Probyn: Ban rush defences to reduce brain injuries
Am I alone in thinking that if the professional players want to take anyone to court for a lack of duty of care, they are currently aiming at the wrong target? It seems so far that, touch wood, it’s only a limited number of professional players who seem to have suffered the unfortunate consequences of continual blows to the head.
If even one person suffers the catastrophic consequence of early dementia as the result of playing a game, any game, that is one too many, particularly as it seems that the vast majority who play rugby escape without any form of longterm neurological damage.
What that should indicate is that the game itself is an acceptable risk for all participants at all levels, if you play according to the laws.
If it is only a very small section of the professional game who appear to be affected by neurological damage, the question is why and when does it occur?
There have been a few studies over the years with comparisons of the type of injuries that occur and also the frequency with concussion as the most probable injury a professional player will get.
The likelihood of it happening solely as a result of training and playing international rugby is remote given that there are so few games in an international season compared to club training sessions and games.
With an approximation of around an average of 60 injuries per Premiership club season it would seem logical to assume that the greater risk of injury is while playing for your employer, i.e, your club rather than your country.
There are also roughly twice as many concussions in the professional clubs compared to the grassroots game and, perhaps surprisingly, more occurring in the backs than the forwards.
There are also indications that players are likely to suffer a concussion during every club season if they take part in roughly 25 games.
Although I say ‘surprisingly’ more backs than forwards suffer, it shouldn’t be a shock because backs have had to deal with the introduction of the rush defence which gives neither the tackler nor the tackled player time to adjust their body position.
The rush defence was introduced from Rugby League and is designed to kill the movement of the ball. It is an aggressive form of defence that had no trial in Union before its introduction.
It is my belief that if it were banned in Union the number of concussions would fall and we would see a more open game, with players once again using the extra space to exploit and avoid opponents.
For forwards, I would think the biggest risk is in close defence at the
“The claimants should not be seeking massive financial compensation but change in the laws”
side of a breakdown particularly close to the try line, where pick-up and go is met with a headfirst challenge from defenders putting all at risk. If there was a return to old fashioned rucking it may reduce the number of pick-ups and so reduce the risk of concussion.
Ultimately, if the claimants really were only interested in stopping future players from suffering these injuries, they would not be seeking massive financial compensation from the Unions but a change in the laws to add greater protection and improve player welfare at club level for the future.
As far as World Rugby, the Unions and RPA are concerned, they should set up a captive fund to pay for any long-term medical treatments that are required by past players at all levels whose conditions can be
proven to be as a result of playing the game.
This would reduce the chance for lawyers accumulating money from expensive litigation and the damaging headlines that neither help those who have suffered life-changing injuries, nor the sport itself.
Meanwhile, we have had the 2023 World Cup draw with the usual drum roll before the selection of pools that virtually ensure it is the usual crew that will compete in the knockout stages for the cup.
As far as the pool draw is concerned, England have had a dream come true with a quarter-final place virtually guaranteed where they
will probably face Wales and then Australia in the semi-final.
In fact I can say with some certainty that this will be the quarter final line-up for the 2023 Cup, even though it is still some years away.
The four matches will be: England vs Wales, Australia vs Argentina, New Zealand vs Ireland and South Africa vs France.
Of course, it could be Japan instead of Argentina and Scotland rather than Ireland but on current form I will stick with my first choices.
If things go as I would expect, England would face one of just three teams in the final, New
Zealand, France or South Africa.
The good news is the pool draw has given England the easiest passage to the quarter-finals of any of the eight foundation countries and that is where they will face their first test.
This will allow Eddie Jones to rest key players and reduce the chances of injury while helping to ensure they are in peak condition when it matters.
Coincidentally, it took England five World cups to get it right and finally win their first and 2023 will be the fifth World Cup since that glorious night, so with fingers crossed, it could be our second.