether Rugby as we know will still exist in 2040. It could be a radically different sport by then.

Quin_Dub

bilston wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but I was thinking about this a week or two ago, when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s I was always taught to tackle low, nowadays teams tackle higher to try and dislodge the ball or stop the offload.

Maybe a high tackle needs redefined, maybe a high tackle should be defined as above the waste. It would surely reduce the risk of head on head collisions (in the tackle anyway) and actually make for a better spectacle with more offloads. Obviously head on knee is still a risk, but that mostly comes down to good tackling technique.

Not sure what you do about rucking, where probably as many, if not more, head contacts occur.

I have wondered whether Rugby as we know will still exist in 2040. It could be a radically different sport by then.

Your point is valid , but I think the recognition is there now that it's not just getting "a knock to the head" that's the issue , it's one of the worst for certain , but it's not the only one by any measure.

Even a text-book "cheek to cheek" tackle nowhere near the head results in a rapid deceleration of the head and has the brain getting knocked about inside your skull.

Even you as the tackler hitting the guy low with the shoulder , your head it still seeing those same rapid decelerations etc.

Those same forces are at play in rucks and mauls.

Even in scrums - Thomspon in his interview talked about that huge pressure that would come on in a scrum where as a front-row you feel a bit like that guy with his head in the vice in the movie Casino.

The pressure exerted on your body and by extension your brain can be utterly enormous.

Larbre34

Does Cudmore get a H.I.eh?

Burkie1203

NZ coming to town

15 test matches for them next year

https://twitter.com/SuperRugbyFans/status/1336923488511094785?s=19

salmocab

Burkie1203 wrote: »

NZ coming to town

15 test matches for them next year

https://twitter.com/SuperRugbyFans/status/1336923488511094785?s=19

They are looking for two additional games, Wales will be tripping over themselves to jam one in on any weekend they can.

jacothelad

bilston wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but I was thinking about this a week or two ago, when I was growing up in the 80s and 90s I was always taught to tackle low, nowadays teams tackle higher to try and dislodge the ball or stop the offload.

Maybe a high tackle needs redefined, maybe a high tackle should be defined as above the waste. It would surely reduce the risk of head on head collisions (in the tackle anyway) and actually make for a better spectacle with more offloads. Obviously head on knee is still a risk, but that mostly comes down to good tackling technique.

That would flush them out....:D

Yeah_Right

Burkie1203 wrote: »

NZ coming to town

15 test matches for them next year

https://twitter.com/SuperRugbyFans/status/1336923488511094785?s=19

The July matches won't be worth getting up for. Fiji and Italy in NZ. Those will be 50 point thumpings. The RC could be interesting with Australia a year further along in their development, Argentina definitely on the up and games against the Boks after a year off.

Will be interesting to see who they get for the other 2 games. I agree with Salmocab that the Welsh will be looking for an extra match. However if the Welsh don't significantly improve over the next year, I could see them getting a hiding. In Cardiff, That would be sweet

bilston

jacothelad wrote: »

That would flush them out....:D

I'm going to blame my phone and not my education:rolleyes:

Pelezico

Burkie1203 wrote: »

NZ coming to town

15 test matches for them next year

https://twitter.com/SuperRugbyFans/status/1336923488511094785?s=19

Yawn....they need th money. I really do wish they would dispense with the haka. It is one of these new traditions which was never really embraced before the television age.

cson

Pelezico wrote: »

Yawn....they need th money. I really do wish they would dispense with the haka. It is one of these new traditions which was never really embraced before the television age.

Never going to happen, its a fundamental part of the brand and the appeal of them. Never mind NZRFU, World Rugby won't nix a tradition that's something of a USP for the sport.

hahashake

Pelezico wrote: »

Yawn....they need th money. I really do wish they would dispense with the haka. It is one of these new traditions which was never really embraced before the television age.

The haka has been done before international rugby games since 1888, before the anthems were being sung. Hardly a new tradition.

In fact the first anthem before any sporting match was sung in response to the haka (and also gave Wales its own anthem).

Pelezico

hahashake wrote: »

The haka has been done before international rugby games since 1888, before the anthems were being sung. Hardly a new tradition.

In fact the first anthem before any sporting match was sung in response to the haka (and also gave Wales its own anthem).

Look at the haka of the seventies. The players were embarrassed by performing it.

Nowadays, it is a parody of itself.

hahashake

Pelezico wrote: »

Look at the haka of the seventies. The players were embarrassed by performing it.

Nowadays, it is a parody of itself.

A parody of itself because they actually went back to how they originally performed it rather then a bunch white guys going through the motions?

All traditional Haka are performed like that, calling it a parody is mildly offensive. And it is no less valid or appropriate than lining up and singing a dirge.

Pelezico

hahashake wrote: »

A parody of itself because they actually went back to how they originally performed it rather then a bunch white guys going through the motions?

All traditional Haka are performed like that, calling it a parody is mildly offensive. And it is no less valid or appropriate than lining up and singing a dirge.

I remember seeing Graham Mourie in 1978 almost falling asleep during the haka in Lansdowne Road.

Not sure why you are offended. Lots of people do t want it....including WRU at one stage. The haka was not invented for rugby.

It was cultural expropriation by Europeans which got it to international attention.

Squidgy Black

Yes, I for one cannot understand at all why someone from New Zealand would get offended by someone calling a cultural ritual a parody and just generally dissing it.

Mind boggling really.