JB&B Leach Banner
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 32 of 32

Thread: The tackle question

  1. #26
    In The South Stand Sean Day's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,557
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brook View Post
    No matter what laws they pass regarding tackling,there will always be an element of risk involved. The only way to eliminate it is to do away with tackling altogether and no one wants that. The waist high rule is stupid imo and is unworkable. Punish high tackles more with fines and suspensions,the repeat offenders will have to adapt or lose money.
    Without reading any of the research I would guess that the majority of concussions aren't caused by high tackles but whiplash type injuries from heavy upper body contact. I could easily be wrong however

  2. #27
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,842
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pasty View Post
    Iím afraid this completely misunderstands the nature and degree of brain damage that is now the issue of concern. Watch the Ted Talk listed in posts above Saddened and it makes it clear
    It doesn't at all. You're just picking the opposite side of the discussion and sticking to it. They don't know what the impacts are for modern players with todays regulations. If rugby can't be played then MMA, boxing, football, WWE, horse riding. Why are you even on here if you don't want the sport to be played?

  3. #28
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,260
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Day View Post
    Without reading any of the research I would guess that the majority of concussions aren't caused by high tackles but whiplash type injuries from heavy upper body contact. I could easily be wrong however
    Exactly, itís the repeated subconcussions that cause the most damage though obviously the more easily spotted concussions play a part

  4. #29
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,260
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saddened! View Post
    It doesn't at all. You're just picking the opposite side of the discussion and sticking to it. They don't know what the impacts are for modern players with todays regulations. If rugby can't be played then MMA, boxing, football, WWE, horse riding. Why are you even on here if you don't want the sport to be played?
    I do want the game to be played but with rules that make it as safe as it can be. No element of risk can be totally eliminated obviously but it can be reduced or mitigated. I agree that boxing and MMA are very dangerous and my son is a martial artist. I wonít let him do it until heís 18. Then he can choose himself. However, he wants a career as a scientist so CTE would make that impossible. Horse riding and football are far less risky than rugby, American Football, and boxing.

    I think a return to traditional tackling techniques and reducing to 5 yards at the PTB, along with wearing these new protective headbands and reducing the number of games per season would make a big difference. But every professional player must decide to play the game at their own risk or not play at all

    I believe the game used to be much better to watch than it is now. Thatís a personal opinion. The science is not a personal opinion. You can disbelieve it if you want to but you can also believe the world is flat and we float through space on the back of a giant turtle. You donít have to value the science if you donít like it

  5. #30
    Learning All The Songs
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,347
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saddened! View Post
    It doesn't at all. You're just picking the opposite side of the discussion and sticking to it. They don't know what the impacts are for modern players with todays regulations. If rugby can't be played then MMA, boxing, football, WWE, horse riding. Why are you even on here if you don't want the sport to be played?
    Nobody is picking an opposite side of the discussion and sticking with it.
    Just have a listen to the Ted Talk mentioned, so much more is known than only 3 years ago. It is not just blunt force trauma as in knockouts but sub concussions and their cumulative effects.
    Everyone posting on here wants the sport to be played and has its best collective interests at heart, who knows maybe a few rule changes will be for the better. There will be changes the law people will decide that.

  6. #31
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Newport, Shropshire
    Posts
    2,615
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Just to make it easier for anyone who hasn’t seen the Ted Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXn-okL2rfs

    It’s over 18 minutes but well worth it. The bit about the headband almost sounds like a sales pitch but if there’s the remotest chance it does what it claims, I think the governing bodies of all contact sports should make them compulsory. It might be more effective than changing rules about tackling etc.

    I presume researchers are modelling the effects of various contact sport impacts on the brain. If rule changes result from expert analysis, I won’t moan about them.
    Last edited by Suttoner; 23rd January 2023 at 10:01. Reason: PS The headbands seem to sell for about £90.

  7. #32
    In The South Stand
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Newport, Shropshire
    Posts
    2,615
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    The headband has been trialled by some RU clubs but can’t be used in games, only training. It has to be replaced laced if damaged or after 24 months. Who knows whether it gives the claimed 60% protection but it’s worth trialling in our sport.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •