There are some questions that professional sportspeople get asked often during the course of their careers.
Many of these questions are mind-numbingly stupid. We might get asked “which of your possessions most accurately defines you” or “Beyonce or Lady Gaga?”
Another familiar line of questioning runs as follows: “Will you encourage your children to follow in your footsteps?” “What advice do you have for youngsters wanting to play professionally?” and “What do you say to parents who don’t want their kids to play rugby?”
My answers to these questions have evolved in step with the increased instances of head injuries in rugby.
The human brain is a truly remarkable organ. Every possible human experience is a product of something your brain is doing. As Professor of Psychology at Harvard University Daniel Gilbert puts it: “the nature of reality is how your brain constructs it. And the slightest change in how your brain works can make a great change in the reality around you.”
We are our brains, and therefore any endeavour that places our brain at risk is best avoided. When one considers the chance of repeated brain injury inherent in rugby the sport must surely rank highly on the list of idiotic pastimes.
Rugby players are modern day gladiators, and like gladiators we’re in the entertainment industry, pandering to the crowd’s primal fascination with human struggle and triumph.
Blood, sweat and tears are the fruits of a great contest, It is visceral passion and meaning that transform a dismal example of ‘kickball’ into an utterly absorbing game of rugby.
The problem with passion and meaning in the context of rugby is that they equal injury – sometimes very serious injury.
The British and Irish Lions Test series has produced a raft of nasty concussions and one serious neck injury. The game is clearly physical enough without foul play.
Which brings me to James Horwill and what I’ve learnt from his citing debacle:
I usually have little use for the word clusterf–k, and yet I am entirely unable to find a substitute that accurately conveys the state of foul play citings in rugby union.
While I don’t have any reason to think Horwill’s stomp was, intentional it was certainly dangerous, and he will do very well to avoid a ban of some sort. Horwill being a good captain and a quality bloke, and the rarity and prestige of this Lions tour deserve no place in this discourse.
Should children get involved in a sport that might someday result in them catching a boot full of studs in the face, all because a 120kg giant couldn’t balance himself? Not really. And if my as yet unborn kids ask me if they can play rugby the conversation will go something like this:
Bonesaw: “Dad, I want to play rugby.”
Me: “You can play rugby after you complete a thousand-word essay on the risk of brain injury in rugby union. If after that you still want to play you must interview 10 individuals suffering from brain injury to gain first hand knowledge of their conditions.”
If after all that the lad is still keen on rugby I will slap little Bonesaw across the head with my signed Lady Gaga CD and send him off to training.
Bunyip (the other one)
Guest
No disrespect taken and yes I have read research about repeated concussions, mainly in regards to NFL players. Elisha rugby is safe I have played it since I was 14 and I am still playing at 31, I played league at the same time as well and I have never been concussed. I am not advocating that people with a history of concussions in rugby are not at risk or people who are concussed during a game being allowed to continue to play - I am simply stating that I the game is physical and there is a chance you can get concussed - that chance exists in most sports - what I am saying is we should the risk is there agreed but we should not scare people into thinking that by playing rugby they WILL eventually end up with brain damage rather due to concussions, people need to know the ways that rugby helps minimise the risk and the teach the techniques that avoid players putting themselves at greater risk, as stated for every Berrick Barnes with a history of bad concussions there are more who have never had an issue.
mania
Guest
Jameswm - i agree. i joked before my kids were born that i'd be happy if they brought home, the webEllis, a superbowl ring and a docterate. now i just want them to be safe, happy and healthy. ps - BBA thanx for your kind words and i fully agree. sorry i thought i'd already answered you
SandBox
Guest
Dirk Diggler? Stirling Mortlock made #4 on the first hit if you google: manly names. Movie title: the wRath of the Bonesaw
jeznez
Roar Guru
Then that would be a great thing but comments from the likes of Mania, other posters and evidence coming out of the US suggest that the grid iron helmet which is heavily engineered isn't getting the job done. I would argue that if grid iron cannot solve it through protective headwear that Union has a lesser chance of solving as the headgear will need to remain fairly minimal to support scrummaging, rucking, mauling etc.
But what if it didn't do jack, but was actually engineered to help?
jeznez
Roar Guru
Spot on Mania, headgear does jack. Mouth guards are there to protect your brain by absorbing otherwise concussive forces.
