A blow for Rugby Union....

[Fab Foodie]

Next we will have boxers taking action against their sporting body. The risks of brain damage through any contact sport is obvious at the outset. After getting clattered a couple of times at rugby, it is even more obvious. These guys had the opportunity to hang their boots up at any stage and walk away and chose not not to. At what stage do they take responsibility for their own actions and stop trying to blame someone else.

Brain damage has long been known in boxing, so if you’re boxing now the risk is clear.
In Football and Rugby it’s a pretty new phenomena, and in Rugby Union it would appear the effects visible at a much younger age and potentially in higher numbers and seem to correlate with the rise of the professional game. So it’s probably change in the nature of Rugby which is potentially the cause of the ‘New’ injuries.
Now, there are lots of caveats there, but in simple terms this is a new thing and whether the RFU had a duty of care will be seen in the courts. I think ‘blame culture’ is unfair, much H&S law came about through cases being brought by employees against employers.

In any case (and this is the point of the thread), knowing what we now know, what is to be done?

 

[Rocky]

Back when Steve Thompson was winning the World Cup, I don’t think we knew the extent of the dangers of concussion on early onset dementia. Just as we didn’t realise the problems caused by heading the ball. We do now.....and the least the games’ lawmakers can do is to take the threat seriously. F1 used to be a lethal sport but it has changed massively over the last 25 years.

 

[winjim]

I can't see the problem when someone is injured whilst participate willingly in a dangerous sport.
I road raced motorcycles up to international level for the best part of 20 years. You don't ever start a TT race without the knowledge that a simple error, or mechanical failure, could kill you (or worse), yet you still go down Bray Hill at 140mph + when the flag drops.
I would suggest that the majority of people, who rail against dangerous sports, have no capacity to understand the mindset of those who partake of them.

That's why they need protecting from themselves.

 

[Deleted member 1258]

I mean it reinforces my point really. H&S in the workplace was lax, so we did something about it. The poster I was responding to seemed to think we are fine with poor H&S at work. We are not.

Well, we might be by the end of the month...

It's still is lax in places, there are firms who are still operating today with little or no regard to health and safety, often the managers in these places are only interested in the product going out the door on time and have no concern about how that was achieved, and if someone on the shop floor kicks off about it they're shown the door. I agree with you that its wrong and needs sorting, but unless someone steps forward and takes action to alert the health and safety people its not going to happen, and most people aren't going to take action because at the end of the day they need the job.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I can't see the problem when someone is injured whilst participate willingly in a dangerous sport.
I road raced motorcycles up to international level for the best part of 20 years. You don't ever start a TT race without the knowledge that a simple error, or mechanical failure, could kill you (or worse), yet you still go down Bray Hill at 140mph + when the flag drops.
I would suggest that the majority of people, who rail against dangerous sports, have no capacity to understand the mindset of those who partake of them.

I think @Brompton Bruce has this covered.
There is risk in all activities. In high risk sports these are known and understood AND the organising bodies play a role where possible in mitigating some of those risks. There is a very good documentary about the origins and rise of driver safety in F1 racing.
Again with caveats, early onset dementia is only just being recognised as a significant risk in professional Rugby - this is a departure from previous norms in the game.
So it’s a watershed moment.
Either we accept its an acceptable risk as we do in TT racing, mountain climbing and other sports and pastimes or we need to make changes. The question is what exactly?

 

[steveindenmark]

Brain damage has long been known in boxing, so if you’re boxing now the risk is clear.
In Football and Rugby it’s a pretty new phenomena, and in Rugby Union it would appear the effects visible at a much younger age and potentially in higher numbers and seem to correlate with the rise of the professional game. So it’s probably change in the nature of Rugby which is potentially the cause of the ‘New’ injuries.
Now, there are lots of caveats there, but in simple terms this is a new thing and whether the RFU had a duty of care will be seen in the courts. I think ‘blame culture’ is unfair, much H&S law came about through cases being brought by employees against employers.

