More potential changes to reduce injuries

[Ragey Erasmus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43541743

Key thing is they are finally looking at the amount of time players play. Personally I feel that reducing the number of subs you can make, putting a cap on the number of games a player can play and doing something with how rucks are done will go a long way to fixing it. Flying in off feet is done all the time and needs to be properly reffed.

 

[stus768]

Changing how players train would be interesting. Don't NFL have a limit on the amount of contact you can do in training?

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Changing how players train would be interesting. Don't NFL have a limit on the amount of contact you can do in training?

Yes, contact sessions are limited in practice during the season.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43541743

Key thing is they are finally looking at the amount of time players play. Personally I feel that reducing the number of subs you can make, putting a cap on the number of games a player can play and doing something with how rucks are done will go a long way to fixing it. Flying in off feet is done all the time and needs to be properly reffed.

Whilst the subs thing may be a long term solution to reduce the size of players, in the short term it could be devastating.
I found it really interesting with the concussion report that the majority of injuries are not from the tackled player, but the tackler. This would kinda explain why the new tackle laws haven't made a difference to concussion as going low doesn't make much of a difference to the tackler. Maybe forcing even more wrapping of the arms to make it a controlled movement and slow it down?

 

[stus768]

Whilst the subs thing may be a long term solution to reduce the size of players, in the short term it could be devastating.
I found it really interesting with the concussion report that the majority of injuries are not from the tackled player, but the tackler. This would kinda explain why the new tackle laws haven't made a difference to concussion as going low doesn't make much of a difference to the tackler. Maybe forcing even more wrapping of the arms to make it a controlled movement and slow it down?

I guess you could phase the subs change in? I find it strange that they state the tackler gets majority of concussions but are still talking about reducing the table height further. Not sure how that will help?

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

I guess you could phase the subs change in? I find it strange that they state the tackler gets majority of concussions but are still talking about reducing the table height further. Not sure how that will help?

I know, unless they mostly occur from a clash of heads then it seems pretty pointless to me

 

[ratsapprentice]

Whilst the subs thing may be a long term solution to reduce the size of players, in the short term it could be devastating.
I found it really interesting with the concussion report that the majority of injuries are not from the tackled player, but the tackler. This would kinda explain why the new tackle laws haven't made a difference to concussion as going low doesn't make much of a difference to the tackler. Maybe forcing even more wrapping of the arms to make it a controlled movement and slow it down?

Puts the tackler's head in more danger... as does lowering the legal tackle height.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think the rules on high tackles should be relaxed so players can go in more upright again. Flailing arms and seatbelt tackles don't actually cause many concussions. Head on head and head to knee/leg would seem the worst culprits. The other thing we may seriously have to consider it proper head protection. I know rugby tries to avoid body armour but if the force of the impact can't be reduced and the technique cannot be improved then the ability to absorb the impact must be implements. Thicker scrum caps with padding for all players?

At some point we must ask what direction rugby is going and act accordingly rather than desperately trying to cling to tradition as it becomes less practical.

 

[curtbob7]

http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...5/InjurySurveillanceReport2016-17_English.pdf

"match injury incidences of 89.6/1000 hours for grass and 129.1/1000 hours for artificial turf. The average severity for match injuries on grass was 32 days, compared with that of 37 days for artificial turf"

Plastic pitches are still being pushed in the prem and 100's being built and used nationwide.

If clubs are gonna go plastic they should be made to do it properly and go desso grassmaster.

 

[ratsapprentice]

I think the rules on high tackles should be relaxed so players can go in more upright again. Flailing arms and seatbelt tackles don't actually cause many concussions. Head on head and head to knee/leg would seem the worst culprits. The other thing we may seriously have to consider it proper head protection. I know rugby tries to avoid body armour but if the force of the impact can't be reduced and the technique cannot be improved then the ability to absorb the impact must be implements. Thicker scrum caps with padding for all players?

At some point we must ask what direction rugby is going and act accordingly rather than desperately trying to cling to tradition as it becomes less practical.

Unless skull fractures become an issue, I can't see any point in encouraging protective equipment.

I strongly disagree about "clinging to tradition". Tackling and contact isn't "traditional", it's absolutely fundamental.

I'd much rather they mandated larger pitches/fewer players on the field in order to reduce congestion.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Unless skull fractures become an issue, I can't see any point in encouraging protective equipment.

I strongly disagree about "clinging to tradition". Tackling and contact isn't "traditional", it's absolutely fundamental.

I'd much rather they mandated larger pitches/fewer players on the field in order to reduce congestion.

The main cause of concussion is the brain bouncing about the inside of the head. Anything that can extend the time the deceleration happens will help lessen the impact, hence padding. Hard helmets are for fractures.

The tradition being no protection and tackling low. That was when the game was played with much smaller players and the impacts were far less. The impacts in rugby have become more powerful and frequent and the human body can only take so much. We either need to put a limit on the size of the players or we need to accept reality and introduce some sort of protection for rugby players. This is not NFL stuff but it feels like rugby is going for all the wrong solutions to the problems. Most injuries are due to mistakes and you can't remove mistakes from the game.

 

[AM_Bokke]

There is probably also too much contact in a single rugby game. Traditionally in American football the clock stops when a player goes out of bounds. The NFL recently changed this so that the clock keeps running both to speed up the game and reduce the number of plays.

The players want the fewest number of plays possible. They get injured while playing.

