I've been caring my mother for the last 10 years who has dementia, not Rugby related she's 86 now but I remember the onset kicking in and it was very hard in the beginning but what I will say is every person who do get it, it will affect everyone in different ways and the progression can be slow or it can be advanced quite quickly and in that case once their intelligence is gone tough decisions will have to be made.
I think head guards have to be enforced at younger levels of rugby if those children carry on playing and whether at a professional level or not, they should be allowed to make a decision on if they want to continue wearing a head guard or not. Personally, I think if we implement this early on it will become part of your kit, after all, they made children wear gumshields mandatory to take part in a game or training. As a coach, I tried to enforce gumshield, body padding, and shin guards for the front row even during training. I think we have to be rigorous with this at a younger age then as they get older, particularly with head guards, let them make the decision at an older age. On top of that as part of the coaching qualification, educate the coaches so they can then educate their teams so when the player gets to a certain age he/she is fully informed of the impact of not wearing a certain part of the body protection. When I started playing rugby everything was up to the player, initially wearing a gumshield at a teenager level, was uncomfortable and I thought it affected my game, but with time I got used to it. The earlier these protective bits of kit are introduced, they will become a natural part of playing rugby. I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that New Zealand trialed a weight restriction at junior rugby? but I cannot remember where that went as far as information on the impact of playing or injuries. That would be interesting to find out the de-brief on the weight restriction rules and what the conclusion was?
@@marcofk I understand your concerns particularly regarding your son, but let me ask you something do you know where he is at all times and what he gets up to, what I'm trying to say is there is risk in all walks of life. In sport all we can do is try to control and mitigate head collisions, football is now under scrutiny for the heading of the ball!!! you will not be able to have as many substitutes as you suggest clubs don't have the money and many at the lower end cannot field 30 players every weekend. Rugby will get through this I think the ruck has to have better controls whether that be a limit to no's at the breakdown? as far as tackles, that's a different problem, as you may line up the ball carrier for a perfect tackle but he sidesteps or drops his shoulder into the contact, you chasing across the park desperate to stop a try your head is on the wrong side for a good technical tackle do you do it? I've been there trust me you do it. If you are that fearful of the longterm impact playing rugby may have on your son perhaps you need to speak to him, I would advise caution there because if you stop him from playing he will find another way, and perhaps worst-case scenario, he may play where the controls are not in place. good luck but you have to talk to your son and trust in HIS answer whether it's not what YOU want to hear.
I can understand why these former players are filing lawsuits it's to secure their future but I'm afraid these players must have known the risks they were taking. Head trauma was an issue in NFL for years and these players would have been aware of it and I'm sure they were but it's a case of thinking it won't happen to me. The RFU should though have taken these decades old warnings onboard but they didn't because just like the players they didnt want to acknowledge it.
To some extent but it actually comes down to the coaching of the national teams and rugby board negligence in relation to player welfare re head injuries.
tony james, once one is part of professional "sport" every underlying factor is about money. The NFL owners denied and fought for years before being forced to admit responsibility. Hardly surprising since having revenues in the 15 billion dollar a year range the NFL has an "arrangement" where it is not liable for any tax on the revenue. Very nice for the owners and the CEO whose salary a few years ago was 35 million USD per annum.
They didn't know the risks they were taking, that's the point. More to the point, if a player is knocked out they shouldn't be making the decision to play on themselves.
@@mollers92 Ex England international Matt Dawson said the following: 'This is a conversation that has been going on for decades. You say tip of the iceberg, everybody knows from pre-my era what the game was all about, how physical it was, what sort of contact and training we were involved in, it was absolutely inevitable'. He stated he knew the risks and no one else is to blame, it does beg the question will players today take onboard these issues and if they carry on playing accept any future issues are down to them?
Yes, it is time for the rugby authorities to focus further on rules reform and refine their efforts to make rugby union safer. For example, have they asked themselves have the modern stream-lined, skin-tight jerseys made the game safer or not? Why not make scrum caps mandatory? How about a bonus system for tackles at waist height or lower? Have they considered weight equalisation and weight limitation to minimise the occasions when players of unequal weight and strength come into contact? With that in mind why not introduce a middle-weight conpetition e.g. or some sort of limitation for backs and forwards?
