Injury report

Think this has gone below the radar to an extent certainly for me. The RFU have released their commissioned report a few days ago now though I've only seen it through Twitter. Reassuring that they are focused on it as as much as people complain or cite certain teams leagues as better etc I've seen very little actual evidence. Copied it below:

https://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Document/General/General/01/31/94/47/160331DraftRIEform_English.docx

The Rugby Football Union (RFU), Premiership Rugby (PRL) and the Rugby Players’ Association (RPA) have set out the focus areas for their continued action to mitigate the risk of player injuries in the English professional game. 

The Professional Game Action Plan on Player Injuries, endorsed by the Professional Game Board (PGB), was launched last March (2018). Data from the 2017/18 Professional Rugby Injury Surveillance Project (PRISP) report will shape the revised action plan priorities for 2018/19.

Reducing injury risk in all sports including rugby union requires a detailed understanding of the factors that underpin injury occurrence, a clear and agreed vision of what level of risk is acceptable and a sustained, co-ordinated and innovative approach from national and international game administrators, coaches, referees, players and medical staff.

The PRISP study is an annual study which has been collated and published since 2002 and provides the professional game in England with the most comprehensive data to assess trends in injury risk. Similar data is starting to be collected in other professional competitions but it will take at least another 12 months before a truly global picture of injury risk can be established. 

Since its launch last year, the PRISP Action Plan has involved:

Meeting with World Rugby to discuss law reviews and instigated a reduced tackle height trial in the Championship Cup.Following a review of tackle law application in the Premiership, creating a group to continue to analyse and monitor sanctions given by referees.Collaborating with World rugby to explore the feasibility of a post-game high-tackle warning in the 2018-19 season as we explore how we decrease the number of high-tackles that go unsanctioned in the Premiership.Holding workshops to discuss training injury risk and concussion risk in the tackle and made a commitment to undertake an annual meeting programme that brings together players, coaches and other club representatives to share the latest evidence in research and injury risk and to discuss practical solutions for key player welfare issues.Setting up a new game-event analysis resource to provide important data to further our understanding of how the game develops over time and to add value to a number of ongoing research projects.Receiving PGB approval for the introduction of artificial turf pitch maintenance requirements into the minimum standards audit for the 2019-20 season.

The priority areas for the English professional game in the 2018-19 season, based on the latest PRISP results, are:

1. Law design: Collaborate with World Rugby – who have the principal responsibility for the laws of the game – and international unions, competitions and player associations to think innovatively about how the laws of the game can best prioritise player safety outside of the current law review process. This work will focus on working with all stakeholders to review the impact of the Championship Cup tackle height trial, consideration of other law safety initiatives and how to more effectively integrate game event analysis and injury metrics into future law design discussions.

2. Law application: Collaborate with World Rugby to ensure that law application on the height of the tackle is consistent and understood by all stakeholders. Clearer definitions and operational parameters that are understood by all players, coaches, referees, citing officers and spectators are needed for accidental, reckless and deliberate actions which are consistently aligned to the awarding of penalties, yellow and red cards. If there is a desire to change player behaviour to reduce the risk of concussion, we believe that the threshold for receiving a card for a high-tackle is currently too high.

3. Training injury risk: Support clubs and coaches to achieve the optimal balance between performance and injury risk via a series of practical seminars that focus on the planning and management of training and recovery. In addition, we will be;

Collecting more information on targeted high-risk injuries (matches and training) in order to better understand the risk factors for their occurrence.Collecting more information on the details of training activities with a specific focus on timing in the week and the amount and nature of contact included in sessions.Exploring the feasibility of improving player management via a more standardised and integrated approach to the collection of player data. In particular a standardised athlete management system and allied GPS system across the Premiership and England.

4. Artificial grass pitches (AGP): Collaborate with World Rugby on their ongoing review of the appropriate performance standard and post-installation testing and maintenance requirements for AGPs in professional rugby union.  In addition, we will undertake new research to better understand the grip release characteristics of different types and styles of rugby boots. We believe that understanding the unique interaction between a player’s boot and an AGP will enable us to provide evidence-based guidance to players regarding the most appropriate boots to wear on AGPs and mitigate injury risk.

"The annual PRISP data is critical to helping us understand trends in professional rugby. Mitigating injury risk in a contact sport is a complex area and requires everyone involved in rugby globally to work together if we are to truly address this," said acting RFU Chief Executive Nigel Melville.