The sheer amount of tackles and rucks in a rugby game makes the NFL look like patty cake.

The duration of a rugby game probably needs to be shortened to reduce the number of contact events and therefore injuries.

Also all the rule changes to speed up the game and have more ball in play time are the primary problem. Go back to the 70s style and there will be fewer injuries.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I'd much rather they mandated larger pitches/fewer players on the field in order to reduce congestion.

Larger pitches, now you're cooking. Still the same size as when forwards were 14 stone, didn't do weights and leant on the occasional maul as a break between walking between set pieces.

Fewer players? Never, although doing away with flankers would solve England's back row balance problems at a stroke.....

Also all the rule changes to speed up the game and have more ball in play time are the primary problem.

Excellent point. Fault of professionalism and the SH!

Never understood how "cleaning out" a prone player is a good thing. Breakdown as is isn't right in so many ways.

Also, the deliberate tactic of two tacklers hitting the carrier, one low, one high, is only a recipe for trouble.

They can analyse this all they like and tweak round the edges. But a professional game will only continue to demand bigger, stronger, higher, faster, harder. That's just life - ever heard a coach going into a RWC saying other than "we're going to be the fittest team there"?? Without fundamentally changing the game, the only logical way to materially combat all this is fewer games / contact training and more rest between times. Don't go betting your house on it.

 

[ratsapprentice]

The main cause of concussion is the brain bouncing about the inside of the head. Anything that can extend the time the deceleration happens will help lessen the impact, hence padding. Hard helmets are for fractures.

As are scrum caps... cuts, cauliflower ear and fractures, that's all they'll prevent.
They do next to nothing (in real terms, literally nothing) to prevent concussion.
I've said it countless times, but the moment someone creates a material/technology that can significantly reduce impacts in a size that's wearable by a rugby player, they'll be a billionaire.
The applications for such a technology are innumerable and potentially very, very lucrative. We're talking starlite and flubber tier stuff...

I can think of no practicable method of player size limitation... how do you define the limits? How do you enforce them?
Weight cuts? Absolutely no chance.

"Most injuries are due to mistakes and you can't remove mistakes from the game."

Well... precisely. There's only so much you can do to reduce the dangers when you have people running at each other. It's a fundamentally violent sport, and I think a lot of fans are put off when they encounter the realities of an adult male trying to physically dominate another... it's not the boys own heroic fantasy they had in their head... and to them, I'd say... try watching touch, perhaps the sport isn't for you.

The reason I suggest fewer players is because it's impracticable at most levels of the game to increase the size of the pitch - including 99% of elite fields.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

The reason I suggest fewer players is because it's impracticable at most levels of the game to increase the size of the pitch - including 99% of elite fields.

Totally right and 100% logical. But reducing team sizes would take away one of Union's defining characteristics.

How do our injury levels stack up against League?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

As are scrum caps... cuts, cauliflower ear and fractures, that's all they'll prevent.
They do next to nothing (in real terms, literally nothing) to prevent concussion.
I've said it countless times, but the moment someone creates a material/technology that can significantly reduce impacts in a size that's wearable by a rugby player, they'll be a billionaire.
The applications for such a technology are innumerable and potentially very, very lucrative. We're talking starlite and flubber tier stuff...

I can think of no practicable method of player size limitation... how do you define the limits? How do you enforce them?
Weight cuts? Absolutely no chance.

"Most injuries are due to mistakes and you can't remove mistakes from the game."

Well... precisely. There's only so much you can do to reduce the dangers when you have people running at each other. It's a fundamentally violent sport, and I think a lot of fans are put off when they encounter the realities of an adult male trying to physically dominate another... it's not the boys own heroic fantasy they had in their head... and to them, I'd say... try watching touch, perhaps the sport isn't for you.

The reason I suggest fewer players is because it's impracticable at most levels of the game to increase the size of the pitch - including 99% of elite fields.

Scrum caps don't protect against fractures, they are there as cut protection and protect against slicing injuries, not blunt ones. That's why I said maybe some sort of bulkier scrum cap that is more padded, still not a full blown helmet but make it so it does provide some resistance to blunt impacts. My whole point is realistically you can't limit player sizes and the indirect way of doing so through fewer subs just changes the fundamentals of the sport. You would still need the front row replacements so then that would leave maybe 1 bench spot for a forward and 1 for a back with maybe 2 extras as injury only replacements?

 

[ratsapprentice]

Scrum caps will help to prevent fractures... try hitting a coconut with and without a scrum cap on it... I'm not suggesting that it's worth wearing one for it.
I only brought it up as an example of something that a scrumcap would help with.

As I've said, there's no practicable head gear that will help to prevent concussion to any real degree... if there was, people would be using it.

 

[Which Tyler]

Scrum caps do offer protection against fracture, albeit minimal; they're there for cuts and abrasions.

In order to get asscrum cap that can protect against concussion, you'll need a good 6" of material (probably more) or a magic wand. Essentially, no amount of padding the outside of the skull will protect the inside of it.
Bear in mind, you dont need any head contact at all, to cause concussion.


Anyway. Back to the OP. I wonder if they've considered enforcing existing rules on HIAs? I mean currently, you can avoid an HIA by claiming that the player is winded, or that you didn't see it, or just didn't feel like it. You can also make sure that the independent Dr is in no way independent, so that you can take it either way.
These are the disgraces that we can, and already have done something about... We saw them, and burshed them straight under the carpet so that we can double down on stuff we (now) know doesn't work.