6 Nations: Mandatory connected Mouth Guard

[Marylandolorian]

Lot of players aren’t happy about this decision, mentioning discomfort, not fitting well plus some don’t even like to wear a mouthpiece.

https://www.sixnationsrugby.com/en/m6n/ ... rn-in-2024

[Guy Smiley]

This has been covered pretty well in the media for a few months and should come as no surprise...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/ ... ad-impacts

and follows on from some extensive research into the nature of collisions and their impact on player welfare...

https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/indep ... ver-before

The Otago Community Head Impact Detection study (ORCHID) a joint project between World Rugby, Prevent Biometrics, New Zealand Rugby, Otago Rugby and the University of Otago, has published the first independent, peer-reviewed findings into community rugby following almost two years of trail-blazing research. The study measures over 17,000 separate head acceleration events across more than 300 players from senior rugby through to U13s level.

This work was followed by the Elite Extension of the ORCHID study in partnership with the Ulster University and Premiership Rugby. Further updates into the women’s community game are currently being prepared for peer review and publication.

Both studies used smart mouthguard technology, supplied by Prevent Biometrics, to understand the forces on the head experienced by players both in matches and training situations. The mouthguards measure g-forces which are experienced for less time than it takes to blink, using technology independently verified both in research laboratories and on the field of play.

The ORCHID paper shows that in the men’s community game:

86 per cent of forces measured are the same as or less than those experienced in other forms of exercise such as running, jumping or skipping
94 per cent of forces are lower than those previously measured on people riding a rollercoaster
The large majority of events resulting in the highest measured forces are as a result of poor technique in the tackle and at the breakdown

There's something of a trend in reporting decisions and strategies surrounding the issue of head injury and its long term effects in rugby circles... that is to minimise the health risks over short term concern about 'the look of the game' or resistance to change from either players, commentators or coaches. My take on that is suck it up princesses, get over it and get on with it. As a sport, we need to take the issue of long term brain injury seriously and accept a need to change some aspects of our game and how we play it. Note the last sentence in that quote from Otago University's study... poor technique is a major issue. Tidy that up before complaining.

[Uncle fester]

JVDF's hia was flagged by this.

[Big D]

I have seen some question the science behind the mouth piece.

I am a bit torn. Player safety is paramount but they are adults who know have no excuse for ignorance to thr dangers so a part of me is in the camp of let them make that decision for themselves.

In the game at the weekend, Fagerson was flagged for a HIA when there was no obvious issue around contact just after a scrum. Hopefully it wasn't a faulty report due to the force of the scrum because that will put players off them too.

[Tichtheid]

I’d be happy with a few false positives, and the ten minutes HIA that comes with them, several times a season if it helps to reduce the risk of dementia in players in their 30s and 40s

[Raggs]

The impacts that bring the players off are literally 1 in 1000 rugby impacts, even in the 6N recorded impacts, the number that have triggered the removal, vs the total number of recorded impacts, it's still around 1/1000 level. 70G (maybe 75G), and also a certain threshold hold in radial acceleration, both have to be met (so a scrum is not going to do it).

It may look like a regular tackle etc, but something wasn't quite right can caused the high G and the rotational force causing the trigger, probably the head slightly off or more involved in the impact than it should have been.

It's not replacing anything, it's in addition. We've seen the situations where replays come out after the game where a player clearly took a bad hit, but everyone missed it at the time, this tech will massively help avoid that.

[Biffer]

I’d be interested to know how many there have been. It’s happened to Scotland players twice (Fagerson v England and Turner v France) and there’s mention of Van der Flier up the thread. Any others?

[Raggs]

I’d be interested to know how many there have been. It’s happened to Scotland players twice (Fagerson v England and Turner v France) and there’s mention of Van der Flier up the thread. Any others?

7 alerts in 9000 acceleration events.

[Uncle fester]

I’d be happy with a few false positives, and the ten minutes HIA that comes with them, several times a season if it helps to reduce the risk of dementia in players in their 30s and 40s

This.

[Sandstorm]

I’m sure Quins will find a way to disable the mechanism.

[Gumboot]

I’d be happy with a few false positives, and the ten minutes HIA that comes with them, several times a season if it helps to reduce the risk of dementia in players in their 30s and 40s

This.

Yep.

[GrahamWa]

Interesting discussion from Fraser Brown regarding the size of them and the consultation he went through when he suffered a series of concussions 5 years ago. Go to 23 mins https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0hfd730 if you don't want to listen to another review of last weeks game.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

following a heavy hit there will be biochemical and metabolomic changes in the brain measurable in saliva. where are they on being able to incorporate that in the checks that can be entwined with mouthguards?