NPR

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:16 am Well, you quoted the bits of my post that talk about it. Incidence is "number of concussions/1000 player-match-hours", severity is days absence, etc.

Anecdotally, I rarely watch 7s but thinking back I reckon every time I have in the last year or two I've seen at least one bad head injury each time. Not per game, obviously!

I did: but I didn't read the data. It's too hard in that format! Was thinking about this last night and I can believe the number of impacts per time frame is higher in 7s: fewer players having to cover much more ground at higher intensity. Which is why the game is so short. I still struggle to understand how the concussions could be higher even in that context. Much to be understood here methinks before we have even more knee jerk reactions (COVID anyone?) which cause more damage than good.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:55 am Interesting Kearnan Myall interview on the subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... understand

Suggests reduced contact in training and baseline EEG brain activity tests / basic cognitive memory tests as a first step rather than focusing on the laws of the game.

Really good interview. He has no time for Eddie's bullshit on this.

The money shot:

“If a player gets concussed in a game and gets taken out for an HIA that’s great. But that’s not what the issue is. The issue is every single tackle you make, every single ruck you hit, every single scrum you hit, every time you hit a bag in training. It’s the constant repetitive hits Monday to Friday and then going out and getting more on the weekend. And then doing that for 38 weeks in a year. Or longer if you include pre-season.”

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:55 am Interesting Kearnan Myall interview on the subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... understand

Suggests reduced contact in training and baseline EEG brain activity tests / basic cognitive memory tests as a first step rather than focusing on the laws of the game.

So you take your teenager to rugby academy and you're told not to worry, he'll have his brain checked regularly. Are you going to think that's reassuring or are you going to think if a game thinks it needs that then you don't want anything to do with it? I suspect a good chunk of parents will be in the second category.

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:16 am

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:55 am Interesting Kearnan Myall interview on the subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... understand

Suggests reduced contact in training and baseline EEG brain activity tests / basic cognitive memory tests as a first step rather than focusing on the laws of the game.

So you take your teenager to rugby academy and you're told not to worry, he'll have his brain checked regularly. Are you going to think that's reassuring or are you going to think if a game thinks it needs that then you don't want anything to do with it? I suspect a good chunk of parents will be in the second category.

He actually covers it in the interview

“We’ve also still got all these 17 to 19-year-olds coming through who are not being fully told what the risks are. If you join the army, you know there’s a risk you’re going to go to war and might get killed. The problem in rugby, as I see it, is that you have academy kids going into this career blindly. If they decide to carry on, great, so be it. But put in place the things that will minimise the risks as much as possible.”

If I was a parent in that situation, I'd want to know that if there were risks, that they were taken seriously and being minimised where possible. Some parents may fall into that second category and decide it's not something their lad should be playing. I don't see that as the problem here and it's better than the sport burying their head in the sand imo.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 12:56 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:16 am

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:55 am Interesting Kearnan Myall interview on the subject.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... understand

Suggests reduced contact in training and baseline EEG brain activity tests / basic cognitive memory tests as a first step rather than focusing on the laws of the game.

So you take your teenager to rugby academy and you're told not to worry, he'll have his brain checked regularly. Are you going to think that's reassuring or are you going to think if a game thinks it needs that then you don't want anything to do with it? I suspect a good chunk of parents will be in the second category.

He actually covers it in the interview

“We’ve also still got all these 17 to 19-year-olds coming through who are not being fully told what the risks are. If you join the army, you know there’s a risk you’re going to go to war and might get killed. The problem in rugby, as I see it, is that you have academy kids going into this career blindly. If they decide to carry on, great, so be it. But put in place the things that will minimise the risks as much as possible.”

If I was a parent in that situation, I'd want to know that if there were risks, that they were taken seriously and being minimised where possible. Some parents may fall into that second category and decide it's not something their lad should be playing. I don't see that as the problem here and it's better than the sport burying their head in the sand imo.

It's a perception thing. I appreciate that once you've made the decision to play then regular checks may be a good thing but it can't be good for rugby's image to be a sport whose participants need their brains checked regularly. Of course what rugby as a whole makes of that perception is its decision.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:20 am "Frequency of collisions is a problem, so let's make players play for longer" is a curious take.

