I'm looking into 'protective' equipment and comparisons to other sports and the perceived benefits/risk compensation (if any) and common sense that actually isn't in that it contradicts the statistics.
Having being a non wearer for many years, when I came back to the sport in my early 30s (10+ years ago) I started wearing one as everone else seemed to be.

Then I stopped after a few games feeling I didn't need one & reckoned the chances of being smashed in the head/face in such a way as to do much damage (or the type of damage a gumshield might prevent) seemed very low even as a 2nd rower, though my playing level wasn't all that high the hits/contact were still pretty tough.

If you could give me a simple reason why/why not and what benefit (or not) you thought it gave you.
thanks muchly

I've played the game for many years and never once worn a gum shield (granted I've played scrum half most of my life), but being in such a pivotal position having a gum shield in made it difficult to communicate and I just found them annoying.

As I've got fatter, I've moved into the pack (hooker) and I still don't wear one, although I can understand why people do as I know players who have had pretty serious mouth injuries and lost numerous teeth.

It's all about personal preference I suppose.

I got elbowed in the chops recently (accidentaly in the tackle) and suffered a badly gashed lip and my two front teeth felt like they had been knocked out.fortunately i was wearing a gum shield and my teeth were fully intact, just felt a little sore for a couple of days.I'm convinced my gum shield saved them.In my first spell of playing the game i didn't bother wearing one and now believe i was very lucky not to lose any teeth, as in the last couple of years i have had a few occasions where i think my gum shield has saved me.

its up to you, a few quid and know your teeth will be safe or take the gamble and that one bad collision lose your front gnashers.I know what i would do!

A Gum sheild not any protects your mouth and teeth but also your risk of suffering a concusion by keeping your mouth slightly open and space for your mandable up the side and around your jaw, I play american football and they are mandatory for that reason.

I always wore one. Not worth the risk of having my teeth knocked out:. You can get really good quality gum shields pretty cheaply now and dont notice they are in (except when your trying to talk) When I first started as a junior I found them horrible to have in and never fitted properly.

I've always worn one. Wouldn't play without it. As already mentioned, they protect against concussion, as well as your teeth. A shield that fits, and I've always only used the ones you put in boiling water, won't impact you communicating. After a few wears, you won't realise you have it in.

Having a few missing teeth was almost a badge of honour when I played in the 70s. I lost 5 before I saw sense in the early 80s. The point about guarding against concussion is well made, too.

I've only recently started wearing a mouth guard and it does make a difference in my opinion ( even though you can't mouth off to the officials as good as you can without one in!!!) but I found that they are much better if you get them from your dentist rather than a sports shop such as sports direct etc

Why anyone would risk not wearing one is beyond me. Yes, it's a small chance you'll have teeth knocked out etc but could still happen and for £4 or whatever they cost they're surely worth it

I would alwayscwear one. But rember losing it / not packing it for a game . I thought what are the chances of getting clobbered. Next game accidentally got clobbered by the back of someones head in a tackle and lost my front tooth. 30 years later i still have problems with the capped tooth.

Always worn one particularly after an early stray knock to my teeth in another sport. Could never get on with the ones you boil. Never regretted the investment in one from the dentist. Whatever your comfortable with it is well worth it and avoids years and £££s of expense replacing lost or damaged teeth.

I wore one when I played at a higher level but when I dropped down to more social rugby I stopped, partly because I wanted to talk more and partly because I felt I could handle myself better at that level.
I didn't have a problem but equally I saw someone playing at the social level get his teeth knocked out by falling forward and hitting a knee in the tackle. 6 new teeth needed, so it is worth while

And as explained above it protects more than just your teeth as it strengthens your "face position" if hit.

If you don't wear one, I think you're a numpty. In the same way as cycle helmets aren't compulsory, I wouldn't dream of going out without one. Rugby league is a collision sport, your mouth will get a smack at some point so get it protected.

Tried a few out when I first started playing however found it very difficult to communicate with team mates while it was in my mouth. I never wore one after that, though I would hate to lose teeth so if I did go back playing I would look into maybe a thinner one that was easier to talk with.

