Player Injuries

[NellyWellyWaspy]

Released today:

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/2018-2019/professional-rugby-in-england-taking-action-on-player-injuries/

The agenda is in points 2-4.

Point 2 seems to suggest that the main focus remains in head/concussion injuries. In particular, accidental high tackle = penalty, reckless = yellow and deliberate = red. Is there also a hint towards the acceptance of 'below the shoulder' as being the rule (have the SH games been ruling this way this season)?

Point 3 seems to suggest that their research shows a lot of training injuries. With Sale having 'no contact' training (or whatever) and coincidentally the lowest injury rate, will teams be encouraged to adopt the Sale training model? In particular, the England training camp, which is heavily contact focused, also seems to have a lot of injuries.

Point 4 looks again at artificial pitches. It seems to suggest boot and stud design might be a factor. I am less than convinced it is. All the boot makers have various designs to cope with different pitches. Looks like they are trying to avoid the conclusion that fully artificial pitches and not suitable for contact based rugby (but probably OK for non contact training).

[NellyWellyWaspy]

From the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/jan/09/rugby-union-injuries-latest-season-highest-level-15-years-concussions

English rugby’s leading players and administrators are urging World Rugby to introduce stricter sanctions for high tackles following the release of officially collated injury statistics for the 2017-18 season. While there has been a small drop in the number of concussions, the severity of injuries in top-level English rugby is on the rise.

Based on the latest findings of the Professional Game Action Plan on Player Injuries, a joint collaboration between the Rugby Football Union, Premiership Rugby and the Rugby Players’ Association, the English authorities want World Rugby to introduce greater clarity around the legal height of the tackle and believe referees should take a tougher stance. “If there is a desire to change player behaviour to reduce the risk of concussion, we believe that the threshold for receiving a card for a high-tackle is currently too high,” stated the report.

Dr Simon Kemp, the RFU’s medical services director, also suggested further “significant changes” to the laws of the game may be required after the statistics revealed the highest ‘burden of match injury’ (a combination of injury incidence and their severity) since 2002. “There is strong evidence that while the likelihood of injury in the professional game appears to be stable, the increase in injury severity we are seeing means the overall burden of injury is increasing,” said Kemp. “The data suggests more significant changes to the game might be needed to reverse these trends.”

Action has already been taken to reduce the startlingly high rates of injury suffered by players training with England. The severity and number of injuries combined were five times above the domestic average last year and Nigel Melville, the RFU’s acting chief executive, says Eddie Jones’s regime has been the subject of some concern. “We did recognise a problem and we have discussed it at the Professional Game Board,” said Melville. “International players train at greater intensity, so we’re trying to manage players better as they transition from one environment to another. We think that is starting to show some positive signs.”

Overall the average severity of match injuries – ie the length of time it takes to return to play for 2017-18 – has risen to 37 days, the second consecutive season the figure has been above its expected upper limit. Encouragingly, there was a small reduction in concussions compared with 2016-17, with one fewer concussion every eight games. However, the mean severity of medically diagnosed match concussions was 19 days, the second successive year this figure has increased. In six cases players took more than 84 days to return to play following concussion.

For the third consecutive year concussion also emerged as the most common injury, followed by hamstring injuries. Concussion accounted for 18% of all injuries to the ball carrier and 37% of all injuries to the tackler, highlighting the tackle as the key area for the game to consider. The 2017-18 season is the first that the incidence of all injuries was greater for the tackler than the ball carrier, with 52% of all match injuries being associated with the tackle.

No other union in the world has collated such detailed data over such a length of time. Maintenance of artificial pitches are also set to become part of Premiership minimum standards criteria based on evidence showing that injuries sustained on an artificial surface tend to be more severe than those which occur on grass.

Richard Bryan, rugby director at the RPA, believes it is now “essential” the sport acts on the key findings in the latest report. “Given how the game has evolved over the past decade, the Professional Rugby Injury Surveillance Project is now more important than ever,” said Bryan. “We are committed to addressing the issues raised in this report and must continue to adapt as a sport to ensure we are protecting the welfare of our players.”

[Raggs]

I could easily believe stud choice would make a huge difference in artificial pitches, especially forwards. They hurt more when you hit the floor too, at least the one i played on. Spongy to run on but fecking hard just under.

[BG]

I could easily believe stud choice would make a huge difference in artificial pitches, especially forwards. They hurt more when you hit the floor too, at least the one i played on. Spongy to run on but fecking hard just under.

