New Concussion report

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/ ... ul-mccrory


Paul McCrory, advisor to IRB, chair of several concussion consensus sumits, ex-editor of the BJSM, and pre-eminent expert in concussion has had some articles retracted for plagiarism and article duplication.

Both bad things, and both biasing the scientific sate of play at the time (plagiarism only very slightly).


However, I still don't see how IRB/WR can be held responsible / negligent for consulting and acting upon the science of the time, rather than saying "I see your science, evidence and expertise, but chose to ignore it and do my own thing - I do this because I think one of you experts will be discredited in 20 years time" - which seems to be the desire of the law suit against WR & RFU, and the implication of (some of) this article.

[Mellsblue]

PTSD’s flying headbutt on Danty. Discuss.

[francoisfou]

It’s not cricket.

[Which Tyler]

PTSD’s flying headbutt on Danty. Discuss.

What's to discuss? straight red, no questions asked.
The only point to make is that too many similar (but less blatant) situations go unpunished.



DuPont's though...
It's red every day these days (and has been for a few years now); but I'm going to bang my drum that I hate those ones being red...
Kolbe had no business (or at least, no need) being in the air, kneed an unsighted DuPont in the temple and is 100% responsible for creating the dangerous situation; and DuPont gets the red.
It's just one of those bugbears of mine.


Oh and yes, Kolbe gets no say whatsoever in whether he goes off for an HIA - he's the last person who could know if he's okay or not; whilst also being the most biased.

[Mellsblue]

PTSD’s flying headbutt on Danty. Discuss.

What's to discuss? straight red, no questions asked.
The only point to make is that too many similar (but less blatant) situations go unpunished.



DuPont's though...
It's red every day these days (and has been for a few years now); but I'm going to bang my drum that I hate those ones being red...
Kolbe had no business (or at least, no need) being in the air, kneed an unsighted DuPont in the temple and is 100% responsible for creating the dangerous situation; and DuPont gets the red.
It's just one of those bugbears of mine.


Oh and yes, Kolbe gets no say whatsoever in whether he goes off for an HIA - he's the last person who could know if he's okay or not; whilst also being the most biased.

How bad it was and that something like this was inevitably going to happen the way the breakdown is reffed.

Agreed on DuPont’s card.

[Which Tyler]

How bad it was and that something like this was inevitably going to happen the way the breakdown is reffed.

Had PSDT used his shoulder instead of his head, it wouldn't even have been looked at, despite being just as dangerous

[Which Tyler]

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2022 ... 022-105831

Objective

To establish match injury rates and patterns in elite female rugby union players in England.

Method We conducted a six-season (2011/2012–2013/2014 and 2017/2018–2019/2020) prospective cohort study of time-loss match injuries in elite-level female players in the English Premiership competition. A 24-hour time-loss definition was used.

Results Five-hundred and thirty-four time-loss injuries were recorded during 13 680 hours of match exposure. Injury incidence was 39 injuries per 1000 hours (95% CIs 36 to 42) with a mean severity of 48 days (95% CIs 42 to 54) and median severity of 20 days (IQR: 7–57). Concussion was the most common specific injury diagnosis (five concussions per 1000 hours, 95% CIs 4 to 6). The tackle event was associated with the greatest burden of injury (615 days absence per 1000 hours 95% CIs 340 to 1112), with ‘being tackled’ specifically causing the most injuries (28% of all injuries) and concussions (22% of all concussions).

Conclusions This is the first multiple-season study of match injuries in elite women’s rugby union players. Match injury incidence was similar to that previously reported within international women’s rugby union. Injury prevention strategies centred on the tackle would focus on high-burden injuries, which are associated with substantial player time-loss and financial costs to teams as well as the high-priority area of concussions.

[Mellsblue]

[Puja]

Wow. That is massive.

Hope the RFU know what they're doing, cause that's a paradigm shift at the community level. So many people at my level of 3rd XV don't go to training and so won't have the help to adapt that they're talking about offering. Is the ref going to penalise every tackle at chest height? Where exactly is the waist (I say this as someone who hasn't seen his in years).

It's going to make it a very different game at community level and, looking at the twitter comments, there's going to be quite a few people unhappy about it. I hope it brings in more players than it loses, otherwise my club might not have a 3rd XV next year.

Puja

[Banquo]

Wow. That is massive.