“Since launching our action plan last March, we have seen greater collaboration with World Rugby and have instigated a tackle height trial in the Championship Cup which is currently ongoing. It’s still early days – the action plan was launched towards the end of the 2017/18 season, but we believe the plan covers the key issues and we will use the 2017/18 PRISP injury data to shape the plan as it evolves and is embedded into the English professional game.”

Phil Winstanley, Rugby Director at Premiership Rugby, added: “Player welfare has to and will remain central to Premiership Rugby as an organisation, and working with the RFU and RPA we have undertaken considerable work on the Action Plan agreed last year and agreed further steps which need to be taken this year. There is no “quick fix” solution to addressing some of these issues and work must continue with all stakeholders across the world game.  The solution is likely to require input from players, coaches, medics and law makers and the work World Rugby are undertaking in this area is very much welcomed.”

Richard Bryan, Rugby Director at the RPA said: “Given how the game has evolved over the past decade, the Professional Rugby Injury Surveillance Project is now more important than ever. It is essential that as a sport we take heed and act on the findings.

“The introduction of Professional Game Action Plan on Player Injuries last year was welcomed by our Players’ Board. It represented an important step in addressing injury risk in the professional game, but it is essential that we continue to develop the plan and respond to the latest research and data. We are committed to addressing the issues raised in this report and must continue to adapt as a sport to ensure we are protecting the welfare of our players.”

PRISP is the most comprehensive and longest-running injury surveillance study in professional rugby union and has monitored the injury risk of Premiership Rugby players in Gallagher Premiership, European and national competition as well as training for the last 15 seasons.

Key findings from the 2017/18 season include:

OverallThe overall incidence (how often) of match injury in the Premiership was lower than the previous season. It is still slightly higher than the average for the surveillance period. However, it remains within the limits of expected season-to-season variation.The average severity of match injuries (the time taken to return to play) for the 2017-18 season was 37 days. This is the second consecutive season that this figure has risen above the expected upper limit of season-to-season variation. This is largely driven by an increase in injuries in the three highest severity groupings (8-28 days, 28-84 days and >84 days absence) and a reduction in the 2-7 day injuries.Due to the rise in severity of match injuries, the burden of match injury (a combination of both incidence and severity) increased to the highest seen since 2002 and above the upper limit of expected season-to-season variation.ConcussionThe most commonly reported match injury was concussion, contributing 20% of all match injuries. Encouragingly, there was a small reduction in concussions compared with 2016-17 -  one fewer concussion every eight games.The mean severity of medically diagnosed match concussions in 2017-18 was 19 days. This rise in mean severity, first seen last year, is largely due to a relatively small number of concussions (six) where the time to return was more than 84 days compared with previous seasons.For the third consecutive year concussion is both the most common and highest burden match injury, followed by hamstring muscle injuries.Compliance with the mandatory return to play protocols for concussion was again excellent, with no players returning to play in less than six days.Tackling

52% of all match injuries are associated with the tackle, with 28% of all injuries associated with tackling and 24% associated with being tackled.

2017-18 is the first season that the incidence of all injuries was greater for the tackler than the ball carrier.

Concussion accounted for 18% of all injuries to the ball carrier and 37% of all injuries to the tackler, highlighting the tackle as the key game event to consider when developing concussion and all injury reduction strategies.

Training

The incidence of training injuries remained stable during the 2017-18 season. However, the average severity rose to its highest recorded level at 37 days and above the expected limits of variation. As a result of the increase in severity of training injury the burden of training injury in 2017-18 again rose substantially and above the upper limit of expected variation. In total, 38% of all injuries were sustained during training.

There was a significant increase in the incidence of injuries sustained in rugby skills contact training and non-weights conditioning sessions.Concussion was the most common injury in full contact training sessions with concussion and hamstring injuries being the most common injuries in semi-contact sessionsAGPs in professional rugbyThere was no significant difference in the incidence, severity or burden of match injuries between artificial turf and grass for the 2017-18 season.When the data collected over the past five seasons is combined, the incidence of match injuries on natural grass and artificial turf are not different. However, the severity of match injuries on artificial turf is greater than that on natural grass, with an injury sustained on artificial turf lasting, on average, nine days more than one sustained on natural grass (natural grass, 30 days; artificial turf, 39 days). Consequently, the burden of injuries on artificial turf pitches is higher than those on natural grass.When considering injury risk by body location, both severity and burden were greater for lower limb match injuries sustained on artificial turf with this being most marked for hamstring and foot and toe injuries.When combining three seasons of training injury data to compare injuries on artificial turf versus natural grass, a similar trend to match injuries is apparent with similar incidence on both turf types while severity and burden and significantly higher on artificial turf.