Thanks for all contributions and votesicon_biggrin.gif




This is exactly one of the main points I'm hoping to disprove, so called 'common sense' is actually causing more accidents and greater injuries through misunderstanding/misuse and actual limitations with the so called safety aid. Whether that be headguards in boxing, gumshields in rugby and helmets etc in other sports.

Wearing helmets in cycling for instance, at all levels including the pro peleton is one of the best examples with hard facts.
The statistics back up everywhere, more so in those countries that have compulsary helmet wearing such as Australia, NZ & parts of US that wearing a cycle helmet is actually detrimental to your health and from a population POV contributes to mass levels of unhealthy/obese populous.

Because the design perameters are so flimsy compared to the actual use (even at lower speeds) people take greater risks (risk compensation), thus blindly think that they are somehow going to be magically protected. The helmet mantra of ' a helmet saved my life' is just that, a mantra and has no real evidence to support it even though [isome[/i medical types might have you believe it, they are NOT qualified to understand the physics behind the helmet & said limitations.
In the pro peleton there have being more deaths and head injuries since helmet wearing became compulsary than when it wasn't..go figure huh! IN AUS & NZ there have being a greater level of accidents & head injuries per cyclist/km than before helmet wearing became compulsary, in a time when car safety increased for its occupents and also for those outside the vehicle, yet head injuries became more frequent.



The test perameter of a cycle helmet for instance is a straight drop onto a flat surface at approx 12mph(drop test from 1.5metres), that is the pass/fail test for impact, if a helmet splits, it has failed (not worked as people falsely think). There are greater risks from rotational brain injuries, strangulation and even increases in concussion/brain injury through amplfying the injury due to the increase in the size of the head, not to mention not twonking your head in the first place due to said increase in size.

It's my thoughts that although there are some mouth injuries in rugby, a gumshield isn't all that protective of such & its main function is supposed to lessen jaw injuries & concussions, but how effective is a gumshield in reality? Does it actually really give the protection that players think it does and do they in turn behave/play with less care than if they knew it didn't or weren't wearing one at all?
Does the overall benefit of wearing a gumshield actually outweigh any negatives from a cold hard factual POV, not just anecdotal, single person incidents?

Certainly in cycling & boxing (where they've stopped using headgear in amateur's due to increases in concussions through wearing them) the statistics show that the so called safety aid is anything but and does actually make you worse off.
Not as applicable to RL but you've more chance of having a serious head injury and/or dying from such whilst walking/falling out of bed than whilst cycling yet no-one in a civilised society would consider wearing them for walking around (though in a let's blame the victim culture that is worryingly more frequent calls for walking helmets!!)

Given we are supposed to be looking at player wealthfare at all levels I'm very much interested in the role a gumshield plays and indeed scrum caps which might actually increase the chances of an injury or worse allow a player to play whom actually isn't fit to play..
I think the RFL if they are really serious about player welfare need to look at this type of thing, garner some real in depth stats and see what is best with regard to player protection, with or without.
Personally I played mostly without as I've stated and took the perceived 'risk' in what I beleive to be an area that has a less chance of an injury & where the gumshield would be of limited use in any case.
I'm also a non helmet wearer in cycling, never have and never will.
thanks again to everyone who has contributed so far..keep them coming

I played both codes of rugby when I was a growing up for nearly a decade. I was never injured in any way and was probably hurt only a few times. I never wore a gumshield and to be honest I don't think I ever gave it any thought. In my mind it was simply not needed and I cannot remember anything ever happening during a game where I would have been helped by wearing one.

In terms of cycling it was pretty much the same. I never really needed a helmet so wearing one would have been pointless. Even though I had a BMX bike I was never any good at any tricks so didn't need one. I do remember one spectacular case of going over my handlebars because my front wheel locked for some reason. But I think even in that case it wasn't my head that needed protecting, it was my hands, arms and knees.

When I played I always wore one. As a kid, the cheap molding type then as I got older I had them made for me through a dentist so that it fit exactly and never fell out. They are definitely worth it if you value your teeth. The cost of a well made gumshield or the cost of reconstructive dental work?

It all depends if you like to gamble...

