Break an ankle, rupture an ACL, dislocate a shoulder and with good medical treatment and the right kind of rehabilitation, a rugby player will eventually be back on the field, little the worse for wear. But that isn’t necessarily so if a player suffers a concussion which, make no mistake, is a brain injury.
Once a player sustains a concussion, he has to cross his fingers that it doesn’t happen again, because if it does, he may be advised to call it a day.
And this kind of injury keeps happening to players at all levels.
Berrick Barnes had to sit in the stands for a while, and now Richie McCaw has had to withdraw from a game citing post-concussion precaution.
Apart from the danger to the players themselves, are we as spectators, to be denied the pleasure of seeing star players perform?
By the time various worldwide comps are completed and the World Cup rolls around, it’s a lottery as to who will be ruled out due to a concussive knock.
Maybe, it’s time the IRB allowed helmets in rugby. But when I make that suggestion, I’m not talking about the kind worn in American football.
I’m talking about the kind worn in ice hockey, which is a much smaller helmet – more of a cap that sits on top of the skull.
There’s been quite a lot of thought put into designing better hockey helmets, particularly in Canada at the University of Ottawa’s impact science lab.
Traditionally, a hockey helmet’s shell is made of vinyl nitrile, a substance that disperses force from the point of contact.
The liner is usually made of expanded polypropylene foam. But a newer design, called a Shock Bonnet, is more flexible, conforms to the wearer’s head, and is separated from the external shell by a set of 18 hollow thermoplastic shock absorbers.
On impact, these absorbers compress to suck up the energy of a hit.
The suggestion of such a helmet for rugby will inevitably introduce the ‘seat belt’ argument.
It was once thought that putting seat-belts in cars would make drivers feel invulnerable and therefore drive recklessly.
But when belts were introduced, it was found that driving patterns didn’t change.
Similarly, introducing hockey-style helmets to rugby wouldn’t result in reckless play because, like Sydney-driving, it’s already on the edge of reckless.
The rugby pick-and-drive is a head-first charge.
But it’s not met head-on, so they’d be no question of a helmet-protected head-to-head contest mainly because rugby players know that that’s a good way to break a neck vertebrae.
A well-designed rugby helmet would protect against the errant knee or elbow in a tackle or at the breakdown.
And those kinds of collisions are becoming more fraught as players get bigger and bulkier.
When you have people like Guthro Steenkamp or Neemia Tialata, both around 1.87m, 127kg, charging into rucks, you don’t want your unprotected head in the way.
However, it must be stated that even the newest and best helmets wouldn’t eliminate rugby concussions.
But neuro-researchers around the rugby-playing world agree that hockey-style shell helmets would certainly reduce their likelihood, and when they did occur, make them less severe.
IronAwe
Roar Rookie
That's not true. Helmets were introduced after a nhumber of deaths occurred. Prior to this, no helmets were worn, and they are now coached to use the helmet as a weapon in tackling.
sheek
Guest
Look, the sentiment is noble but the practicality of it is zero. American/Canadian football is a stop-start affair that makes it easier for the players in that sport to wear helmets. Rugby is a continuous struggle for possession that would make the mandatory wearing of helmets absurd. How far do we go to reduce the potential of injury? It might get to the stage where we all stay indoors all day for fear of someone hurting themselves. Then there are all the things in a home that could cause injury. Nope, the suggestion might be a noble sentiment, but ti's just plain ridiculous.....
zhenry
Guest
Like to know more detail about that study.
Stuart Fazakerley
Roar Rookie
They show the results of studies done regarding injury prevention at ARU SmartRugby sessions. Long story short, helmets (of any kind) guard mainly against cuts and abrasions, and concussion and brain injury will likely still occur to the same extent for people with or without helmets. The only piece of equipment that will result in a noticeable reduction in head and brain injuries is a moulded mouthguard, made by a dentist. Not the off-the-shelf ones, the proper gear. They should be mandatory across all levels of the sport.
rugbyfuture
Roar Guru
They did a study on brain damage and the various football contact sports at USyd I believe, the conclusion was that the helmets actually dmaged the brain more. besides if you introduce helmets, it means everyone has to wear helmets, which aint gonna happen considering most of the plays pointed out where only used by forwards.
allblackfan
Guest
The argument here was that the use of helmets a la NFl led to the `superman effect'; ie because they felt they were invulnerable, they played like it. And so the helmet tackle/charge became an offensive weapon. A lot of NFL commentators have pointed to rugby as an example of why hard-shell helmets should be outlawed. Because rugby players' heads are not protected as such, players don't use their heads as weapons and so the incidence of cncussion-related injuries (long-term) is much less. TPN is another example; if he continues to tackle like he does, he will be forced to retire from the game early.
