Hacker News Reader

The rolling substitutions are a big thing people fail to bring up when talking about the danger of the game. Between the platoons and rolling substitutions the game is designed to be a string of never ending high impact hits. There's little worry about stamina over long stretches because you can be substituted out and if you succeed your side gets a break. Players train their bodies to be explosive instead of having high endurance.

I'm sorry but as someone in the U.S. who played competitive rugby for 7 years I have to completely disagree.

In rugby I myself had experienced concussions from collisions at least once a season. Anyone I know who has played have experienced similar.

Less protection to the head means lower g-force hits sure, but still I've seen players knocked unconscious by pure body collision hits or an accidental knee to the head (this happens a lot more than you think) ... in fact in my 4 years of high school football I rarely, if ever, saw anyone knocked unconscious... where in rugby I can recall a handful of incidents.

Rugby has no room to outshine football in this manner. Such a foolish arguement.

Might be US culture vs others. Football probably has an influence on how Rugby is played in the US.

I mean.. isn't your argument just as foolish? Lets talk numbers, real numbers, not anecdotes.

Why one sport may differ (less or more) is a difficult thing to discuss, as we likely don't have clear numbers. But isn't debating something like the number of concussions for each sport silly?

even if you hit your head really hard on the front, it's the back of your brain that ends up getting wrecked, due to the rippling of the kinetic energy through your skull-confined brain matter.

The thing about concussion is that it's not the first impact that does the most damage - it's your brain sloshing and shearing/splitting itself, near the rear, against the inside of your skull as the recoil causes neuronal connections to essentially splinter..

like if you were to grab a dish-washing sponge with both hands, and tear it apart by pulling it apart by stretching it (a downwards-rolling wrist motion) you would notice the unfurling and disintegration of the middle section. essentially that's what happens during concussion; a 3 dimensional shearing tensor that is kind of like plunging your thumb into a ball of playdoh..

that's why even the mildest concussions are a seriously underrated danger

One of the problems with CTE is we still aren’t positive what is causing it. There is at least some evidence that low level repetitive hits to the head are as bad or worse than concussions in this regard. If that is true Rugby is going to have its day of reckoning in CTE (as is soccer).

Concussions are bad in any case, so it’s great that we are trying to prevent them, but I’d be very careful assuming any contact sport has a handle on the issue yet. Especially not one with a scrum.

> Especially not one with a scrum.

Interesting as the scrum is not a concern to me for head injuries (just spinal compression!). It is on the whole a pushing movement, not an impact.

yes, and rule changes to the game wont adress the repetitive collisions during off season practice where former pro fotball player Brendan Schaub claims most of the damage is done.

This is an excellent point

However there are a couple of things to say

1) If the game rules changed you would stop training for hits you were not expecting to take and concentrate on other factors.

2) I wonder how much of this training is necessary, vs hitting a heavy bag for instance. Perhaps it is just bad practice (no pun intended)

"The size of the people. In both sports their has been an increase in the mass of the players. However US football players seems disproportionately massive. In Rugby their are not rolling substitutions, so you have to carry that mass around for 80 minutes, and therefore a compromise is necessary, perhaps gridiron could restrict the number of subs, or the squad size so the bruisers actually had to run."

You are correct that NFL players are much, much larger than comparable rugby players. NFL linemen are enormous.

And they can run. It is not uncommon in 2017 to see 300+ pound linemen that can run quite fast. Michael Oher, the subject of the Michael Lewis book _The Blind Side_[2] is 6'4", has an actual weight of 320+ pounds, and is described to move very quickly on the basketball court.

However it is not these large players that are involved in the concussion hits. It is the "smaller" 200+ pound players who, while wearing full pads, can run as fast as olympic sprinters and launch themselves into opponents at full speed.

I'm afraid the "bruisers" can already run and the "small guys" are the size of normal rugby players. And are faster.

This is why I find the NFL so enormously compelling: In the 21st century, what happens in an NFL game is otherworldly.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Oher

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blind_Side:_Evolution_of_a...

> And they can run. It is not uncommon in 2017 to see 300+ pound linemen that can run quite fast. Michael Oher, the subject of the Michael Lewis book _The Blind Side_[2] is 6'4", has an actual weight of 320+ pounds, and is described to move very quickly on the basketball court.

I guess the obvious comeback is that they don't also have to pace themselves for 80 minutes. There are some very fast men in Rugby but they have to trade on stamina, and strength too as everyone has to defend.

> the size of normal rugby players. And are faster

There is a huge variation in size and builds in Rugby too. 200lbs is about the minimum now (was less) for backs. 266lbs is probably the max now. Height wise 5'7" to 6'8" is the normal range. George North[0] for instance is 238lbs 6ft 4 and runs the hundred metres in around 11 seconds with his compromise physique. They tend to aim for a very fast 40m time as it is all about breaking the defensive line in Rugby. Other smaller players clock in mid 10's for 100m, again the physique is too compromised to run at full olympic pace. They are expected to tackle the big guys for a full 80 minutes. There have been genuine sprinters in Rugby, I think of Carlin Isles in particular who was a novelty in the cut down game of Rugby 7's (7 rather than 15 players, shorter in duration and designed to encourage a running game). He didn't make any headway in the full game however for the reasons above.

> And are faster > It is not uncommon in 2017 to see 300+ pound linemen that can run quite fast

Apart from my comments about the compromise in physique required to run and tackle for 80 minutes, this just makes me believe more an more that their performances are otherwordly or at least enhanced.

> launch themselves into opponents at full speed

Which if they were not both wearing padding would result in two broken players. If you watch how a Rugby player tackles one of the fast guys, it is a much more dynamic move without sudden deceleration. You have to deflect and unbalance, not body check. It still looks cool, you shouldn't be concerned that it will hurt the spectacle of the NFL.

[0]https://genuinepace.com/category/rugby-union-2/ [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA5bwqVN5LM

CTE is not about concussions. CTE is about repeated, sub-concussive hits (https://concussionfoundation.org/CTE-resources/subconcussive...)

So, I don't think it's fair to say that you're not "killing the brains of your young men". Based on the best research available, Rugby players, who may be at less risk for concussions due to the safety protocols you have outlined, are still at a high risk for CTE.

> are still at a high risk for CTE.

This is a very good point. I am concerned as the Rugby players have become bigger and faster (which I put down to not so much sports science as sports chemistry) in the last 10 years and the impacts are harder. Rugby is a contact sport and is dangerous for your brain.

My argument has developed during the day due to some excellent responses. What I want to say now, is there are some lessons American Football can take from Rugby to make a dangerous game safer without risking the spectacle. Making it totally safe is going to be much harder

While the efforts made certainly help there is no getting around the fact that it is an impact sport. That combined with a culture of being tough means that few ‘good’ players escape completely injury free. Short of touch rugby there will still be head impacts and that will have an effect of varying degrees - just maybe not noticeable.

Personally I find it difficult to understand how parents can let their kids play rugby when there is such overwhelming evidence that it’s risky at best.

I've hurt myself far less playing rugby than soccer, and had way more fun too.

Yes, it's a high impact sport, and that's exactly why there are a lot of rules to prevent anyone from getting seriously injured.

Also, the objective of Rugby is to get the "ball" at the other side of the camp while avoiding the most friction possible, not to hurt each other. In fact, we were often encouraged to avoid contact whenever possible and to pass the ball whenever we could.

There is also a lot of training on how to to fall and how to not hurt your opponents too, I wouldn't say it's "risky at best", quite the contrary, I'd recommend the sport to anyone young enough.

>I've hurt myself far less playing rugby than soccer,

Respectfully, self-assessment is exactly the wrong approach here.

Play soccer, break a leg. Obvious - leg is broken. Play rugby, lose 5% mental ability - less obvious especially in a self(!)-assessment of one's mental ability.

>Also, the objective of Rugby

I've been on the receiving side of some nasty rugby tackles...including the type where I don't remember a lot about them. So yes I do understand the objective of Rugby and all that great stuff.

>In fact, we were often encouraged to avoid contact whenever possible and to pass the ball whenever we could.

If everyone plays a clean textbook version then that works out well. In my experience putting a bunch of determined testosterone fuelled guys on a field does not result in textbook clean though. Not even close.

Rugby/Boxing/NFL/whatever...consider this. 99% of NFL post mortems show CTE. Not just a few - 99%. Lets suppose Rugby is way better like literally halves the risk despite both similar contact sports but lets pretend Rugby is way better. Can you really "recommend the sport to anyone young enough" at 49% CTE risk? Telling me about training how to fall is just not going to cut it.

So yes "risky at best" is my assessment of the situation.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/25/health/cte-nfl-players-bra...

I stopped playing Rugby when before I was 18, and the final year of that was where it became serious. I have mild lasting damage to my spine which is painful rather than incapacitating and suffered one serious concussion. I also suffered some muscle strains.

The spinal damage was from playing against people in my college year group who were clearly much older than me, and should not have been playing against 16 year olds. The head injury was caused by my running towards a ruck which broke up in front of me, leaving someones head poking through to hit my face. It didn't happen in a tackle where the normal hits happen. It was a freak, but yes it would have been less likely in a tiddleywinks competition.

The other injuries I saw were a horrible broken leg from someone training in non-studded foot wear, and muscle strains typical of all athletic activities. I saw one more person knocked out in training who was simply holding a tackle pad and had their head in a very dubious position...

My point was really that the risks in American football could be reduced without ruining the game. No Rugby is not safe, neither is not taking exercise. You have to weigh up your own risks.

> The spinal damage was from playing against people in my college year group who were clearly much older than me, and should not have been playing against 16 year olds.

School rugby in NZ had a great solution to this that I wish was implemented elsewhere. The teams were categorised by weight rather than age, which makes a lot more sense for school / college Rugby.

I have a lifelong knee injury from football. Wish I'd never played.

> Personally I find it difficult to understand how parents can let their kids play rugby when there is such overwhelming evidence that it’s risky at best.

Frankly every time a child gets in a car they are much more likely to get injured than in a game of rugby. I guess it's time to start wrapping our children in bubblewrap every time they go out, just in case...

1) I find that hard to believe. Where did you read this? Injuries-per-minute playing rugby are surely higher than when riding a car.

2) Rugby is recreation. Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life. Regardless of risk, one can be given up much more easily.

>Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life.

That's a very America-centric point of view, and completely not true if you live in a city designed to accommodate high-density living (or at the very least one without terrible public transport).

This comment is pedantic and unnecessary. For people that have to ride in a car to go places, it absolutely is necessary.

It shows that it's possible to structure your life to not need a car, so you can significantly reduce the risk of a traffic accident.

It's not America-centric, it's anyplace-that-requires-a-car-centric.

If you're putting a child in a car, it's safe to assume it's not usually for recreational purposes. It's usually because it's the easiest (or only) way to move them a certain distance.

Yes, but people can choose to structure their life in ways that don't require putting children in cars, hence greatly reducing the risk of their children being in traffic accidents. So cars are not unavoidable, they're just a trade-off.

Indeed, it’s not per minute. But measure the injuries from a year of car riding vs a year of rugby, and our collective decision to make autos part of daily life looks more interesting

It still just seems like apples-to-oranges to me. It's perfectly rational to accept the risk of transportation, as transportation is often vital. The same isn't true of things done for pleasure, like sports.

> Rugby is recreation. Riding in a car is a necessary part of daily life. Regardless of risk, one can be given up much more easily.

Exercise is a necessary part of a healthy life. If Rugby motivates you to stay fit, then maybe it improves your chances of a healthy life

Your comment isn't really pertinent to my point. It's like saying that steak is necessary because eating is necessary.

Yes, exercise is necessary, but rugby isn't the only way to exercise, nor is it nearly the safest.

Cars aren't the only way to travel in general, but, for many people in many situations, the other options aren't viable.