Mandatory headgear?

[Gloskarlos]

https://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/n ... -mandatory

Seems like a very specific test case they cite in my opinion. Drop tests? how is this equivalent to Rugby forces?

Odd that this bucks the trend of previous research too. What has changed? or just propaganda?

[Which Tyler]

propaganda - it's a very specific set of evidence, that doesn't even try to correlate to clinical findings.
All it really means is that it is biologically plausible that scrum caps would help reduce bruising, cuts and grazes; and still says nothing about any intracranial trauma (such as concussion).
They then over-reach massively in a way that makes the research itself pretty suspicious.

[Puja]

https://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/n ... -mandatory

Seems like a very specific test case they cite in my opinion.

Odd that this bucks the trend of previous research too. What has changed? or just propaganda?

That appears to be a test specifically designed to produce the result they wanted. A drop test is utterly pointless - it's basically testing direct impact force with the most padded bit of the scrum-cap, ignoring the movement of brain within the skull and that most impacts aren't solely on the padded bit. It doesn't replicate head knocks in the slightest and all it's proved is that putting padding on something reduces the force on it when it hits the floor - groundbreaking. They're in it for the clickbait.

Massively irresponsible, especially considering that it's well established that more solid headgear increases the chance of head injury by making people less likely to be careful.

Puja

[Raggs]

As above, basically it doesn't take into consideration how the brain moves. Ross Tucker on twitter is someone who's done a lot of work on this (and working with world rugby).

[Renniks]

The paper:
https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000361

I like this part:

Limitations
This study relied on lab testing: prior research in this field indicates positive testing of headguards in the lab does not always translate into reduction in concussion rates on the rugby field.39 The testing rig was set up to simulate head collisions with the ground. However, prior research has demonstrated that 53% of concussive injuries that occur during rugby matches result from tackling.40 Therefore, further research into the biomechanics involved in this kind of head impact may provide a more accurate way of evaluating the headguards. Data collection also only involved linear acceleration measurements despite research pointing towards angular acceleration playing an important role in concussive injuries. However, in a recent study, data from drop testing within a laboratory setting were compared with data from real-life American football head collisions, and it found that angular acceleration values from the laboratory were 46% lower when compared with pitch impacts.41 Drop testing is therefore not an accurate way to simulate and assess the angular component of concussive impacts and so only linear measurements were collected during this study.

[Renniks]

They clearly point out that their study ignores lots of previous research, lots of real life scenarios, and all manner of things…

[Gloskarlos]

They can't really fly in the face of recent boxing research either I would have thought, and come out with any credibility.

It is dangerous though, you watch an upsurge of my U11's rocking up to training wearing these next week as a result of parents reading sky news.

[Which Tyler]

It's possible that this is the first research that's going to reverse existing clinical wisdom ad evidence - but it's going to need a lot more than a single study of a more-or-less irrelevant test, drawing conclusions that the data doesn't support; in order to do that.
We'll see, but for now, accepted wisdom is not going to change (cue an article by Pollock in the Telegraph, jumping all over this article as proff that she was right all along, and that tackling in rugby should be banned, in T-minus 2 weeks)

[Puja]

The paper:
https://bmjopensem.bmj.com/content/4/1/e000361

I like this part:

Limitations
This study relied on lab testing: prior research in this field indicates positive testing of headguards in the lab does not always translate into reduction in concussion rates on the rugby field.39 The testing rig was set up to simulate head collisions with the ground. However, prior research has demonstrated that 53% of concussive injuries that occur during rugby matches result from tackling.40 Therefore, further research into the biomechanics involved in this kind of head impact may provide a more accurate way of evaluating the headguards. Data collection also only involved linear acceleration measurements despite research pointing towards angular acceleration playing an important role in concussive injuries. However, in a recent study, data from drop testing within a laboratory setting were compared with data from real-life American football head collisions, and it found that angular acceleration values from the laboratory were 46% lower when compared with pitch impacts.41 Drop testing is therefore not an accurate way to simulate and assess the angular component of concussive impacts and so only linear measurements were collected during this study.

