The old-time players were told never to stay down

The debate about what can be done to make the game more entertaining, and the prospect of litigation from some modern-era players who have early symptoms of dementia, are in an odd way related. Before the dawn of professionalism it wasn’t uncommon for players to rack up 500 appearances for the clubs, sometimes turning out twice in a week, but we heard much less about cognitive problems. Was that because there were fewer players affected, or because the issues weren’t being recognised? It’s not that long ago that the term dementia was hardly used, and memory problems were regarded as being just one of those things that happened as people aged.

Speaking to former players about the game’s amateur days was revealing, and shows how things have changed. There were fewer cuts to the head, despite the game being much more violent, with punching just a fact of life.

Someone said to me that in their day they would never have had multiple phases where players are going headfirst into rucks – in fact he said ‘we never had phases’! Some players from that era did develop symptoms of dementia, but so do people who’ve never played rugby, and any possible connection to the game didn’t seem to be made.

In his foreword to Ross Reyburn’s Saving Rugby Union –The Price of Professionalism, Willie John McBride is scathing about the way the game has changed, bemoaning the endless phases, saying that in the amateur days as soon as a player went to ground he had to release the ball and roll away, allowing others to drive over the ball and ruck. Of course, rucking isn’t allowed nowadays, on safety grounds, but diving into rucks like a torpedo often goes unpunished – I guess one leaves rake marks on a player’s back, whereas the other might just lay him out, with potentially longterm ramifications.

The other problem is the players themselves. Mike Burton’s autobiography is called Never Stay Down, a reference to the mentality that prevailed in the game in the amateur days. Burton on his debut for Longlevens First XV at 15 years of age was punched, and it was, as he puts it, ‘a cracking good effort’ which knocked him out.

As he came round one of his teammates loomed above him and said, ‘Come on son, never stay down’. Burton carried on and completed the match – talk to anyone who played in that era and their stories will be very similar.

People are drawn to rugby because it’s a contact sport, and we’re all guilty of a touch of hypocrisy in this.

Commentators still rave about huge, concussive tackles – remember BT Sport even used to have a section on their weekly show highlighting the biggest hits. It’s a bit like boxing – many people love it, but its aim is for one person to concuss another! Players know that they run the risk of serious, perhaps even life-changing injury when they play rugby, but it doesn’t stop them. However, it’s the insidious nature of these dementia diagnoses that’s so disturbing – a player finishes a long and illustrious career, seemingly relatively unscathed, but then down the line develops unexpected symptoms.

Most people now agree that action needs to be taken, but there’s less unanimity about what that should be. Players are now much bigger and stronger, and that leads to bigger collisions. Not all concussions come from high tackles – watch a legal tackle between two modern-day behemoths, and you’ll see a player’s head being whipped back on impact. Eliminating high tackles is a positive move, but it won’t eliminate concussions.

If players were smaller the hits would be less severe, and more people seem to be coming round to the view that ‘impact’ replacements aren’t helping. We’re breeding forwards who are so big that they can often only play for 50 or 55 minutes rather than the full 80.

If coaches knew they couldn’t have tactical replacements then training would focus much more on cardio than on pumping iron. In addition, as players tired, there would be more space on the pitch, potentially leading to a more open game. Going down to, say, five replacements on the bench, and players only going off on independent medical advice, would probably be a good move, if it could be made to work.

There are other areas that need looking at, and the clear-out at the

“If coaches can’t have tactical replacements training would focus much more on cardio than on pumping iron”

breakdown has to be high up the list – the laws are clear about this, and should simply be enforced, in fact it wouldn’t be a bad idea if all of the game’s laws were rigorously applied rather than the modern-day nonsense about ‘interpretation’.

Let’s hope that the threat of litigation doesn’t prevent significant changes being made, although doing it now might be perceived by some as an admission that the way the game has gone has been a factor in dementia symptoms being recognised in much younger explayers.

Change is overdue, and that is down to World Rugby – the current fuss about too much kicking is so trivial by comparison.