Should Padding/Scrum Caps be banned?

1) The modern player is much bigger, fitter and faster than previous generations of players. This is leading to much bigger collisions, mainly at the tackle area. We also have tacklers aiming much higher up the body than they used to - with many players now aining at the chest and looking to drive the ball carrier backwards. These sorts of tackles are much more common now - and it only takes a small mistake for it to turn into a head high challenge or a tip tackle. (For those moaning the game is too soft - Paul Ringers challenge in 1980 would only be a yellow card nowadays).

2) On Saturday an AB forward, Kaino I think, had to change his shirt. The shirts are so tight and he was wearing so much padding that he needed two people to help get the new shirt on.

3) More players are starting to wear scrum caps, with the modern scrum cap being heavily padded and similar to a pre-war American Football helmet.



There has been a lot of research in American football that shows a clear correllation between the increased amount of padding/protection and the increased number of injuries caused. The theory is that players with more padding feel safer and deliver ever increasing violent "hits".

So i say ban padding and scrum caps (backs don't need them and tight forwards can use tape ).

I agree with you London Tiger.

The problem you would have is just after you ban it, there will be an influx of injuries as players play the standard way of what they are used to in the "padded" days.

It will take a bit of getting used to.

what with players getting bigger and faster i think it is time to make mandatory the wearing of caps.

head injuries from a clash of heads would be muched reduced if a good padded cap was worn.

jamie roberts wouldnt have played with a squeeky skull if he and (who was it, latham?) were wearing caps.

also, having had a clash of heads myself, it sickens me when i see it happen.

edit. i insist my boys wear their caps.

No i dont like Caps and padding.....

American football here we come....

dogtooth wrote:jamie roberts wouldnt have played with a squeeky skull if he and (who was it, latham?) were wearing caps.

Mortlock

Scrum caps are there to stop abrasions not impact injuries (which is why they're called scrum caps). There have been loads of studies to show that they things offer no protection other than superficial (e.g. padding may stop you from being sore initially but it does nothing to stop real joint/muscle damage). All they do is offer false confidence (which is why they're related to increases in injury rather than decreases. Scrum caps should be only used to keep your good looks and ears looking right. Padding should be banned completely.

Having played RL, where shoulder pads have been allowed for a long time, it is undoubtedly true that having the padding gives you extra confidence to go for a big hit. At least though, unlike American footall padding, these are soft materials designed to spread the impact rather than rigid (or close to) pieces of equipment with internal shock absorbers.

Going down the route of increasing 'protective' equipment is definitely a bad thing for a collision sport like rugby - it ends up with ever more violent collisions and obviously ever more serious injuries to the tackled player.

Scrum caps may be OK (a former team-mate of mine wore one because he had a history of concussions and the doctors wouldn't let him play without), but they should not evolve into any sort of helmet that would offer significant protection from big impacts - much better to train young players to get their head into a safe position while tackling.

red_stag wrote:I agree with you London Tiger.

Me too.

What pads do is spread the impact rather than have it concentrated on the area which was hit, they DO NOT hurt less, but you are less likely to get a serious injury from wearing pads

Having worn a scrum cap I don't think it offers much protection from impacts but it does stop you picking up cuts on your head, no need to worry yet.

if i had played rugby i wouldnt want them cauliflower ears- jeas- scum caps must help that out

Say ban the padding, but never ban the scrum caps.

Think back in this rwc to the Wales v Fiji game.

1/2p and the Fiji 12 come together in a tackle and their heads clash. Blood was pissing out of the Fijians head as it was, could you imagine how much worse that could have been had 1/2p not been wearing a scrum cap? Also just to protect your head from a stray boot etc, I think they are useful.

Don't like all the excess padding worn under the shirts though, especially around the shoulders. It seems to give the player who wears it the impression that they are able to go for bigger/harder hits, when that really isn't the case.

I wear padding and I doesn't effect my choice of hits in the slightest mainly because I don't tend to think about them the shoulder just goes in and the arms wrap. I wear one because a) they are warm and b) because they reduce the chance of me getting stingered (formerly a frequent occurance).

Never liked scrum caps as they restrict vision and hearing.

Scrum caps worn by backs just isn't cricket.

"Also just to protect your head from a stray boot etc, "

But its rugby...its a tough sport...we take the hits.

Next we'll be wearing tutus!!!

http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148:rugby-serious-injury&catid=47:rugby-general&Itemid=77

HammerofThunor wrote:http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148:rugby-serious-injury&catid=47:rugby-general&Itemid=77

Good stuff, some actual scientific research! Seems to be in more on the side of "padding bad" than "padding good". Personally I think we simply have to make sure that padding goes no further than how it is now and that (as the researchers say) it is made very clear that padding prevent only minor injuries from occurring.

