He writes that rugby is trying to solve problems that may not exist. Simon Borchardt.
“For what?” Anton Lienert-Brown, visibly irritated, said in the Chiefs' dugout after he had just been asked to leave the field for a concussion test, even though he didn't receive a knock to the head. gestured to.
The All Blacks center's departure came at a crucial time in the opening game of Super Rugby Pacific for the hosts, who led the Crusaders by two points and were attacking with 22 points in the opposition half. Luckily for the Chiefs, they lost a key player. They scored three points with this attack and won 34-30, so they never lost the game. But it could have easily happened.
The same thing happened to Crusaders lock Quinten Strange and Chiefs center Quinn Tupaea early in the game. Both players were forced off the field before they could pass concussion tests and return to play, even though they did not sustain blows to the head.
What is their reason for leaving? World Rugby's 'smart' mouthguard. Measures the direct or indirect “head acceleration events” that occur when a player's head is swung to the side during a tackle, carry, ruck, etc. If the impact to a male rugby player exceeds his 70G (force that causes the head to move in a straight line) and/or 4,000 radians/second squared (the force that causes the head to move in a different direction), the app will send an alert by: To do. It sends a Bluetooth message to a doctor, who pulls the player off the field for a concussion test. The standard for female rugby players is 55G.
These mouthguards reportedly cost clubs around £8,500 (about R207,000) a year and have been hailed by World Rugby as a “game changer”. But based on the Super Rugby Pacific opener, they will only change the game for the worse.
according to The Times, It was expected that one player would be sent off per game due to the mouthguard, and that any more would disrupt the game and lead to “unnecessary skepticism” from players and coaches. .
It proved prophetic.
After the Super Rugby Pacific opener, Crusaders captain Scott Barrett called the mouthguard technique “overkill.” He added: “If you have an influence when a key player leaves and you don't know why, it's going to be frustrating for the players.''
Hours later, Scotland manager Gregor Townsend echoed similar sentiments after prop Xander Fagerson was sent off during the Six Nations match against England at Murrayfield.
“I saw another tackle and it was a normal tackle,” he said. “I think we need to take a hard look at what we're doing here. Trust unproven technology.”
Future discussions will include the need to improve the technology while educating players, coaches and fans about its importance. But the question to be debated is why these mouthguards and other player safety measures (such as lower tackle heights) are necessary in the first place.
Lindsay Stirling, World Rugby's scientific and medical manager, said: times“Repeated head impacts over an athlete's lifetime can contribute to long-term brain health, so we do everything we can to protect an athlete's brain health from all head impact events, not just concussions. should be done.”
But surely radical innovations and legal trials should be based on more than just a “chance” that something bad will happen?
How many professional rugby players have there been in total since 1996? How many of these have had brain-related problems since retiring? Some of those problems are directly attributable to rugby, some are caused by other problems. How many factors are at play? What percentage of today's professional rugby players accept the risk of concussion associated with the game?
Until these and other important questions are answered, improving player safety will remain just a box-ticking, money-making exercise that will help players and coaches realize the power they have and say, “No more. It can be hard to shake the feeling that it only ends when you say “enough is enough.” sufficient”.
