Tier 2 & 3 Rugby Forum

Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Posts: 354
Joined: Sun, 31 Aug 2014, 11:36
National Flag:
PakistanPakistan

Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby jservuk » Tue, 08 Dec 2020, 22:51

In the UK we have stories in the papers about the growing cases of dementia in Rugby.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... d-not-face

Reading the article and the comments (well worth a read) it made think that this could impact expansion plans, especially in the USA, and perhaps plans to stage the RWC there.

If Rugby won't change as a result of these studies/reports/stories in its Tier 1 strongholds, it will be forced to if it wants to meet its hopes and aspirations of taking a Rugby World Cup to and establishing Rugby in the huge 'market' of the USA.

Whilst they might be able to get away with the dodgy consent of teenagers in the UK (the debate is distilling down to 'they knew what they were risking' vs uninformed consent by teenagers), I doubt that will wash with the litigation culture in the USA.

If Rugby doesn't change will it then have to kiss its dreams of establishing and growing the game in the US goodbye?

Posts: 18
Joined: Sat, 27 Jun 2020, 23:25
National Flag:
EnglandEngland

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby ThreePears » Tue, 08 Dec 2020, 23:37

To be honest without even getting into the debate about whether or not it will wash with US law, rugby has a moral obligation to change as it’s getting (or maybe already is) out of hand. I don’t know what needs to change but something certainly does.

I’d imagine there are some very nervous people who are/have been involved in the both rugby union and rugby league (whos high tackle rules seem far more lenient).

Online
Posts: 4769
Joined: Tue, 06 Oct 2015, 22:54
National Flag:
SpainSpain

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby Armchair Fan » Tue, 08 Dec 2020, 23:46

The main issue here is that we will be implementing changes whose effects won't be seen until 20 years time. They may work or not. Because we are battiling an almost invisible disease from multiple causes: it can be high tackles, but head knocks from other game situations as well; it can be concussions but repetitive knocks too...

It's bad, but won't be that bad since most ball sports are going to face similar issues. And rugby at least can claim to have HIA, replacements and protocols, which are pretty visible.

Posts: 8664
Joined: Thu, 17 Apr 2014, 02:51
Location: São Paulo
National Flag:
BrazilBrazil

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby victorsra » Tue, 08 Dec 2020, 23:51

At the same time WR promotes changes thinking about player safety, rugby people complain it is destroying rugby. It is a very difficult situation, but basicaly it shows WR is right about being so much concerned.

Posts: 215
Joined: Thu, 01 May 2014, 09:57

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby armchair_expert » Wed, 09 Dec 2020, 00:18

A proposed settlement was reached in the litigation on August 29, 2013. Under the agreement, the NFL will contribute $765 million to provide medical help to more than 18,000 former players.
Since that date rugby bosses should have been running around with mad eyes screaming "we are doomed", they should've been taking drastic measures to prevent similar stuff happening in their game, they had years to prepare for an inevitable - they didn't. Instead they reacted to it in a classic rugby way: we'll implement a bunch of very very strict guidelines and law changes which will only be applied for a couple of months and then forgotten because unpopular.

Governing bodies' PR departments praise these HIA protocols and high tackle decision frameworks and revolutionary tackle height trials - well half the time these guidelines and trials aren't applied because fans want #BringBackShoulderCharge and blazers didn't do these things back in the good old 1980s. Photos of "Recognize 'n Remove" banners won't save them in court.

Rugby is laughably poor in comparison to NFL, so if a lawsuit of such magnitude happens in rugby it can wipe out all rugby in its traditional Anglo heartlands.

Posts: 2159
Joined: Thu, 23 Feb 2017, 01:37
National Flag:
United StatesUnited States

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby TheStroBro » Wed, 09 Dec 2020, 05:24

For years people have marketed "Rugby Tackling" in the US as a safer method of completing tackles in Football. Hopefully we can stop that nonsense shortly. Not that good technique isn't a good thing. But I've been tired of people lying about how rugby is "safer" when I know it's just as dangerous.

Posts: 630
Joined: Sun, 06 Dec 2015, 06:42
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby snapper37 » Wed, 09 Dec 2020, 18:30

TheStroBro wrote:For years people have marketed "Rugby Tackling" in the US as a safer method of completing tackles in Football. Hopefully we can stop that nonsense shortly. Not that good technique isn't a good thing. But I've been tired of people lying about how rugby is "safer" when I know it's just as dangerous.