That's outstanding. "We're aware that our method has so many limitations as to be utterly pointless and stands no chance of proving what we say we want to find out, but it's going to get us the results we want, so we're doing it anyway." Pure clickbait hunting to get noticed.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

That's outstanding. "We're aware that our method has so many limitations as to be utterly pointless and stands no chance of proving what we say we want to find out, but it's going to get us the results we want, so we're doing it anyway." Pure clickbait hunting to get noticed.

Amazed they got the BMJ to publish this

[p/d]

It's a paper done by a student ....................

'The first award is given to the BMSc student who has written the best scientific research paper submission for the year as per the relevant journal guidelines. The second award is presented to the student who gives the best PowerPoint presentation and designs the best scientific poster.'

The author, young Erin Frizzell, won both awards. Nothing warms the cockles more than a fine PowerPoint presentation.

[Puja]

I am literally astounded that anything with such poor methodology can win an award. Suggests awful things for either the quality of the judging panel or their fellow students.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

That'd explain why it's in the BMJ - essentially, the competition winner gets published - also explains why it wasn't the lead author giving quotes to the press.

[Puja]

Oh good, now it's on the BBC.

Puja

[Renniks]

Ugh. UGH.

[Puja]

Given that you are doing a big drive on "Fake News" and "Why the BBC can be trusted", I was disappointed to see this alarmist and inaccurate story on scrum-caps. The study itself notes that "prior research in this field indicates positive testing of headguards in the lab does not always translate into reduction in concussion rates on the rugby field" and that drop-testing (the method used in this study) is "not an accurate way to simulate and assess the angular component of concussive impacts". A cursory read of the study would show that it had massive flaws that limited its extrapolation to real life situations.

And yet, the article presents it as if it were hard and rigorous science - "Rugby protective headgear 'cuts impact by almost half'" and "The research showed that even the least effective device tested could make a "significant difference" in preventing head injuries, such as concussion."

This is irresponsible journalism as it implies the results of one poorly designed (and not yet peer reviewed) study by a student as a scientific fact. There appears to be no quote sought from World Rugby (who are actually engaged in rigorous scientific studies around concussion prevention), nor acknowledgement that previous studies have shown that use of head protectors actually increase the rate of head injuries as they give a misleading feeling of protection and users are less likely to take care.

I fully expect to see a massive increase in scrum-caps in school and youth rugby due to parents who have read your article and believe that they are doing the right thing because the BBC have said that they will protect their children. Whereas the existing research shows that they are at best an unnecessary expensive that is ineffective in concussion protection, and at worst, an active risk.

My complaint to the BBC. You can file your own here if you want: https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/ ... =271403173

Puja

[morepork]

That is some atrociously biased “sampling”. Look for funding from a headwear manufacturer for these quacks.

[Lizard]

Well-written.

When my son was about 3 or 4 I made him some pretend headgear out of old carpet underlay so he looked the part with his All Blacks kit. Of course the first thing he does when I put it on him is run around deliberately smashing his head into things. And I don’t think us blokes grow out of that sort of attitude until our 30s, frankly.

I am convinced that the ubiquity of batting helmets in schoolboy cricket has led to more players getting in the head because you don’t learn that instinctive sway to get out of the line of the ball. And at 7 or 8 years old no-one is bowling fast enough to do any damage so it’s a relatively safe learning environment.

[Gloskarlos]

I have complained too.

I'll have a chat with parents on Sunday morning about it also.

[Which Tyler]

"I am writing to complain about the following article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... l-46193609
This article is based on undergraduate level research, that somehow won a competition to be published in the BMJ - presumably a competition based on brevity, rather than content.
Firstly, the original research (unlike the BBC article) raises the increased incidence of concussion in rugby - and then explains it (increased awareness).
Secondly, the original research points out that only 1 previous research article has shown a positive impact on concussion rates by the wearing of rugby headguards - it acknowledges that it's conclusions fly in the face of current knowledge base.
Thirdly, the original research points out that the testing the rugby headguards underwent appears to be irrelevant for discussions of concussion; even though they went and did so anyway.
Fourthly, the original research quotes another paper (doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181864bee) as saying that wearing a headguard reduces the severity of concussive symptoms - please note; the quoted paper says no such thing; though it does say "headgear did not reduce the severity of head injury or concussion significantly."

