Rugby: Head impact study shows cognitive decline after just one season | Hacker News Reader

Rugby: Head impact study shows cognitive decline after just one season

bbc.co.uk

276 pointsiechoz6H213 comments

I played rugby in high school, and I was surprised at how much you don't hit your head intentionally like you do in American football. You use your shoulders, torso, and arms, or at least that is how we were trained. Sure, you hit your head occasionally, but sometimes in a maul you find yourself clasping your hands behind your head in a maul to guard the ball against the opposition, while your team tries to hook the ball out of your stomach side, while you are laying down in a fetal position on the pitch!

I still think American football players maximize power off the line, feel protected by helmets and shoulder pads, and basically create a more powerful jolt when they hit heads instead of shoulder pads. When you're not wearing a helmet, you tend to become better at protecting your head against intentional hits.

Then again Garryownens can result in being hit like a freight train if you decide to catch it!

For non-rugby types, here's a Garryowen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmdqLiEvYw4

I don't know what I'm looking for, there's several stages of play in that clip, is a garyowen where they collide in midair?

It's the high kick.

edit: just read Jenk's comment :)

A "Garryowen" is very high, but not that long, kick. It's a kick where the intent is to have your own team catch it. Let's say you are the fullback and you are facing a wall of approaching opposition, charging at you. All of your team are ahead of you, too, so they are of no use. Blocking is illegal. The opposition are not allowed to tackle you if you don't have the ball, so you kick it up high, over their heads, and run past them, catch it, and carry on running. The opposition's inertia will keep them going past the ball (and you) so when you regain the ball, you'll have a clear field ahead of you.

That's the dream.

The reality is you now have a field of fast, heavy, people running toward the same spot on the field, all looking straight-up at the ball that is now 50ft in the air, unaware they are about to collide in a wind-taking, bone-crunching crash.

Thanks, a better explanation

My team called that the eagle, but yeah - I've seen people knock themselves out making that play.

There's similar research that shows padded gloves have lead to more injuries in boxing.

There's some evidence that increased padding leads to increased impact force in a wide range of sports, from boxing to running, that have a padded person initiating impact. Anecdotally, this is well known among hockey players and there's a social stigma against wearing more protective gear than average. I've even seen it implicated in pedestrian deaths as a result of driving.

Protective gear wont save ya much from concussions though.

Doesn't matter whats on your head if you're head is caught with an elbow, shoulder or the glass.

Tis a tough problem.

I've seen some of that research. MMA for example looks worse b/c of the potential for cuts and blood, but a single good punch typically ends a fight (and if a fighter does get to a position to really tee off, the ref stops the fight). Whereas in boxing, the boxer takes repeated punches over many rounds, and that doesn't count the training they do.

More head injuries. The gloves are to protect the hands.

Tangentially related: I do odd jobs in forestry, in the former Soviet Union. An experienced forester once told me how during the old times, all workers were using regular boots or wellingtons -- that is, boots with no steel toe or other safety elements.

By the early 90s, Husqvarna chainsaws and pro-level protective logger boots had gradually become the norm in our country. And guess what -- now, by the end of the day, the old forester would occasionally receive workers' boots with obvious chainsaw tracks across the toes.

So, as long as the men were using regular, layman's boots, something like this had, obviously, never happened. No logger had ever cut in his toe. Pro-level safety gear, however, made many of them inattentive or careless.

I wonder if this is also true to a degree when it comes to bike helmets. I often seem to ride faster and with more bravado when I'm wearing a helmet. I would, however, never let a 5yo child bike on a sidewalk without protection these days -- even though this is exactly how I grew up myself.

I'm reminded of the story about improving the armor on airplanes in World War 2. They were looking at where the fighters had been hit by enemy fire and improving the armor in those areas, until someone realized they should be armoring the areas where there were no bullet holes - because the planes hit in those areas didn't come back at all.

Likely the same principle applies to the logging boots. Logging boots without steel toes were probably damaged to the point of. being unusable (to say nothing of the logger's foot) and they were discarded.

I don't claim to know anything about sports but in the industrial environment, I am not going to be convinced that less PPE to make people work more carefully is a good idea. The idea is attractive as a paradox but it is beyond absurd to consider in practice - in fact it is barbaric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Thank you, I could remember the story but not the word for it.

> The idea is attractive as a paradox but it is beyond absurd to consider in practice - in fact it is barbaric.

Agreed, it would definitely be barbaric when it comes to contemporary forestry or other industrial environments. It can be, though, that since those 1980s-or-so workers couldn't even imagine getting a pair of extra safe logging boots, they were somehow (subconsciously?) more attentive about their bodily coordination and movements during chainsaw work. Because of the laymans' boots, there was absolutely no way you could allow yourself to saw towards your feet, for example. These days, you should never do it, but when it happens, you'll probably get away with a fright thanks to the protective footwear.

In other words, to a considerable extent, maybe humans do adapt themselves to the safety level they have at hand -- or what they could have in theory?

That said, using a chainsaw these days without protective boots would surely be really silly to my mind (why take the risk when these boots exist and are easily available). I don't think anybody who's serious really does this either.

Thanks for pointing the discussion to survivorship bias in this regard, though. You got me.

Not only research, but you can also see differences because there are events without gloves (bareknuckle boxing), events with small gloves (MMA) and events wtih big gloves (Boxing, but also Sparring which generally uses even bigger gloves).

For olympic boxing they removed the helmets because they think it's safer. Also, the gloves are extremely useful to protect the hands. Bareknuckle boxing exists (and you can watch it on youtube!), and the gameplan for these guys is very different. You can't go 100% since you risk breaking your hand. There's no closing your eye and throwing a haymaker here. Defending a punch with your forehead suddenly becomes a viable strategy since it's likely the damage to their hand will be bigger than the damage to your forehead. Knuckle conditioning, wrist adjustments, etc. So many changes! I find it extremely fascinating.

Extrapolating even further you can see how Jiu Jitsu becomes a whole different thing if you allow headbutts (just watch the 90's Brazilian Vale Tudo fights if you wanna see this, but I warn you that's it's much more violent than today's MMA fight). But that doesn't make it any safer so I may be diverging :)

I played a bunch of football myself. While others may deny it, there really exists an intentional tactic of crashing into opponents with your helmet. Especially on the line. I did it a lot myself.

The additional protection from armor very much does lead to an increase in the velocity of hits. This results in very high forces, and while you might not see broken bones, there's often injuries still happening.

I had about three months of foggy brain after I stopped playing. Now there's just no way I'd let a child of mine play that sport. I had a great time and learned a lot, but it's just not worth it, even just at the high school level.

Yup, knew a guy who played in the Rose Bowl, had a bunch of NFL offers.

He passed and went to a corporate job.

While his concern was constant knee injuries, his key statement was "I want to be able to walk when I'm 45".

Wise choice.

Edit: This was before the knowledge about TBI became widespread, so in some ways, his ability to look forward to the results of his older peers was even more prescient.

Perhaps it varies from area to area?

Where I grew up, the pee wee football league (9 and up), there was an unwritten rule of “no head hunting” (purposeful helmet to helmet contact).

If you suspected the other team of doing so, or vice versa there would certainly be a fight amongst the teams: either after the game or even mid-game.

Now I’m speculating here but maybe it had to do with inner city culture where sports was seen as a way out rather than simply as an extracurricular so cheap shots and other intentional injuries were very much frowned upon.

This is an increasingly common sentiment among hockey players too, that softer shoulder pads could be a way to decrease head trauma

I can’t find it now, but there’s a Bobby Clarke quote about modern protective equipment being like armor. This gives players a false sense of invulnerability and the tools to hit other players harder with less damage to themselves.

Well, olympic boxing concluded that not wearing helmets is safer for the athletes.

Alas, I have no citations, but I have heard on the grapevine, as it were, that there are multiple studies showing that glove-less boxing is safer than boxing with the normal gloves.