The inetria in a child's brain is far less than an adults, i.e it moves around far more in their heads. So frankly any significant contact for a child even if the contact is not as forceful is still quite damaging. When we take in to account how fragile, and developing their brains are the damage can be horrendous. At the very least, we should make contact for children illegal till they're far older than is currently the norm.
i dont think there is a way to save contact rugby. research shows subconcussive hits again and again (ie normal tackles) cause CTE. i wouldnt play again if i could go back
As far as I am aware, there are no accounts of players who played for club and country, say back in Jack Kyle's day, having developed early-onset dementia as a result of having played the sport at the highest level. So what's changed? Well in the professional era, the overall trajectory rugby union has taken seems to be moving ever-increasingly toward an emphasis on size and brute force. The impact aspect of the sport has been pushed to the fore and the skill aspect seems to play second fiddle. Perhaps they need to look back in order to find the way forward. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing RU move away from an emphasis on force and more toward an emphasis on flair.
Ciaran, that's exactly the problem, the players have become so massive that the impacts are having long term effects. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to instate weight caps per position on the field. Obviously cannot be achieved over night but we could aim for progressively decrease the sizes of the players. Surely this would improve the situation.
You can argue that the detection of Dementia has become more advanced than in the early years of collision sports, but nobody can argue that players are far bigger and much more athletic than back then. It would be as difficult as trying to detect dementia in boxers today in comparison to years back we did not identify the diagnosis as far as we did not understand the cause. You could go down the weight argument similar to boxing, where teams of a certain weight competed against similar teams? at least the forwards then, can get the glory of scoring 80 metre tries for real? lol
Yet you still have ex pros with their games gone soft view point on headshot red cards!! .......as an underage rugby coach I’m glad of the protocols in place in regards concussions and return to play and would welcome any more protocols introduced
@@decko20009 very true!!clubs shouldn’t be allowing “coaches” out on the pitch until relevant training courses are done, unfortunately there’s a “win at all costs” attitude around
They can argue all day about the sport going 'soft', but the fact is that schools rugby players are tackling harder now than old professional players. It's a different game now.
@@robertpirsig5011 That's probably true to some extent...all the more reason they need to be properly cared for by coaches who are educated and aware and are not solely driven by winning.
In fairness Ireland were late to embrace professionalism, England won that world cup because they embraced it . ROG said the condition of the England players on the 2001 lions tour made him think do we play the same sport . There was an expectancy on England to win the world cup in the event of professionalism. I'd say the players were flogged to achieve it
You’re being slightly disingenuous. That England team was unbelievably talented and was stacked full of some of the greatest players to grace a rugby field. You can embrace professionalism all you like, but you need the players and boy did they have lots of them… this was a team with Dallaglio, Robinson, Wilkinson, Back, Lewsey, Johnson, Hill, Woodman, Greenwood….and lest we forget, Thompson . You are talking about one of the great, great teams. Yes they embraced professionalism, but that’s the game right?
@@jupitorious7925 Four World Cup finals though. Would rather have their run of success at WC than ours. How would you describe Irelands abject WC failure?
Anyone who played rugby at a reasonable level in the last 30 years will remember how little was actually known about the long term effects of head impacts in rugby. We played for the love of the game not because we had done a risk review. For those commenting on how these players should take responsibility for their own actions you have obviously not listened to the interviews or have not an ounce of empathy in their hearts. The governing unions do not have player welfare as their highest priority and nothing will change unless this sort of action is taken. The players are the Golden Geese and these geese are going to be crippled by middle age. I have loved rugby for 40 years but will not continue to watch or support it if the result is crippling the players.
For everyone bashing the players who see issue, ask yourself this, would you allow your own child to play the way its being played at the moment? I love rugby, but I think the game has become less about skill and more about power and performance and out muscling teams. It of course is the natural progression. But I think if the players somehow were able to focus less on the gym and size, we may not have as big an issue. But if course how can this be enforced. Maybe the IRB should cap players weights in different positions. This would probably see a reduction in players trying to become juggernauts and trying to make the weight they are supposed to. And we all know that if our mass on impact is lower we will see a reduction of force in the tackle. This could make a big difference.
@englishmanspeaks I hate when somebody who has never played or experienced anything they comment on! they feel they have the right to comment in the first place! grow up get a life and experience things that put you into an uncomfortable position. You will learn a lot about who you are and life as a whole.