Just as dangerous, give your head a shake. Football is all about using your HEAD as a ram to stop the opponent from gaining another yard and is a collision sport not a contact sport, most football "tackles" are in fact collisions with the head making contact first not the shoulder. Rugby has made steps to address the issue of concussions and head injuries the last few years and these results will take a generation to see the results.
Last edited by snapper37 on Thu, 10 Dec 2020, 17:17, edited 1 time in total.

Posts: 1834
Joined: Tue, 27 May 2014, 20:40
Location: Europe
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby Thomas » Wed, 09 Dec 2020, 22:49

Image

Posts: 6030
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 02:44
National Flag:
AustraliaAustralia

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby thatrugbyguy » Thu, 10 Dec 2020, 00:29

As cold as this sounds, if there isn't some acceptance of the this type of injury then the sport simply cannot exist. The way the game is officiated now is bad enough because it basically asks players to consider every factor that may occur before making contact with the opposition. There is little more the sport can do to protect the head of the player. Instead, research needs to go into finding ways to medically diagnose the beginning of this type of injury before it becomes a lost cause. At the moment MRI's and CT Scans can't show this, so the best solution is for sporting bodies across the world, not just rugby, to band together to put money and resources into finding such a means to detect this type of injury early. Protective equipment and rule changes are not going to solve it, because the outcome is a future where contact sport doesn't exist, and I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this. If sporting organisations are at constant risk of litigation then the only solutions will be to strip the sports of any physical contact whatsoever. I also think there has to be serious consideration asking players to sign contracts that stipulate that by playing this sport you are aware of the brain injury risks involved. Sport can only do so much to protect players.

Posts: 354
Joined: Fri, 14 Aug 2015, 13:58
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby marvinparsons » Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 16:04

TheStroBro wrote:For years people have marketed "Rugby Tackling" in the US as a safer method of completing tackles in Football. Hopefully we can stop that nonsense shortly. Not that good technique isn't a good thing. But I've been tired of people lying about how rugby is "safer" when I know it's just as dangerous.


Well said. I've dealt with a lot of concussion issues from rugby (it nearly killed me) and this kind of nonsense pisses me off to no end especially when it is said to children or their parents. Eddie Jones' comments were downright psychopathic.

Rugby is inherently bad for your brain. People will hit each other in the head a lot regardless of rules, unless you remove most contact.

Nonsense I've heard are that it's safer than football therefore fine, law changes have removed all worries about head trauma, you only get post concussion syndrome if you don't treat it properly, concussion only happens from bad technique, there are no instances of CTE in rugby etc. It is pretty much all forms of denial.

You heard the same idiocy with MMA where it was touted as safer than boxing because instead of a standing 8 count you immediately get follow up strikes that knock you unconscious. Meanwhile...20 years later Chuck Lidell, Forest Griffin, Jamie Varner, Gary Goodridge are totally punch drunk. The main event last Saturday saw like 200 strikes to the head.

Here's a not so fun game. Pick a key all black from their legendary 2010 to 2018ish run. Google their name plus concussion. Do the same on Youtube. Virtually all of them have missed a lot of rugby or been knocked senseless on the field.

Personally I think contact sports are bound for the dustbin or reserved for adults who do base jumping and other high risk activity. I love rugby, but at least be honest about what it is. Just because you love the sport shouldn't blind you to reality.

User avatar
Posts: 6443
Joined: Sun, 27 Apr 2014, 11:50
National Flag:
ItalyItaly

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby Canalina » Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 19:16

I still think that rugby (so, World Rugby) should have the courage to make a serious and detailed census, between the players of the last three decades or so. Just with a meaningful amount of data we could understand the graveness of the problem and how hard should be the countermeasures.
I understand that no one in the ambience of rugby has a great will to do such a census, because it could ruin all -the business, the fun, the memories...-, but it has to be done, in my opinion

Posts: 1834
Joined: Tue, 27 May 2014, 20:40
Location: Europe
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby Thomas » Mon, 14 Dec 2020, 21:07

At very least they should follow the consensus from the IOC

International Olympic Committee consensus statement: methods for recording and reporting of epidemiological data on injury and illness in sport 2020 (including STROBE Extension for Sport Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS))

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/54/7/372.full.pdf

Posts: 630
Joined: Sun, 06 Dec 2015, 06:42
National Flag:
CanadaCanada

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby snapper37 » Fri, 18 Dec 2020, 20:01

marvinparsons wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:For years people have marketed "Rugby Tackling" in the US as a safer method of completing tackles in Football. Hopefully we can stop that nonsense shortly. Not that good technique isn't a good thing. But I've been tired of people lying about how rugby is "safer" when I know it's just as dangerous.