This makes a lot of sense because, as I said in another comment this this article, bareknuckle completely changes the gameplan. The hand is very easy to break and the gloves do a great job at protecting them. When you don't have gloves you can't just go throwing haymakers since it's very likely you're going break your hands doing it. Heck, even "defending with your forehead" becomes a viable strategy against a gloveless opponent. I bet in these scenarios the fighters get exposed to much weaker shots in average. The goal here is to land that one precise punch right in the off switch.

In boxing, it is argued that not wearing gloves would decrease head trauma, too.

Hitting a skull with your bare fist is more likely to break your hand than to knock out your opponent, so bare-knuckle fighters won’t go for head punches as much as boxers do.

Knuckles also cut an opponent's face to shreds which prevents a fight dragging on.

We had that (leading with the head) in the 90s as an old school training for o-line in Missouri. However at the time they had switched the good players on the line to just using their hands as they had started allowing grabbing "inside the numbers". Still took a while for the transition to trickle down.

All of the higher end camps and college camps taught using hands. Then I played in college, the people who hit with their heads on the line were hopelessly outclassed. We had a senior who was a physical monster but just loved using his shoulder/head to block, he never was put on the field (dude got a PHD in high energy lasers at the same time). It massively limits visibility and frankly, you can't HOLD with your head, which is, again, legal. Your hands are massively better. And the right amount of work in the weight-room you get your chest and triceps as big as most people's arms, you end up being able to double hit people. First hit is coming in with the arms and stopping their momentum by bending your arms. Second hit is that you can literally bench press them so you then shove them very quickly off balance or to the ground.

Even when we did less than savory tactics, often out of desperation, like a leg whip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHdPcaRAkeg watch the running back in the first 5 seconds come in from the left) they taught us to have our heads up looking for the next person to block.

The coaches we had in high school were not very smart and were doing it as a part time job based on what they remembered from high school. The coaches in college were professionals and did constant training and improvement.

I played rugby and there is no way I'll let my children play. Spinal injuries from scrum collapses are way too common, and there is a view of scrum being a fundamental part of the sport so they only mitigate it by not pushing in scrum until a certain age, doing 3 against 3 scrums and so on. By the time the boys are 15 they like the game and start playing hard and getting hurt. I'd rather have them row, run, play soccer, surf, and so many other options

I'd rather have them row, run, play soccer, surf, and so many other options

This. While all sports can lead to injuries, there are so many enjoyable sports with lower injury risks out there. I'd rather teach my kids activities they can enjoy their entire lives -- well past their youth vs something high impact.

> I'd rather have them row, run, play soccer, surf, and so many other options

Soccer is not a safe option: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=brain+damage+from+headers+in+socce...

To be clear, there are unspoken concussion issues with many sports. It was only recently that soccer began to take concussions seriously from headers by banning them from some youth leagues.

That said, I would also never allow my children to play gridiron football. Even if concussions weren't a thing, people leave that sports with lifelong injuries.

Football helmets also used to be really heavy and hard.

In my time, we were unaware of the negative effects, so we used our helmets as a weapon. This was normal. It worked.

For example, if you are a running back with sufficient mass, come in low with high speed and manage to place your helmet on the helmet of the defender (who is often moving laterally) you could literally knock them out.

During kick off, you could have two players running into each other full speed from 50 yards out. Of course the person who is willing to go fully into contact will win. The person going for a Rugby style tackle might land on his behind.

The force of such impacts was immense. I have had my metal face shield broken out of the helmet. I have seen broken jaws from the impact, people getting knocked out, having concussions.

I am horrified about the things they let us do in the 90‘s. Even in practice, these contact drills that were designed to take away your fear of contact, teach you to use your body as a weapon.

I just hope it is different today, but if I have kids, they will not play Football

I grew up playing rugby, but that ends with me. My kids aren’t playing either

In the 00's we may not have had the scientific backing yet, but the common knowledge was that football was scrambling the players' brains. As we were still in the last stages of the transition away from a manufacturing economy into a knowledge economy, there was still a popular perception that intellectual capacity was not really needed in men who would be much better off learning self-sacrifice, physical endurance, pain tolerance and willingness to abuse their bodies for the good of the group, all great skills for blue collar workers but not much needed in white collar jobs.

> During kick off, you could have two players running into each other full speed from 50 yards out. Of course the person who is willing to go fully into contact will win. The person going for a Rugby style tackle might land on his behind.

Kickoffs in the 90s were terrifying. Targeting rules get a lot of focus but moving the kickoff spot up to the 35 and touchbacks up to the 25 were probably the most consequential safety changes in modern football.

dude i dont remember my junior and senior year of highschool due to football. I turned down college scolarships due to how dangerous it is. sophomore year i fractured my distal femur.

I played a lot of football. Beyond poorly trained teenagers, I’ve never heard a coach or a player advise leading with the helmet. Body, arms, shoulders, pads yes. head? Nope. Too dangerous to the neck and head. When you play at the college/pro level, that kind of behavior will get you (literally) killed.

Keep in mind this was in the 90's. For sure we never had a coach say "nail that guy with your helmet", but every game had dozens of these kind of impacts, the worst typically on special teams.

It was less disciplined in high school for sure, but there was still lots of high speed helmet-first crashing going on in university.

What you wrote reminded me of an article on the bike helmet paradox:

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/03/the-bike-...

It's definitely a weird kind of embarrassment, I won't pretend it doesn't exist. But it's one of those hurdles that are so small in retrospect, you wonder how you ever let it stop you from experiencing all the benefits of a cycling rich life. I think it's because until you've experienced it, you don't realize how much is on offer on the other side of the fence.

In my own city I wouldn't ride without one, but in a more shared space friendly city, like famously in many cities in Japan, I wouldn't be as inclined to wear one. If I'm riding at 30kmph right next to traffic, you bet I want a helmet. But < 20kmph in and out of foot traffic, or properly shared slower roads, then I wouldn't worry about it.

I am somewhat similar. The irony is that when you're riding next to traffic, a helmet offers little protection against being hit by a car. The biggest gains are solo crashes against the asphalt, with no cars involved. So if I'm riding a city bike for fun or chores, I may not wear a helmet (especially a shared bike). But if I'm riding the hills for sport, helmet on every time.

Anecdote incoming: I was hit by a car while bicycling home one night about ten years ago. I was knocked over and broke my collarbone in two places. I remember thinking at the hospital, "It's amazing I didn't hit my head. A broken clavicle really isn't that bad." (it's basically nature's crumple zone)

Only a couple days later did I think to check my helmet. It had a huge crack on the outside and two smaller ones on the inside. I absolutely smashed my head on the pavement. That helmet saved me from serious head trauma, if not worse.

From a random stranger on the internet: Please wear your helmet while bicycling. There are many ways to end up hitting your head after a bike crash, and all of them are bad.

I second this. A car pulled out in front of me once - I went over the handlebars, landed on my hip and my head whiplashed onto the tarmac. If I hadn't had my helmet on it's very likely that I would have fractured my skull, including all of the attendant risks of serious brain injury.

> The irony is that when you're riding next to traffic, a helmet offers little protection against being hit by a car.

It may save you from head trauma as a result of a car hitting you, either from your head hitting the pavement or the car.

> a helmet offers little protection against being hit by a car

This doesn't seem true? A lot of people who get hit by a car end up falling to the ground, where they can hit their head on the concrete.

I used to feel the same. Then I was with my 8 year old son, me running alongside him cycling on a path in a green be grassy park. He lost his balance and slowly rolled over and banged his head on the only damn rock in the entire path. Fortunately he had his helmet on.

on a tangent: the effect described there that a helmet hinders taking up biking certainly applies to me. A friend gifted me a bike helmet (i always cycle 20km to him) and when I tried it out, it sucked all my joy out of biking and I thought: huh, taking the train would be more fun. I realized that it doesn't make sense to take the train just because I don't like the helmet and went on biking without it. However, I also don't like headsets with noise-cancelling and there must be something with my head/ears or something that's different from most (?) people so my suggestion for everyone else: at least try a helmet. But if you don't like it, don't stop biking just because (unless your city has no respect for bikers, then don't bike at all).

Can you elaborate on how the bike helmet sucked all the joy out of biking?