@@marcofk I DON'T THINK THE GAME WILL DIE AS HEAD INJURIES HAS BEEN A PROMINENT issue in boxing for many years. they are saying it is a size or a weight issue that causes head collision more serious injuries, if so then maybe instead of teams playing in leagues we look at teams playing to weight separations. however rugby teams struggle financially, some more than others granted, so how could teams compete if weight rules came in? I think rucks need to be limited to how many can compete after a tackle may be one way of controlling that aspect but how do you stop bad technique at a tackle? to be practical Those 2 areas are where most un-controlled collisions happen the tackle and the ruck, the ruck can be limited,but the initial tackle is a little more difficult.
@@marcofk you have never really played a competitive team sport and to use all the cliches of what sort of people play rugby or participate in combat sport I think shows ur inability to comment on such things
Law suits being filled from players who have played since kids know that you can hurt or broken bones but now after there retired and skint want to sue the sport who gave you a living and some think that you love to do it it's just madness
Im unaware if there's a pension scheme with ex-professional players or some sort of life insurance that could financially help these guys out? If not then it's understandable some of them need to take the court route as they're unable to work. To follow on with some of Keith's points about reducing the size of players (to last more minutes), I would increase the PED checks on these guys. I have no figures to detail steroid and other substance use within the sport but judging by the sheer size and weight of these guys it seems quite prevalent. Stamp that out and it would reduce the size and ultimately the force on impact. I love the sport but the toll it takes on the body (physical and mental) can't be overlooked. However, I do agree that if you play the sport you accept a certain level of risk right off the bat. The interesting thing for me is where the compromise will be between protecting the players and protecting the sport.
No and in fact some people believe it can actually make the impacts worse. Even if you wear a helmet, while this protects the skull from fracturing on impact, the brain still moves about at force in its cranial fluid. I tend to agree that helmets actually make brain damage worse as players tackle using there heads thinking they are protected by the helmet. Rugby players are more cautious because of head clashing. Still a big problem though.
We need a change in the laws to make Hits illegal and to prevent players being lined up for hits. Substitutions need to be limited to prevent the use of IMPACT players. We all know what we mean by that. Until former players with dementia successfully sue the clubs and the RFU I don't see much changing. But I like hits and I like to see players getting flattened. Then watch boxing. Actually Rugby has a bigger problem than sports like Judo.
It's going down the rugby league route i think.. And it is.. I played rugby in the 80s and 90s and the clashes were pretty intense i can only imagine what it's like in professional rugby..
You can argue that the detection of Dementia has become more advanced than in the early years of collision sports, but nobody can argue that players are far bigger and much more athletic than back then. It would be as difficult as trying to detect dementia in boxers today in comparison to years back we did not identify the diagnosis as far as we did not understand the cause. You could go down the weight argument similar to boxing, where teams of a certain weight competed against similar teams? at least the forwards then, can get the glory of scoring 80 metre tries for real? lol
Flood gates could open. Thompson and all could bankrupt the sport in already challenging times. If they really cared about improving rugby they can do that without going to the courts. Not to mention more parents will guide their kids away from sport to the couch.
Ya, because keeping this "out of sight, out of mind" should be their primary concern, when they're getting diagnosed with dementia in their early forties; helping to keep this quiet is exactly what's *not* needed here - wind your neck in, you total clown!
I played rugby for years. Can you honestly say you were forced to play it? We all knew we could be injured. Take personal responsibility for what you do with your head. If this follows to its natural outcome Rugby will cease to be played in any recognisable form.....In fact while we are at it lets destroy western society all part of the same undermining of just about everything that made the west what it is. Everyone a victim.
The point here is that people did not know these things, when the game went pro players got bigger. This is a serious issue, leading to depression, memory loss and suicide. Players were not informed and the rugby organization did not change rules to protect players. They have a duty of care
@@paulgillen1978 I would contend that the rules are not going far enough. We will see a generation of men with memory issues, suicide and depression. We need to go much further
So hang on...You choose to play, you make money from playing, you get to play for England and win a World Cup It has been common knowledge for years that ANY sport that involves blows to the head can result in brain damage and a whole host of other disorders. Hence I don't play rugby or box. If someone forced you to play I can understand a claim, but for something you chose to do? That's why sport pays the big bucks...the risk is what people turn up for in rugby and boxing.