And no, I suspect getting hit 4 times by Alec Hepburn is just as dangerous as getting hit 3 times by Harry Williams tbh

Maybe the danger lies in tired players getting hit by fresh on the pitch subs whereas if they are all on the pitch they theoretically tire at similar rates so tired players getting hit by equally tired players?

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:24 pm I appreciate that once you've made the decision to play then regular checks may be a good thing but it can't be good for rugby's image to be a sport whose participants need their brains checked regularly. Of course what rugby as a whole makes of that perception is its decision.

I think it's great that Rugby is bringing up this serious issue and is one of the first to do so. Boxing/UFC is dead-quiet on the issue, League was sorta whispering back in 2019 and Football haven't commented for a while on how much damage heading a Kevball for 15 years can do.

Young Pros going entering into Rugby are doing it for the money now and (together with their parents) are not considering the head injury issue even 1% (in South Africa anyway)

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:15 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:20 am "Frequency of collisions is a problem, so let's make players play for longer" is a curious take.

And no, I suspect getting hit 4 times by Alec Hepburn is just as dangerous as getting hit 3 times by Harry Williams tbh

Maybe the danger lies in tired players getting hit by fresh on the pitch subs whereas if they are all on the pitch they theoretically tire at similar rates so tired players getting hit by equally tired players?

A tired hip to the temple hurts just as much a fresh one.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:37 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:24 pm I appreciate that once you've made the decision to play then regular checks may be a good thing but it can't be good for rugby's image to be a sport whose participants need their brains checked regularly. Of course what rugby as a whole makes of that perception is its decision.

I think it's great that Rugby is bringing up this serious issue and is one of the first to do so. Boxing/UFC is dead-quiet on the issue, League was sorta whispering back in 2019 and Football haven't commented for a while on how much damage heading a Kevball for 15 years can do.

Young Pros going entering into Rugby are doing it for the money now and (together with their parents) are not considering the head injury issue even 1% (in South Africa anyway)

That percentage may change when they see the clause in their contracts about compulsory cognitive tests or MRI scans every year.

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:37 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:24 pm I appreciate that once you've made the decision to play then regular checks may be a good thing but it can't be good for rugby's image to be a sport whose participants need their brains checked regularly. Of course what rugby as a whole makes of that perception is its decision.

I think it's great that Rugby is bringing up this serious issue and is one of the first to do so. Boxing/UFC is dead-quiet on the issue, League was sorta whispering back in 2019 and Football haven't commented for a while on how much damage heading a Kevball for 15 years can do.

Young Pros going entering into Rugby are doing it for the money now and (together with their parents) are not considering the head injury issue even 1% (in South Africa anyway)

Really?

Sky Sports 16th Dec: football lawmakers expected to approve use of concussion substitutes
Sky Sports 16th Dec - Former Tottenham player played with concussion symptoms for 9 months
Guardian on 30th Nov One of many articles about the David Luiz incident on Sunday 29th Nov which is forcing the issue in football
BBC 17th Nov - article about Nobby Stiles dying from Alzheimers, including comments from FA and PFA

Football's talking about it and has been for a while. Admittedly that's mainly because of some high profile cases recently, but that's the same for rugby. If it wasn't for these players taking legal action against WR this thread wouldn't exist

Sandstorm wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:38 pm

Openside wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 3:15 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:20 am "Frequency of collisions is a problem, so let's make players play for longer" is a curious take.

And no, I suspect getting hit 4 times by Alec Hepburn is just as dangerous as getting hit 3 times by Harry Williams tbh

Maybe the danger lies in tired players getting hit by fresh on the pitch subs whereas if they are all on the pitch they theoretically tire at similar rates so tired players getting hit by equally tired players?

A tired hip to the temple hurts just as much a fresh one.

But the point is the hip might not be moving as quickly so won't do as much damage??...

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:39 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:17 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:05 pm

Not sure they ever did it consistently. Both clubs were willing to rotate them occasionally and their backups got plenty of gametime. But yes, they were playing a lot of minutes already.