Hope the RFU know what they're doing, cause that's a paradigm shift at the community level. So many people at my level of 3rd XV don't go to training and so won't have the help to adapt that they're talking about offering. Is the ref going to penalise every tackle at chest height? Where exactly is the waist (I say this as someone who hasn't seen his in years).

It's going to make it a very different game at community level and, looking at the twitter comments, there's going to be quite a few people unhappy about it. I hope it brings in more players than it loses, otherwise my club might not have a 3rd XV next year.

Puja

Have they measured the impact on the tackler of going lower- I suspect you get a load more concussion from going lower as a tackler. Below waist height in fairness is how I was taught to tackle, and you do have to get your technique spot on...

[Mr Mwenda]

Anybody got any contacts in France about how it all went down there?

[Which Tyler]

Have they measured the impact on the tackler of going lower

Yes
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=R ... ssion+risk

[Banquo]

Have they measured the impact on the tackler of going lower

Yes
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=r ... .2015-2023

so as I thought! its a tricky one, because I think the game would be a whole lot better generally through lower tackling, but many features of the game as evolved to cope with double teaming, high tackling, multiple phase pick and go's simply mean that lower tackling would be even more 'dangerous' than before. Technique will be absolutely vital. I suspect the majority of concussions have over time belonged to tacklers, but the laws have been developed to protect the ball carrier- logical, because they are the ones being 'assaulted ', but you always end up with inintended consequences when coaches and players get their hands on new laws. This will need coaches to revisit tackling technique much more rigorously.

Interesting that the need is felt to provide guidance to ball carriers to strive to avoid contact and not dip into contact

[Which Tyler]

Finally found the twit thread I was looking for - from last summer; that goes into things a little more helpfully than my post above (sorry).



ETA: And now I see that it was on this thread, all of 1 page ago...

[Oakboy]

I often used to wonder how hazardous it was low-tackling a bloke like Andy Ripley when he was coming straight at you. His high-knee-lift style of running made lowering your head dangerous I'd have thought. So, was it just imagination that rugby back in those days did not feature direct front-to-front challenges? Tackles tended to be far more from the side I think. If that is not just rose-tinted memory, what changed?

[Margin_Walker]

The Championship Cup trial five years or so was abandoned because there was a statistically significant increase in players being concussed (presumably from knees etc).

Clearly the trial in France has been on a larger scale, so hopefully they have the comfort from that they need that there will be a net reduction.

I'd be interested to watch a few of those matches to see how the pick and go is dealt with with the ball carrier bent at the waist. Really difficult to then make a safe legal tackle from front on.

[fivepointer]

The RFU release -

To support player welfare, the RFU Council agreed on Monday 16th January to lower the height of the tackle across the community game from July 1 2023.

Designed to improve player safety and informed by data, this change aims to reduce head impact exposure and concussion risk in the tackle for both the ball carrier and tackler. Evidence from studies has consistently demonstrated that higher contact on the ball carrier and closer proximity of the ball carrier and tacklers’ heads are associated with larger head impacts (as measured by smart mouthguards) and an increased risk of concussion.

Lowering the height of the tackle and encouraging the tackler to bend more at the waist will minimise the risk of this occurring while maintaining the tackle as an integral part of the game.

The RFU Council’s unanimous vote will result in law variations from next season, 2023/24, with the tackle height being set at waist height or below.

Ball carriers will also be encouraged to follow the principle of evasion, which is a mainstay of the game, to avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier.

The changes will apply across the community game (clubs, schools, colleges and universities) at both age-grade and adult levels - National One and below in the men’s game and Championship One and below in the women’s game.

Programmes to support players, coaches and match officials, including detailed law application guidelines are being developed to ensure players, match officials and volunteers will be ready for next season.

Speaking about the law change to be implemented in season 2023/24, RFU President Nigel Gillingham said:

“Players’ welfare must always be at the centre of decisions we make about how we play the game of rugby. Evidence from our own research and from around the world clearly shows that lowering the tackle height will reduce head impact exposure and the risk of concussion. The RFU Council is able to influence how the game is played at the community level in this country and, therefore, has unanimously supported the decision to lower the tackle height to waist level. The tackle will remain the primary method of stopping the ball carrier using safe techniques that are taught from an early age.

