CONCUSSION
Burger: dubious
By PG Tips
August 9 2021
Dangerous tackle protocols to address concussion in the game severely disrupted many matches last season. The impact of concern over concussion will not stop there. First, there is the existential threat to the game, or at least the game as we know it, represented by legal action from victims now suffering serious health issues. Second, World Rugby’s proposals to make the game safer suggest radical changes may be imposed to manage the risk. Will the game be unrecognisable as a result and will the changes work?
The concussion issue polarises views among the rugby community. Some traditionalists decry clampdowns on dangerous tackles as the game “going soft”, while at the other end of the spectrum, campaigners see changes to the tackle and even the shape of the game as essential for the game’s survival. Any solution that will satisfy the majority of the game’s stakeholders and produce a viable product that is enjoyable to play and watch must clearly understand the root cause before addressing the symptoms.
It is easy to assume that professionalism made greater risk inevitable. After all, players are now, fitter, bigger, faster so collisions will be more damaging. Obvious isn’t it? Not necessarily. While the fitness and conditioning argument is undoubtedly true, that is not unarguably the sole root cause. Players have got bigger, and arguably fitter, throughout the 150 years history of the organised game. Just as significantly, the early years of professionalism brought changes to defensive organisation and tackle technique- many copied from Rugby League. There was also an influx of Pacific Island players (who tackled at sternum or shoulder level) into top level rugby in Europe, New Zealand and Australia. That technique, and the swinging arm tackle, have the advantage of knocking the ball carrier back -often off his feet- as well as checking his momentum – giving an extra edge to the defence in the ensuing contest for the ball. Such tackles, rare in earlier years, became commonplace in the 2000s.
Of those who have given their names to mass legal action against rugby authorities, none played top level rugby much before 2000. So-is it professionalism itself (introduced in 1996) or changes to the game in the professional era that is the culprit? World Rugby, without openly stating so, appears to think it is the latter. While still trialling changes to the height of the tackle, their latest proposals aim to reduce the congestion in the game and the frequency of collisions, while accepting that power in collision is a natural consequence of the sport. Their solution is to manipulate the defence by the 50:22 Law, rewarding a kick to touch from inside a team’s own half that bounces into touch in the opponent’s 22, with an attacking lineout. The idea is to force the back 3 to remain in the back field to cover such kicks, thus reducing the defensive line from 14 players to 11. It may work, but many law changes of the last 20 years have brought unintended consequences, and a law that encourages more kicking risks at least 2. One is making the game less exciting for the spectator by encouraging yet more kicking. The other is placing a premium on 10 man rugby, further incentivising analysts and coaches to find clever ways of employing brutal forward power and territorial kicking to dominate the opposition – to force defensive mistakes for instance or to use that attacking lineout as a launch pad for more driven maul or pick and drive.
At least World Rugby is moving to address congestion, but do these measures go far enough? Why do I mention above the watershed date of 2000? Because before then, defensive lines of 13 or 14 players were rare, as the principal breakdown was a ruck or maul on the feet, with defenders committed to it. Suggest to the likes of Willie John McBride, Wayne Shelford or Martin Johnson that the game is now more brutal than in their day and I doubt they would believe you. Collisions and the contest for the ball were just as intense, but there was more space and collisions were consequently less frequent. Surely the Holy Grail for World Rugby should not be a defensive line of 11 but of 7 (or at most 8/9)? This would afford space to encourage more running rugby, while still offering the option of big forwards as power runners, running at a smaller midfield.
What we currently see, highlighted by contentious refereeing decisions, is inconsistency in application of the tackle protocols and in consequent sanctions for dangerous play. Meanwhile players continue to be concussed or forced to miss matches while following return to play rules and on occasion match results are influenced by loss of players to concussion. While we wait for definitive data to conclude whether changes to the tackle protocol are having an effect perhaps we should listen for the sound of chickens coming home to roost?
Tackles to the neck or head have always been illegal, yet for much of the period 2000-2020 many were ignored. For examples, think of the Tuilagi brothers headhunting Nick Abendanon (1 tackle penalised in some 11 or 12 incidents in a single match), Jacques Burger laying into George Ford and Peter Stringer high and late or Owen Farrell straight-arming Anthony Watson in the 2015 Premiership Final. While Farrell’s tackling technique has frequently been called into question, Burger’s dubious tackling was, rather oddly, idolised by pundits.
Bath had it’s own culprits – think of the tackling of Butch James and Michael Lipman (ironically, one of those proposing to sue the RFU for concussion related dementia). How many of their tackles would have passed today’s more stringent scrutiny?
The whole game has allowed itself to get into a mess over concussion. Players, coaches, lawmakers, referees, pundits, even fans (be honest, do you love a “big hit”?) have all some share of the blame. We should welcome attempts to reduce the risk and make the game safer – for the sake of players at all levels and for the future of the game.
Next week I will look at some possible remedies.
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021:08:16:08:44:08 by P G Tips.
Whatever your view all we can ask for on the field is that tackles that lead to concussion are treated consistently, even if that means retrospective action.
The massive problem has to be the intent of the tackler which can never really be known.
Thing is though even if you had no dangerous tackles at all on the field concussion would still be a part of rugby, from falls, legal tackles and accidents so I think all we can do is minimise. A worrying issue well highlighted by an excellent article, I think this thread will run for some time.
[www.theguardian.com]
The discussion now should be about effectively and accurately informing the players of the risks involved in the sport and obtaining legal waivers if they wish to continue (or start) to play. I understand that this means the likely end of rugby as we have known it, but I cannot see any other way in which the rugby authorities can avoid liability for the brain injuries that are an inevitable outcome of playing rugby as it is currently formulated.
To be clear, this problem is not limited to rugby. It applies to all sports that require high impact collisions with the body or directly to the head as part of their "rules of play".
... IMHO, of course.
Now in Honolulu
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2021:08:09:21:47:23 by joethefanatic.
I believe that one conclusion was that the helmet actually contributed to incidence of concussion.
PG
One might add greater forces applied in the Union scrum too.
The conclusion had to be that the difference was in the tackling.
PG