SBW had to get a new shirt and he had no padding. But they are so tight those new jerseys that he too needed assistance. I don´t really have a problem with either these things. Whilst I agree that they might make some players think they´re Captain Scarlet, I don´t think a player like Kaino wears them like an 80s power suit to impress the opposition or make him feel he´s bigger than he is. I´m not sure if he wears them all the time but he´s going to be sore whichever he chooses. So can´t see the harm nor really see the benefit.

IMO I think the caps are fine but I'd definitely get rid of other armour. Come to think of it, is it actually allowed as things stand? Another one of those little items being ignored by refs/authorities?

Rugby is a sport that has traditionally been played with no or minimal padding, and should remain this way.

At the moment the upper torso padding is not a particularly significant feature of a player's equipment, and obviously can't offer a big advantage (otherwise eevryone would use it, which is clearly not the case). The IRB and the national Unions do though need to keep an eye on this (as well as a few issues with simulation and attempting to influence the referee), just to make sure that rugby retains its characteristics and identity.

The padding is a very thin layer of foam and offers no real protection at all. To suggest that the adding or removing of padding will result in fewer/less injuries is ludicrous.

Here's a link to an interesting study which does not support the use of head gear.

http://www.udel.edu/PT/PT%20Clinical%20Services/journalclub/sojc/08-09/Mar09/Padded%20head%20gear%20in%20rugby,%20Mcintosh.pdf

bathmad
The question is less about whether the padding has any real effect as to whether there is a psychological difference to how you approach the game playing with and without the padding.

My personal experience of wearing the slightly more robust shoulder pads allowed in rugby league (and of playing without the same) is that playing with such padding does give you a bit more confidence going into contact, but probably has very little effect on injuries.

However, developing 'padding' further leads you to the NFL type of situation where the padding (particularly the helmet) is actually used as an aggressive item which can cause injury to an opposing player (a bit of googling will quickly find quotes from a few linebackers about intentionally using the helmet to target the knee of an opponent).

i think it is ridiculous saying they should be banned.
a friend of mine ruptured his kidney due to a challenge which the doctors said wouldnt have happened if he was wearing pads.

i wear shoulder pads to give extra shielding for my shoulder due to me dislocating it and now having wonky shoulders at the age of 17.

the 2nd point is irrelavent, without padding it would be difficult to put on- SBW for example.

and again at my age i have seen friends stamped on the head and one person my dad knows of (who was a welsh u20 with james hook) got kicked in the head on purpous and had brain damage and can no longer play rugby.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Scrum caps worn by backs just isn't cricket.

With the exception of Matthew Morgan, poor little thing I'd dread to see what would happen to "nipper" without his body armour and helmet!

I have nothing against scrumcaps as I think the "positive" effect in terms of tackling is minimal, and as somebody posted above, they are more to prevent malformed hearing-holes than anything else.

Padding or "body armour" is a different matter as I believe the "positive" effect in terms of tackling is to encourage players to make bigger hits than they normally would without it.

Players are big enough and well conditioned enough as it is, the forces involved in making tackles should be dictated to them by what their own bodies can stand, this should be proportionate to the player they are tackling and therefore be safer for both.

In the 18th and 19th centuries bare-knuckle fights went on for 2-3 hours on a regular basis without either fighter suffering serious head injuries.

When you bear in mind that for a fight to last more than 60 rounds was not uncommon and that a round was dictated not by time but by one of the fighters being knocked down, it's quite clear that these were punishing scraps but very few fighters actually died in 200 years of bouts.

Since 1920 nearly 1000 boxers have died either in the ring or as a direct consequence of injuries recieved in the ring and this is almost entirely down to the introduction of heavily padded gloves, being able to punch someone repeatedly in the head without breaking your hand is extremely detrimental to their health.

I see padding in rugby in very much the same light, but without the death - before anyone starts.

welshy824 wrote:i think it is ridiculous saying they should be banned.
a friend of mine ruptured his kidney due to a challenge which the doctors said wouldnt have happened if he was wearing pads.

It would be interesting to know if he knew what he was talking about or just talking out of his arse (I know plenty of doctors that do). I say because all the studies I've seen on it suggest the padding does nothing to protect against such injuries.

i wear shoulder pads to give extra shielding for my shoulder due to me dislocating it and now having wonky shoulders at the age of 17.

the 2nd point is irrelavent, without padding it would be difficult to put on- SBW for example.

and again at my age i have seen friends stamped on the head and one person my dad knows of (who was a welsh u20 with james hook) got kicked in the head on purpous and had brain damage and can no longer play rugby.

Scrum caps do nothing to protect against head injuries (other than scrapes). And padding does nothing to protect against shoulder injuries such as dislocation. One of the issues is giving people false confidence and them going into tackles they wouldn't normally and getting more injured.