Please note, that everything we currently know about the use of scrum caps / helmets is that yes, they can result in a reduction of force extracranially - which means that they can help prevent bruising, cuts and abrasions; but make no difference on intracranial injury, like concussion - this conclusion is not fully settled, but it is suggested by the weight of literature.

This research reads not so much as an academic exercise; as a plea for funding from manufacturers of rugby headguards. It makes claims that are not suported by the data (which is confirmation bias), and claims for other studies that the studies themselves do not (which is simply dishonesty).
It does, however to serve as clickbait fearmongering; and its most likely effect is increased sales of rugby headguards, increased risk-taking by young rugby players; and possibly a subsequent increase in concussive injuries."

[Oakboy]

The crunch (so well highlighted by Puja and WT) has to be that many of the parents whose children are vulnerable do NOT know the game and have no reason to be suspicious of an article portrayed by the BBC as the way to keep their youngsters safe. Does the BBC not refer this sort of thing to their ex-rugby-playing journalists for a knowledge-based view and their legal department for advice on possible subsequent claims for damages?

[Raggs]

For those of you who perhaps coach minis like myself, obviously we know it's a load of bunkum, but it'd be best to use the RFU official info to tell people that it's not smart:

https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Documen ... eutral.pdf

RUGBYSAFE ESSENTIAL GUIDE
Rugby Football Union. The RFU Rose and the words ‘England Rugby’ are official registered trademarks of the Rugby Football Union and are subject to extensive trade mark registration worldwide.
Teamwork Respect Enjoyment Discipline Sportsmanship
May 2017 (v.2)
Headguards
Head guards (sometimes called scrum caps) can help to protect the
head from cuts and abrasions, and prevent the development of
cauliflower ears. Wearing headguards is sanctioned on the basis that
they should not cause harm or injury to any player and meet World
Rugby standards (see regulation 12). However, padded headgear has
never been approved or marketed by World Rugby or the RFU to
reduce the risk of concussion and there continues to be no conclusive
evidence that wearing head guards reduces the chances of sustaining a
concussion while playing or training.
Wearing a head guard should be the choice of the player/parent. While
it can provide some protection (e.g. covering the ears) and confidence
(e.g. when introducing players to contact); wearing protective
equipment has also been found to change a player’s behaviour,
sometimes encouraging them to neglect technique, increasing their
risk of injury, including concussion. It is, therefore ,important that
players are aware of the purpose of head guards and their limitations.

[Which Tyler]

I've also written this on my local club's facebook group:
"Just a word of warning - especially for parents.
There's a new (and terrible) piece of student research on scrum caps that has been gathering press (I've seen it covered by both Sky and BBC).

It is claiming that scrum caps can reduce head impacts, and concussions by up to 50%; it is confirmation bias and fear-mongering in order to sell scrum caps (and beg for research grants from Canterbury).

The research itself admits that almost all the current reseach is that scrum caps make no difference to concussion rates; they also admit that they're measuring about the worst possible metric to say anything about concussion.

This research does not change our knowledge base on the use of scrum caps - they are good at reducing bruising, cuts and abrasions; they only difference they make on concussion is to increase risk-taking behaviours suc as poor tackle technique; and actually slightly increase the rates of concussion.

The best advice is still available here: https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/MyRugby/Education/01/32/50/35/ProtectiveEquipment(RugbySafeEssentialGuide)May2017FINAL_Neutral.pdf"
*Thanks Raggs - editted to include the RFU guide

[Digby]

It's a paper done by a student ....................

'The first award is given to the BMSc student who has written the best scientific research paper submission for the year as per the relevant journal guidelines. The second award is presented to the student who gives the best PowerPoint presentation and designs the best scientific poster.'

The author, young Erin Frizzell, won both awards. Nothing warms the cockles more than a fine PowerPoint presentation.

You say nothing warms the cockles more than a PowerPoint presentation, but you might be saying that unaware she wore a denim jacket whilst going to receive her awards (just to be clear that's not only a denim jacket but also)

Given she's keen on a career in rugby it's not impossible you'll see her in future running out as the team doctor at Twickenham wearing a white tracksuit, then your cockles might be truly toasty

[Galfon]

Most of the juniors here have adopted headgear -
1 notable exception..