Rugby - Back to the Future ( The Concussion Debate )

Last week I finished with a plea on behalf of the concussion and dementia issues in rugby - 'Let us stop the platitudes and see some action’, I got a number of responses asking exactly what I meant.

Fair enough and here is a start. Entirely a personal view of course. Firstly this is not to underestimate the complexity of the legal actions launched for all parties but there are some here and now steps which can be taken. My statement also coincided with a series of heartfelt and far reaching pieces by the Times on the same topic.

Some years ago, the RFU commissioned a survey of International players from my generation to establish some facts around dementia and concussion. While this is obviously an issue of massive importance, some of our answers verged on the light-hearted. For example delusionist props suggested that the only memories lost in the mists of time were whether their short range score was actually a weaving run from fifty yards out or how many times they had managed a scrum against the Head! However, there were no real negative conclusions.

Remember, we only trained in the evenings back in amateur times so the weekend was the moment when we could actually put training into action in daylight! Thursday was pretty much non contact because we did not want a training injury to put us out of contention. I used to get very emotional about that - life was tough enough without a random hit from a dissatisfied replacement and we had plenty of those during my Bath days. At our peak Bath had 3 Internationals on the bench!

More generally ‘Gym’ was actually the name of a mate rather than somewhere you went to improve fitness. Lifting my own body weight was enough. Having said all that as I finished my career our fitness levels were reaching new heights as professionalism came into view and the concept of daily training finally became a reality.

You cannot compare eras of course but there are some simple truths, that we simply did not target the head as seems to happen now. Which is not to say the game was not rough and sometimes horribly dirty.

Irony of ironies, damaging head contact was almost self-regulated through the fights which ensued. Head tackles/ butts/ shots, kicking/stamping or even gouging were greeted by mass confrontation and occasional punches, although few people landed meaningful shots ( I exclude Champ/Blanco versus Heslop, RWC 1991- ouch). I suspect some former players have watched some recent high hits by certain well known Internationals and retribution would have taken place on the spot or later in some dark place at the bottom of a ruck. Compared to today's handbag swinging and mocking smiles, it was altogether more serious and blood was often shed but of course today the real damage is already done. My point is that we would not accept it as part of the game. For some reason it now is, driven by the influence of ‘Rugby League’ attitudes and defence coaches who think it is justified and effective to hit high. I have admired Rugby League’s skills for many years but their version of a tackle is sometimes laughable and not at all brave.

So, where do we start? Four initiatives to begin with which have been discussed often over the last year or two.

Well, the spear tackle and and the tackle in the air have well nigh disappeared under an ocean of red cards so the ultimate sanction does work. Now, we can look at the high tackle and the clearing out at rucks which still result in sickening head contact. The latter is easy to regulate, zero tolerance for fast moving muscle and raw power taking out a static and defenceless body, in the neck or head. If other laws have to be adjusted to make this real, then fair enough. Red card and six weeks, no mitigation. The practice will disappear very quickly, oh and there is no discount for being a good guy, remorseful or supporting a charity.

The other is more complicated but we have to change behaviour. If someone tackles above the chest then they should risk a red card. If the tackled player dips, so what. There is a natural reaction to go to ground when challenged. If you tackle low enough it will never matter. Muscle bulk making deliberate contact with the defenceless head is the problem and it has to stop.

I bumped into Shaun Edwards, the world's best defence coach, in Toulouse when he had just signed up as French National Defence coach. He had a simple message which the Welsh team had absorbed so well that yellow and red cards were an anathema - ‘ Tackle low and take their legs away’. It sounded like a throwback to another time.

Also, when we went off with concussion it was a mandatory two weeks with no questions. Whatever happened? Perhaps our ignorance was more blissful than second guessing a concussive blow.

Next, training. Stuart Lancaster used to await his pre match 'game' before final selection and I simply did not understand that. The lead up to a game should be about honing your match day performance not taking lumps out of your own squad mates. I do believe that the gratuitous training ground 'brutality' ( a word used by too many coaches as if it is a desired quality) is on the decrease now but it has taken strong criticism and some terrible injury statistics proving the point to change the practice.

Finally, reduce the number of subs. All the best teams in the world used to win in the last 20 minutes when they had softened up their opponents, were fitter or simply played better under pressure - rather than the current practice of replacing half the team. Now you are greeted with some superhuman super sub who is itching to knock you into next week just when you have done all the hard work and are of course feeling the pace yourself.

The irony is that all these improvements will make the game so much a better spectacle.They won’t solve all the issues but they are easy wins so why wait?

H