Rugby & Concussions / Head Injuries
-
Small interview by Ben Alexander with Car Hayman:
https://benalexander.substack.com/p/an-interview-with-carl-hayman
My takeaway is that Carl thinks WR has the emphasis wrong on game day rather than management of players.
-
First sensible statement in a while
-
-
-
World Rugby investing an initial €2 million in smart mouthguard technology which will provide in-game alerts to independent pitch-side doctors
-
WXV to debut the technology and approach in October and November
-
Use of mouthguards recommended at all levels of the game across the world
-
Return to play guidelines for community rugby extended to a minimum of 21 days under new guidance
-
World Rugby’s independent concussion working group makes recommendations following presentations from range of world leading experts World Rugby statement on long term neurodegenerative disease also update
World Rugby will advance the Head Injury Assessment (HIA) by introducing in-game alerts from smart mouthguard technology to show if a player has experienced a high level of acceleration which could lead to an injury. The new protocol and technology will be debuted in elite women’s competition WXV from October, and will be integrated into the Head Injury Assessment from January 2024.
World Rugby is investing an initial €2 million to support unions, competitions and clubs with adopting the new smart mouthguard technology supplied by Prevent Biometrics. The smart mouthguards will work in real time to send alerts of high forces to the independent matchday doctor. This will, for the first time, enable players who have experienced a high acceleration event, but not shown symptoms or been seen by broadcast cameras, to be taken off and assessed.
Elite rugby players will be required to wear smart mouthguards to be able to use the in game HIA1 test. The mouthguards will be required in training as well as matches, enabling coaches to better tailor drills, tackle skills and training load for each individual player, and best support their performance and welfare.
The innovation is part of a wider package of changes recommended to World Rugby by its independent Concussion Working Group, and follows the group’s latest meeting this summer in Boston, USA, which heard presentations from world-leading experts including Boston University’s Professor Ann McKee and Dr Chris Nowinski, as well as Prof Grant Iverson of Harvard Medical School. As a result of the presentations that the independent Working Group heard, World Rugby’s Executive Board has also approved:
-
A recommendation that players at all levels of the sport wear a mouthguard, after research in ice hockey found that as well as protecting against dental injuries, mouthguards can reduce the risk of a concussion by 20 per cent.
-
A review of World Rugby’s guidelines on return to play after a concussion in community rugby, extending the time players will sit out to 21 days. Earlier this year, the international federation took action in the community game by confirming a global opt-in trial of a lower tackle height which will see most community players tackling lower in 2023/4 seasons.
-
An update to World Rugby’s position on long term neurodegenerative disease and repeated head impacts, which acknowledges the importance of focusing not just on concussion but forces to the head which may not cause medical symptoms.
In line with World Rugby’s commitment to openness and transparency, recordings and presentations received by the independent concussion working group in Boston have today been published on World Rugby’s website.
-
-
Are the refs actually going to enforce the use of mouthguards? So many professional players don't wear them, and nothing is done about it.
-
Are the refs actually going to enforce the use of mouthguards? So many professional players don't wear them, and nothing is done about it.
@Bovidae said in Concussion:
Are the refs actually going to enforce the use of mouthguards? So many professional players don't wear them, and nothing is done about it.
Only NZR require wearing mouth guards, it's nothing to do with WR. In this case if you don't wear them, there is no HIA if a head knock is spotted, you're just off with a long stand down. Only an idiot wouldn't wear them if pro
-
My takeaway from that article
The "high tackle" crackdown is purely theatre. The real work, as i have said all along, is to be done once guys have concussion. Stay away from the game, get medical attention.
While i have sympathy for these guys, i think it's a trifle unfair to insist a governing body in teh 70s act on medical advice they won't get for another 35 years. This is not like the NFL, where they had the info and buried it.
And, slightly more churlishly, we are talking an incredibly small number of players over a very long period of time.
-
I don't think it's churlish to hope they lose when I read shit like this:
Richard Boardman, the lawyer leading the case, said: “We believe there has been a systematic failure by the rugby governing bodies to protect players not just from concussions but also subconcussions. This is still a real and serious threat to the sport and unless immediate and substantial changes are introduced, current and future generations will end up with the same chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and other neurological impairments.”