I wonder if there is any fact based evidence that fully artificial pitches cause more injuries or whether this line of further research is based on anedoctal evidence .. i.e. mumerings from players about having to play on full AGP's. I remember a wesh region were scathing about Glasgow's pitch last season

[baldpaul101]

Maintenance of artificial pitches are also set to become part of Premiership minimum standards criteria

The above suggests that its not the pitches per se, but the maintenance of them that is under scrutiny?

Interesting also that the head injury prevention seems to be focusing on high tackles, with no mention of dangerous ruck clear outs.

I'd also like to see more referral of head injury incidents to the TMO, with common sense being the order of the day, not just strictly enforcing a ruling. Referees have plenty of options to get to the correct decision but seem to still make so many mistakes, how can World Rugby help them get it right more often?

[Raggs]

I could easily believe stud choice would make a huge difference in artificial pitches, especially forwards. They hurt more when you hit the floor too, at least the one i played on. Spongy to run on but fecking hard just under.

I wonder if there is any fact based evidence that fully artificial pitches cause more injuries or whether this line of further research is based on anedoctal evidence .. i.e. mumerings from players about having to play on full AGP's. I remember a wesh region were scathing about Glasgow's pitch last season

Burns are very very real, but mostly superficial in terms of being able to keep playing.

Impact is no worse than a hard dry pitch in the warmer months I'd have thought.

The extra grip is definitely there, so I'd assume that feet could get caught in place, and not give, more easily than mud, but equally there's less chance of losing footing and twisting something that way, so it may be a bit of both.

[BG]

I thought the whole point of fully AGP's was little or no maintenance. From seeing a recent wuss game, where one part of the pitch was nearly black, the only thing that needs doing is more of the black crumble sprinkling over the pitch (which I believe is banned in some other countries).

In terms of concussion and high tackles - I'd be interested to know the proportion of HIA tested players that are the tackler or the tackled player. My perception is that its about 50/50.

There was a saints game a few weeks ago where both Biggar and Wood had to go off within about 15 secs of each other. Biggar had tackled someone.. had got back to his knees trying to get out of the ruck/tackle area and someone clearing out caught his head with their knee.

Seconds later Wood tackled someone at the side of a ruck and got his head on the wrong side and went down as if a sniper had taken him out.. I think players tackling have to have a bit more respect for their own body, self preservation and not simply throw themselves at a charging ball carrier. Sometimes a side on defensive tackle is more efficient than meeting someone head on with the risk of getting your head on the wrong side

I

[Raggs]

I'm 99% sure it's the tackler that is concussed more often than not. However upright/high tackles are still the leading cause of concussion, both for the tackled player and the tackling player. If the tackler can be forced to bend, rather than hit upright, a significant number of concussions should be removed.

The stats were done per 100 tackles too, so whilst you'd obviously expect more people to be concussed by heads hitting hips, if they're all tackling lower, you'd still expect fewer concussions overall.

[baldpaul101]

I should have read the full report as it answers some of my, and other posters questions.

half way through so far. very interesting

[NellyWellyWaspy]

In terms of concussion and high tackles - I'd be interested to know the proportion of HIA tested players that are the tackler or the tackled player. My perception is that its about 50/50.

Bryan, the stats are that the tackler is twice as likely to be concussed as the tackled player is. Going low isn't the issue for the tackler. Doing it wrong is. That's a combination of training and reflex action. I do wonder if this is learned behaviour from playing in junior rugby, where non-contact is the norm. In our day, contact rugby was the norm for all ages, and certainly the coaching I had always had your head to the side of their ribs, shoulder into their stomach. Going too low meant you were likely to hit your head on the hip or knees, with a not very nice outcome (cold bucket of water revival).

Maybe we should make them all dress up like those foam cartoon characters so they just bounce off each other?

[Rifleman Harris]

Or this...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjClJ2qtePfAhVDRBoKHW3tDFMQtwIILDAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5uOc-FkV-p0&usg=AOvVaw3lnEMzB3bmUJrg8Umf8z2X

[baldpaul101]

do wonder if this is learned behaviour from playing in junior rugby, where non-contact is the norm

where did you get that from?
Contact starts at u9s, I think. Its been like that for at least the last 15 years.

[BG]

Or this...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=video&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjClJ2qtePfAhVDRBoKHW3tDFMQtwIILDAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5uOc-FkV-p0&usg=AOvVaw3lnEMzB3bmUJrg8Umf8z2X

Looks good fun. I'd love to see the wasps squad have a go as a team building training sesh though

[Raggs]

do wonder if this is learned behaviour from playing in junior rugby, where non-contact is the norm

where did you get that from?
Contact starts at u9s, I think. Its been like that for at least the last 15 years.

Contact does start at u9s.

[wasps]

You'd think that with the number of tackles we miss, we'd have the lowest number of HIA's