Well said. I've dealt with a lot of concussion issues from rugby (it nearly killed me) and this kind of nonsense pisses me off to no end especially when it is said to children or their parents. Eddie Jones' comments were downright psychopathic.

Rugby is inherently bad for your brain. People will hit each other in the head a lot regardless of rules, unless you remove most contact.

Nonsense I've heard are that it's safer than football therefore fine, law changes have removed all worries about head trauma, you only get post concussion syndrome if you don't treat it properly, concussion only happens from bad technique, there are no instances of CTE in rugby etc. It is pretty much all forms of denial.

You heard the same idiocy with MMA where it was touted as safer than boxing because instead of a standing 8 count you immediately get follow up strikes that knock you unconscious. Meanwhile...20 years later Chuck Lidell, Forest Griffin, Jamie Varner, Gary Goodridge are totally punch drunk. The main event last Saturday saw like 200 strikes to the head.

Here's a not so fun game. Pick a key all black from their legendary 2010 to 2018ish run. Google their name plus concussion. Do the same on Youtube. Virtually all of them have missed a lot of rugby or been knocked senseless on the field.

Personally I think contact sports are bound for the dustbin or reserved for adults who do base jumping and other high risk activity. I love rugby, but at least be honest about what it is. Just because you love the sport shouldn't blind you to reality.



Rugby is not the same sport that it was when we all started playing. In lots of ways it's worse and a lots of ways it's better. When addressing Contact to the head, Rugby has made tremendous leaps forward, is it perfect? no, Better than the decade before, hell yes. All this contact to the head stuff comes down EDUCATION AND EGO"S, ego's of coaches that want to keep on winning and pushing people through and lack of education of players, coaches, training staff and parents. . Ive seen tremendous changes at the junior and senior club level, if a player is suspected of a head knock then their out of the game and not allowed to return. Unfortunately the players in the decades before the"head protocol" may be suffering from these issues. The question is whose fault is it? is it Rugbys fault? coaches fault? trainers fault or the players fault? We know better than to lie to trainers that we're ok and can keep playing now, that wasn't the case a decade or longer ago ( I personally never wanted to leave the field and would play with head knocks, separated shoulders and once even played with a separated bicep tendon, but i now realize that i was a idiot) . We as athletes, the sport are better informed about all this stuff and things are better. To think that contact sports are going the way of the dodo bird is ridiculous, they may change, but they are not going anywhere. Sport is tribal, and contact sport is champion of all.

Long live Rugby.

The good, the bad and the rugby (with Jamie Cudmore and his court case)
https://youtu.be/eyM1Zc8J9bc

Posts: 2437
Joined: Sun, 20 Apr 2014, 16:57
Location: Leicester
National Flag:
Great BritainGreat Britain

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby sk 88 » Fri, 18 Dec 2020, 21:15

Canalina wrote:I still think that rugby (so, World Rugby) should have the courage to make a serious and detailed census, between the players of the last three decades or so. Just with a meaningful amount of data we could understand the graveness of the problem and how hard should be the countermeasures.
I understand that no one in the ambience of rugby has a great will to do such a census, because it could ruin all -the business, the fun, the memories...-, but it has to be done, in my opinion


This is a very good idea.

There is some suggestion that 0.01% of people unfortunately get dementia before 65 and in pro rugby it appears to be 1% (by 50 given the timeframe of Pro rugby). That is clearly a causal link if true, but it is also a case of caring for the 1% and making that risk clear at 18 to participants, rather than totally changing everything.

If chance is even higher the consequences get a lot more worrying.

User avatar
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat, 05 Jul 2014, 11:27
National Flag:
WalesWales

Re: Dementia & Rugby - what it means for expansion

Postby ihateblazers » Sat, 19 Dec 2020, 01:29

One thing for me is that rugby should separate pro and amateur rugby law amendments and governance. Why do we tinker the laws of the amateur game based off findings and data from the pro game. They are two different beasts now, that has been apparent for at least 15 years.

I’m not versed on the legal cases regarding the NFL or even Jamie Cudmore in rugby, but could there be a way around it for clubs and unions? Such as putting in a stipulation for pro/elite rugby that you accept the risks of playing but with a clause put in for blatant misconduct from the employers? As we’ve seen the ridiculous situation with French clubs and even the national team forcing guys to stay on the field with head injuries.

Return to Rugby Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Zhenya_Zima and 12 guests