Still not on board with the concept of forcing players to play 80 more often as a way to reduce size. If you want to reduce player size, legislate for it directly. 120kg behemoths are a problem? Get rid of them then.

What do you reckon is the best way to do this?

I don't feel great about legislating the weights of individual players, but saying you have a max allowance of 2070kgs for the whole team (90kgs x 23 as an arbitrary figure for this discussion), with a weigh in to be done ahead of the warm up (maybe?), could be workable? You might be able to keep your absolute monsters like Charlie Faumuina, but he's going to have to be offset by some significantly smaller blokes elsewhere in the team and I think coaches would quickly dispense of the massive guys or whip them into shape so they're not giving much away in other positions.

Legislate the weights of individual players on safety grounds.

Sorry!

Tonga wants a word.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 2:39 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:17 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:05 pm

Not sure they ever did it consistently. Both clubs were willing to rotate them occasionally and their backups got plenty of gametime. But yes, they were playing a lot of minutes already.

Still not on board with the concept of forcing players to play 80 more often as a way to reduce size. If you want to reduce player size, legislate for it directly. 120kg behemoths are a problem? Get rid of them then.

What do you reckon is the best way to do this?

I don't feel great about legislating the weights of individual players, but saying you have a max allowance of 2070kgs for the whole team (90kgs x 23 as an arbitrary figure for this discussion), with a weigh in to be done ahead of the warm up (maybe?), could be workable? You might be able to keep your absolute monsters like Charlie Faumuina, but he's going to have to be offset by some significantly smaller blokes elsewhere in the team and I think coaches would quickly dispense of the massive guys or whip them into shape so they're not giving much away in other positions.

Legislate the weights of individual players on safety grounds.

Sorry!

Tonga wants a word.

Is the word "diet"?

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:41 am The money shot:

“If a player gets concussed in a game and gets taken out for an HIA that’s great. But that’s not what the issue is. The issue is every single tackle you make, every single ruck you hit, every single scrum you hit, every time you hit a bag in training. It’s the constant repetitive hits Monday to Friday and then going out and getting more on the weekend. And then doing that for 38 weeks in a year. Or longer if you include pre-season.”

Seems then repetition really is the key which explains 7s i.e. fewer players making more tackles per min played. If this is so, it could well be the end.

I see another batch of players have joined the action, including Adam Hughes aged 30. And in other news Scarlets are missing Ball and Lee after HIAs and Patchell with concussion issues since (I think) just before the Amazon Internationals.

GogLais wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:29 pm I see another batch of players have joined the action, including Adam Hughes aged 30. And in other news Scarlets are missing Ball and Lee after HIAs and Patchell with concussion issues since (I think) just before the Amazon Internationals.

Jamie Thugmore had his own, separate action going and has been assisting the group action.

Good luck Jamie. I suspect any court will conclude you were already a pyscho who enjoyed a bit of head banging.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:26 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:29 pm I see another batch of players have joined the action, including Adam Hughes aged 30. And in other news Scarlets are missing Ball and Lee after HIAs and Patchell with concussion issues since (I think) just before the Amazon Internationals.

Jamie Thugmore had his own, separate action going and has been assisting the group action.

Good luck Jamie. I suspect any court will conclude you were already a pyscho who enjoyed a bit of head banging.

His case has been going on for a while. He's had double-digit concussions and reports being told to go out and get back on the pitch while puking in the changing rooms. Plus another time when he failed an HIA but was told to get back on the pitch as another second row got injured.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:36 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:26 pm

GogLais wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:29 pm I see another batch of players have joined the action, including Adam Hughes aged 30. And in other news Scarlets are missing Ball and Lee after HIAs and Patchell with concussion issues since (I think) just before the Amazon Internationals.

Jamie Thugmore had his own, separate action going and has been assisting the group action.

Good luck Jamie. I suspect any court will conclude you were already a pyscho who enjoyed a bit of head banging.

His case has been going on for a while. He's had double-digit concussions and reports being told to go out and get back on the pitch while puking in the changing rooms. Plus another time when he failed an HIA but was told to get back on the pitch as another second row got injured.

Guessing that's when he was in France?