You get used to it. Only have tried it once doesn't seem like giving it a fair go - if you spent the whole ride concentrating on the helmet I'm sure it felt annoying, but if you wear it for every ride for a month you'd likely forget it was there. It may also have been the wrong size, and there's a wide variety of weights / styles out there to choose from. It took me a while to find one that I actually felt comfortable in.

I used to wear helmet regularly and it still discourages me from riding. Stopped wearing it after one season. If I rode only for sport, it would not be that much annoying, but if I ride for transport (to work or store) it is super annoying to have to deal with it.

Reminds me playing rugby at high school... one time I dived to catch the ball, and went head-first into an (unpadded) goal post, knocking myself out cold :( What an absolute eejit!

I played casually off an on for a few years, and that was the only head injury I ever received.

The whiplash from getting tackled in the shoulder is enough to cause a concussion itself.

Whiplash and concussion have near identical symptoms too. It's very very difficult to tell them apart.

Played rugby (college and usa d1 mens club) and American football in highschool.

I've never felt like I got my bell rung (severe impact) as much as I did in American football.

That said, I do feel like between the drinking culture of rugby, and the small impacts of tackling and going to ground, I certainly did some damage.

About three or four years ago, college football formally implemented a targeting (helmet to helmet contact) rule that had immediate impact on the way tackling is taught in college and high school. Players are now taught to tackle shoulder first in certain situations or go for the legs in others. Pros have a looser, inconsistently applied, personal foul rule, but we're starting to see the techniques taught at lower levels in the pros.

Mind you, it's still an incredibly violent game, who knows if the new measures will make a difference, and we'll probably see shorter careers due to leg injuries.

The idea that armor increases injury risk is a fascinating case study of unintended consequences.

Similar “safety irony” claims I’ve heard include:

* Mandatory bike helmet laws increase total risk to life because having to wear a helmet deters people from cycling so they drive instead, and thus miss out on the increased cardio health they would have got from cycling.

* Trains are too safe, meaning they have to meet such stringent safety criteria that the costs are raised to the point that people drive instead, and driving is much more dangerous.

And my favorite personal anecdote: a ruined castle in Portugal which had a staircase leading up to a high ledge with no barrier. It was so obviously dangerous that everyone was taking a lot of care up there…

as I recall, when ABS braking in cars was introduced, it did not seem to reduce accidents or injuries, and the idea was floated that people have an innate sense of risk and they'll take more risks if they feel safe. (I'm not defending this idea, just reporting what I remember)

Statisticians pointed out that the number of people chose to drive long distance trips rather than fly due to fear of flying in the aftermath of 9/11 and deaths caused by the increase in driving outnumbered the number of deaths caused directly by 9/11.

To expound on your bike helmet comment, growing up in the 70s skating, skateboarding, and biking, we didn't have protective gear. We quickly learned to fall and roll to prevent broken bones. I was rollerblading in NYC streets and Central Park in the dance circle in the early 90s, and watching beginners with protective wrist guards, helmets, elbow pads, and knee pads fall again and again was telling. They relied on their wrist guards and other equipment to prevent injury without learning how to fall. I have friends who take spills at high speed on skateboards, and roll and stand up without more than a few scuffs. I saw people with pads still break their thumbs and sprain their wrists. Sometimes you need a bit of both skill and protective gear, otherwise, you are an accident waiting to happen.

Football is an impact sport, rugby is a contact sport

> hit your head intentionally

wow I know the sport is infamous for this but intentionally? How is that neccessary?

> I was surprised at how much you don't hit your head intentionally like you do in American football.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, but even 25+ years ago when I was a young guy playing football, we were using what is now identified as the "Seahawks" method, which deliberately protects the head of the tackler. It's what my son is taught now playing ball as well. It still dumbfounds me that others were taught to use their head as a weapon.

I played rugby for years and had a constant, mild headache the entire time. Went abroad for five months so I took a break, and I couldn't believe how good I felt. I had forgotten what it felt like for my brain not to hurt.

Needless to say, I never played again.

The study covered one season and did not cover long term impacts. It's entirely possible that, like the parent comment, the whole team finished the season, tested poorly on cognitive performance, took a few months break and were then back close to baseline. The comments about long-term impact are generally not about one season of ordinary contact in any sport.

How many times of being hit in the head is ok? Obviously one wrong hit in the head can lead to death. Is there any acceptable level of being hit in the head?

Why this is even a debate is boggling to me.

I actually don't think it was primarily caused by hits to the head. Every collision (including tackles and scrums) "rattles" the head in a way that causes pain, and presumably damage, over time.

Ok, forgive me for being imprecise in my language :).

Any willful activity that harms the brain should be considered carefully before undertaking. This would include drinking alcohol as well (something which many of us willfully choose).

One wrong step, sneeze, or meal can lead to death. People compete in sport not to get hit in the head, but for other benefits which are legion, just as people become sedentary doing desk jobs not in hopes of suffering ill health from doing no physical activity, but again because their focus is elsewhere.

There are lots of sports that don't involve being hit in the head, people can do those instead.

I would be really curious to see a long term study.

Based on the short term immediate decline they observed, it does seem like there must be some recovery after the season. Just the compounding effects after a handful of seasons seem like they would be very noticeable.

But I’d also be surprised if any recovery were totally complete, either.

I loved playing rugby, and would be sad to see results similar to football, but I’m trying to be open-minded about the long term results.

I had a similar thing with jiu-jitsu in my 30s. It's fairly low-impact as combat sports go (which is great!), but I had been playing other sports (judo and wrestling) for the majority of my life and those have periodic non-concussive impacts.

After 20 years of practice, I felt just a touch foggy, and I took a few months off to see if anything changed and if my brain cleared up. It definitely did, and I therefore had to quit so I could continue to do programming work at a high level.

Absolute bummer, but that's life, I guess.

Have you considered doing BJJ instead?

That's what I meant, sorry. Japanese Jiu Jitsu isn't really full contact.

You get ancillary knocks and bumps in BJJ (catching a knee in side mount, or screwing up a takedown and bonking yourself), and while they're not that bad, after a lifetime of playing for fun, it was time to stop.

Interesting. BJJ for fun (not competition - so start in position and do less full speed take downs) is probably one of the least impact inducing sports I've ever done. Of course getting bumped in the head can happen, but it's usually with newer people. I mostly stick to higher belts and people I know, and I can't think of the last time I got hit in the head.

Running and basketball I had to quit because of impact on my body overall, though not so much my head. Wakeboarding I quit b/c of a torn ACL and minor concussions in my 20s. Skateboarding is obvious lol. Surfing doesn't have very much impact, but in big waves there is a whole other set of risks.

Anyway, I was just a bit surprised by your comment b/c out of all the sports I've done, BJJ seemed like the one I could do for a very long time just by sticking with people I know and trust.

yeah, I started because my body was getting creaky after years of judo and I wanted something lower impact - it's definitely significantly less stress on your body than either wrestling or judo, but you still get jostled around and in more competitive situations (i.e. in my last tournament I gave myself a concussion and nearly got choked unconscious bc I was out of it) the chance for injury is higher.

It's definitely safe if it's the first thing you've ever done, as the lower levels of bumps are new, but if you've done similar things for a long time, you definitely feel the accumulation in your brain and joints. It's super dumb because it's literally my favorite thing in the world, but I want to be a sharp tack when I'm old and I couldn't sustain it.

Definitely gotta do what works for you. I've taken to it the past few years because my body was getting creaky from years of all the other sports. I'm definitely not doing anymore competitions though. They were fun and submitting someone you don't know is a rush, but I could tell that's where I was likely to get hurt.

At this point in my 40s I've got nothing to prove. If someone comes at me spastic, I tap and move on. The algorithmic/thinking side is really a big draw for me (and it seems others). Over half the people in one of my typical classes are programmers. Time will tell if I can do it in a way that allows for longevity - I certainly hope so. Good luck to you!

I'm currently in my early 30s and sitting here with a mild headache from training the other day. I'm sad to say that I'm probably going to have to quit soon for the same reason.

