Too many injuries

Rembrandt

heard something on radiosport the other day where they are trialling some devices to be worn clipped to the head which measure impacts during a game. I reckon the next couple of years will bring up a wealth of advancements in concussion analysis, could revolutionise the game.

Frye

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="576272" data-time="1462153196">
Didn't they establish that headgear doesn't do much in the way of protecting against concussion? Or am I thinking of something else?</blockquote>
Headgear is basically useless in terms of concussion. It's doing nothing to reduce the impact of the brain colliding against the inside of the skull. 
It's good for preventing cuts, grazes and cauliflowers.

Tim

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rembrandt" data-cid="576275" data-time="1462153927">
<div>
heard something on radiosport the other day where they are trialling some devices to be worn clipped to the head which measure impacts during a game. I reckon the next couple of years will bring up a wealth of advancements in concussion analysis, could revolutionise the game.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
There might be a good biomarker for brain injury that can be measured via blood testing by then. Unfortunately it may require up to 24 hours for enough to pass into the blood for reliable measurement.
 
A couple of prospective biomarkers are evaluated here:
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2506517'>http://archneur.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2506517</a>

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rembrandt" data-cid="576275" data-time="1462153927">
<div>
heard something on radiosport the other day where they are trialling some devices to be worn clipped to the head which measure impacts during a game. I reckon the next couple of years will bring up a wealth of advancements in concussion analysis, could revolutionise the game.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It has already been in use.
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/10061693/30k-research-to-understand-concussion-injuries'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/10061693/30k-research-to-understand-concussion-injuries</a>

Tim

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="576292" data-time="1462156620">
It has already been in use. <a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/10061693/30k-research-to-understand-concussion-injuries">http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/10061693/30k-research-to-understand-concussion-injuries</a></blockquote>
 
A tiny $30k pilot study is one thing, clinical validation is quite another.

Rancid Schnitzel

Just regarding kids playing now, I reckon my 10 year old plays in a much safer environment than I did. We used to pack down scrums regardless of who was playing prop. Mouthguards were optional and there was certainly no first aid tent with paramedic on stand by. Rucking was a big part of the game and if someone stood on your head, well your fault for not moving out of the way. The game, at least at kids level, is much much safer.

NTA

What Rancid said is especially true with weight divisions. Big change to safety

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tim" data-cid="576298" data-time="1462157151">
<div>
A tiny $30k pilot study is one thing, clinical validation is quote another.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
That blood test is great for after the fact. The idea with the gadget in the article I linked has an early detection element to it were a coach or team doc can pull a player off the field if their readings show that they should.

Tim

What I was saying is that it will take a lot of time and money to (clinically) validate those accelerometer systems. i.e. having them ready for widespread use rather than just being used in small pilot studies.
 
I agree that they'd be a great device for real time detection, and I hope that their study receives the necessary resources.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="576233" data-time="1462141700">
<div>
Also, I don't really buy the idea that collisions are THAT much greater these days than a decade ago because where's your proof? Season/career ending injuries have been around for forever and in regards to concussions, we only just recently got the wake up call to pay attention to concussions a few years ago, those same players would've been playing the next week if they were playing back then. Just look at Kelleher back in the 2005 Tri-Nations when Matfield concussed the shit out of him, instead of being taken off straight away like he would these days, he went on and played for like another 20 minutes. So while it may LOOK worse, I agree with antipodean that rugby's safer now than it's ever been.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Not a decade ago, but go back to the late-70s when I was playing and the commentators used to carry on about the enormous thighs and power of Bryan Williams. Now he's the size of a moderate halfback.
 
The mighty and feared Pinetree - a 102kg lock - now a lightweight openside flanker. Pinetree was a bit revolutionary in that he and Stan had rigged up a sort of rudimentary gym in their milking shed and did some basic weight training.
 
These days everyone is bigger, stronger and faster. Sure the protocols around protecting the players are much more stringent, but I'm doubtful that it's a safer game to play.
 
In the old days you'd have two 80kg midfielders colliding. Now you've got two 105kg midfielders colliding - and guys who've been spending half the week in the gym.
 
Read those books of TP McLean about the old tours - a few people used to get injured and occasionally even invalided out of the 30 match overseas tours, but it's nothing like what's described in the OP.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="576313" data-time="1462160006">
<div>
Just regarding kids playing now, I reckon my 10 year old plays in a much safer environment than I did. We used to pack down scrums regardless of who was playing prop. Mouthguards were optional and there was certainly no first aid tent with paramedic on stand by. Rucking was a big part of the game and if someone stood on your head, well your fault for not moving out of the way. The game, at least at kids level, is much much safer.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
me and a couple of other dads were discussing this at our boys training tonight, how it was one thing having rucking, but more often it was just a chance to climb all over someone in the ruck back when kids were learning to ruck and be tough in front of thier mates.