“There is strong evidence that while the likelihood of injury in the professional game appears to be stable, the increase in injury severity that we are seeing means that the overall burden of injury is increasing," said Simon Kemp, RFU Medical Services Director.

 "The PRISP data suggests that more significant changes to the game might be needed to reverse these trends.

 “Concussion remains a priority for us all and we are now looking at concussion prevention with the trial of a reduced tackle height in the 2018/19 Championship Cup. It is critical that all stakeholders – medics, coaches, officials and players – work together on possible solutions.”

First commissioned in 2002, the PRISP report not only presents its findings from last season it compares them with the previous 14 seasons in professional rugby to provide the baseline data needed to assess trends in injuries.

There is an entirely separate report from the Community Rugby Injury Surveillance Project (CRISP) – which presents findings from the grassroots adult game. One-week time-loss injury rates in men’s senior community rugby are approximately two thirds lower than those reported in the professional game.

I think it's only fair that you identify where you have lifted this article from. You should not take credit for other peoples work.

Try reading the first paragraph properly.

Jared Payne is still getting regular headaches since he got concussed on the Lions tour. Sounds like he is living through a nightmare.

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Try reading the first paragraph properly.

RFU wrote:The average severity of match injuries (the time taken to return to play) for the 2017-18 season was 37 days. This is the second consecutive season that this figure has risen above the expected upper limit of season-to-season variation. This is largely driven by an increase in injuries in the three highest severity groupings (8-28 days, 28-84 days and >84 days absence) and a reduction in the 2-7 day injuries.

This was the most interesting bit for me

Is this potentially a by product of the bigger and bigger collisions that we see between players? Or is it that injuries that previously would have only kept out a player for 2-7 days (thinking mainly of concussions here), are now being evaluated and treated "better" so they are keeping players out for longer

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Try reading the first paragraph properly.

That just says that the RFU has released a statement, there is nothing to suggest where this info, that he obviously has not typed up himself, has come from.

He has now added a link.

BamBam wrote:

RFU wrote:The average severity of match injuries (the time taken to return to play) for the 2017-18 season was 37 days. This is the second consecutive season that this figure has risen above the expected upper limit of season-to-season variation. This is largely driven by an increase in injuries in the three highest severity groupings (8-28 days, 28-84 days and >84 days absence) and a reduction in the 2-7 day injuries.

This was the most interesting bit for me

Is this potentially a by product of the bigger and bigger collisions that we see between players? Or is it that injuries that previously would have only kept out a player for 2-7 days (thinking mainly of concussions here), are now being evaluated and treated "better" so they are keeping players out for longer

Haven't read the whole report yet, but one factor is that the reported severity of concussions is up. The average period lost to concussion rose to 19 days, placing it in the highest severity grouping. I suspect that at least part of the effect is that teams are treating concussion more seriously - so that concussions that in previous years might have seen a player return in the minimum 7 days are now being evaluated more cautiously. This is actually a good thing - in that it means players are being allowed to heal properly from concussions rather than being rushed back.

The other interesting stat is that concussions to tackled players are down slightly but concussion is now 37% of injuries to tacklers. That suggests that we should see a significant overall drop when the lower tackle line is introduced, assuming the results at other levels carry through to the top tier.

Yeah I'm trying to state I wrote this by stating it's the rfu s commissioned work and including a colon LD and stating it's copied. No wonder you struggle. Thanks for whichever mod found a link anyway. I got it from Twitter.

LordDowlais wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Try reading the first paragraph properly.

That just says that the RFU has released a statement, there is nothing to suggest where this info, that he obviously has not typed up himself, has come from.

He has now added a link.

Well as the RFU released it I would have guessed the RFU website would have links to the full report.
But hey that's just how I think.

Should we bring in a rule that all posts have to come with a full bibliography attached?

I think it's fair to state who wrote a piece carpet. LD is sore as he posted someone else's work word for word but didn't say so or give credit.but that's an argument for another day.