It's interesting to see that this issue is rather controversial within the Rugby/NFL world, whereas other sports it's almost a given?

Boxing, for example, has pretty damaging long-term side-effects with notable legends dying prematurely. But nobody is really making Hollywood movies about it (like Concussions starring Will Smith). I wonder whether Rugby/NFL is just headed towards the direction of these sort of consequences becoming accepted as being 'part of the sport'.

Because boxing is a minor sport in comparison. Way to many billions at stake in football and rugby.

Boxing is one of the biggest sports in the world. Rugby is pretty niche.

That's completely wrong I'm afraid. In terms of popularity (number of fans) Rugby is about as popular as American Football, at around 9th most popular sport.

The top two are 1. Association Football (aka soccer), 2. Cricket

Boxing doesn't make the top 10.

The rise of MMA severely damaged the popularity of boxing.

Boxing is somewhat popular to watch, but we don’t have high school boxing with large numbers of participants at most schools. I am fine with adults taking such risks with their own bodies knowing the risks, but it’s another thing when public school teams enter the equation.

Replacing full contact high school football with say flag football or soccer would be unpopular, but continuing is an ethically dubious proposition.

Boxing training starts at a very young age, especially because parents/kids know the kind of money and fame a professional boxer can achieve. That being said, I take your point on it being part of the high school programs. Begs the question on whether parents should be allowed to put their children into sports with long-term effects at all. As other threads mention, this would be hugely unpopular.

> especially because parents/kids know the kind of money and fame a professional boxer can achieve.

Oh come on. Even among professional sports boxing seems incredibly unlikely to pay off as a career move.

There are a lot of dreamers out there

True. Olympic medallist Tony Jeffries made a video about this a couple of days ago[1]. Even if you become pro, chances are you won't be making any significant money.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiqJh0oG9dM

But since probably 100x times as many kids play basketball or football than box, your odds are probably similar.

Also, I'd counter-intuitively bet that careers in boxing (when found) are longer lasting than in pro football. Pro football players get very moderate money for what tends to be extremely short careers that leave a lot of damage. My grandfather couldn't walk for the last 10 years of his life from football damage to his knees he picked up 60 years before.

My only issue with this is that Boxing isn't as dominate of a combat sport as it once was. MMA/UFC has split the market share and by most accounts is more popular than Boxing. This reduces the total number of professional boxers that actually "make it" since most paid boxers rarely get a fight card that is worth significant cash.

But if you combine MMA/UFC with Boxing I would bet you're math is reasonable.

Saying it would be "unpopular" is an understatement. If someone has never spent time around football fans or lived in an area of the country where football is king, it's hard to explain exactly how ingrained it is in American culture. Trying to offramp a large amount of the population into a less violent sport would likely immediately be highly politicized and, I would assume, an almost impossible task without a significant, voluntary change in peoples' willingness to sacrifice their thrilling weekend of violence for the good of all these kids that grow up trying to be the next NFL pro.

Solution: require a surgical mask to be worn under football helmet.

You would have football boycotts in no time.

College football required all players to mask in 2020 except when on the field of play. The only boycotts that happened were due to the national anthem situation.

Seems like that's a better "solution": mandate that all players and spectators kneel for the anthem

Hopefully, more ex-NFLers will follow in Favre's steps and come out against youth tackle football...

https://www.npr.org/2021/08/17/1028547803/brett-favre-kids-f...

That's great that Favre came out to say that; he's considered one of the toughest players to ever play the game.

I think no one made a movie about it because we already know. The Will Smith movie was all about people resisting and denying the idea in football.

Years go UFC advocates would state it was much safer than boxing because you’d get knocked out easier and wouldn’t go round after round getting repeatedly knocked in the head. Not sure if the argument was valid but time will tell.

What did they say about being kicked in the head multiple times?

Being hit by a car is not so bad as being hit by a bus. You still want neither.

I suspect being kicked in the head once is going to do a lot more damage than being punched 20 times personally.

My intuition is that many less powerful strikes are worse for your health than one very powerful one. But I'm not a doctor and that's just a wild guess. I would like to see some studies about this.

It's also a lot less likely that you'll get kicked in the head though. Successfully getting a head kick off on someone is hard, especially when they are allowed to tackle and grapple.

Doubly so since you can't do various strikes against someone's head once they have three points of contact with the ground. No knees or kicks to the head when down like the early UFC days.

I think the ratio of kicks to the head in the mean MMA bout and punches to the head in the mean boxing match is a lot more than 1:20; probably closer to 1:500.

The difference between boxing and MMA is not just punches vs kicks.

For example, the two rulesets are different with regards to how a fight ends. In MMA there is no count if you get knocked down, you either show that you can defend yourself immediately after being dropped, or the referee will end the fight declaring a TKO. In boxing this doesn't normally happen, after a knock down the referee starts counting so you have a few seconds to "recover", and often you have to be knocked down more than once before the referee declares a TKO.

There is also a difference with regards to punches specifically, due to 4oz gloves being used in MMA (they allow grappling but they have less padding than the gloves used in boxing). Is it more damaging being punched once with little padding, or a few times with more padding? I've seen arguments one way or the other and since I'm not a doctor I don't know which ones are correct.

Anecdotally, Olympic boxing removed head protection gear a few years ago because they conducted a study where they observed that not wearing headgear, counter intuitively, resulted in fewer injuries[1].

I know nothing about medical topics but I'm curious and would like to read more studies about brain damage in combat sports.

[1] https://www.wired.com/2016/08/olympic-boxers-arent-wearing-h...

UFC/MMA fights often involve a lot of grappling and kicks to the lower body, which aren't allowed in boxing. All else being equal a boxing match tends to contain a lot more head strikes. But obviously neither sport is particularly "safe".

> you’d get knocked out easier

A knockout in MMA includes a much wider category of ways to lose, e.g. tapping out from an arm-bar and conceding to your opponent counts as a knockout.

Also, boxing has the big gloves that let you all but punch someone's head off, and "below the belt" is set way too high, effectively eliminating body punches from the sport.

There were similar arguments in boxing regarding the use of headgear[1].

[1] https://www.wired.com/2016/08/olympic-boxers-arent-wearing-h...

And in cigarette smoking regarding the use of filters.

The early Vale Tudo/MMA/UFC legends are just now starting to get at the age they can show the symptoms. I guess the next decade will be interesting in terms of showing the results.

You already have people like Wanderlei Silva openly talking about their symptoms, and it's clearly this guy has got something (he admits so!). On the other hand, the type of crazy stuff Wand did is not what people do these days. Wand believed being knocked out would make you more resistant to knockouts! If you have a few spare years to learn Portuguese I highly recommend watching the many interviews he has on Youtube where he talks about this.

Yes, the perceived risk profiles regarding head injury are different between the two sports of "grab the ball and run" and "punch him in the head".

Requiem for a Heavyweight (1962) takes a pretty good look at that. It has a neat POV segment at the beginning that shows a fight with Cassius Clay through the eyes of the main character.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056406/

And well... there's also Rocky V...

My theory is that boxing's effects are clear and obvious, whereas football and rugby have portrayed themselves as more safe in the past. The NFL spent years keeping CTE research down to prevent people seeing their concussion issues, where boxing literally has people getting knocked out in the ring.

People tend to be more accepting of sports when they own their issues and cater to their specific viewers. People who have a problem with concussions and violence just don't watch boxing, so boxing doesn't have to pretend that head injuries aren't an issue. They may not publicize the CTE aspect of the sport, but I don't think they're hiding from it to the same extent as rugby and the NFL.

As an aside, I will point out that MMA has mandatory medical suspensions in place after fights that are usually longer than the average football player's stay in the concussion protocol. That's not to say that MMA is better for your head (because it most likely isn't), just that the sport recognizes that concussions are an issue, and that the only thing that fixes them is time.

CTE is a complex disorder. It started off being linked to concussions, then linked to untold amounts "sub-concussive" blows over many years (even without a diagnosed concussion)[1], to to now being debated as to whether it's a real, distinct disease[2][3].

We're talking about a disease that is somewhat similar to many other diseases of the brain, that much like Alzheimers, cannot even be diagnosed in living people yet. Not playing sports doesn't guarantee one safety from whatever CTE is either [4].

I'm no medical professional, but this is a topic near and dear to me. I've done quite a bit of research and talked with medical professionals about it. It's really an "up in the air" kind of thing, in my opinion. I will say that the average person and the media seem to think it's a much bigger deal than the medical professionals I have spoken with (all of which do research in this area at one of the top 20 hospitals in the US (Vanderbilt)). Who is right? I fear only time will only tell.

I do think more steps need to be taken to make sports safer. Whether or not CTE, concussions, head trauma, etc. is as bad the media claims is debatable, but I cannot see any of it being a "good" thing either.

[1] https://www.bu.edu/cte/about/frequently-asked-questions/

[2] https://journals.lww.com/acsm-csmr/Fulltext/2014/01000/Is_Ch...

[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30169776/

[4] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190620153548.h...

I’ve been following concussions in sports for while as part of a company I’m launching soon (https://ocula.ai) - it’s seriously scary stuff now that longer term, validated studies are beginning to be published - it’s worth noting NFL powered through its allocated funds for concussion payouts of $0.5B almost a decade ahead of schedule (https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/10056...) and there’s many more on the way…

What’s the end game for American football when, inherently, everyone ends up with brain damage? I assume the NFL will end up bankrupt from civil claims?

Why can't they just add "this causes brain damage and we are not liable" to their contract?

The most American of answers.

Person A consents voluntarily to Person B to take large sum of money in exchange for concussion/negative health effects on their own body (which I presume we agree they own their own body including the ability to risk it).

What business is it to anyone else, least of all the government?

You're only thinking about the NFL.

High school and youth players are neither paid nor are they old enough to consent.

Collegiate players are old enough to consent, but aren't paid (excluding tuition/room/board).

Regardless of the sums of money, do we as a society, really want to allow people to allow themselves to become brain damaged in exchange for money? If not, we need to decide where we draw the line.

Yes, we really should allow people who consent to risk becoming brain damaged to do it in exchange for money. We already allow people to do it for free, like allowing people to ride dirt bikes.

>You're only thinking about the NFL.

The article was literally about professional rugby players. Yes I realize most of those guys are not making millions.

>High school and youth players are neither paid nor are they old enough to consent.

Which is why I said those who consent, who are you arguing against? My statement was "Person A consents." If you believe a minor cannot consent then by definition we haven't spoken about high school and youth.

As an aside, do you believe all sex amongst 17 year olds is rape as well, since you are not attributing them the ability to consent?

It becomes the government's and everyone else's business because who's going to look after you if you get disabled and can't work? You'll then have to proceed to beg, steal or live on government benefits and then you become everyone else's problem. As long as we live in a society we are our brother's keeper whether we like it or not. The only escape is to move away from society so you have no interaction with it so then you can't complain about society interacting with you. Which in today's world is impossible as society will still at least affect your natural environment, unfortunately.

If you don't like the fact that the disabled may have to be looked out for on your dime or taxpayer's dime, that sounds more like an argument for government not "looking out" for someone who voluntarily risked their body.

Being your brother's keeper doesn't mean getting an IRS agent and some agent with a gun to force someone who didn't consent to someone else playing football/rugby to pay for their injury. Being brother's keeper doesn't mean removing consent.

I think what you should really be arguing for is the rugby association to properly compensate anyone with medical disability as a result of their employment.

Contract law is literally one of the main functions of government. The court system, paid for by taxpayers, is used to settle those disputes. So it is in the governments interest to clearly define what is and isn't allowed in a contract between two parties.

The business of the government is in enforcing the consensual contract, not in the content of consensual conduct between two parties. It would be quite draconian to suggest the government should have an interest in what particular consensual activity you choose.

Or maybe you really believe it is in the governments interest to clearly define what consensual conduct is allowed. Just curious, but do you check with government interests before agreeing to a certain sex position with a partner? After all, it is the government's business; they should really probably know. I hope you also seek government definition of your conduct of pissing in a bush next time you're out in the public woods (make sure the contract of your public use of lands isn't ill defined).

The idea contract law makes what voluntary consensual conduct you do the business of government is a hilarious and gross misinterpretation of the the utility of contract law.

If I challenge you to a duel, and we both agree to it in writing, that doesn't make it legal even if it is consensual. Similarly, if the NFL puts a waiver in their contracts with players regarding damages related to concussions/CTE, that may (or may not) be enforceable. The US has quite a few labor laws that would likely apply here.

If you live in libertarian la la land, then sure, both sides should be able to come to a consensual agreement without government interference. But in the real world, there are actual, real limits to what you can put in a contract that will stand up in court.

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

I don't find anything wrong with a duel, nor that if someone knowingly chooses to not hold the NFL accountable beyond their millions in payment and post-employment benefits that they have the right to do that.

>If you live in libertarian la la land, then sure, both sides should be able to come to a consensual agreement without government interference

Yes and currently people still come to "illegal" consensual agreements like in the drug trade. When they're unable to seek peaceful intervention through the courts, they're forced instead to engage in violence and vigilante justice. That sounds much better to you, huh?

It's not just libertarians that have an interest in government butting out of these sorts of agreements. For instance, pot shops (run by all kind of folks) have trouble entering any sort of banking relationship due to asinine federal drug laws. Or if you're into certain alternative health ideas, you'll find you're completely unable to come to an agreement with a farmer across state lines for obtaining unpasteurized raw milk. Hope you've never purchased from a child's unlicensed lemonade stand either.

Aside from being appalling, this would also serve as an admission.

In a properly functioning society the government tends to look out for the best interests of its citizens. People are local optimization machines and they tend to make bad long term decisions. In order to prevent exploitation of labor it is necessary for government to intervene from time to time. It's why we don't let mining companies say to the prospective employees: "This is dangerous and we aren't liable." Instead we require mining companies to take prudent steps to ensure the safety of workers. People desperate for a paycheck often times will do things they ordinarily wouldn't.

In general that is true, but I don't think NFL players fall into the category of "desperate for a paycheck." That said, the vast majority of football players never make a dime and if the NFL DOES go bankrupt it will because the pipeline of players dries up because many fewer people want to play at the HS/College level given the obvious health risks and very low adds of becoming a successful professional.

NFL players are absolutely desperate for a paycheck. For many, it's their way out of poverty. They have to go through 8+ years of brain damage for their only chance of not ending up poor like everyone else in their family. And the avg tenure in the NFL is only 3 years.

Professional football relies on the infrastructure of child/school football producing new players, so there’s going to be a trickle down effect from whatever happens with the NFL. Even if over 18 year olds signing contracts can waive their liability, high schoolers can’t. And mounting scientific evidence about the risk of concussions is going to cause it’s own liability issues for the schools hosting the sports.

Anecdotally, I remember a couple of my high school classmates seemed perceptibly affected by their repeated concussions in varsity football, and would discuss at the lunch table how to throw the “impact” test at the start of the year so they would still be allowed to play after a serious hit. The test compared your score after injury to your score at the start of the year, so theoretically if you do badly enough on round 1 you can still pass with a “mild” concussion.

Professional software development relies on the infrastructure of childhood STEM producing new scientists, so there’s going to be a trickle down effect from whatever happens with the startup sector. Even if over 18 year olds signing contracts can waive their liability, high schoolers can’t. And mounting scientific evidence about the risk of pressure to succeed in the sciences is going to cause it’s own liability issues for the schools hosting the subjects, such as the many suicides of engineering students who are overwhelmed with pressure to succeed.

Anecdotally, more than 1 engineering student has killed themself, affected by their repeated challenges in engineering school, and has discussed their challenges at the lunch table about how to throw back a "drink" at the start of the night so they could still allow themselves to continue after a serious reprimand by their PI.

--------------

NFL primarily sources from collegiate football, not high school. In fact, there is a strict rule a player must be 3 year out of high school before being drafted. If you have a problem with the way collegiate football recruits children, perhaps it is best to start there.

Early on in American footballs life there was a problem with excessive deaths. The President stepped in and effectively demanded rule changes to make the sport less deadly.

I doubt that will happen again but you can imagine a similar set of rule changes to help with brain health. I suspect the NFL will need to drive that as I don’t see a Teddy Roosevelt line public figure these days.

What rule changes can you make to football to eliminate head hits, without making the game unrecognizable? I think if that were a possible solution, they would have done it already. As is they're just tinkering on the margins with things like kickoff rules (encouraging more touchbacks to eliminate contact on one of the most dangerous plays of the game).

Targeting (leading with the crown of the helmet) is a penalty that can get a college player ejected from the game, and if in the second half will carry over to the first half of the next game.

A blow to the QBs head is a 15 yard penalty and automatic 1st down.

Spearing is a personal foul, 15 yard penalty, automatic 1st down IIRC.

I'm sure there are others...

I think that would fall under "tinkering on the margins" as the person you replied to phrased it.

An example of a more systemic change would be elimination of any head-to-head impacts that might occur between defense and offensive linemen on any given play.

How do you work to eliminate those without changing the game into something unrecognizable?

I don't know that eliminating the risk is a feasible goal. Reducing the highest risk parts of the game is feasible.

But things like reducing the number of players on the field, making periods shorter, increasing time between games (or reducing games per season), and putting playtime caps (at least at lower levels) would statistically reduce risk without making things unrecognizable.

Alternatively, Atari predicted robot football by next 2022 [1], with additional updates in 2072.

[1] https://www.arcade-museum.com/game_detail.php?game_id=7469

If you look at the rule changes the previous safety crisis brought on, the game became fundamentally different so I don’t think that’s actually a show stopper.

I actually worry much more about line play than most given the evidence that suggests constant low level head collisions are as dangerous as limited high impact hits for things like cte.

You could imagine mandating standing positions at the line, a wider scrimmage line and mandatory shotgun snaps as rule changes that would limit the constant head collisions linemen take. Just as a for instance.

For a dramatic change you could imagine weight limits like in sprint football.

Instead of tinkering with the kickoff, you can eliminate it entirely. After scoring, the scoring team gets possession on their own 20 yard line, with 4th down and 20 to go. In this situation they will usually punt. If they go for it, instead of an offside kick, you get a real offensive play.

https://youtu.be/t_SsIKgwvz4

> What’s the end game for American football when, inherently, everyone ends up with brain damage?

Everyone doesn't end up with brain damage.

Most NFL players only play for a few seasons. The average career is only three seasons; the median is even lower. An exceptionally small number of players are going to suffer brain damage in two or three seasons.

Today's NFL players are paid far beyond extraordinarily well, they don't need the money. The bulk of the claims are coming from players in the past that were not paid so well and do need the money. Guys that used to play for $100,000 /yr across a ten year career, and played at a time when the NFL was far more violent and head protection was even worse.

A player that lasts 10-15 years in the NFL today will typically earn $100 million or more. They'll have a lot of money and some will have lasting brain damage. A very small fraction of those players will ever consider suing the NFL.

> I assume the NFL will end up bankrupt from civil claims?

That's an incorrect assumption. The legal cost will barely be a drop in the bucket of the NFL's financial machinery.

Someone else mentioned the $500m concussion fund was burned through sooner than expected. $50m-$100m per year is an easy problem for the NFL these days. The commissioner gets paid $40 million per year. League revenue was $16 billion in 2019. One team, the Dallas Cowboys, alone has $280 million in operating income. If you cycle out ten more years, the NFL could afford $500 million every single year in liability costs related to head injuries, and it would still be fine (and that number isn't going to happen).

Most players don't ever get to high league. They play in schools, colleges and clubs.

They don't earn money and they do suffer injuries all the time.

Most NFL players only play for a few seasons.

A large portion of collegiate players will end up with CTE. Enough high school players end up with CTE that we should be concerned.

https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2017/evidence-of-cte-fo...

Last year, there was a horrific Sports Illustrated article about the linebackers on the 1989 USC team: https://www.si.com/college/2020/10/07/usc-and-its-dying-line...

Of the 12 linebackers on the depth chart of that team that year, 5 were dead by 2020, all before the age of 50, with diagnosed or suspected CTE (and only one of them had gone on to play in the NFL).

Probably not, the death rate for former WWE wrestlers is absolutely astounding and they haven't been sued out of existence.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-pro-wrestlers-dying...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/comparing-the-wwfs-deat...

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33817959

You're probably aware of this, but this study and many others indicate that repeated sub-concussive hits can be just as dangerous to the brain. Indeed, some would argue that the NFL's focus on concussions is a way of looking like they're doing something while ignoring the fact that there is no way to play NFL football without causing brain damage.

Yep - 100% correct - brain scans can identify early signs of CTE processing after a single season for a soccer player in a defensive or offensive position that heads the ball regularly.

I played rugby for a few seasons, and I had several concussions. I never blacked out, but I temporarily lost my ability to speak (several minutes), as well as got emotional. I cried though I wasn't upset, then I would get enraged even though I wasn't mad at anything (except maybe getting a concussion).

I'm in my 30s now, and I can't remember things like I used to. I can be thinking of something, and it "just disappears". I feel like my mind behaves like a 65 year old, not a 30-something. I used to have a lot more focus, more dedication to certain things, and it's harder now.

I don't know what combination of growing older, drinking, or concussions have caused my issues. And it's hard to say I regret playing, because it was fun and a part of who I am. However, concussions are not a joke, and I wish more players had the sense to step away from the game after getting a small number, rather than thinking "it's normal" and playing for 20-30 years.

This is very close to my experience. I played rugby for 10 years and had multiple concussions (2 that knocked me out).

After one concussion I went through a period where I would get emotional and angry, especially when drinking (i.e. have 2 beers, black out, and then black-in crying).

I quit drinking about 2 years ago (I'm in my early 30s) and the mental clarity has been incredible. I had a tendency to drink heavily when I drank (about weekly) and so if you're struggling with memory issues I'd suggest giving sobriety a chance for a month or two to see if it makes a difference.

I played rugby and actively follow it and football but it's harder and harder to grapple with the long term consequences of these sports as more information about damage especially from sub-concussion level impacts comes out. It's hard to imagine but I think the NFL will have a serious reckoning over the next 10-20 years unless they can fix this somehow

Can they change the rules to any reasonable degree to mitigate the risk? Other codes, like Association, are far lower contact than the Rugby or American rules.

IIRC there are results around brain damage in association football as well, mostly due to players heading the ball.

Guess nobody has dared suggest prohibiting head playing in association football. Would be interesting to see how the game would change if such a rule would be enacted.

> Guess nobody has dared suggest prohibiting head playing in association football.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/jul/28/major-headi...

There are guidelines around heading at junior level:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51614088

But it's one thing to not practise it, and another to actually ban it. I can see the latter in <5 years at all levels if the current research is followed up correctly.

I can see three ways to get rid of heading.

1. Just ban it, with the same penalties as using your hands. I used to think that this was the way to go, but I rarely watched soccer. I still don't understand soccer but over the last week I've watched a fair bit [1] and see now that simply removing headers without replacing them would alter the game too much.

2. Have the players wear something like a tennis racquet but with a longer handle attached to their back with the head of it extending above the player's head. Players can hit the ball with this instead of the head. Hitting with their head is treated like using their hands as in #1.

This is one of those things that would probably be seen as fine if and only if it has been done that way for a long time. Otherwise, it is too ridiculous to seriously propose.

3. Players can deflect the ball with the part of their arm between the elbow and the wrist, but only if the elbow is above the ears. "Above" is defined relative to the player's orientation, not relative to the ground.

This seems like it could be a close enough replacement for heading to not alter things too much.

[1] I have a "free" (it is really a rental with $0/month rent) streaming box from my ISP that includes a free Peacock Premium subscription. The ISP noticed I rarely use it and asked me to return it if I'm not going to use it more. Everything I'm interested in on it I can get on my Fire TV or on my smart TV, including Peacock. But I'm not sure if the free Peacock Premium would continue, so instead I'm trying to use the "free" box more. One way I've done that is when I'm relaxing on the couch and not otherwise using the TV I've streamed replays and highlights from soccer, both to keep up usage on the box and to see if by watching enough soccer I'll eventually start to see that it only looks largely random and there really is a lot of skill and strategy and tactics involved.

I love that second suggestion :)

It's always interesting how games evolve and the fact that any rule of any game could seem ridiculous if it hadn't been that way for a long time.

One of the great things about soccer is that its a sport for poor people. You just need a ball to be able to play, and it can be a really cheap ball.

Once you start adding equipment that'll change rapidly.

I have a another proposal:

4. Using head is prohibited, just like hands. Instead allow using the shoulders, maybe down to the elbow. From elbow downwards towards the hand still prohibited.

Paywalled, but: https://theathletic.com/2755968/2021/08/09/cox-is-heading-ab...

The main suggestion is that heading could be banned outside the 2 penalty boxes.

I'm not confident that any rule changes will have a meaningful impact. It's thought that it isn't just collisions to the head that cause a problem, but all tackles. This is because your brain gets damaged when it moves around in your skull, and this will happen every time your velocity suddenly changes e.g. when being tackled to the ground. This is also the reason that headguards/scrumcaps aren't effective in cutting down on head injuries.

What can be done to protect the players is limiting the number of contact training sessions they can attend, and also limiting the number of games a season each player is allowed to play.

Another option could be to seriously limit the number of substitutes each team is allowed to make, as this will mean the players will have to be fitter and therefore not as big, and hopefully this will reduce the impact each tackle will have. However Rugby League is also having to deal with head injuries and that game requires a lot more fitness than Rugby Union.

I expect that, like League, Union will lose the contested scrum at some point. That will at least lead to a decrease in the asymmetry in weight between forward and back. A step in the right direction, and nothing really lost in the game since scrums aren't really contested any more.

Yep. They've been tinkering with the scrum ever since I was a kid, but to me it feels like they result in a collapse, a penalty[0] or one side being totally steamrolled 90% of the time. I wish I had stats at hand to back this up, but I feel like even though they're technically "contested" they're rarely actually contested.

If it's not enjoyable for spectators, doesn't really do much for the game and is dangerous then I can see why it could get phased out in the long run.

[0] = or multiple collapses then a penalty

I don't think this is accurate. The majority of scrums at every level lead either to possession for the team with the put-in, or a penalty in their favour. If the weaker team has the put-in, they can pretty much roll the ball straight back to the number 8 and get it away (possibly not in the rules but completely never policed).

It's exciting when either side gets a shove on and that there's at least the possibility to win one against the head, but I agree the game wouldn't lose that much for anyone but the purists and the front row specialists if we just moved to uncontested scrums.

Like I said I don’t have the data, so maybe take 90% with a grain of salt :-) But some 6 Nations games in recent years have been pretty frustrating wrt scrum, and I don’t see it getting any more interesting or safe

In theory, the weaker team can "try" to get the ball out the back as fast as possible but in practice, I see penalties for teams getting steamrolled in the scrum quite often which would suggest that the tactic is not entirely effective.

I don't understand much of what goes on in the scrum, but I love watching the battle for dominance over the course of a game. Are there collapsed scrums frequently? Yes. But it is an aspect of the sport that gives a chance for the heavies to shine. The increasing use of mauls on the other hand...

I'm not so sure that'll be a good thing for safety (collapsed scrums aside).

It'll eliminate a role for stocky, relatively slow moving 18 stone players specialising in scrum technique, and create more roles for fast, athletic 17 stone players specialised in blasting opponents out the way. It'll also mean the ball's in play for longer, resulting in more impacts overall.

I agree. I also can't imagine that World Rugby would consider removing one of the two elements of the game that differentiate it from Rugby League (the other one being contested rucks).

As a League fan I'd love it - I don't care what it's called I'd just like more people to play and watch Rugby League.

Or, OR: we put players in control of robots, and have the robots smash each other to bits!

There are almost constant rule changes around the tackle laws, the breakdown and de-powering the scrum to reduce the amount of potential head trauma, but the professional era it's like an arms race. Even padding and head-gear, players seem to hit with even more force. And, like the article says, a lot of the concussions happen during the training sessions which is way more than the average amateur player would experience. It's still relatively soon to see the longer-term effects; the early batch of professionals from the mid/late 90s will soon be entering their 60s and I expect there will be more research papers..

You could hypothetically go to something like touch rugby. But I don't know how you'd recreate some of the more unique features of rugby union, like contested scrums, rucks, and mauls. The game would probably look more like touch rugby league.

The rules of American football were changed in response to the 1905 season when 19 college players died. Instead of banning the sport completely, they started allowing forward passes. Which completely changed the game and made it safer.

There is not a singular risk. In rugby some risks come from intentional foul play or accidents (high tackles, disguised hits on static players players at rucks and mauls, scrum collapses, etc.) Others come from the constant, somewhat controlled impacts that exist in normal play. These can expose the tackler to the impact versus the individual being tackled.

Any discussion on this topic needs to recognise how the game of rugby union has changed. It rapidly went from amateur to professional, but took some time for the current level of power and fitness to develop. You had powerhouses like Lomu in the 90s, but from the early-2000s you have legions of Ma'a Nonu level players. Safety protocols seem to be pushed down to the junior game more readily than the adult professional game. Much influence has come from rugby league which arguably has popularised particular styles of play that hadn't been used in union.

There is much more that could be written about the historical changes, but it has made a big difference to safety while culturally making it harder to implement changes. Big tackles become what many viewers want to see in the game and this perpetuates both a style of tackling and bulking up that didn't exist before. Line speed is monitored closely and everything to improve this results bigger players moving more quickly which anecdotally results in more serious impacts. Authorities know it, but reducing it makes the game less exciting for TV audiences and there is less money to go around. It's a vicious cycle.

There are clear and obvious changes which can be tested in the game, but pushing these through takes a very long time. A concern some have expressed is around impact/tactical substitutions (https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/08/14/grossly-negligent-lion...). Adding a bunch of fresh players in soccer later in the game is common. The thinking carried over to rugby. It was attractive because you had chubbies like me at the front of the scrum who could perform higher over 40 minutes than the full 80 minutes. When you are adding huge Nonu-types into a game with tiring players then problems can occur. I can't imagine that changes will happen here rapidly.

The junior game becomes an easy place to push changes. The argument is made that children are being protected, but then the changes don't bubble up. Encouraging low tackling under a certain age is good, but tactics need to come along with these rules. Head-on tackles can go higher head-on because you are trying to hold the player up or in place versus taking them down and possibly allowing them a few feet past you to touch the ball down for a try. It's all interlinked.

In summary: yes, but it's up to the leaders to drive changes top down at all levels and accept that they may lose some revenue.

(I played rugby all through school from 1992 to 1999 in Ireland and have followed local global play since. For all the sides of Nonu see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoVpAjSN6Nc and then https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdEKqoOdhM0 - but, many other could be substituted in his place.)

> Head-on tackles can go higher head-on because you are trying to hold the player up or in place versus taking them down and possibly allowing them a few feet past you to touch the ball down for a try

That's the crux of the problem. Low tackles are very efficient at bringing a player down to earth (especially if you're as skinny as I was in the kids' game) but they won't reverse his momentum if he's trying to get a yard beyond you (especially not if he's got the physique and low body position of a professional) or prevent him from offloading. So a rule change to enforce it and ban chest high tackles makes it very easy for a well drilled professional team to slowly move their way upfield with a relentless Warrenball-style series of impacts. Not necessarily safer overall, as well as duller to watch because they're so unlikely to lose the ball or even a yard in the tackle, which also discourages riskier creative plays. Probably you need more of a contest at the ruck to balance things out and give the other side a way of winning the ball back, but most of the rucking rules are there for safety reasons...

Ultimately it’s a game of large, athletic people smashing into one another. Short of playing touch rugby and eliminating scrums, it’ll never be safe.

But then it’s not rugby anymore

Removing the tackle component would be the only real way to solve the brain damage problem.

