Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy - An Immediate Retirement

An interesting article amongst continued research and evidence which will continue to haunt many parents of young children who allow their children to play physical contact sports.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-26/inside-the-brain-of-a-suspected-cte-patient-3d-scans/102582554

A horror story. For goodness sake, begin to take this issue seriously. Look at ways to keep the sport, but seriously reduce the impact nature of it. The game has evolved to more and more favour large, fast, powerful players, and dominance by impact. It doesn’t have to be this way.

Frightening stuff 

Research around CTE has been around for a while and the big question is how much did the RFL know and how much of a duty of care to their players should they have had. It still won't stop idiots on the web (some current pro players as well) from making out people are trying to make a quick buck by suing the RFL.

15 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Research around CTE has been around for a while and the big question is how much did the RFL know and how much of a duty of care to their players should they have had. It still won't stop idiots on the web (some current pro players as well) from making out people are trying to make a quick buck by suing the RFL.

Maybe a bigger question is what are we going to do going forward now we have this information?

Change the kick offs to a tap start? Much longer bans for shoulders to the head? Reading that article, I think our game is going to look very different in 5-10 years

Pre-1995, most players were semi-professional, not training every day, 5m offside at ptb and smaller. Watch old videos and the game was very different then. 

The 10m offside was meant to give teams more space to attack but it had done the opposite. It has resulted in grinding one man drives at greater speed. It has discouraged attacking play in favour of safety first 5 drives and a kick.

And tackling had become upright risking more head contacts for ball carrier and tackler.

RL has done nothing to reduce head injuries. Tackling high, 10m offside, celebrating "big hits" which actually is just two players having their jelly-like brains violently rattled inside their hard skull, no limit on contact training and multiple subs allowing bigger players having to play only half a game 

The Drake Foundation did a simple of pro rugby players and 24% has brain abnormalities. The RFL could pay for say 100 SL players to have MRI scans to assess the risk. But they won't because I believe they would be shocked by the results. Instead players like Llachlan Coote retire at 33 bleeds on the brain and everyone moves on. 

The game needs to move away from big hits and players just running into groups of other players, cut out high tackling and move back to a game based more on skill and evasion than power. The writing is on the wall but I doubt the RFL or many fans will want to read it.

Players shouldn't be expected to risk brain injuries and early onset dementia. 

https://www.drakefoundation.org/rugby-concussions/

5 hours ago, OnStrike said:

Maybe a bigger question is what are we going to do going forward now we have this information?

Change the kick offs to a tap start? Much longer bans for shoulders to the head? Reading that article, I think our game is going to look very different in 5-10 years

Always struck me as bizarre that this is known, there's a class action lawsuit and the RFL still went ahead and effectively reduced punishment for foul play.......

8 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Research around CTE has been around for a while and the big question is how much did the RFL know and how much of a duty of care to their players should they have had. It still won't stop idiots on the web (some current pro players as well) from making out people are trying to make a quick buck by suing the RFL.

I agree this is an important question, but I am more with @OnStrike. What will the growing advice mean for our sport. I can see all sorts of outcomes including reducing the defensive line to 5m, reducing player numbers on the field, harsher punishments and suspensions for high tackles.

As a father of young children soon to reach playing age, I am finding myself more and more reserved around getting them playing league despite it being very safe for primary aged kids.

The big question for me is, how are RL administrators going to combat the growing research which silently advises parents to keep their kids away from the sport?

On 27/07/2023 at 00:08, Sports Prophet said:

I agree this is an important question, but I am more with @OnStrike. What will the growing advice mean for our sport. I can see all sorts of outcomes including reducing the defensive line to 5m, reducing player numbers on the field, harsher punishments and suspensions for high tackles.

As a father of young children soon to reach playing age, I am finding myself more and more reserved around getting them playing league despite it being very safe for primary aged kids.

The big question for me is, how are RL administrators going to combat the growing research which silently advises parents to keep their kids away from the sport?

It would be interesting to whether the players suing the RFL how many were full-time v part-time. I'm guessing that full time players are the large majority as more training, bigger impacts..

On 26/07/2023 at 21:14, Wakefield Ram said:

Pre-1995, most players were semi-professional, not training every day, 5m offside at ptb and smaller. Watch old videos and the game was very different then. 

The 10m offside was meant to give teams more space to attack but it had done the opposite. It has resulted in grinding one man drives at greater speed. It has discouraged attacking play in favour of safety first 5 drives and a kick.

And tackling had become upright risking more head contacts for ball carrier and tackler.

RL has done nothing to reduce head injuries. Tackling high, 10m offside, celebrating "big hits" which actually is just two players having their jelly-like brains violently rattled inside their hard skull, no limit on contact training and multiple subs allowing bigger players having to play only half a game 

The Drake Foundation did a simple of pro rugby players and 24% has brain abnormalities. The RFL could pay for say 100 SL players to have MRI scans to assess the risk. But they won't because I believe they would be shocked by the results. Instead players like Llachlan Coote retire at 33 bleeds on the brain and everyone moves on. 