Billy Bob
Guest
And Clyde referring to 'gladiators' is fine? Rugby is ritualized battle. I have made many poor choices of words but in this instance I am merely descriptive. Rugby is a physical battle. I don't get the confusion
Jameswm
Guest
Interesting Mania. I've got a 13yo who still loves rugby first. He loves the team aspect the most I think. His only other sport he plays now is athletics, after many others growing up. He's good at music too, and his violin teacher just flips out about the rugby. The bloke knows all the research on head injuries having studied and taught in the USA. My 8yo dropped rugby last year when it got to tackle. He just started soccer this year and loves it. It's a relief. My daughter in between loves her soccer too. The oldest dreams of Wallabies first and Olympics second for now. I love my rugby but I really worry. A happy and healthy life is more important.
carnivean
Roar Rookie
You might be interested to read up on the evolution of head gear in the NFL/American Football history. The current design didn't lob into existence fully formed. They had a concussion problem and started with leather caps and it escalated into an arms race. That's not what we want from Rugby Union. We want proper tackling techniques, and proper care for the concussed. It think they're on the right track, but we need to continue the research into properly understanding the long term impact of minor traumas on the brain and what can be done to heal them over time.
mania
Guest
to quote myself "when we turned up at the beginning of the season there was no under 6′s or 7′s."
mania
Guest
to quote myself "when we turned up at the beginning of the season there was no under 6′s or 7′s."
AndyS
Guest
Perhaps, but the reality is that most concussions and head injuries would come from head clashes and poor tackles (a la Leali'ifano). How does the judiciary go about rubbing that out of the game?
AndyS
Guest
No, soccer and touch are games where people pass and kick a ball around. Rugby may not be literally war, but it is unquestionably very physical, per this...http://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-06-12/russian-police-mistake-rugby-match-for-brawl/1776100.
Lloyd
Guest
And once can be more than enough with a car
fredstone
Guest
Yes, that's why no springboks were banned on their eoyt... But then again in 1956 the NZ rugby union picked Kevin Skinner (NZ hevyweight boxing champ)to soften up the boks, so that type of institutionalised consent of unerhanded tactics must say something about the attitude of a nations psyche...
Minz
Guest
So take an aussie rules-like approach? I totally agree. It's where the NHL in the US is going wrong - they say they're cracking down on dangerous play and then don't suspend a player who, for example, elbows another player in the head deliberately, because the player who was elbowed isn't seriously injured (this happened last season). Talk and action need to align, and by suspending for accidental contact, you put the onus on players to take more care. On the other hand, I'm not sure how you eliminate players deliberately ducking into tackles for penalties as they do in the AFL... maybe the increased tackling force in the rugby sports is a disincentive?
Minz
Guest
League crowds have never been particularly large - it's just obvious now because they tend to play in larger stadia rather than the little suburban grounds they used traditionally. I suspect it's because league is very 2-dimensional and so just doesn't look that good live- you get a much better view on TV. More 3-dimensional sports like rugby or aussie rules look better live.
Minz
Guest
My concern is the confusion between toughness and dirty play. I'm all for being tough, but it doesn't involve stomping on people in rucks, headbutting, shoulder-charging or otherwise going out to hurt your opponent outside of the rules of the game. In fact, it's trying to hurt the opponent in an underhanded way that is soft, because a player's way of acknowledging that they're not tough enough to compete on a fair playing field. Playing by the rules is tough.
Minz
Guest
As a woman who played a decade of rugby, I wouldn't be so sure :)
fredstone
Guest
Biltong I think you are missing the point. The ethos of rugby, which the irb and the various affiliated bodies and associations are the custodians of, emphasises respect, loyalty, honesty, etc. Yet the irb does not extend the same coutesy to all the players. Some players are obviously more equal than other players, especially when on a Lions tour. To give players head gear would not adress the underlying discrimination of the irb by not allowing the standardisation of citation protocols. But more than this the citing officials are extremely lazy in citing incidents that are potentially much more dangerous than a spear or a finger up the nostril because these incidents are not on anybody's pr radar. Look at the Brussouw incident and Aplon's subsequent shenanigans on Eberson's head and don't tell me that it didn't at least deserve a citation. The week prior Francois Louw left the field with a cut after the boot of the Samoan scrumhalve looked like it came into potential contact with his head. There should have at least been a citing for both these instances if viewed in relation to the Horwill incident. I have not seen the incident that occured in the 'tahs lions match but from all accounts this too warranted at least a citation. Then there's the issue of lay off periods for serious head knocks. Yes they've brought this whole in game assesment period for a player that has received a serious head knock into the game, but after the whole Lealifano issue that just looks like another pr stunt. There should be a mandatory lay off period. The guy was clearly unconcious, and there was no chance he wasn't going to play if allowed...