I don't think they'll do that within the next 20 years, however.

Reminds me of John Urschel, MIT mathematician who quit his NFL career because he was afraid of possible brain damage. Looks like he finished his PhD in 2021 [0]. Congrats!

Apparently, Urschel had suffered a concussion a few years before his decision [1, 2]. There was also an interesting, semi-related HN thread about football and brain trauma earlier [3].

0: https://math.mit.edu/~urschel/

1: https://archive.is/RG9tg

2: https://news.mit.edu/2019/student-john-urschel-math-football...

4: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16291827

He put in the time to qualify for a league pension, then quit then quit the NFL. Somehow this overlapped with his time as a masters student (source, iirc, alumni section of technology review).

He's got a solid book [1] with some insight into his decisions. He's an interesting guy- definitely worth a read.

[1] https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/557242/mind-and-mat...

He has written a book as well! Now if he can play an instrument and embroider he'd be my choice for the human general talent gauntlet.

I'm in the US and had sort of a reckoning against out football a few years ago after a medical incident of mine. I used to be a big watcher of the NFL, mostly because my team was really good, but suddenly I had trouble watching week after week guys getting drilled in the head and being carted off to have their career ends. These league average numbers [1] are horrible to think about, with how little tie running backs play when they're able to make money (screw the NCAA) and they get hit every play.

One of the arguments on a change that could help is a big transition back to old school leather helmets, or no helmets. There's been much talk about safety of rugby compared to football, especially from armchair thinkers [2]. Some of the answers in that Quora thread are agreeing with the result of this article, where rugby isn't exactly that much safer regardless of lack of helmet or tackling style. Heck even soccer is having to come to terms with headers causing head injuries later in life [3].

With more "lower" impact sports like rugby (not that much lower, but has been considered lower) and soccer coming out with so much head injury reports, I wonder how long we'll be stuck with popularity of the NFL. Brett Favre, a quarterback from the south, came out and said to not have kids play tackle until they're 14. But when they turn 14? It's not like that risk goes away.

I'm lucky for myself that I like watching baseball and basketball the most so I don't have to think deal with watching head injuries that last lifetimes for the players. Or maybe that's why I like watching those two team sports the most.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/240102/average-player-ca...

[2] https://www.quora.com/Would-the-NFL-or-football-in-general-b...

[3] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/02/01/5128481...

[4] https://www.npr.org/2021/08/17/1028547803/brett-favre-kids-f...

Brett Favre, a quarterback from the south, came out and said to not have kids play tackle until they're 14. But when they turn 14? It's not like that risk goes away.

IIRC, his statement was based on CTE studies on the brains of ex-high school (but not ex-college/NFL) players. Of the sample, those with signs of CTE had played youth football as well as high school ball. Only one CTE sample did not play youth ball (and the rest of the high-school-only samples did not have CTE).

Gist of it being that playing youth ball through high school puts you at a significantly higher risk of CTE than high school only. But, you are correct that any time spent playing has risks.

Football and Rugby get a lot of attention but soccer also has major issues with heading the ball for low impact and major head injuries when people accidentally hit heads. In America girl's soccer is actually a close 2nd place finisher to boys football when it comes to diagnosed concussions

I was required to take Rugby in school, but I engaged at the minimum level possible: I was sent off once by the coach for failing to make physical contact with other players. Sounds like I dodged a bullet.

>I engaged at the minimum level possible

That was my approach to all sport at school.

Loser mindset

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28364032

I used Ruby for years without apparent decline

I also read it "Ruby" and then laughed at myself.

I developed GIL. Don't do Ruby.

I don't know why it's not more of a mainstream opinion to try to make these sports as unpopular as possible or to straight up make them illegal to play in how ever many official settings as you can manage, including highschools at the very least.

It's very fucking bad, everyone knows this. I don't know how long it will take for people to get it.

My experience with high school rugby was that head impacts were exceedingly rare. Lots of bruises, though. The showers after a game were loud, with kids screaming their pain away.

I stopped in college because I didn't have time (or will) for the gym, and it suddenly wasn't fun to play against people several years older than you. I imagine American football would be much worse in terms because of the external protection provided by the padding and helmets. It hurts more to hit skin to skin, so you don't do it so much, and when you do, it's carefully. But in older age, and professional settings, I imagine things are different.

Severe head impacts are rare but I used to play rugby and felt like my head was jostled hard several times a day, and I would often finish practice or a match with scrapes and bruises on my head.

My HS rugby(USA) someone got a concussion pretty much every single game.

I decided to quit the sport after HS despite how fun it is, it's not worth my future.

That's odd, I don't remember a single concussion in any game for the 3 years I played. I wonder if in the US kids play more football-like? I played in Spain, where it's a fringe sport, very rare outside the amateur/college circuit.

We probably did. Most of our players were off season football players.

> players saw a decline in blood flow to the brain and cognitive function - the ability to ... perform mental gymnastics.

Avoiding mental gymnastics can't be a bad thing, right?

I wonder if you even have to hit your head, perhaps just a hard tackle to the ground would be enough for a minor concussion.

Research of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in NFL players suggests that concussions aren't even necessary to cause CTE. The constant subconcussive hits are enough.

https://www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/2018/01/18/study-hits-not-concu...

Professional rugby. This isn't going to be a typical outcome for you or me.

I play rec league rugby and find that it's a great way to stay in shape and meet new people. More people would be healthy if we encouraged people to continue to play sports throughout life, including contact sports.

> This isn't going to be a typical outcome for you or me.

Can you elaborate? What makes you say that with such confidence? Is amateur rugby non-contact?

Edit: Digging into it a little bit there does appear to be some anecdotal evidence of CTE among amateur rugby players: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/dec/13/rugby-dementia...

> “I’ve seen quite a number of rugby players in the last five to 10 years with CTE pathology in the brain, and none of them has been professional – they all come from the amateur era.”

I don't think we can say definitively that CTE will be an issue for amateur rugby players but I think that's only because of a lack of studies not because any study has suggested amateur players don't suffer from CTE.

Rugby turned pro in 1995. So the "amateur era" is likely referring to players pre-1995. While not strictly "pro", they were not your typical rec league players. They were doing international tournaments and playing for national teams, etc...

From what I have read, the evidence really points to duration of exposure as the key risk factor. So for someone who plays at the amateur club level, typically practicing 1-2 times a week, the risk might be fairly low. They are probably racking up a fraction of the exposure that a professional would experience in a given year.

Watching or playing?

You can get head impact from watching?

The emergent research about CTE in what are upper-middle class sports in the US like soccer and rugby are ironically going to be an effective shield for the NFL, because there's no way American suburbanites are going to allow a little brain damage to force them to limit their European affectations.

i know joe rogan talks about sports and head injury’s and how psychedelic mushrooms have been shown to help

Pro cyclists sometimes die from crashes where do you draw the line in sport safety?

Great question. It's not easy to answer where to draw the line with risks.

One difference is that a bicycle accident is an accident, whereas contact sports it is part of the game to hit each other. So it's less a question of whether a rare event might happen to you, and more a question of what is this common event doing to me?

> Pro cyclists sometimes die from crashes

The difference here being the cyclists are not purposely driving their bikes into cars/objects vs being rugby being an actual 'contact sport'

I'm not so sure about that. Obviously pro cyclists aren't purposely crashing but the nature of the sport is to put yourself in extremely dangerous situations on a regular basis. Descending at 60+ mph on narrow, wet roads. Sprints where they are riding in excess of 35ph in VERY close quarters with other riders, etc. Not to mention the long term health consequences of maintaining an extremely low body fat percentage for long periods of time.

The parent is being downvoted for a "what about X?" response but I think it is actually a legitimate question to ask. Almost every elite sport carries with it serious health and safety risks.

But to counter their concern I would argue that elite sports almost always carry health risks, may amateur sports do not and are broadly beneficial. Contact sports such as American Football, Rugby, etc however are in a different class where the amateur athletes are also putting themselves at significant risk.

Somewhere between "this is a threat to every participant in the sport and most of them actively deny the threat while recruiting children to play" and "it happens upon occasion".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com