I remember a piece on bicycle helmets on the BBC a few years back. A large study had shown that they don't reduce the risk of death. The presenter (Sian Williams?) picked up on the fact that forced helmets reduce the absolute number of fatalities by half. However the researcher pointed out that it also reduced the number of cyclists by half. And she responded that "Any reduction is good isn't it?" Why not just ban people from cycling? That would have a 100% reduction in cyclist fatalities. Funnily enough there was a study that suggested fatalities went up in Australia when helmets were mandatory. Possibly due to more reckless behaviour due to the illusion of safety.

Scrumcaps? its called headgear.
Headgear has advantages to protect stitches,or wounds when stitches have just been removed, but unless players are in the habit of wearing them they distract the vision and are very hot and uncomforfable.

Protection vests besides having a confidence effect do help keep strapping in place and avoid it peeling and moving.but they wont stop a shoulder from popping again.

It's all very well saying that rugby has traditionally been played without pads and backs shouldn't wear headgear, but spare a thought for somebody like Berrick Barnes who has had a horrendous series of head injuries and dangerous symptoms.

He is looking at devloping some more protective headgear and I for one am totally behind such an initiative.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/5091493/Berrick-Barnes-pushes-for-boxing-headgear

Morning All,

Quite happy to lose the padding, I used to wear mine years ago but it just got in the way at scrum time

I believe that helmets should still be allowed and I insist my kids wear theirs!

Just as a side note: after 27 years playing prop my ears are still intact and not cauliflowered in anyway thanks to much padding & strapping!

Headgear like the stuff Barnes is suggesting does nothing the protect the neck. If it means people are more careless of their own head protection (due to the external protection) it could easily see a raise in neck injuries.

PerryGee wrote:It's all very well saying that rugby has traditionally been played without pads and backs shouldn't wear headgear, but spare a thought for somebody like Berrick Barnes who has had a horrendous series of head injuries and dangerous symptoms.

He is looking at devloping some more protective headgear and I for one am totally behind such an initiative.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/5091493/Berrick-Barnes-pushes-for-boxing-headgear

I mujst admit that I am not aware of Barnes problems - but I wonder if with the issues you mention whether he should still be playing rugby.

Current headgear is already a lot more padded than it was - and moving to the types of headgear used in amateur boxing would move that forward a huge amount, bringing us ever closer to wearing helmets.

As a side issue - it does seem that too many players/teams are playing fast and loose with concussion injuries. There used to be a mandatory 3 week rest following concussion - and those of us old enough will remember Mervyn Davies retirement following head trauma. Pretty sure this is still in palce - but medical staff seem pressured to downgread the severity of these injuries. Wearing of headguards does very little to prevent these sorts of injuries.

quotes from a few linebackers about intentionally using the helmet to target the knee of an opponent

That is old school though, the NFL are handing out bans for anyone who uses the helmet in a tackle. They were so zealous last year that the players were up in arms over being fined for tackles that were borderline at best.

I have to were a head guard to avoid concussion every game - so should i not be allowed to play?

Keep scrumcaps. Any protection to injuries - like knee padding or something like that keep it too, but if it's not necessary, ditch it.

Driver - RIP 606 wrote:I have to were a head guard to avoid concussion every game - so should i not be allowed to play?

I am sorry but if you have a history of repeat concussions then yes. Headguards need to absorb one hell of a lot of shock to stop the force rattling your brain inside the skull. They are unable to do that - but give you the false confidence that you can go out and play.

I am sorry for being brutal, and honestly I do understand (I "retired" at 20 due to a broken neck - but was able to return later to play a couple of years for Bedford, while my brother had to retire after sustaining injuries playing for England Schoolboys).

Is a headguard like a mudguard?

Scrumcaps =yes
body armour type padding =no
Simples!

But what would Halfpenny do if he had a few spare seconds on the way to the tryline and didnt have his scrum cap to adjust?

I could maybe see a case for it at the top-level...but as an amateur who has suffered a couple of hard skull on skull on skull knocks, I wouldn't play without a scrum cap. As a lock I value my ears and the scrum cap is the easiest way to prevent them getting wrecked too.

I sometimes play with upper body armour, although I'm not too fussed. I don't have the physique to soak up knocks like a pro so it just takes the edge off the Sunday aches and scrapes.

Scrum caps certainly have their uses when blood starts flowing. They keep bandages on in place, prevent frequent stoppages to staunch continually reopening wounds and the need to bring players on or off for blood bins when that occurs.

This is a big issue. But the purpose of scrum caps was never to prevent consussions. And they do not provide the padding necessary to do so. The puspose is to protect the ears. Any thoughts to the contrary are wishful thinking.

I agree with the padding as it can protect the body - but only to a certain extent only. Does not give the protection necessary for a player to recklessly throw his body around.

wales606 wrote:But what would Halfpenny do if he had a few spare seconds on the way to the tryline and didnt have his scrum cap to adjust?

Tackle?