You seem to be missing the point, players know there is a danger but in the past there wasn't the duty of care from their employers, they have only been taking concussion seriously since 2011 hence all the players from the start of professionalism till that date were being put at greater risk than was necessary, that's the difference, they were being told that they were fit to play when medically they weren't, that isn't the case now or in the last few years. They may still suffer Dementia in the future but now the authorities are following medical protocols before they weren't. Outcome doesn't mean blame but negligence does .
@@neilcarpenter2669 And that's because they didn't know then. How can it be negligence if the knowledge wasn't available. negligence is when you do know but ignore it. Now if you have proof they knew it was dangerous and ignored it then case closed and hope you win...otherwise can't see it.
@@enigma7791 The Knowledge was available that's why they are bringing the case , I'm nothing to do with the case so I don't win or lose one way or the other.
The actual damage they are inflicting isn't common knowledge. It's only very recently where they've autopsied ex nfl players brains that they are starting to see how common cte is and how bad the brain atrophy is.
you don't complain when you are winning titles and getting praise from your fans as well as salary bonuses. Don't bloody moan, get on with it. All jobs have their risks,
love Keith wood, never get tired of listening to him
I've been caring my mother for the last 10 years who has dementia, not Rugby related she's 86 now but I remember the onset kicking in and it was very hard in the beginning but what I will say is every person who do get it, it will affect everyone in different ways and the progression can be slow or it can be advanced quite quickly and in that case once their intelligence is gone tough decisions will have to be made.
sorry for your troubles lad.
@@3storiesUp Thanks Sledger but as hard as it can be it's still an honour to look after her we we're once vulnerable too
Saying “we just don’t know” may be accurate for Keith but not for medical professionals and probably higher levels of Rugby admin who have known this
I think head guards have to be enforced at younger levels of rugby if those children carry on playing and whether at a professional level or not, they should be allowed to make a decision on if they want to continue wearing a head guard or not. Personally, I think if we implement this early on it will become part of your kit, after all, they made children wear gumshields mandatory to take part in a game or training. As a coach, I tried to enforce gumshield, body padding, and shin guards for the front row even during training. I think we have to be rigorous with this at a younger age then as they get older, particularly with head guards, let them make the decision at an older age. On top of that as part of the coaching qualification, educate the coaches so they can then educate their teams so when the player gets to a certain age he/she is fully informed of the impact of not wearing a certain part of the body protection. When I started playing rugby everything was up to the player, initially wearing a gumshield at a teenager level, was uncomfortable and I thought it affected my game, but with time I got used to it. The earlier these protective bits of kit are introduced, they will become a natural part of playing rugby. I think, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that New Zealand trialed a weight restriction at junior rugby? but I cannot remember where that went as far as information on the impact of playing or injuries. That would be interesting to find out the de-brief on the weight restriction rules and what the conclusion was?
head guards dont do anything. your brain still swishes around woth every hit.
@@j.aguirre-mcmorrow1501 I agree but better than nothing
@@marcofk I understand your concerns particularly regarding your son, but let me ask you something do you know where he is at all times and what he gets up to, what I'm trying to say is there is risk in all walks of life. In sport all we can do is try to control and mitigate head collisions, football is now under scrutiny for the heading of the ball!!! you will not be able to have as many substitutes as you suggest clubs don't have the money and many at the lower end cannot field 30 players every weekend. Rugby will get through this I think the ruck has to have better controls whether that be a limit to no's at the breakdown? as far as tackles, that's a different problem, as you may line up the ball carrier for a perfect tackle but he sidesteps or drops his shoulder into the contact, you chasing across the park desperate to stop a try your head is on the wrong side for a good technical tackle do you do it? I've been there trust me you do it. If you are that fearful of the longterm impact playing rugby may have on your son perhaps you need to speak to him, I would advise caution there because if you stop him from playing he will find another way, and perhaps worst-case scenario, he may play where the controls are not in place. good luck but you have to talk to your son and trust in HIS answer whether it's not what YOU want to hear.
I think will only get worse.. rugby has a long way to go.
I can understand why these former players are filing lawsuits it's to secure their future but I'm afraid these players must have known the risks they were taking. Head trauma was an issue in NFL for years and these players would have been aware of it and I'm sure they were but it's a case of thinking it won't happen to me.