The game needs to move away from big hits and players just running into groups of other players, cut out high tackling and move back to a game based more on skill and evasion than power. The writing is on the wall but I doubt the RFL or many fans will want to read it.

Players shouldn't be expected to risk brain injuries and early onset dementia. 

https://www.drakefoundation.org/rugby-concussions/

It’s fitness and speed of the players that is the main issue nowadays and I’m not sure how that can be corrected. Even when it was a 5m defensive line that applied to both teams. So the attacking team also had to be back 5m which would mean even back then there was 10m between players at the ptb. 

On 26/07/2023 at 21:14, Wakefield Ram said:

Pre-1995, most players were semi-professional, not training every day, 5m offside at ptb and smaller. Watch old videos and the game was very different then. 

The 10m offside was meant to give teams more space to attack but it had done the opposite. It has resulted in grinding one man drives at greater speed. It has discouraged attacking play in favour of safety first 5 drives and a kick.

And tackling had become upright risking more head contacts for ball carrier and tackler.

RL has done nothing to reduce head injuries. Tackling high, 10m offside, celebrating "big hits" which actually is just two players having their jelly-like brains violently rattled inside their hard skull, no limit on contact training and multiple subs allowing bigger players having to play only half a game 

The Drake Foundation did a simple of pro rugby players and 24% has brain abnormalities. The RFL could pay for say 100 SL players to have MRI scans to assess the risk. But they won't because I believe they would be shocked by the results. Instead players like Llachlan Coote retire at 33 bleeds on the brain and everyone moves on. 

The game needs to move away from big hits and players just running into groups of other players, cut out high tackling and move back to a game based more on skill and evasion than power. The writing is on the wall but I doubt the RFL or many fans will want to read it.

Players shouldn't be expected to risk brain injuries and early onset dementia. 

https://www.drakefoundation.org/rugby-concussions/

Good post.

I also think in the long run if the game evolved in this direction it would be beneficial for participation, as more boys and girls - and their parents - will be encouraged to take up the game and keep going when in their teens.

6 hours ago, bobbruce said:

It’s fitness and speed of the players that is the main issue nowadays and I’m not sure how that can be corrected. Even when it was a 5m defensive line that applied to both teams. So the attacking team also had to be back 5m which would mean even back then there was 10m between players at the ptb. 

In fact there was more than 10 metres, for two reasons. 

First, the 5 metres was "five metres" behind their player involved in the play-the-ball", so 6 or 7 metres from where it was being put back into play. 

Second, refs were very inconsistent in assessing how far that should be, so at times they pulled defenders back 9 or even 10 metres from the line of scrimmage* as can be seen in old NSWRL videos.  Maybe the fact the lines weren't all the same distance apart was part of the reason for that buti I'm not sure. 

* In this context scrimmage is a word of Canadian origin coined in the 1870s for the act of a player of the team in possession putting the ball back play with his foot. Thus my use of the term here is correct. QED

17 hours ago, Wakefield Ram said:

It would be interesting to whether the players suing the RFL how many were full-time v part-time. I'm guessing that full time players are the large majority as more training, bigger impacts..

Yeah would be interesting to know how all this impacts the amateur players. Playing a bit as a kid and then for an amateur club with people of normal size, speed etc

It's very worrying as the parent of a child that would like to start playing 

I don't think the clock can be reversed on the physicality of the sport. Young men know how to be physically fit and strong and don't need a professional coach or role that demands it to do so. That genie is 100% out of the bottle.

If the issue is lack of space and too much intensity, then surely the answer is to reduce numbers on the pitch.

How many head injuries do we get in a 9s fixture vs a normal league match? Does the 9 a side version not look more like the 13 a side version did in its semi pro days in the 50s/60s?

Yeah it's a very good point re turning back the clock. The gym and fitness culture among young lads is huge now regardless. 

3 minutes ago, OnStrike said:

Yeah it's a very good point re turning back the clock. The gym and fitness culture among young lads is huge now regardless. 

Exactly, fitness and nutrition are better and more accessible now than ever. Its not just the preserve of full time professional athletes anymore.

The focus, if any, needs to be on other aspects of the sport.

54 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't think the clock can be reversed on the physicality of the sport. Young men know how to be physically fit and strong and don't need a professional coach or role that demands it to do so. That genie is 100% out of the bottle.

If the issue is lack of space and too much intensity, then surely the answer is to reduce numbers on the pitch.

How many head injuries do we get in a 9s fixture vs a normal league match? Does the 9 a side version not look more like the 13 a side version did in its semi pro days in the 50s/60s?

Reducing numbers on the pitch is the only way I can see working. It would work in two ways teams couldn’t commit at many players to tackles. Plus it would speed the game up and create enough space so that smaller faster players would become the norm. 

