Head guard claims are condemned by dad of injury victim
A NEW head guard reported to reduce concussion has been condemned by the father of a child killed by head injuries and labelled ‘potentially extremely dangerous’ by a leading expert in the field.
This week saw the widely trumpeted launch of the medically certified N-Pro head guard, which its developers say reduces impact forces ‘which cause concussions’ by 75 per cent.
The launch has generated headlines around the world, with reports the head guard could help solve the concussion issue which this week prompted World Rugby to instruct referees to clamp down on dangerous contact to the head.
Any suggestion a head guard could somehow reduce rugby’s most common injury would be seen as hugely significant, but Peter Robinson, whose 14-year-old son Ben died of head injuries in an school game in 2011, has urged parents not to be lulled into a false sense of security.
‘The first question I asked after Ben died was “would a head guard have saved him?” and everybody I asked said “no”,’ Mr Robinson told The Mail on Sunday.
‘Ben effectively got whiplash. It wouldn’t have mattered if he was wearing headgear or not. It is wrong to give the false impression people are invincible when they run on to a field. World Rugby need to show leadership on this subject. All this head gear does is reduce cuts, abrasions and cauliflower ears.’
N-Pro owners Mark and Sandra Ganly insist tests carried out on rats exposed to head impacts showed a reduction in blood biomarkers associated with brain injuries, although no peer-reviewed evidence proving the product reduces concussion in humans currently exists.
Dr Mike Loosemore, a consultant in sport and exercise medicine at the Institute of Sport, Exercise and Health, says overwhelming scientific evidence shows the opposite could be true. ‘If a helmet can stop concussions why do so many American footballers get concussed?’ he told The Mail on Sunday. ‘You can bet your bottom dollar an American football helmet will absorb much more energy than the cap they are proposing here. The fact the head rotates and the brain rotates within it, means injury is caused that way.
‘So, although I don’t doubt these head guards will reduce the force transmitted in a laboratory, in reality, concussion is caused not by direct impact, but by spinning and the rapid movement of the head. All the evidence I’ve seen is that if you wear a head guard or helmet like this there is a chance it will increase the risk of head injuries. ‘I think it’s extremely dangerous to start proposing children wear these things because what you might actually be doing and what a lot of the scientific evidence shows is that if you put kids in helmets, they get more head injuries. It’s a case of people trying to make a profit or do the right thing without testing it in real life situations.’ Mr and Mrs Ganly point to the new head guard — which at £135 retails at almost four times more than rival products — as the first piece of rugby head gear built within the European Union’s legal framework proving it is ‘safe and useable’.
‘We set out to make a product that reduced the risk of brain injury to the player,’ Mark Ganly said. ‘In our view, we could only do this if we applied science and developed a medical device, not just a piece of sports equipment.’
World Rugby were confirmed guidelines on their website remained unaltered. It reads: ‘Padded headgear does not reduce the rate of head injury or concussion. Although individuals may choose to wear padded headgear, the routine or mandatory use of protective headgear cannot be recommended.’