SaintK wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:48 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:36 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:26 pm

Jamie Thugmore had his own, separate action going and has been assisting the group action.

Good luck Jamie. I suspect any court will conclude you were already a pyscho who enjoyed a bit of head banging.

His case has been going on for a while. He's had double-digit concussions and reports being told to go out and get back on the pitch while puking in the changing rooms. Plus another time when he failed an HIA but was told to get back on the pitch as another second row got injured.

Guessing that's when he was in France?

Yep, Clermont fucked him

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:36 pm His case has been going on for a while. He's had double-digit concussions and reports being told to go out and get back on the pitch while puking in the changing rooms. Plus another time when he failed an HIA but was told to get back on the pitch as another second row got injured.

Hmm. Would love to know when he claims that took place. Not even sure HIA rules had come into play when Thugmore was still at ASM.

And if ASM are in trouble, Saints and Wales (Gatland) may as well pack up and go straight to jail over North.

[EDIT] Found it. HEC semi in 2015 which was April 2015. HIA protocol not adopted as Law until August 2015
https://www.world.rugby/news/70796

It was still under trial then. Of course, this is a civil case and proper courts of law outweigh anything IRB/WR had to say anyway.

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:33 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:36 pm His case has been going on for a while. He's had double-digit concussions and reports being told to go out and get back on the pitch while puking in the changing rooms. Plus another time when he failed an HIA but was told to get back on the pitch as another second row got injured.

Hmm. Would love to know when he claims that took place. Not even sure HIA rules had come into play when Thugmore was still at ASM.

And if ASM are in trouble, Saints and Wales (Gatland) may as well pack up and go straight to jail over North.

[EDIT] Found it. HEC semi in 2015 which was April 2015. HIA protocol not adopted as Law until August 2015
https://www.world.rugby/news/70796

It was still under trial then. Of course, this is a civil case and proper courts of law outweigh anything IRB/WR had to say anyway.

HIAs were being trialled from 2014 onwards. But even if you take that out of the equation, they performed the assessment on him, he failed, and they sent him back out again.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:57 pm

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:33 pm

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:36 pm His case has been going on for a while. He's had double-digit concussions and reports being told to go out and get back on the pitch while puking in the changing rooms. Plus another time when he failed an HIA but was told to get back on the pitch as another second row got injured.

Hmm. Would love to know when he claims that took place. Not even sure HIA rules had come into play when Thugmore was still at ASM.

And if ASM are in trouble, Saints and Wales (Gatland) may as well pack up and go straight to jail over North.

[EDIT] Found it. HEC semi in 2015 which was April 2015. HIA protocol not adopted as Law until August 2015
https://www.world.rugby/news/70796

It was still under trial then. Of course, this is a civil case and proper courts of law outweigh anything IRB/WR had to say anyway.

HIAs were being trialled from 2014 onwards. But even if you take that out of the equation, they performed the assessment on him, he failed, and they sent him back out again.

Which was my point. Assuming his version of events is accurate.

I can envisage a scenario where Fritz sues Noves but Noves is deemed unfit to stand trial having already demonstrably gone gaga himself.

As an aside, have they said which jurisdiction they are taking their case(s)?

And here it is
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55423786

Torquemada 1420 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 23, 2020 4:38 pm And here it is
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55423786

Dan Scarbrough joins the legal case against WR.

Also diagnosed with early onset dementia

Poor bastard.

This sounds like a very positive first step

Using pitchside saliva tests to diagnose concussion is a step closer after a "game-changing" trial among male elite rugby union players.

Researchers took samples from 156 Premiership and Championship players who had head injury assessments (HIAs) across the 2017-18 and 2018-19 seasons.

Using microscopic DNA markers in saliva, they made a test that predicted an HIA result with 94% accuracy.

...

Belli said the study was a "breakthrough" and he had "never really seen something so exciting" in a field of work that has previously relied on blood samples.

He explained: "Blood is much more difficult to work with and doesn't really work for a pitchside test or for children.

"Now you have something that is non-invasive, quite easy to get, objective and accurate at the same time."

So Empirical, & not Subjective like the current HIA; & something that can be easily used across the entire sport.