“While this change will apply to matches in the community game in England, the RFU will continue its work to reduce head impacts in contact training in both the community and elite games and be supportive of any law changes that World Rugby proposes for matches at the elite level that will further reduce head impact exposure.”

WHAT TO EXPECT
Reduced tackle height for all community rugby

Tackles must be made at the line of the waist and below.

The aim is to put players’ heads in the safest possible place by defining in law where the line of the tackle may start.

A greater focus on the actions of the ball carrier

Ball carriers will be encouraged to follow the principle that rugby is a game of evasion, and they should avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier.

Match officials will focus on the actions of the ball carrier as well as the tackler when head contact occurs.

Further background to the change for next season

Player welfare remains at the heart of all decision-making. By making the decision now, the RFU Council has demonstrated its continued commitment to player welfare and recognised the importance of giving coaches, match officials and players time to prepare.

Based on extensive research and evaluations of law changes in England, South Africa, France and New Zealand and the findings of the Orchid mouthguard study carried out in Otago evidence demonstrates that a waist height tackle or below is the optimal height to provide a meaningful reduction in the height of contact on the ball carrier, a reduction in the risk of contact with the ball carrier’s head and a reduction in the risk of contact for the tackler’s head. A lower tackle height is also associated with a reduction in the magnitude of head impacts, a key target for reduction.

France, which introduced similar changes in its domestic game in 2019, reported a 63% reduction in head-on-head contacts. They also reported this move has led to a more fluid game with reduced levels of kicking, increased passing, offloads and line breaks.

NEXT STEPS
The process of developing law variations and the law application guidelines is well underway. It is anticipated that new laws will be in place in the next few weeks. They will come into force from 1 July 2023.

A range of training and support will be put in place for players, coaches and match officials. This will include face-to-face workshops, webinars, e-learning and video guidance. Training will be rolled out from the spring, through the summer and into next season.

We understand this is a significant change and the game will have questions around the detail of the new law variation, what it means for coaches and players and how the tackle will be refereed during different phases of the game, for example close to the goal line versus counter attacks in open play.

Detailed FAQs and training materials will be provided over the coming weeks to give clarity for the game. This is the first in a series of communications to give the game sufficient notice of the law changes being made.

[fivepointer]

This is going to be really difficult for players to adjust to and is going to be hellishly difficult to referee.

This - "Ball carriers will be encouraged to follow the principle that rugby is a game of evasion, and they should avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier"

Seriously a late dip by the ball carrier is going to be penalised?

[Margin_Walker]

This is going to be really difficult for players to adjust to and is going to be hellishly difficult to referee.

This - "Ball carriers will be encouraged to follow the principle that rugby is a game of evasion, and they should avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier"

Seriously a late dip by the ball carrier is going to be penalised?

Yeah, I saw that. Not sure how you could 'encourage' it other than to penalise them. Really difficult to enforce, but we'll see. It's going to be fascinating to watch.

[Banquo]

This is going to be really difficult for players to adjust to and is going to be hellishly difficult to referee.

This - "Ball carriers will be encouraged to follow the principle that rugby is a game of evasion, and they should avoid late dipping and thereby avoid creating a situation where a bent tackler may be put at increased risk of head-on-head contact with the ball carrier through a late or sudden change in body height of the ball carrier"

Seriously a late dip by the ball carrier is going to be penalised?

It doesn't say that does it?

[Banquo]

I often used to wonder how hazardous it was low-tackling a bloke like Andy Ripley when he was coming straight at you. His high-knee-lift style of running made lowering your head dangerous I'd have thought. So, was it just imagination that rugby back in those days did not feature direct front-to-front challenges? Tackles tended to be far more from the side I think. If that is not just rose-tinted memory, what changed?

There was a lot less tackling generally as the ball wasn't in play anywhere near as much and not that much multi phase play, the game was more lateral as defences weren't as good, but there was a sprinkling of head on tackling, and we were taught how to do that (with a big lad we would often get very low and lasso the ankles ) as well as good sideways technique, esp head position.

[Mellsblue]

Newcastle’s kit man has made the very good point that this will probably make Prem Academy players going to NLD1 quite a bit more problematic.

[Stom]

I often used to wonder how hazardous it was low-tackling a bloke like Andy Ripley when he was coming straight at you. His high-knee-lift style of running made lowering your head dangerous I'd have thought. So, was it just imagination that rugby back in those days did not feature direct front-to-front challenges? Tackles tended to be far more from the side I think. If that is not just rose-tinted memory, what changed?