I told you, you've set a president now, so every time this happens, we need to report it, or as you have stated on my thread previously, the forum could get accused of plagiarism.

I am just following up on your work. This time it just so happens to be you who is guilty of it.

carpet baboon wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Try reading the first paragraph properly.

That just says that the RFU has released a statement, there is nothing to suggest where this info, that he obviously has not typed up himself, has come from.

He has now added a link.

Well as the RFU released it I would have guessed the RFU website would have links to the full report.
But hey that's just how I think.

Should we bring in a rule that all posts have to come with a full bibliography attached?

LD wouldn't be able to post anything then if that was a requirement

Absolutely. If you ever see someone who tries to lift other people's work without credit given say so. Completely agree.
Obviously your last point is incorrect as was pointed out to you immediately by someone else. So if you want to cry and whinge set up a new thread or complain again. Otherwise pretty good report this and something which is hopefully being thought of across the board by world rugby etc.

Poorfour wrote:

BamBam wrote:

RFU wrote:The average severity of match injuries (the time taken to return to play) for the 2017-18 season was 37 days. This is the second consecutive season that this figure has risen above the expected upper limit of season-to-season variation. This is largely driven by an increase in injuries in the three highest severity groupings (8-28 days, 28-84 days and >84 days absence) and a reduction in the 2-7 day injuries.

This was the most interesting bit for me

Is this potentially a by product of the bigger and bigger collisions that we see between players? Or is it that injuries that previously would have only kept out a player for 2-7 days (thinking mainly of concussions here), are now being evaluated and treated "better" so they are keeping players out for longer

Haven't read the whole report yet, but one factor is that the reported severity of concussions is up. The average period lost to concussion rose to 19 days, placing it in the highest severity grouping. I suspect that at least part of the effect is that teams are treating concussion more seriously - so that concussions that in previous years might have seen a player return in the minimum 7 days are now being evaluated more cautiously. This is actually a good thing - in that it means players are being allowed to heal properly from concussions rather than being rushed back.

The other interesting stat is that concussions to tackled players are down slightly but concussion is now 37% of injuries to tacklers. That suggests that we should see a significant overall drop when the lower tackle line is introduced, assuming the results at other levels carry through to the top tier.

37% of injuries to tacklers being concussion is huge! I'm trying to think of many I've seen, its usually due to getting the head the wrong side and taking a knee etc that comes to mind.

There must be a bit of it being higher and higher profile so docs doing their jobs and looking players then properly monitoring. May be a bit of players no lomgernwanting to take the risk of not reporting the headache so possibly the rise is a good thing.
There's still areas of concern. I posted on the euro thread a couple of weeks ago regarding a player being red carded due to a high tackle. The ref didn't follow that up by asking the player on the receiving end think it was devoto, to go off for a check.

Apparently the trial in the championship cup over banning tackles so he the armpits has been cancelled due to concussions rising in players going for the tackles.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Apparently the trial in the championship cup over banning tackles so he the armpits has been cancelled due to concussions rising in players going for the tackles.

  
There has been an increase in head on head contact too, due to ball carriers going much lower. This has helped lead to the overall increase in concussions.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Apparently the trial in the championship cup over banning tackles so he the armpits has been cancelled due to concussions rising in players going for the tackles.

  
There has been an increase in head on head contact too, due to ball carriers going much lower. This has helped lead to the overall increase in concussions.

Yes. Disappointing that it didn't work out. Speculating, it sounds as if for fairly upright ball carriers it had the desired effect, but I am guessing that players responded to the trial by going into the tackle lower (perhaps trying to win penalties) and that led to more instances where both players had their heads at the same height and more head collisions. We'll have to see whether a solution emerges from the data.

The old 'solution makes problem worse' thing. Unfortunate

Good thread

Something has changed, perhaps its over training or expecting guys who aren't designed to carry weight to beef up

Its always been a dangerous game but now the injury rate seems to be massive. I hope someone is studying it, my concern is that the emphasis on bulk has changed the game forever and to its detriment

I think to an extent yes. With professionalism it can be seen that you need to put your body on the line more and hiding from tackles is a little more frowned upon possibly. Perhaps Wilkinson hindered a lot of backs wanting to avoid that!
Concussions are more widely recognised now though which obviously were simply ignored in the past.