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:42 pmPoor bastard.

+1

This whole thing is just getting hugely worrying now and I've gone from "it's a risk players accept" to "we have to do something about it even if the game is fairly radically altered". We just can't have 40 year olds getting dementia, it's madness.

My mum is utterly convinced my dad got early on set dementia due to his head knocks at rugby and this was 10 or so years ago. There must also be some genetic disposition to it.

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:20 am

JM2K6 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:42 pmPoor bastard.

+1

This whole thing is just getting hugely worrying now and I've gone from "it's a risk players accept" to "we have to do something about it even if the game is fairly radically altered". We just can't have 40 year olds getting dementia, it's madness.

My mum is utterly convinced my dad got early on set dementia due to his head knocks at rugby and this was 10 or so years ago. There must also be some genetic disposition to it.

Good The Bad and The Rugby did an episode with Jamie Cudmore (and a feature from Kat Marchant) to discuss this when it first came out. Obviously he's not an expert, but Cudmore relayed some of the stuff his docs said and essentially some people are more susceptible to being concussed and some people are able to recover from it much better than others with few to no lingering effects. Those who do suffer to the extent of early onset dementia most certainly fall into the former camp.

I don't know how you get around the incentive to be bigger and stronger in a collision game - all things being equal the bigger and stronger you are the better you are at the game. So pros are guaranteed to bulk up. And when pros bulk up, amateurs start copying them.

Weight limits? But someone like Simon Shaw must have weighed enough, even without loads of bulking up, that if you allow him then you allow a 6' back to bulk up loads. So do you stop a Shaw playing the game?

Or do you have a limit on the number of people over a certain weight on a team? Say 3 in the 23?

I'm not particularly concerned for U18s, but as an adult sport, and particularly a pro adult sport, I'm getting worried.

Things like weight limits are a non starter for me.

I think they keep going down the road they are at the moment.

- Cracking down on high impact collisions to the head with sanctions with the emphasis on hitting lower.
- Reduced contact sessions during training
- Zero tolerance with symptoms, stand down periods etc. When you read some of the testimony from players (including Scarborough in the Guardian yesterday below), it's clear with hindsight that they played on over and over again when clubs should have had a responsibility to take them out of the firing line. Some of this clearly requires honesty from the player, which you'd think you'd get with greater awareness of the risks.

It got so bad at times each little hit would set off problems. “Just an innocuous touch on the chin and I’d lose part of my vision, like I’d have tunnel vision. I remember a spell of three or four months in one season where it was a regular occurrence, I’d have around 20 minutes where I couldn’t see properly but I’d carry on and eventually it would clear. Looking back, it was clearly brain damage.”

Mahoney wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:39 am I don't know how you get around the incentive to be bigger and stronger in a collision game - all things being equal the bigger and stronger you are the better you are at the game. So pros are guaranteed to bulk up. And when pros bulk up, amateurs start copying them.

Weight limits? But someone like Simon Shaw must have weighed enough, even without loads of bulking up, that if you allow him then you allow a 6' back to bulk up loads. So do you stop a Shaw playing the game?

Or do you have a limit on the number of people over a certain weight on a team? Say 3 in the 23?

I'm not particularly concerned for U18s, but as an adult sport, and particularly a pro adult sport, I'm getting worried.

I think you stop a Shaw, honestly. I know that sounds shite, but then lots of "undersized" players never had a career because they weren't big enough, so I think it'd balance out.

The info coming out on concussions/brain damage you get from collisions where there's no head contact make this inevitable I think. You can make tackling much safer with regards to head contact. You can't make people smaller in the laws without major changes to the game.

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:20 am We just can't have 40 year olds getting dementia, it's madness.

I see what you did here.

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:46 am Things like weight limits are a non starter for me.

I think they keep going down the road they are at the moment.

- Cracking down on high impact collisions to the head with sanctions with the emphasis on hitting lower.
- Reduced contact sessions during training
- Zero tolerance with symptoms, stand down periods etc. When you read some of the testimony from players (including Scarborough in the Guardian yesterday below), it's clear with hindsight that they played on over and over again when clubs should have had a responsibility to take them out of the firing line. Some of this clearly requires honesty from the player, which you'd think you'd get with greater awareness of the risks.

