Rugby: getting too big for its boots?

As rugby union’s autumn internationals got underway at the weekend, questions were being asked about whether the size of the modern player has something to do with the large number of injuries you see in the game. The issue has been brought to the fore most recently by the astonishingly long list of injuries affecting the England squad. The BBC and others have carried pieces making the link between player size and what appears to be the chronic injury problem facing the sport.

There can be little doubt that players are a lot bigger – as well as taller, stronger and faster – than ever before, and significantly so compared even to just a decade or two ago. The impact of a rugby tackle is invariably likened to some form of car crash. Is England’s predicament symptomatic of a systematic problem or just an unlucky one-off? It’s difficult to say. But if you do accept that player size is causing an alarming number of injuries, the logical conclusion is at once fascinating and disturbing: probably for the first time, a sport has evolved, physically, to the point where it has become unsustainable - and unplayable.

It would be easier to dismiss the concerns were it not for the attention that the issue of player welfare is receiving at an official level. The inaugural International Rugby Board (IRB) Medical Conference, which starts tomorrow in London (November 12-13), bringing together rugby physicians and administrators, will have player welfare at its heart. The statement announcing the event does not specifically refer to the word “size”, but it does say that “the physicality of the game” will be among the key topics of discussion, along with issues including catastrophic injuries and player burnout.

Assuming there is a grave problem here, what can be done to address it? After all, there is only so much you can do as a team or player to ‘manage’ the physical side of the game. A sustained bout of kicking can keep a game docile for a time, but sooner or later your star fly-half/goal-kicker and others are bound to get in the way of a big hit or two – necessarily so, because this is a contact sport. Attention has already been paid to cleaning up the contact areas - scrum, ruck, tackle - and this could perhaps be subject to further scrutiny. (It is surprising, for instance, how many high tackles still go unpenalised). But you can’t afford to denude the game completely of its physical element. And a hit can be a big one, fair or foul. What about players wearing extra padding? – Maybe, but then there’s the “false sense of security” argument, and you don’t want everybody looking too much like an American footballer.

Another idea that won’t appeal to the traditionalist is to reduce the number of players on each side – to 13- or 14-a-side, perhaps. One problem with the modern game is that defences are so difficult to break down that, unless you put boot to ball, often the only option is to try to batter your way past the gain-line, risking multiple heavy impacts. Having fewer players on the pitch could free up a bit of space and promote more of a running game.

But maybe something yet more radical is required: how about imposing a daring reverse evolution on the game by introducing height/weight limits on players, perhaps as an average across team or squad? This could lead to intriguing scenarios where coaches would be forced to find a balance between colossi and smaller players in their selections – something that at a stroke could make rugby much more physically inclusive as well as, in theory, less dangerous. Once again, you heard it here first (at least, we assume you did). Desperate times call for desperate measures, they say.
 
Meanwhile, the announcement for the Medical Conference points out that, while it is not a decision-making forum, “any conclusions will be put forward to the IRB Executive Committee for consideration”. It’s going to be very interesting to see what those conclusions might say.

Comments

[Speedball2]

Why not follow American Football slightly... they only play 20ish games in a season, which lasts September "thru" January / February, giving players at least 6 months of recovery time to rest, and revitalise their bodies.

[worldinmotion]

btw - IRB Medical Conference results announced:
http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2034326.html#irb+medical+conference+puts+players+first

On physicality of the game: "IRB to prioritise Law enforcement at the tackle and ruck and to establish a working party to facilitate global study on physicality of the Game and influence best possible education for players, coaches and match officials."

[Ceann Mór]

Nooooooooooooooooooo - stay away from my game.

How about reducing the teams to 13 a side, stopping the play every time a tackle is made and if the team can't score after say 6 tackles then give the ball to the other side and let them have a go.

Although there is still room for injury to lets replace those flimsy scrum caps with full helmets and beef up the body armour and say that the team has to make 10 yards in 4 attempts otherwise they lose the ball.

I am not entirely convinced that there is an increase in injuries in the modern game. The problem is that you have the old club versus country debate. In the good old days the front row with a broken arm would turn up for international duty claiming it was only a scratch and play through the pain. However in the professional era his club and their insurers are going to stop such folly which results in this week england having a crisis in the front row.

Personally I suspect this is England's evil plan to solve the problem of being dominated by the Pumas scrum. Name a squad with hardly any props, claim injury early in the game and voila uncontested scrums and one of Argentina's great strengths is neutralised.

[dupin]

Good stuff.

I suppose the other obvious alternative to reducing the number of players is to widen the playing field slightly.

Interesting idea on the weights - plenty of scope for comedy there.