Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
General Concussion thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 1013015" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p>Unfortunately, the research is inconclusive.</p><p>There was good evidence initially that higher tackles were directly correlated with increased concussion. They trialled a law change to lower the tackle height, and it resulted in an increased incidence of concussion.</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1152" target="_blank">BMJ 2017</a>: <strong>Conclusions</strong> This study confirms that energy transfer in the tackle is a risk factor for head injury, since direction, type and speed all influence HIA propensity. The study provides evidence that body position and the height of tackles should be a focus for interventions, since lowering height and adopting a bent at the waist body position is associated with reduced risk for both tacklers and ball carriers.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/53/16/1021" target="_blank">BMJ 2019</a>: <strong>Conclusions</strong> Interventions that reduce the speed and acceleration of the tackler and reduce exposure to head-to-head contact would likely reduce concussion risk in professional rugby union.</p><p></p><p><a href="https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/07/24/bjsports-2019-101557" target="_blank">BMJ 2020</a>: <strong>Conclusions</strong> Legislating to lower the height of the tackle meant that tacklers made contact with the ball carrier's head and neck 30% less often. This did not influence concussion incidence rates. Tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting suffered more concussions than did tacklers in the standard tackle height setting.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is part of the problem - the medical field is still learning about concussion, it's effects, its diagnosis and potentially effective steps to reduce the incidence levels. Which is why I think this law suit has little to do with trying to win - it looks like IRB / WR followed the best advice of the time at each step (even if the likes of myself were screaming that it wasn't enough, or were the wrong steps - that was based on instinct, not evidence).</p><p>I don't see how you can successfully sue someone for following the best medial advice. On the other hand, I CAN see how a law company sees some great advertising and expensive billing in it, and I CAN see how players and ex-players may be angry and looking to make a difference in any way they can.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>ETA</strong>: the second article above, from all of year ago, is open access, and contains these graphs</p><p><img src="https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/53/16/1021/F1.medium.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p><img src="https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/53/16/1021/F4.medium.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p><img src="https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/53/16/1021/F5.medium.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>You look a those 3 graphs, and can absolutely see why anyone would think "We need to reduce the speed of impact, head-head, head-knee and head-ground impacts, high, tip and aerial tackles. Of those, we can't viably do anything about the pace / acceleration of either the ball carrier or the tackler. We can't do anything about head-knee and head-ground impacts. Which leaves us with head-head contact, high tackles, tip tackles and tackles in the air"</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>ETA2</strong>: By following up on the reference list, I also found this study that kick started everything:</p><p><a href="https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/41/12/862" target="_blank">BMJ 2007</a>: <strong>Conclusions:</strong> Tackles were the game event responsible for the highest number of injuries and the greatest loss of time in rugby union..</p><p>...</p><p>Collisions were 70% more likely to result in an injury than a tackle and scrums carried a 60% greater risk of injury than a tackle.</p><p></p><p>Rugby has been trying to address the tackle and scrum since then, but I absolutely agree with you that flying in to rucks is still being ignored, and appears to have been highlighted back in 2007 - though I don't have the body of the article to say for sure.</p><p>that COULD open up an avenue for the new law suit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 1013015, member: 73592"] Unfortunately, the research is inconclusive. There was good evidence initially that higher tackles were directly correlated with increased concussion. They trialled a law change to lower the tackle height, and it resulted in an increased incidence of concussion. [URL='https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1152']BMJ 2017[/URL]: [B]Conclusions[/B] This study confirms that energy transfer in the tackle is a risk factor for head injury, since direction, type and speed all influence HIA propensity. The study provides evidence that body position and the height of tackles should be a focus for interventions, since lowering height and adopting a bent at the waist body position is associated with reduced risk for both tacklers and ball carriers. [URL='https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/53/16/1021']BMJ 2019[/URL]: [B]Conclusions[/B] Interventions that reduce the speed and acceleration of the tackler and reduce exposure to head-to-head contact would likely reduce concussion risk in professional rugby union. [URL='https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2020/07/24/bjsports-2019-101557']BMJ 2020[/URL]: [B]Conclusions[/B] Legislating to lower the height of the tackle meant that tacklers made contact with the ball carrier’s head and neck 30% less often. This did not influence concussion incidence rates. Tacklers in the lowered tackle height setting suffered more concussions than did tacklers in the standard tackle height setting. This is part of the problem - the medical field is still learning about concussion, it's effects, its diagnosis and potentially effective steps to reduce the incidence levels. Which is why I think this law suit has little to do with trying to win - it looks like IRB / WR followed the best advice of the time at each step (even if the likes of myself were screaming that it wasn't enough, or were the wrong steps - that was based on instinct, not evidence). I don't see how you can successfully sue someone for following the best medial advice. On the other hand, I CAN see how a law company sees some great advertising and expensive billing in it, and I CAN see how players and ex-players may be angry and looking to make a difference in any way they can. [B]ETA[/B]: the second article above, from all of year ago, is open access, and contains these graphs [IMG]https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/53/16/1021/F1.medium.gif[/IMG] [IMG]https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/53/16/1021/F4.medium.gif[/IMG] [IMG]https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/53/16/1021/F5.medium.gif[/IMG] You look a those 3 graphs, and can absolutely see why anyone would think "We need to reduce the speed of impact, head-head, head-knee and head-ground impacts, high, tip and aerial tackles. Of those, we can't viably do anything about the pace / acceleration of either the ball carrier or the tackler. We can't do anything about head-knee and head-ground impacts. Which leaves us with head-head contact, high tackles, tip tackles and tackles in the air" [B]ETA2[/B]: By following up on the reference list, I also found this study that kick started everything: [URL='https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/41/12/862']BMJ 2007[/URL]: [B]Conclusions:[/B] Tackles were the game event responsible for the highest number of injuries and the greatest loss of time in rugby union.. ... Collisions were 70% more likely to result in an injury than a tackle and scrums carried a 60% greater risk of injury than a tackle. Rugby has been trying to address the tackle and scrum since then, but I absolutely agree with you that flying in to rucks is still being ignored, and appears to have been highlighted back in 2007 - though I don't have the body of the article to say for sure. that COULD open up an avenue for the new law suit. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
General Concussion thread
Top