brotown
Guest
i for one would be interested if just even as a trial this took place e.g whack some helmets on two park footy teams and see what happens. Definately woth more investigation I believe. Great article.
sky
Guest
Adam, I grew up playing linebacker in football and switched to rugby at 16. The hardest thing to do is learn to tackle with your head on the other side of the ball carrier. Football teaches to put your helmet across the body. Never fails, I get kneed in the head once a game. Old habits die hard. O
The Cattery
Roar Guru
I thought the literature showed that once you mandate helmets, they start to be used as weapons themselves. I'm not sure the seat belt analogy applies here.
vaguely
Roar Pro
From an unrelated story about American Football: 'An average of 64,000 high school football players suffered concussions each school year from 2005 through 2008'. Obviously having a hard helmet doesn't stop concussion, ask Dave Duerson. Oh, wait, you can't. Yeah, helmets didn't help him, either.
bjornthor
Guest
Ice hockey is played on ice. Gridiron is often on astroturf (i think) above concrete (i think). In these cases, helmets are effective in protecting the brain from the direct trauma of the head hitting an unforgiving surface. Direct trauma directly damages the skull and sends a shock wave through the brain tissue causing brain damage. There is another type of trauma though. This is the contracoup injury - the brain (floating in brain fluid) moves with the momentum of the head, when the head stops (at contact), the brain keeps moving in its fluid and smashes into the skull. it literally bounces off the walls of the skull damaging the brain tissue. When you add weight to your head (ie, with a helmet) you increase the momentum of your head, particularly when you fall and your head hits the ground - like when you are tackled. Helmets in this case, increase contracoup injury. So, if a helmet were to be of benefit, we'd need to know if the benefit of reducing trauma from the direct contact shock wave would outweigh the increased trauma from contracoup injury. I don't know what the evidence is, but you cant really compare grid iron and hockey with rugby because they play on much harder surfaces.
Jimbo
Guest
The theory of risk compensation is well established in literature, and I think it would apply here. Simply put, people adjust their behaviour to perceived risk, and hence, will put their heads more in harm's way if they are wearing helmets. This is a possible reason why in American ski resorts at least there has been next to no drop in head injuries despite vastly more skiiers and boarders wearing helmets for example. American Football is particularly relevant here - tacklers often lead with their heads, and as a result we are seeing cases of chronic traumatic encephalopathy in former NFL players, which so far don't seem to have arisen in rugby players to the same extent. The helmet is good at protecting your skull, but it doesn't do a huge amount to stop your brain moving about within the skull, which is what causes brain injury, and is particularly detrimental when you get 2 or more concussions in a short space of time. Also relevant is the point several here have made that it would also require much more padding to protect the rest of the player. All in all, I don't think helmets would aid player safety in rugby. Certainly if hockey - style helmets could be shown to reduce the impact upon the brain rather than the skull they may be worth pursuing, but I am sceptical that this could be done, and additionally that the benefit would overcome the likely change in playing styles helmet use would engender.
zhenry
Guest
These Ice hockey helmets are described here as shock absorbers and not to be confused with grid iron helmets. Sounds like an idea well worth trying.
jeznez
Guest
completely agree regarding scrummaging and for me that is enough said
apaway
Guest
The fact that research has revealed more about the potentially damaging effects of multiple concussions is why I think this idea should be analysed more carefully and not dismissed out of hand. A lot of posters point to "reckless" tackling styles in American Football but then again, helmets have always been part of the uniform so I don't think you can say that the helmets made players more reckless. If an Ice Hockey-style head protection was introduced to rugby I don't think players will see it as a license to disregard tackling technique.
RedsNut
Guest
Perhaps they should all grow afros, like Radike (not sure of the spelling). :) In a report, he claims that in head clash during training, the other guy was KO'd but he was OK
Adam
Guest
I seem to recall an article about American footballers giving rugby league a go and having problems tackling without a helmet on. Watch the NFL and the guys have a tendency to tackle with their heads, even with a helmet you get concussion. Adding helmets and/or pads encourages complacency. With proper control of the ruck in union and shoulder charges in league there is no need for helmets.
Lee
Guest
Here's an article from the states in regards to helmets in NFL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574527881984299454.html
sky
Guest
I've grown up as an American playing rugby, football, and hockey. A hockey helmet (I'm thinking Gretzky era salad bowl helmets) could reduce bumps taken from knees and elbows at the bottom of a ruck but wont help serious, whiplash-inducing hits.
mitzter
Roar Rookie
My problem with the idea will be the pads that will be needed as well- gridiron pads are only there because of the helmets and i can't see scrums getting formed with all that. You dismiss the 'seat belt theory' although gridiron does have bigger hits for this reason and I would have to see a BIG difference between gridiron's concussion rates and modern rugby before being considered and I don't see you getting that evidence