The RFU should though have taken these decades old warnings onboard but they didn't because just like the players they didnt want to acknowledge it.
That's not how the law works. This will be a landmark case for rugby
To some extent but it actually comes down to the coaching of the national teams and rugby board negligence in relation to player welfare re head injuries.
tony james, once one is part of professional "sport" every underlying factor is about money. The NFL owners denied and fought for years before being forced to admit responsibility. Hardly surprising since having revenues in the 15 billion dollar a year range the NFL has an "arrangement" where it is not liable for any tax on the revenue. Very nice for the owners and the CEO whose salary a few years ago was 35 million USD per annum.
They didn't know the risks they were taking, that's the point. More to the point, if a player is knocked out they shouldn't be making the decision to play on themselves.
@@mollers92 Ex England international Matt Dawson said the following:
'This is a conversation that has been going on for decades. You say tip of the iceberg, everybody knows from pre-my era what the game was all about, how physical it was, what sort of contact and training we were involved in, it was absolutely inevitable'.
He stated he knew the risks and no one else is to blame, it does beg the question will players today take onboard these issues and if they carry on playing accept any future issues are down to them?
love rugby but it isnt worth it. your brain is everything.
Yes, it is time for the rugby authorities to focus further on rules reform and refine their efforts to make rugby union safer. For example, have they asked themselves have the modern stream-lined, skin-tight jerseys made the game safer or not? Why not make scrum caps mandatory? How about a bonus system for tackles at waist height or lower? Have they considered weight equalisation and weight limitation to minimise the occasions when players of unequal weight and strength come into contact? With that in mind why not introduce a middle-weight conpetition e.g. or some sort of limitation for backs and forwards?
No offense to Keith, but could yous not have got a neurologist on
The inetria in a child's brain is far less than an adults, i.e it moves around far more in their heads. So frankly any significant contact for a child even if the contact is not as forceful is still quite damaging. When we take in to account how fragile, and developing their brains are the damage can be horrendous.
At the very least, we should make contact for children illegal till they're far older than is currently the norm.
i dont think there is a way to save contact rugby. research shows subconcussive hits again and again (ie normal tackles) cause CTE. i wouldnt play again if i could go back
As far as I am aware, there are no accounts of players who played for club and country, say back in Jack Kyle's day, having developed early-onset dementia as a result of having played the sport at the highest level. So what's changed? Well in the professional era, the overall trajectory rugby union has taken seems to be moving ever-increasingly toward an emphasis on size and brute force. The impact aspect of the sport has been pushed to the fore and the skill aspect seems to play second fiddle. Perhaps they need to look back in order to find the way forward. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing RU move away from an emphasis on force and more toward an emphasis on flair.
Ciaran, that's exactly the problem, the players have become so massive that the impacts are having long term effects. I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to instate weight caps per position on the field. Obviously cannot be achieved over night but we could aim for progressively decrease the sizes of the players. Surely this would improve the situation.
You can argue that the detection of Dementia has become more advanced than in the early years of collision sports, but nobody can argue that players are far bigger and much more athletic than back then. It would be as difficult as trying to detect dementia in boxers today in comparison to years back we did not identify the diagnosis as far as we did not understand the cause. You could go down the weight argument similar to boxing, where teams of a certain weight competed against similar teams? at least the forwards then, can get the glory of scoring 80 metre tries for real? lol
Yet you still have ex pros with their games gone soft view point on headshot red cards!! .......as an underage rugby coach I’m glad of the protocols in place in regards concussions and return to play and would welcome any more protocols introduced
It's a pity more so called 'Coaches ' in youth rugby aren't better educated and willing to do the right thing when it comes to player welfare!
@@decko20009 very true!!clubs shouldn’t be allowing “coaches” out on the pitch until relevant training courses are done, unfortunately there’s a “win at all costs” attitude around
They can argue all day about the sport going 'soft', but the fact is that schools rugby players are tackling harder now than old professional players. It's a different game now.
@@robertpirsig5011 That's probably true to some extent...all the more reason they need to be properly cared for by coaches who are educated and aware and are not solely driven by winning.
