Nick Cain special report These are the three steps to ease this dementia horror
NICK CAIN gives his three-step solution to the worrying dementia problem in Rugby Union
Where do we go from here? Rugby Union is at a crossroads, and the direction of travel it chooses, in the light of the litigation it now faces regarding concussion and early onset dementia, will have a massive impact on its future.
What is certain is that the game needs a radical rethink, and it needs to happen with an urgency that this sport is not renowned for. Despite the advocacy of elite coaches like Eddie Jones and Rob Baxter this week that the concussion and player welfare protocols introduced since 2015 are examples of best practice in sport, I do not believe it is enough to stop parents and head-teachers from the almost inevitable moves to discourage youngsters from playing the 15-man code in their droves.
The game has to come up with answers right now to confront the impending threat to its future triggered by the tragic news that three former internationals diagnosed with early onset dementia, England 2003 World Cup-winning hooker Steve Thompson, Wales flanker Alix Popham and England flanker Michael Lipman are poised to bring legal action for negligence against World Rugby/IRB, the RFU and the WRU.
There is evidence that as many as 80 more players could follow their lead, with the governing bodies of this sport facing the prospect of multi-million pound settlements.
The timing of the litigation could not be worse, thrusting the game into the jaws of a perfect storm at a time when it is already reeling financially from the impact of the Covid pandemic.
The good news is that there is a beacon of light amid the gloom. The huge advantage is that this game is already in possession of the blueprint that World Rugby and the leading national unions have to adopt as a matter of urgency.
The radical re-think in question involves a change of direction to a game that is not just familiar, but one that has been embedded in the tradition and culture of this sport for much longer than the wrong turning which has taken it down the route towards a super-sized power game over the last two decades.
Rugby Union has to retrace its steps to return to a better version of itself that has the benefit of being easy to implement. It is a road back to a safer sport for players of all shapes and sizes, which is about an 80minute contest between 15 players, rather than 23, in which the premium is on skill, technique, movement and stamina rather than brute force and size.
It is a return to a game which will also have the crucial corrective of eradicating the flat-line defences that have been identified already as the main component in the rise of concussion, and the scourge of early onset dementia.
There are three main areas that have to be addressed, all of them aimed at de-powering and downsizing the heavy, head-impact collisions that characterise the modern pro game. They are: 1. Bring back the ruck. 2. Slash the number of substitutes. 3. Apply the laws.
The decision to change the oldstyle ruck in 2005 has been a disaster, and it is one of the areas in which the tinkering by the laws committee of World Rugby/IRB led the game into a maze from which it has been trying to find its way out of ever since.
I can recall being incredulous when the world governing body held a Press conference at the Lensbury Club in Teddington, south-west London, in the wake of the 2003 World Cup, where we were informed that the old-style ruck was on its way out.
The news that one of the most dynamic areas of the contest for the loose ball was about to be outlawed – principally to prevent boots on bodies – went down like a lead balloon, with a small sector of the Press, myself included, demanding that Steve Griffiths, the World Rugby/IRB then head of referees, explain where the decree had come from.
There was deep concern that it had been made in clandestine fashion, avoiding the comprehensive debate required before a decision of such magnitude was introduced. The game-altering issue at stake was the erosion of the principle that at rucks, and mauls, from which clean possession did not emerge, the scrum put-in would go to the side going forward in contact.
This ensured that most forwards in both teams were engaged in the contest for the ball at rucks and mauls, rather than being stationed in the defensive line, or used as big-bash carriers – as is the case in the modern pro game.
The main imperative was for forwards to stay on their feet, drive over the players involved in the tackle, and push the opposition back over the advantage-line. At its best, it produced quick, clean, dynamic ball, which was hard to defend against.
It gave backs room to attack their opposite numbers one-on-one, meaning that tackles were often made side-on, as opposed to the huge headon gang tackle collisions that have caused so much damage during the pro era.
One of the main reasons behind the decision to ban the old-style ruck, and to replace it with the modern breakdown – which is usually a static pile-up – was concern about cuts to the head and body from boot studs. There were few serious lasting injuries, but the worst head-cuts invariably attracted attention, usually because the culprit was not identified because of the lack of Video footage to support rigorous disciplinary action.
However, World Rugby/IRB allowed itself to be panicked into thinking it had an image problem despite warnings from journalist players, and coaches that it was an overreaction that it would live to regret.
That decision has now hit the world governing body like a freight train, because the relatively minor lacerations caused by the old-style.
ruck were nothing compared to the brutal increase in concussion injuries that it unwittingly unleashed.
The change to the ruck law has been compounded by changes in the replacement laws which led to the introduction of the seven-man bench in 1998, with all of them available as tactical substitutes or injury replacements. This was increased to an eight-man bench in 2009.
This option for coaches to change over half their starting line-ups during the course of a match has had a radical impact in changing Rugby Union from a sport which was essentially aerobic and attritional into one in which super-sized power has become a premium asset.
The upshot is that many professional front-five forwards are often required to play for little more than 20 minutes, and can therefore develop the muscular power and weight required to have maximum impact for a relatively short period.
If you put fresh players like this into a defensive line, or as carriers, against players who have been playing for an hour already, then the risk of collision injuries – and concussion, especially – will almost certainly increase.
It is why Rugby Union must return to its roots as a 15-man contest, with the bench reduced to five replacements – not substitutes – who can come onto the pitch only as injury replacements. The rules should be overhauled so that this requires a medical appraisal confirming injury/concussions/illness to one of the 15 starters, and if there are any
om infringements due to injuries being faked, they will be answerable to a tribunal with the authority to hand down punitive fines, as well as deduct league points.
Once these law amendments have been made, referees must be instructed to apply cardinal laws, such as those relating to high/late tackles, and the offside line, stringently. The scrum law allowing a scrum-half to take a half-step to favour his own pack’s put-in should be rescinded, with the old stipulation that the ball be put down the middle of the tunnel reinstated.
World Rugby have made serious mistakes, and should now remedy them without delay, by taking action which takes the game back to its roots, giving us a better, safer game, which retains all its hallmarks as a fierce contest, but also protects the welfare of players going forward.
“IRB allowed itself to be panicked into thinking it had an image problem”