That’d be my take on it too. The science around concussion is so soft as to be borderline meaningless in any case.
Can you see any way around it for rugby. I can’t see how a sport based entirely upon contact can be made safe enough for the current era.
There absolutely should be equal onus on the lad with the ball not to dip into the tackler. There’s still lads hitting rucks at an unmerciful pace though. I’m surprised there hasn’t been one of these lads break his neck yet
1 Like
Waivers? “Here are the risks, youre still choosing to play even having been informed of these risks. Sign here.”
Can’t see any other way around it really. Wont absolve past traumas but puts onus on personal responsibility in taking the field.
2 Likes
Hard one to find a balance to. More upright you stay the more likely you are for whiplash effect. The dip is an element of protection for the carrier… But its gone v far in carrier favour
2 Likes
Theres a lot of factors leading into concussion that will not be address either, even mild contact to the body have been shown to cause mini concussion.
Yes, I think it has, but you are right about the first bit too.
I doubt a waiver would hold any water.
1 Like
Its also down to competent reffering to pubish poor behaviour. We both saw a tackle that lead to a card last week. Imho the colour was wrong and we were lucky. But the ref in question should not be allowed at that level.
1 Like
Why not? An adult choosng to recognise but ignore the risk. Why should they get added protections beyond the choosing of their own free will?
They shouldn’t, but like many waivers, they don’t cover against negligence, which is what the current class action is claiming afaiu.
Doesn’t the negligence centre around not informing of the latent and obvious dangers, employing measures to reduce known dangers, educating about perils head trauma etc? If they get ahead of it, educate and make fully aware of these issues, best prevention measures but clearly state the danger can not be fully removed so continuing to play comes at your own risk, wouldn’t that mitigate to a large extent negligence moving forward?
As I say, past issues and redress wont be resolved by it. But seems only way to draw line in it for moving forward with future contracts
1 Like
Without going back to the body sizes and playing style of the 70s I can’t, and that’s not going to happen. It’s a shame too because the local boys u16s and women’s team train straight after us on the pitch here - the majority of them are a shape that means rugby is the only sport that caters for them. I do sometimes wonder though if they use rugby as an excuse to let themselves get into that shape.
3 Likes
That’s where the waiver falls down, the RFU clearly feel this is a measure they can take to reduce the known dangers.
Is there big hits put in in the Sevens game? Maybe thats the only way forward.
What has happened to back play in rugby? Are Leinster the only good attacking team in rugby?
Can’t speak for your local club but that’s a wild sweep that I don’t think holds any water whatsoever based on my experience. I’d say 9/10 young lads playing rugby in our club play either GAA or soccer or both as well
Toulon and Toulouse
You’re in a different part of the world though. It’s a ridiculous situation but both youth soccer and rugby takes place here on Saturdays so there is little crossover, and the rugby/GAA crossover isn’t big either obviously.
I see it all the time, kids who are not natural athletes at 10 or carrying a bit of weight and struggling at soccer deciding they will just play rugby. They are then on a team with lots of other lads who wouldn’t be athletic or have a great diet, and things go from bad to worse.
1 Like
Popular gaa social media personality lauren guilfoyle has shared an extract of the study into tackle height in rubby on her insta story. Lower tackle height in this study had almost twice the incidents of concussion in the tackle than stamdard tackle height.
This law change wont happen