It got so bad at times each little hit would set off problems. “Just an innocuous touch on the chin and I’d lose part of my vision, like I’d have tunnel vision. I remember a spell of three or four months in one season where it was a regular occurrence, I’d have around 20 minutes where I couldn’t see properly but I’d carry on and eventually it would clear. Looking back, it was clearly brain damage.”

Reduced contact sessions makes sense to me, and would also reduce the number of "training injuries" that plague the sport. But how do we approach the 'crash test dummy' problem?

Margin__Walker wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 10:46 am

- Cracking down on high impact collisions to the head with sanctions with the emphasis on hitting lower.
- Reduced contact sessions during training
- Zero tolerance with symptoms, stand down periods etc. When you read some of the testimony from players (including Scarborough in the Guardian yesterday below), it's clear with hindsight that they played on over and over again when clubs should have had a responsibility to take them out of the firing line. Some of this clearly requires honesty from the player, which you'd think you'd get with greater awareness of the risks.

Agreed on these. I think it was Dr Ross Tucker who mentioned that the new carding framework and stronger sanctions (debatable if those are actually in place / consistent) should lead to the same sort of drastic reduction in high/dangerous challenges as happened with something like stomping.

You'd hope things are better re: stand downs, but do we not still have players coming back after a week? Are they being honest with themselves in reporting symptoms? While I acknowledge every case is different, and clubs go through injury crises that leaves them short, might not not be better to increase and fix stand down periods? I don't know.

I know a few people in their 30s and 40s whose lives are now affected by concussions they got in early 20s (can't look at screens for a long time, little bumps bring migraines, etc.). I even worry about my own issues with periodic headaches, forgetfulness, dizzy spells (just about 42, had probably four minor concussions all before 22 when I stopped playing and one in my first 'old boys' game at 38, just the second tackle I made in that game)

But something that still persists is technique that isn't a penalty/card-able. Cross-covering players putting heads in front of body in particular (dodgy clearouts do get pinged, but not enough I think). More education on that sort of thing, and commentators calling it out more often as dangerous might help send a message

I wonder what, if anything, the HSE makes of it.

Agree on the commentators calling it out Neig, which in many cases they do. There's still a bit of 'well by the letter of the law it's a red...' every now and again.

I think the 20 minutes off and then a player can be replaced does actually help here. Gives less of an emphasis on a red 'ruining the game'

Another study to be published tomorrow. Not good reading!

A single season of professional rugby could be enough to cause a decline in a player’s blood flow to the brain and cognitive function, according to a study.
The research, reported by the BBC, also suggests that repetitive contact events, rather than only concussions, incurred through rugby caused the declines seen in the players.
Researchers from the University of South Wales followed a professional team playing in the United Rugby Championship over the course of a season, testing the players pre-season, mid-season and post-season.
The peer-reviewed study, which will be published on Wednesday in the Journal of Experimental Physiology, found that over the season the squad experienced reduced blood flow to the brain and cognitive function – the ability to reason, remember, formulate ideas and perform mental gymnastics.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021 ... -suggests
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/58369271

SaintK wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:28 pm Another study to be published tomorrow. Not good reading!

A single season of professional rugby could be enough to cause a decline in a player’s blood flow to the brain and cognitive function, according to a study.
The research, reported by the BBC, also suggests that repetitive contact events, rather than only concussions, incurred through rugby caused the declines seen in the players.
Researchers from the University of South Wales followed a professional team playing in the United Rugby Championship over the course of a season, testing the players pre-season, mid-season and post-season.
The peer-reviewed study, which will be published on Wednesday in the Journal of Experimental Physiology, found that over the season the squad experienced reduced blood flow to the brain and cognitive function – the ability to reason, remember, formulate ideas and perform mental gymnastics.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021 ... -suggests
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/58369271

It's really bad. I'm not sure where the game goes from here.

Plenty of adults would be willing to still take the small risk to play, I'm pretty sure i would have done, but it's going to be more and more difficult to justify kids playing if studies keep coming back with results like this.