In fairness Ireland were late to embrace professionalism, England won that world cup because they embraced it . ROG said the condition of the England players on the 2001 lions tour made him think do we play the same sport . There was an expectancy on England to win the world cup in the event of professionalism. I'd say the players were flogged to achieve it
Yes but the English WC games were bloody awful they were lucky to win most of them and with a golden boot..
You’re being slightly disingenuous. That England team was unbelievably talented and was stacked full of some of the greatest players to grace a rugby field. You can embrace professionalism all you like, but you need the players and boy did they have lots of them… this was a team with Dallaglio, Robinson, Wilkinson, Back, Lewsey, Johnson, Hill, Woodman, Greenwood….and lest we forget, Thompson . You are talking about one of the great, great teams. Yes they embraced professionalism, but that’s the game right?
@@jupitorious7925 Four World Cup finals though. Would rather have their run of success at WC than ours. How would you describe Irelands abject WC failure?
Annually MRI brain scan
You get a cert to play the following year . No cert no game
Anyone who played rugby at a reasonable level in the last 30 years will remember how little was actually known about the long term effects of head impacts in rugby. We played for the love of the game not because we had done a risk review. For those commenting on how these players should take responsibility for their own actions you have obviously not listened to the interviews or have not an ounce of empathy in their hearts. The governing unions do not have player welfare as their highest priority and nothing will change unless this sort of action is taken. The players are the Golden Geese and these geese are going to be crippled by middle age. I have loved rugby for 40 years but will not continue to watch or support it if the result is crippling the players.
For everyone bashing the players who see issue, ask yourself this, would you allow your own child to play the way its being played at the moment?
I love rugby, but I think the game has become less about skill and more about power and performance and out muscling teams. It of course is the natural progression. But I think if the players somehow were able to focus less on the gym and size, we may not have as big an issue. But if course how can this be enforced.
Maybe the IRB should cap players weights in different positions. This would probably see a reduction in players trying to become juggernauts and trying to make the weight they are supposed to. And we all know that if our mass on impact is lower we will see a reduction of force in the tackle. This could make a big difference.
they can't cap weights at positions how do you control a NO.8 in open play not colliding with a small winger? that is an impossible solution.
@englishmanspeaks constructive comment well done muppet
@englishmanspeaks I hate when somebody who has never played or experienced anything they comment on! they feel they have the right to comment in the first place! grow up get a life and experience things that put you into an uncomfortable position. You will learn a lot about who you are and life as a whole.
@@marcofk I DON'T THINK THE GAME WILL DIE AS HEAD INJURIES HAS BEEN A PROMINENT issue in boxing for many years. they are saying it is a size or a weight issue that causes head collision more serious injuries, if so then maybe instead of teams playing in leagues we look at teams playing to weight separations. however rugby teams struggle financially, some more than others granted, so how could teams compete if weight rules came in? I think rucks need to be limited to how many can compete after a tackle may be one way of controlling that aspect but how do you stop bad technique at a tackle? to be practical Those 2 areas are where most un-controlled collisions happen the tackle and the ruck, the ruck can be limited,but the initial tackle is a little more difficult.
@@marcofk you have never really played a competitive team sport and to use all the cliches of what sort of people play rugby or participate in combat sport I think shows ur inability to comment on such things
The NFL had to deal with this years ago.
They had to change the laws and they are still having to work on it.
Law suits being filled from players who have played since kids know that you can hurt or broken bones but now after there retired and skint want to sue the sport who gave you a living and some think that you love to do it it's just madness
Im unaware if there's a pension scheme with ex-professional players or some sort of life insurance that could financially help these guys out? If not then it's understandable some of them need to take the court route as they're unable to work.
To follow on with some of Keith's points about reducing the size of players (to last more minutes), I would increase the PED checks on these guys. I have no figures to detail steroid and other substance use within the sport but judging by the sheer size and weight of these guys it seems quite prevalent. Stamp that out and it would reduce the size and ultimately the force on impact.
I love the sport but the toll it takes on the body (physical and mental) can't be overlooked. However, I do agree that if you play the sport you accept a certain level of risk right off the bat. The interesting thing for me is where the compromise will be between protecting the players and protecting the sport.
Would head gear help players??
In a word......no!
No and in fact some people believe it can actually make the impacts worse. Even if you wear a helmet, while this protects the skull from fracturing on impact, the brain still moves about at force in its cranial fluid. I tend to agree that helmets actually make brain damage worse as players tackle using there heads thinking they are protected by the helmet. Rugby players are more cautious because of head clashing. Still a big problem though.