TeWaio

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Don Frye" data-cid="576285" data-time="1462155678">
<div>
Headgear is basically useless in terms of concussion. It's doing nothing to reduce the impact of the brain colliding against the inside of the skull. 
It's good for preventing cuts, grazes and cauliflowers.
</div>
</blockquote>

Of course it is. Headgear means lower deceleration: skull starts slowing down from when the foam part initially hits something immovable, and is spread out over longer distance as the foam deforms on impact. So change in velocity happens over a longer time. 
 
Lower deceleration of the skull means lower deceleration of the fluid and brain inside, which means the brain hits the skull with less force, or maybe not at all. 
Think of a car (skull) hitting a wall (opposition 2nd 5's knee) with no crumple zone - the person (brain) inside turns to mush. Same car with a well-engineered crumple zone (headgear); impact between person and front of car is less.

Catogrande

I guess that's true at an absolute level TeWaio but is it actually effective enough to make a difference? I've no idea BTW.
 
One of the things with injuries these days is that, anecdotally anyway, we seem to see a lot more muscular and ligament type injuries. I heard some medico a while back postulating that this is due to the greatly increased weight and muscularity of the players but that this does not translate into significantly stronger joints and ligaments. Sort of, if you've got a guy that is genetically pre-disposed to be 100kg and he bulks up to 120kg, then he's running around with 20% more weight than his joints are genetically designed to carry. Sure, you can build up the muscle around your joints but the actual mechanism itself is not going to be improved. Again I've no idea of the validity of this but it seems logical.

TeWaio

Yeah, finding out the magnitude of difference is what the accelerometer data will show I guess. 
The above comment about head protection making people gung-ho to the point of a net effect of greater danger is a valid one. I read somewhere that ski resorts that made helmets compulsory saw injury rates increase to a statistically significant level after the fact. 
 
You point about more ligament/joint injuries due to higher mass is a good one. In basic physical terms, mass scales with length cubed, while area (i.e. what supports the mass / withstands the forces) scales with length squared. It's the same reason why people over 7.5 feet tall are basically disabled, and why elephants can't jump. You can increase your mass pushing tin, but you can't increase the cross sectional area of your bones/ligaments/joints (just strengthen them, slightly - but not to the same extent as your muscles).

Disgusted of TW

Interesting article from The Guardian re Corbisiero's voluntary sabbatical. 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/may/05/alex-corbisiero-rugby-union-england-lions'>http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/may/05/alex-corbisiero-rugby-union-england-lions</a>

MN5

I remember reading an article earlier this year after Naholo sent that Auckland fullback flying, someone measured the impact as being like being hit by a car. When he marked Jamie Roberts in the midfield the year before it as 125kg against 110kg.....just bloody monsters playing the game nowadays.
 
Kudos to Mike Catt and other comparative midgets at least trying their best to stop Jonah back in the day.
 
TeWaio I agree with some of that but it doesn't explain how short ( and in some cases not particularly stocky ) Olympic weightlifters can snatch ( haha, snatch ) many times their weight overhead. Sure they have the genetics but so much of that is down to training and strengthening those ligaments.

Bones

Naholo? More from the "they all look the same" shelf.

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="578289" data-time="1462770577">
<div>
Naholo? More from the "they all look the same" shelf.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That's an astonishingly astute call first thing in the morning.
 
Naholo has a rats tail, Nadolo has the Peter Garrett look. Both can run fast. Easy mistake to make though.

TeWaio

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="578266" data-time="1462766728">
<div>
I remember reading an article earlier this year after Naholo sent that Auckland fullback flying, someone measured the impact as being like being hit by a car. When he marked Jamie Roberts in the midfield the year before it as 125kg against 110kg.....just bloody monsters playing the game nowadays.
 
Kudos to Mike Catt and other comparative midgets at least trying their best to stop Jonah back in the day.
 
TeWaio I agree with some of that but it doesn't explain how short ( and in some cases not particularly stocky ) Olympic weightlifters can snatch ( haha, snatch ) many times their weight overhead. Sure they have the genetics but so much of that is down to training and strengthening those ligaments.
</div>
</blockquote>

I agree....as I said: 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 
 
bones/ligaments/joints (just strengthen them, slightly - but not to the same extent as your muscles)</blockquote>
 
Olympic weightlifting is a little different as the biomechanics mean the full weight of the bar is only being supported in "strong" positions, i.e. at the end with arms full locked, or in the drive phase where legs/core are pushing the hips forward to get it accelerating upwards, or in the catch where the bar is sitting on the collarbone. So in a successful lift at no point is there huge force on a ligament or joint from a funny angle. Whereas in rugby the force/loading could come from nearly any random direction at any time.

MN5

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="TeWaio" data-cid="578359" data-time="1462781656">
<div>
I agree....as I said: 

 
Olympic weightlifting is a little different as the biomechanics mean the full weight of the bar is only being supported in "strong" positions, i.e. at the end with arms full locked, or in the drive phase where legs/core are pushing the hips forward to get it accelerating upwards, or in the catch where the bar is sitting on the collarbone. So in a successful lift at no point is there huge force on a ligament or joint from a funny angle. Whereas in rugby the force/loading could come from nearly any random direction at any time. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Which I guess explains why broken bones sometimes happens if they fuck up a lift.

The Silver Fern

Too many injuries