Boardman said subconcussions were smaller knocks to the head that could happen more than 60 times in a game for a flanker as they tackle, ruck and maul. These are not fouls but a core part of the sport, and many more occur in training.
If they win on that issue, the game is dead.
-
I don't think it's churlish to hope they lose when I read shit like this:
Richard Boardman, the lawyer leading the case, said: “We believe there has been a systematic failure by the rugby governing bodies to protect players not just from concussions but also subconcussions. This is still a real and serious threat to the sport and unless immediate and substantial changes are introduced, current and future generations will end up with the same chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and other neurological impairments.”
Boardman said subconcussions were smaller knocks to the head that could happen more than 60 times in a game for a flanker as they tackle, ruck and maul. These are not fouls but a core part of the sport, and many more occur in training.
If they win on that issue, the game is dead.
@antipodean said in Concussion:
I don't think it's churlish to hope they lose when I read shit like this:
Richard Boardman, the lawyer leading the case, said: “We believe there has been a systematic failure by the rugby governing bodies to protect players not just from concussions but also subconcussions. This is still a real and serious threat to the sport and unless immediate and substantial changes are introduced, current and future generations will end up with the same chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and other neurological impairments.”
Boardman said subconcussions were smaller knocks to the head that could happen more than 60 times in a game for a flanker as they tackle, ruck and maul. These are not fouls but a core part of the sport, and many more occur in training.
If they win on that issue, the game is dead.
Touch is a great game ...
-
@antipodean said in Concussion:
I don't think it's churlish to hope they lose when I read shit like this:
Richard Boardman, the lawyer leading the case, said: “We believe there has been a systematic failure by the rugby governing bodies to protect players not just from concussions but also subconcussions. This is still a real and serious threat to the sport and unless immediate and substantial changes are introduced, current and future generations will end up with the same chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and other neurological impairments.”
Boardman said subconcussions were smaller knocks to the head that could happen more than 60 times in a game for a flanker as they tackle, ruck and maul. These are not fouls but a core part of the sport, and many more occur in training.
If they win on that issue, the game is dead.
Touch is a great game ...
@Machpants said in Concussion:
@antipodean said in Concussion:
I don't think it's churlish to hope they lose when I read shit like this:
Richard Boardman, the lawyer leading the case, said: “We believe there has been a systematic failure by the rugby governing bodies to protect players not just from concussions but also subconcussions. This is still a real and serious threat to the sport and unless immediate and substantial changes are introduced, current and future generations will end up with the same chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) and other neurological impairments.”
Boardman said subconcussions were smaller knocks to the head that could happen more than 60 times in a game for a flanker as they tackle, ruck and maul. These are not fouls but a core part of the sport, and many more occur in training.
If they win on that issue, the game is dead.
Touch is a great game ...
no it's not, it's fucking frustrating...
-
My takeaway from that article
The "high tackle" crackdown is purely theatre. The real work, as i have said all along, is to be done once guys have concussion. Stay away from the game, get medical attention.
While i have sympathy for these guys, i think it's a trifle unfair to insist a governing body in teh 70s act on medical advice they won't get for another 35 years. This is not like the NFL, where they had the info and buried it.
And, slightly more churlishly, we are talking an incredibly small number of players over a very long period of time.
@mariner4life said in Concussion:
My takeaway from that article
The "high tackle" crackdown is purely theatre. The real work, as i have said all along, is to be done once guys have concussion. Stay away from the game, get medical attention.
While i have sympathy for these guys, i think it's a trifle unfair to insist a governing body in teh 70s act on medical advice they won't get for another 35 years. This is not like the NFL, where they had the info and buried it.
And, slightly more churlishly, we are talking an incredibly small number of players over a very long period of time.
Completely and totally agree on the "once guys have concussion" comment.
From what I've read, I think their case is less about the nature of the game itself than about how they were treated after they were concussed. Be interesting to see what the authorities did or didn't know and/or failed to react.
-
The governing body red cards players making high dangerous tackles, but more often than not does not remove the victim from the field for testing.
@reprobate you only need to look at the fiasco around Owen Farrell to see WR has a long way to go to get this right.
But yeah, that has been something I have often banged on about, if you are serious about player safety, and are willing to affect the whole game by issuing a red card for a 'serious' head contact, why is the person who has been hit in the head not taken off immediately for an HIA?
-
