Safety
From the medical point of view the main argument is for the welfare and protection of players who are still in the development stage of their biological lives. The recent widely covered topic of serious concussion issues in the professional game around players like Johnny Sexton and George North has been the tip of a wider problem in the game. And it's the belief of many parents and health professionals that exposing children who's bone structure and brain development is still (in some part) in progress, to the heavy collisions and the potential concussions that come with them is likely to cause long term health issues.
 |
| Sexton's concussion problems have been well documented. |
There are multiple studies that agree with that, and it's simply part and parcel of the game that players are capable of picking up these injuries. It is crucial that coaches and referee's put players welfare above anything else and these collisions should be watched out for and the relevant pitch side tests be conducted immediately, and no matter the importance of the game that the player be pulled off should they show any sign of concussion.
Away from the concussion stories, there have been other horror stories of players suffering irreparable damage during matches, we have even had a couple of deaths caused by the sport. There is no escaping these facts. However it is worth noting that this are rarities and are prone to any serious contact sport, Ice Hockey has had it's share. It is important that these sort of stories don't ruin the fact that 99.99% of all matches involve no serious injury. And in fact if proper technique is in use, and illegal play is avoided then the likelihood of these drops even further.
Turning 18
Under the suggestion of the journal paper, they recommend that contact rugby be removed from schools until the age of 18 - ie. university. This seems a little far-fetched, if they wish to remove contact from the sport they should remove it from all facets, club, county and international included, which is even less likely to happen.
Perhaps more important is the fact that come the age of 18 you will suddenly have fully grown, eager players being unleashed into full contact rugby. It is my belief that at that point you are in fact increasing the chance of serious injuries to - still relatively young - players. Instead of being taught the correct technique to avoid injury at the age of 9-10, when everyone is much more of a similar size, you will have vastly different body shapes and sizes learning how to engage in a risky piece of physical activity with little to no practice. It is utterly insane that these medical professionals think it is actually safer to unleash 30 eighteen year old's at each other with a few weeks practice in full contact than 24 twelve year old's.
With the exclusion of full contact tackling, this would also include the requirement of passive scrums up till the age of 18. Which obviously will cause considerable problems again when the barrier is switched, players will have no built up the technique, the strength and the safe methods of the front row over many years and instead will be tasked with combating a 15+ stone opposition player and you are likely to pick up even more neck and spinal injuries.
 |
| Scrums are a tricky and dangerous thing even for experienced players, being thrown in at 18 years old is a recipe for disaster. |
Age Grade Rugby
 |
| Would George North have become the player he is without contact? |
Under the suggestion player will not be doing contact till 18, and currently the average international debut for male rugby players is around 22 and it's getting younger. This would mean that talented players would take longer to rise through the ranks and get noticed, meaning in fact that less players will aim to take up rugby as a career as it will get harder to get into academies, get picked up for a contract and reach the ultimate goal of an international career.
Is this really a solution for rugby on the whole, it could potentially lead to a dry up of talent in the upper levels of rugby and realistically cause a player shortage. Meaning players will be forced to play more matches in the season and it's an obvious fact that the more you play the more likely you are to pick up injuries. You start forcing yourself to carry injuries into matches, which in turn causes that injury to be aggravated further, which in turn leads to life long problems with joints, muscles and potentially brain function (especially if coaches suddenly need players to play even against concussion protocols).
Sanctity of the Sport
The primary outburst from the likes of Brian Moore on Twitter were focused around the fact that the under pinning quality of rugby is that it is a contact sport. There is no getting away from this. So the idea that contact will be excluded from a players life for potentially the majority of their playing career (very few continue after university) is ridiculous. In fact more than one player has come out saying they would quit rugby if they were forced to give up the contact side of things. The physical contact is a primary reason many people pick up the sport, wanting to get in involved.
 |
| Courtney Lawes is famed for his big hits, you can't take them out of rugby. |
You can't simply change the underlying factor of a sport purely because it has the ability to cause injuries if performed incorrectly. If you did that then hockey sticks would have to be removed in case someone hit another person; football players wouldn't be able to slide tackle in case you cause leg damage; and cricket would have to use a soft ball to avoid players being hit by a hard object. It's simple tackling has to remain in rugby for the continued existence of the sport, for those who want to pick up the game without the tackling there are always touch rugby tournaments in the summer.
Is there a better solution?
Well short answer, yes. And it's been implemented for years, and is widely understood, and widely believed to be the reason why the Kiwi's are the greatest rugby team on the planet. In New Zealand they don't follow a pure age grade system when it comes to what collection of players are grouped together. In the northern hemisphere it is taken from the academic year and no matter what your maturity, skill set, or size you are playing with people your same "age". The problem with this is, that technically people can end up playing people who are almost a year older than them, who have developed much more and a physical imbalance on the field.
 |
| New Zealand youngsters don't get to use their size |
New Zealand instead follow a "biological age" grade system. Instead players are grouped on their physical attributes, their size, weight etc. This means that there is a more level playing field between people on their way through their teenage years. This not only means that big players are unlikely to wreak havoc in a game and injure smaller players, but it also encourages players to work on their skills rather than use their size to make an impact in matches.
This benefits everyone, players are less likely to get injured, players get better core skills which in turn benefits the national game on the whole because they are producing better players as a matter of principle. Arguably it would be more difficult to implement than the proposed "ban on contact" as it would require a massive shake up of the age grade structure across the national system, but considering the benefits it could have it is a small price to pay.
No comments:
Post a Comment