Rugby must reduce the risk and still retain its soul
CONCUSSION has always been a part or rugby, and in the last few years has been a real focal point. Players are better protected than ever, with immediate testing once concussions occur to see if the player’s mental capability is there. Add this to new tackle laws to protect players’ heads, and rugby has made huge strides.
However, the lawsuit headed by Steve Thompson and Alix Popham has sent shockwaves through the sport. This is due to their belief the rugby authorities did not do enough to protect players of their generation.
These stories are heartbreaking. To hear Alix and his wife Mel have a five to ten-year plan from a neurologist on how to prepare is cruel in so many ways. A man who was fortunate enough to play a sport he loved for a living is now likely to be robbed of memories not only of his career, but those to be made with his family.
Secondly, for those playing now this is alarming. Without question many, if not all, current professional and amateur rugby players have had some form of concussion, and in a sport which is so often based around a hardman image, many would have played on to incur further impacts.
It leaves players wondering whether it worth the risk, are we too likely to suffer from the early onset of dementia, when there is so much time left in our lives? The question also arises as to how rugby can adapt? Can it make changes to survive? In an interview this week, Jamie Roberts told the Times: ‘If you want to completely mitigate the risk, we can’t play the sport. Rugby, the sport as we know it, cannot exist without a significant risk of head injury.’
This is true to a point but all sports have risk. It is just that rugby’s risk is much higher, and the issue is weighing up the value of the sport next to the value of the person playing it. ‘Rugby as we know it’ might well not be possible if we are to protect the people playing it. He also goes on to discuss the difficulties of trying to scale down contact in training. The point is not whether there should be contact in training – without doubt some is needed, as Roberts rightly states, to prepare the player for matches – but the volume, and the repetition. This is where the danger lies, where players are asked to maul, scrummage and tackle at a ridiculous rate, purely because the coach feels it’s necessary.
It does not mean the game’s ‘gone soft’ or is losing its soul. Take Formula One, for instance. Helmets and overalls were first used in the early 60s, seatbelts for the first time in 1972, the Halo system much despised by many in its infancy just saved Romain Grosjean’s life. Which is why talk of ‘rugby as we know it’ misses the point.
It is not okay to say this is what we have always done, so therefore we must continue in that manner. Had F1 done so, more people would have died. If rugby tries to, it may impact the
lives of many of its current players. We cannot remove all of the risk and uncertainty from rugby but what is certain is it must be lowered for the sake of this generation of players and the ones that follow.