NRL rocked by concussion-related brain disease discovery in former players

the amount of ex league players with damaged larynx from high tackles always amazes me. still see to many high tackles go unpunished.

Funny you responded this morning we have a bloke off work today. Split lip 3 stitches which has re-split and needs restitched. Playing Soccer :) His injuries over the last 3 years, Severe concussion, Broken Ribs, Broken Arm, dislocated shoulder. All playing soccer :) You do make a very valid point. How do you have a even handed open discussion whilst keeping out the "interested" parties with an agenda to push.

The key is to have open and even handed commentary. I'm an AFL person first - however - I could see some in the media happy to shine the spotlight on the Rugby codes to distract attention away from....the potential risk around headers in soccer for example. That's a narrative that hasn't been taken up greatly. The notion that soccer is 'safer' is somewhat of a fallacy. It's a bit different but gee - - you would seriously not design a game with current knowledge that involved using the head to whack the ball.

I see my conclusions have now been backed up in the Sydney Herald in Roy Masters article. "Furthermore, he argues that the neuropathological findings of CTE are not confirmed. He cites several reports, including Australian studies, that say the current pathological findings of CTE mimic other neurodegenerative diseases, as well as ageing, meaning the diagnosis is doubtful." Exactly what I said at the top of this page. No one can prove playing rugby league was to blame.

The evidence is saying that wearing headgear is of no value to stopping concussion type of injuries.....The Brain still rolls around and ends up just as bruised with or without headgear on.....

The offical classification of CTE is new however it’s been known for a long time that repeated head injuries degenerate the brain. In any other worksite when there’s a risk or hazard an analysis is done to give directions on how to correctly undertake a task. If you come to harm not adhering to the guidelines the responsibility lies with you. People play contact sport because there’s a thrill that comes with doing something dangerous. Get players to sign a waiver. Also surely the UFC is in a world of trouble with the encouraged pummeling someone on the ground. Why aren’t they freaking out?

Agree with you Haskins. The rule changes have not helped. The ten metre rule should never have been implemented and was done so because of the coaches. The collisions are far worse under this metre rule. Thankfully, gone are the days of the coathanger but still high tackles are rampant with the aim of stopping offloads, players go higher and those coming in second and third normally go higher again so as not to put a player on the ground before the defence is set. Referees need to ping high tackles not turn a blind eye to them.

Both League and Union also have major issue in that players are 10-15% heavier than 20 years ago faster and stronger. So every tackle is a major impact in the modern game.

Surely still worth trying. And if the rules don't fundamentally change the game what is the harm other than upsetting a few old crustys who don't realise the game will always change with or without rules changes

Maybe it is as simply as getting players to sign a non fault clause. The game has responsibility around the rules it puts in place and the protocols to address the injury when it happens but at the end of the day if you play either code of Rugby you are going to get knocked around simply by the nature of the sport. Players either accept this or not play the game.

Aside from mandating head gear as a standard I don't see (but open too) what else can be done. We are not going to start wearing NFL helmets. It's a disease that comes on years after the the fact so a study on whether head gear provides any real protection could take decades. Then the person has to be considered, are they more susceptible and why? Is it positional: Prop or Winger, was it a Roberts v Jack dust up (thx Matt for R-eminding me) that triggered it. Like I said, I have no doubt League like most contact sports have a direct contribution to CTE but the variables are so great, it's hard to make a policy that can protect the player from contracting it and NRL from getting sued because of it. .

I suppose the hope for the Rugby codes was that NFL (where most study has taken place) is different. Having worn helmets for 100+ years, they've developed techniques where they actively use their head in contact far more than our codes do. I read a report saying that linesmen could take up to 50 significant head knocks in a single game. Not necessarily hits big enough to cause them to blackout but that's not really the point, it's the repeated hits, the bruising on top of bruising that the docs reckon cause the problem. Early indicators say that perhaps it's not. Although a sample size of 2 players, of unknown age and background (i.e. were they only tested because it was suspected they had brain injury) doesn't really tell us much about whether the steps the NRL are currently taking are effective or not.

Years ago - Essendons Paul Van Der Haar in 1989 in the finals got off at the tribunal with a defence of being concussed and not fully in control of his actions. As it turned out - the concussion was bad enough that he missed the next week (they got smashed in the Prelim final) and his season thankfully was over - - but just how well he managed the 'injury' is another question as Mad Monday would have kicked in. That though made it clear that concussion was a dangerous thing - if only that a concussed player shouldn't be let back on with a license to clobber people and get off at the tribunal!!!

Not many of the articles yesterday/today mention this - but yesterdays Age did: "The only known risk factor for CTE is repetitive head injuries, in the form of concussion, and less dramatic blows, known as sub-concussive impacts, that do not cause obvious signs or symptoms – such as being knocked out." The Washington Post is currently running an article about a couple of the US Womens WC team (the successful '99 side) are taking part in a soccer related CTE investigation. The AFL has worked hard on reducing and managing head knocks - however - the massive irony is that the 'improved' ground surfaces (i.e. great drainage, no muddy center wicket areas etc) have become so firm (and hard in the cases of fields built over the concrete roof of 'underground' carparks) that there are more concussions from head - ground contact than from player to player contact. This is where in AFL the 'dangerous/sling tackle' is a major concern. Clearly soccer has to work out whether or not to close the rule loophole that allows headers - noting that headers were never part of the design of the game; not using hands was and headers were a loophole.

As opposed the BILLIONS made by those opposing the science. ??!!

Depends on how many people you want playing league in the future. Parents will very quickly chose other sports for their kids if they believe long term damage can be the consequence.

You are completely right Nat, and I think if you talked to the scientists involved their response would be this requires further research. What does make it compelling is when added to the growing body of global research showing repetitive head injuries cause this disease. Do you ignore it and wait until the evidence is 100% potential risking another generation of players or look at some sensible changes now?

The micro concussions is also an interesting area of research, Football (Soccer) has a problem with players showing similar injuries due to repetitive headers in training.

The other really crucial outcome from that trial was an increase in concussions, in particular close to the ruck where attacking players would drive low into a tackle. Causing the tackler to clash head on hip/knee as apposed to the old style ball and all tackle. The called the trial to an end early because of it. That scenario is actually the most related able to league where a true head on type tackle is made, which are less common in Union. "Data from 36 matches in November and December showed a 41 per cent decrease in tackles making contact with the head or neck of an upright ball-carrier, but the concussion risk increased when both ball-carrier and tackler were bent at the waist." France is now trailing a ban on 2 man tackles in some of their junior comps. The idea being it will force more players into the back field to cover an increase in broken tackles. Reducing the defensive line and therefore less head on tackles.

Completely right about the lawsuits, Jacko. In the NFL, I think they've set aside $1 billion for anticipated legal action over the same problem, so the NRL better do something similar.