Head gear can give a false sense of security and players crash into each other harder. Nfl has a tone of helmet to Helmet collisions
We need a change in the laws to make Hits illegal and to prevent players being lined up for hits. Substitutions need to be limited to prevent the use of IMPACT players. We all know what we mean by that. Until former players with dementia successfully sue the clubs and the RFU I don't see much changing.
But I like hits and I like to see players getting flattened. Then watch boxing. Actually Rugby has a bigger problem than sports like Judo.
Sexton will be in a home by his mid 50’s
It's going down the rugby league route i think.. And it is.. I played rugby in the 80s and 90s and the clashes were pretty intense i can only imagine what it's like in professional rugby..
You can argue that the detection of Dementia has become more advanced than in the early years of collision sports, but nobody can argue that players are far bigger and much more athletic than back then. It would be as difficult as trying to detect dementia in boxers today in comparison to years back we did not identify the diagnosis as far as we did not understand the cause. You could go down the weight argument similar to boxing, where teams of a certain weight competed against similar teams? at least the forwards then, can get the glory of scoring 80 metre tries for real? lol
Flood gates could open. Thompson and all could bankrupt the sport in already challenging times. If they really cared about improving rugby they can do that without going to the courts. Not to mention more parents will guide their kids away from sport to the couch.
Ya, because keeping this "out of sight, out of mind" should be their primary concern, when they're getting diagnosed with dementia in their early forties; helping to keep this quiet is exactly what's *not* needed here - wind your neck in, you total clown!
Same as boxing wrestling football rugby all kinda of sports its always risk
Dood smashing ya self against someone over and over come on its bound to do some damage .. Rugby a hardcore sport man it isnt table tennis
I played rugby for years. Can you honestly say you were forced to play it? We all knew we could be injured. Take personal responsibility for what you do with your head. If this follows to its natural outcome Rugby will cease to be played in any recognisable form.....In fact while we are at it lets destroy western society all part of the same undermining of just about everything that made the west what it is. Everyone a victim.
My thoughts exactly.
There is definitely an agenda too replace western society.
The point here is that people did not know these things, when the game went pro players got bigger. This is a serious issue, leading to depression, memory loss and suicide. Players were not informed and the rugby organization did not change rules to protect players. They have a duty of care
@@gavinmceneff5612 well they did change the rules. Clubs are not enforcing them correctly
@@paulgillen1978 I would contend that the rules are not going far enough. We will see a generation of men with memory issues, suicide and depression. We need to go much further
this is utterly pointless. woody knows nothing about this issue, good night
Bye bye schools rugby.
I don't want my Son boxing or playing Rugby. He needs his brain intact.
So hang on...You choose to play, you make money from playing, you get to play for England and win a World Cup It has been common knowledge for years that ANY sport that involves blows to the head can result in brain damage and a whole host of other disorders. Hence I don't play rugby or box. If someone forced you to play I can understand a claim, but for something you chose to do? That's why sport pays the big bucks...the risk is what people turn up for in rugby and boxing.
You seem to be missing the point, players know there is a danger but in the past there wasn't the duty of care from their employers, they have only been taking concussion seriously since 2011 hence all the players from the start of professionalism till that date were being put at greater risk than was necessary, that's the difference, they were being told that they were fit to play when medically they weren't, that isn't the case now or in the last few years. They may still suffer Dementia in the future but now the authorities are following medical protocols before they weren't. Outcome doesn't mean blame but negligence does .
@@neilcarpenter2669 And that's because they didn't know then. How can it be negligence if the knowledge wasn't available. negligence is when you do know but ignore it. Now if you have proof they knew it was dangerous and ignored it then case closed and hope you win...otherwise can't see it.
@@enigma7791 The Knowledge was available that's why they are bringing the case , I'm nothing to do with the case so I don't win or lose one way or the other.
The actual damage they are inflicting isn't common knowledge. It's only very recently where they've autopsied ex nfl players brains that they are starting to see how common cte is and how bad the brain atrophy is.
Is this the clown station that said irish rugby is too white?
you don't complain when you are winning titles and getting praise from your fans as well as salary bonuses. Don't bloody moan, get on with it. All jobs have their risks,