There was a lot less tackling generally as the ball wasn't in play anywhere near as much and not that much multi phase play, the game was more lateral as defences weren't as good, but there was a sprinkling of head on tackling, and we were taught how to do that (with a big lad we would often get very low and lasso the ankles ) as well as good sideways technique, esp head position.

The things I remember most from being coached 20+ years ago are tackle height and technique. We worked on it a lot, as it was the most dangerous part before we got big enough for scrums to get tough.

Saying that, I only ever had 2 injuries, one as the ball carrier, and that was bad luck and a broken hand, and one thanks to a collapsed scrum.

I like to think it’s because we knew how to tackle

[FKAS]

This really does feel like a heavy handed way to try and improve the game that will actually backfire and hurt community clubs. I've already seen people on Twitter encouraging Union players to come and play League instead as the tackle laws are getting a lot of backlash.

The last time the RFU insisted on trying something like this they backtracked before the end of the season.

"The Rugby Football Union (RFU) has confirmed that the Championship Cup tackle height trial will not continue for the knockout stages of the competition, which begin on Saturday week.

As a result, match officials will revert to the original application of Law 9.13 for the knockout fixtures. This means the definition of a high tackle moves back to above the shoulder line rather than the armpit line as trialled in the pool stages of the competition.

“The RFU is committed to an evidence-based approach to injury-prevention,” said Nigel Melville RFU interim chief executive.

“This was always a trial and we weren’t sure what the outcomes would be. Our two main objectives were to determine whether through law change the height of the tackle can actually be reduced and if a reduction in the height of the tackle then leads to a reduction in concussion risk”

Data shows that the first objective of lowering tackle heights was achieved. There was a:

24% decrease in all tackles where contact was made by the tackler above the ball-carrier’s armpit line
25% decrease in tackles where contact was made above the armpit line by an upright tackler on an upright ball-carrier
41% decrease in the number of tackles where contact was made with the head or neck of the ball-carrier
Despite achieving this first objective, there was an unanticipated increase in concussion risk to the tackler where contact was made above the armpit line with a bent-at-the-waist ball carrier.

Melville added: “We need to analyse the data in more detail, but our preliminary analysis has shown all of these incidents occurred when a bent-at-the-waist tackler was attempting to tackle a bent-at-the-waist ball-carrier following a short pass from the scrum-half.

“This is an area that the trial was not specifically looking to influence since the primary focus was to reduce concussion risk when ball-carrier and tackler were both upright. We will be analysing this particular situation in more detail.

“Overall this has been an extremely valuable exercise. We’ve learned a lot and tested an approach to reducing the risk of concussion in a real-life setting. We have shown that reducing tackle height is achievable and we already have useful and detailed data from the first 36 matches in this 43-game cup competition.”

The RFU is now analysing this data in more detail as it prepares a final report. This report will be taken for discussion to the World Rugby meeting in France in March.

“We want to thank all clubs, coaches, medics, management, players and fans for their support, understanding and engagement during the trial,” commented Melville.

“The RFU is constantly looking at ways to make the game safer and looks forward to taking this research to the World Rugby meeting in March and discussing ideas and challenges with other unions.

Full results will be published at a later date."

[Banquo]

I often used to wonder how hazardous it was low-tackling a bloke like Andy Ripley when he was coming straight at you. His high-knee-lift style of running made lowering your head dangerous I'd have thought. So, was it just imagination that rugby back in those days did not feature direct front-to-front challenges? Tackles tended to be far more from the side I think. If that is not just rose-tinted memory, what changed?

There was a lot less tackling generally as the ball wasn't in play anywhere near as much and not that much multi phase play, the game was more lateral as defences weren't as good, but there was a sprinkling of head on tackling, and we were taught how to do that (with a big lad we would often get very low and lasso the ankles ) as well as good sideways technique, esp head position.

The things I remember most from being coached 20+ years ago are tackle height and technique. We worked on it a lot, as it was the most dangerous part before we got big enough for scrums to get tough.

Saying that, I only ever had 2 injuries, one as the ball carrier, and that was bad luck and a broken hand, and one thanks to a collapsed scrum.

I like to think it’s because we knew how to tackle

I knew how to tackle but managed to be concussed twice when runner changed direction as well as break my jaw. Sh*t happens.