6 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Reducing numbers on the pitch is the only way I can see working. It would work in two ways teams couldn’t commit at many players to tackles. Plus it would speed the game up and create enough space so that smaller faster players would become the norm. 

The game is too fast-paced as it is.  It needs to be slowed down, not sped up even more.

7 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't think the clock can be reversed on the physicality of the sport...

Perhaps it can. The rules (laws, if you like) have drifted to favour dominance by impact, where larger players are more valuable. There may be possible ways to reduce dominance by impact:

An early call of held will reduce the value of the wrestle, reduce the value of the upright tackle.

An insistence of greater use of the arms in the tackle.

Punishment of unnecessary roughness, dangerous contact.

Preventing the drag into touch which effectively narrows the pitch and pushes play into a narrower corridor, encouraging impact.

A much more strict enforcing of offside at the PTB, no forward movement until the ball clears the foot may give attackers more opportunity to identify weaknesses in the defensive line up.

When we talk of speeding the game up, we generally refer to a faster PTB: cleaning and slowing down the PTB could, with the right intent, speed up ball movement.

5 tackles instead of 6 could be considered.

And others. I’m quite sure those more deeply involved in the sport could develop a better list than this, if the incentive by necessity is there. 

Much of this would encourage evasion, footwork, dominance by smaller, more agile, and more visionary players. 

Of course much of this would destroy the spectacle for  many of today’s fans. And dominance by impact is very much entrenched in recruitment, training, and development; and is really the essence of the modern game, and so would be very very difficult to retreat from.

But when the alternatives are losing the game altogether, or moving to 10 a side (which would still bring in the measures I listed), perhaps the approach needs to be considered.

1 hour ago, Big Picture said:

The game is too fast-paced as it is.  It needs to be slowed down, not sped up even more.

Yes, slowed down like NFL.

9 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't think the clock can be reversed on the physicality of the sport. Young men know how to be physically fit and strong and don't need a professional coach or role that demands it to do so. That genie is 100% out of the bottle.

If the issue is lack of space and too much intensity, then surely the answer is to reduce numbers on the pitch.

How many head injuries do we get in a 9s fixture vs a normal league match? Does the 9 a side version not look more like the 13 a side version did in its semi pro days in the 50s/60s?

I don't know about 9 a side but reducing players could definitely be looked at....maybe 11 a side would put more emphasis on evasion and less ability to commit defenders into crunching a single attacker ?

Would mean squads could be smaller too....25% reduction in all player related bills 

Not saying I want it but if it meant the game surviving as still fully professional in 20 years or not it would be preferable to a gradual decline back to semi pro

5 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I don't know about 9 a side but reducing players could definitely be looked at....maybe 11 a side would put more emphasis on evasion and less ability to commit defenders into crunching a single attacker ?

Would mean squads could be smaller too....25% reduction in all player related bills 

Not saying I want it but if it meant the game surviving as still fully professional in 20 years or not it would be preferable to a gradual decline back to semi pro

I suspect dropping it down to 11v11 would result in fewer front on tackles and hopefully fewer sudden stops affecting the brain.

Last night on Channel 9 was the program 60 minutes.  The program is regarded as one of Australia’s leading current affairs program.

The main topic last night was an interview with Wally Lewis who revealed that he has been diagnosed with probable CTE.  I didn’t catch the program but it was referred to on the radio this morning as there was a big argument about an AFL player who appeared to have a bad concussion on Saturday night but was given the OK to go back on the pitch.

On the radio discussion they mentioned that on the 60 Minutes program Lewis was asked by a physician to remember 5 words. A couple of minutes later he was asked to recite those words.  He managed to remember 2 of them.  He was again asked shortly after and could only remember one word.

Apparently Lewis has signed a document that gives permission for his brain to be donated to science to check for CTE.

2 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

Last night on Channel 9 was the program 60 minutes.  The program is regarded as one of Australia’s leading current affairs program.

The main topic last night was an interview with Wally Lewis who revealed that he has been diagnosed with probable CTE.  I didn’t catch the program but it was referred to on the radio this morning as there was a big argument about an AFL player who appeared to have a bad concussion on Saturday night but was given the OK to go back on the pitch.

On the radio discussion they mentioned that on the 60 Minutes program Lewis was asked by a physician to remember 5 words. A couple of minutes later he was asked to recite those words.  He managed to remember 2 of them.  He was again asked shortly after and could only remember one word.

Apparently Lewis has signed a document that gives permission for his brain to be donated to science to check for CTE.

He said he has no interest in pursuing a claim against the rugby league authorities.

42 minutes ago, Anita Bath said:

He said he has no interest in pursuing a claim against the rugby league authorities.

Good to silence the "he's doing it for the money" critics, but he's probably in a much better financial position than most of his contemporaries.