I get your point, but as someone who has gone through the windscreen of a car travelling at 30mph as a cyclist, my helmet undoubtedly saved my life. The wreck that was the helmet would have been my skull. I can say the same for gum shields, I suffered a fit after a particularly heavy blow to my head, clamping down hard. If my teeth had been bare, I would have bitten off the end of my tongue. As it is, 15 stitches later and I was fine. I do see where you are coming from, and agree that there is evidence to suggest that helmets can cause more harm, but in an everyday setting, with some of the drivers on the road, I wouldn't go out without one.

I always found it difficult to speak clearly with a gum shield in, but as a prop communication was never really a key requirement so it didn't matter. Many moons ago I was playing in a game and I got stiff armed in the face, and I actually saw star bursts like I was a cartoon character who had been bashed over the head. After the game when I took my shield out I found my jaw ached like mad, I dread to think what it would have been like had I not been wearing one.

The problem with the cycle helmet example is that it isn't taking any other factors in to consideration.
If having helmets makes it safer on the roads, there will be a bigger population cycling, therefore a bigger population of injuries, even though many may have been saved injury
Same with the push to get people cycling from councils
More cars on the road
Faster bikes
Cycling in teh Olympics making it more popular
etc etc

To say that helmets may not be as safe as first thought, because the injuries have increased, is not showing the complete picture.
My son will not be cycling without one.

I hate wearing a cycle helmet but I wear one to set a good example to my kids. Plus if you come across some of the drivers I have you'd wear one too.

How do you know that it saved your life? Common sense or actual facts? Because the facts bear out that the helmet gave you little if any protection and probably increased the dangers both beforehand and at the actual point of impact.
The point being that the design perameter of a cycle helmet is only up to 12mph, beyond that it is next to useless, at the speed you were going the helmet offers no crush protection and indeed can amplify the forces involved, as well as the risk of twisting forces to the neck and increased brain rotation injuries, you have no way of knowing what would have happened if you weren't wearing a helmet.
Many cyclists claim a 'helmet saved their lives' without any shred of evidence to support their stance and while they can/do offer protection against abrasions/cuts and brusies at low speeds, your incident was in extremis and the statistics show that your helmet just didn't save your life at all.

Similarly to your gumshield incident, there's no way of proving one way or the other what would have happened if you weren't wearing one but data sets (as in cycling, boxing, NFL) show that so called safety aids actually don't give the protection that common sense would dictate they do and overall can/do make matters worse than commpared with no safety aid at all.

That you quote every day settings on the road as being most dangerous is interesting but in stark contrast the safest countries in the world for cycling (& have the highest rates of cycling) are the Netherlands and Denmark where the rate of helmet wearing is extremely low/virtually non existant, yet their rates of incidents/head injuries is far far lower than ours. You rarely see any kids with helmets even from very young ages.

Whilst cycling isn't RL of course, that safety equipment and the covering of heads to protect from a previous head injury & the use of gumshields to protect teeth/mouth/jaw/concussions 'seem' like the common sense thing to do, it is my belief that actually they make matters worse when looking at it from a large number POV, although I admit that from singular/anecdotal evidence there may well be [isome[/i increase in protection, it just isn't overall and especially when you see the infrequency of the injuries compared to other injuries in the sport which pretty much disproves the 'common sense' theory completely.

Get a gum shield that fits properly (from your dentist) and wear it and for cycling, its an absolute no brainer.
Until your head hits the road, its an inconvenience but, they can and do save lives.

The gum shield wont save your life, only your teeth.

I know because at its thinnest point the helmet compressed to around a quarter of its original thickness in the crash and I still sustained a fractured skull. No helmet = massive fracture.

So the helmet failed then to stop you from a fractured skull? You do realise that the amount of forces that the helmet 'possibly' stopped were miniscule compared to the absolute total forces?
Ergo it was your skull that took the majoirty brunt of the impact NOT the helmet, that the helmet probably amplified the impact made the forcs involved even worse counter acting any lessening from the crushing of the foam..
As I said, the facts bear out that helmets just do not work but people still believe that they saved their lives, I'm glad you're ok in any event.