In any case (and this is the point of the thread), knowing what we now know, what is to be done?

As you say, the dangers have been known in boxing for many years. It can be no surprise to anyone that has played rugby that sustained bangs to the head that you receive, will do you no good, long term. I boxed from the age of 7 until I was 23 and I played both codes of rugby from the age of 7 until I was 30. I had far worse bangs to the head in rugby then I did in boxing. If either sport was going to do me serious damage it was certainly going to be rugby.

It will be interesting to see what the courts decide.

 

[matticus]

Well done @Fab Foodie : i think you've asked a question that we could argue till the end of time! (or we all develop dementia ... )

I can definitely see both sides of this; it seems immoral to not take "reasonable"* measures to reduce injuries - and yet we're talking about well-paid professionals who know it's a violent sport.

*Reasonable: that's a tricky one, isn't it? But it is a word used throughout UK law, and is commonplace in workplace risk assesment: https://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/alarp.htm

"ALARP" is short for "as low as reasonably practicable". Reasonably practicable involves weighing a risk against the trouble, time and money needed to control it

 

[Dirk]

I think @Brompton Bruce has this covered.
There is risk in all activities. In high risk sports these are known and understood AND the organising bodies play a role where possible in mitigating some of those risks. There is a very good documentary about the origins and rise of driver safety in F1 racing.
Again with caveats, early onset dementia is only just being recognised as a significant risk in professional Rugby - this is a departure from previous norms in the game.
So it’s a watershed moment.
Either we accept its an acceptable risk as we do in TT racing, mountain climbing and other sports and pastimes or we need to make changes. The question is what exactly?

I'm not against regulations to minimise the effects of dangerous sports; but, at some point it must be accepted that it's impossible to completely eliminate them - which would appear to be the aim of some folk. Some sports are inherently dangerous - that's the attraction of them.

 

[oldworld]

I love to watch rugby but the size, power and speed of today's players must mean more injuries.
It's a contact sport and dangerous but it'd be a shame if players had to dress up in kit like Gridiron football.

 

[Fab Foodie]

I'm not against regulations to minimise the effects of dangerous sports; but, at some point it must be accepted that it's impossible to completely eliminate them - which would appear to be the aim of some folk. Some sports are inherently dangerous - that's the attraction of them.

I’d agree.
The question is whether Rugby Union is now such a sport?
If it is, should we be playing it in school?

 

[Fab Foodie]

I love to watch rugby but the size, power and speed of today's players must mean more injuries.
It's a contact sport and dangerous but it'd be a shame if players had to dress up in kit like Gridiron football.

Actually, this issue arose in Gridiron football before Rugby. There is a school of thought/evidence that the safety equipment allows higher impacts which cause more brain injuries.

 

[matticus]

Yeah, for a few years the experts have been saying that helmets have done no good in Gridiron: see also taking head-guards away from olympic boxers.

 

[Dirk]

Either we accept its an acceptable risk as we do in TT racing, mountain climbing and other sports and pastimes or we need to make changes. The question is what exactly?

Which begs the question - who deems what is an 'acceptable' risk. Someone with good intentions, or the participants themselves?

 

[Fab Foodie]

Which begs the question - who deems what is an 'acceptable' risk. Someone with good intentions, or the participants themselves?

Indeed. It also matters who is employed by whom to do what, and what is a 'reasonable' duty of care?

 

[cisamcgu]

I played a bit myself up until I joined the army. Unlike soccer, you know full well its a full contact physical sport, and that such physical contact can cause injury, and occasionally even death, and you start each game with this knowledge. If people don't like living with the consequences of their own choices then I hardly see thats the fault of World Rugby.

I don't nevessarily think the power of the players has changed all that much. Even age 20 I was bigger than heavier than the average Lions player is in 2020. I'd say they're probably fitter and better conditioned than they were then, but kinetic energy hasn't changed much in between times.

Was this after you got close to a 4 minute mile ?