Also, yes I guess the BBC was miffed about not getting the rights given the timing. I was surprised RL wasn't blamed - there was an article written in the press by a woman a few months back who if I recall said she was / would not be keen to let her son play as the game (RU) was getting too physical and then seemed to blame it all on Sam Burgess a human battering ram brought in from RL!

How does boxing get by!

They've just removed head guards from amateur boxing!

No it hasn't. Sport has inherent risk and you accept that risk if you decide to play the sport. The NFL case was due to the NFL not informing the players of evidence they had of danger of repeated concussions therefore not giving players an opportunity to make an informed decision about taking the risk. Concussions still happen in the NFL. They still allow the shoulder charge, despite RL saying it is a major issue. It is I a sports interest to minimise risk to a point but if you wanted to reduce risk significantly in RL you would need to start playing flag or touch, most injuries happen in legitimate tackles.

While I'm not dismissing the effects of repeated concussions, the cases of individuals who've suffered the type of long term condition shown in the programme are few and very far between.

I've been involved in Rugby League all my life, I myself have played at many different levels and know hundreds of friends who've played international, SL, NRL and amateur. I would struggle to name 4 or 5 that have any type of mental condition and it is debatable whether it was caused by Rugby League.

The issues are very real for those individuals who do suffer reactions to being concussed, so I'm not diminishing those cases.

However
The programme makers, sports scientists and doctors are doing what they always do and sensationalising their work with over the top reactions.

How does football escape this argument, the number of times you see a clash of heads in football is greater than either Rugby code. The damage caused by repeated heading of the ball must be more significant than that of the whiplash effect of collisions in Rugby. I for one would not want to get my head under a ball that's been launched 70 metres downfield by the opposition Goalkeeper.

Boxing, I love the sport but come on..
If we're having a discussion about the effects of concussion on sportsmen and women then it has to start with Boxing, UFC etc.

As someone said earlier this smacks of a smug BBC journalist trying to make a name for themselves by timing this oversensationalised programme with the start of ITVs Rugby World Cup.

All the sports listed are nowhere near as dangerous as horse riding, which Her Majesty still does at 89 without a hat!

As does the Duke of Edinburgh who's even older. All those head-first landings clearly did him no harm.

A very positive RL story on the Beeb: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-34440600

A very positive RL story on the Beeb: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-34440600

Bills facial features certainly tell a story of a man who taken some shots.

Pleased to see there's a special section on their website for English Rugby.
Just been on there but I can't find any news about the 24 man squad announcement or the upcoming fixtures against France and NZ.

Bill Beaumont retired as a result of head injuries.

He's probably forgotten that himself, what with all the head injuries

to true

and the beer in the Taps PH Lytham might just have an affect on long and short term mem......

Excellent post, I've dug into risk analysis in sport a fair bit and as part of my job did risk assessment for our company. I've always banged the drum against the misguided masses and how they misunderstand risk and how to avoid the issues that come up not by throwing a guard/helmet around something or a hi-vis vest but through behavioural/procedural & general environment change. The former actually increases incidents.

My particular personal beef with regard to risk are the lying/fact bending/sensationalising protagonists for cycle helmets, they usually have an agenda (Steve 'crackhead' Cracknell represents one of the big helmet manufacturers and always bangs on about how his helmet saved his life

) or simply aren't interested in facts either with head injuries or the efficacy of helmets, or rather their the lack thereof!
As you say RL is pretty low down in the head injury stakes even more so given that it is a full contact sport, that in part is to what we are taught as kids and how to play, we all know it fecking hurts to get your head in the wrong place in a tackle and endeavor not to repeat it, even the best make mistakes, just ask James Roby!

Yes getting hit by a swinging/stiff arm, elbow or the occasional accidental knee will happen and can have concussive effects which need looking at (banning the shoulder charge wasn't the solution IMHO) but there are far worse activities in life that need looking at first before you even get to things like boxing!

Walking for instance has roughly the same instance/rate of head injuries as there are for cyclists in the UK (it's actually slightly higher), but I've yet to see any (serious) calls for helmet wearing whilst walking, similarly driving a car, many thousands of head/neck injuries and hundreds of lives might be saved if motorvehicle drivers wore helmets (& neck braces) even for a trip to the supermarket. The truth is though that head injuries go up with helmet wearing (or safety aids in general) due to several factors the main one being risk compensation. It's pretty much the main reason that the ABA removed head gear from boxing due to the increase in concussions comparative to non headgear wearing (though cuts went up long term that is by far a better outcome)
It's the main reason why the NFL are now having to deal with the situation regarding suicides, dementia and other mental health problems due to the nature of the sport and the added protection which ironically were only introduced to stop deaths from happening.

In my opinion, RL has it about right, bring back the shoulder charge BUT penalising high shots has to have much more of a punishment not just to the club but to the individual as well.

Probably blames it on the fact that he played a few games of amateur rugby league as a youngster for Adlington ARLFC.

People I've spoken to who've played American Football admit that the padding and helmets are used more like offensive weapons than protective gear. It encourages them to impact far harder than they would without. While the helmet may prevent their skull from cracking it doesn't stop the brain rattling around inside the skull, and that's what causes concussion.

As for the program being BBC sour grapes, there might be a bit of that in it. On the other hand this story has been kicking around some of the more serious media for a couple of years now, slowly growing in volume. What really surprises me is that the RFU appear to be in denial, Bill Beaumont clearly hasn't realised that the physique of RU players today bear no relation to when he was playing. It's even more surprising considering areas of risk that are unique to RU, such as the risk of neck trauma from scrum collapses, or of falling from height when being lifted in the line out.

The only thing Rugby League can learn from this is to remain vigilant and not go into denial.

I played 7 seasons of it, and can say that's definitely true. I got 2 concussions in that time frame, both in training sessions & caused by members of my own team, both of them came from Helmet to Helmet contact, over a distance of less than 5 yards. Awareness from coaches is becoming better at least, with tackling techniques being altered to reduce the risk and gum shields are compulsory in Britain, your team can be penalised if a player doesn't have one in.

Classic risk compensation in action, the problem with helmets especially that they cause rotational brain injuries, the injury that is more likely to turn you into a vegetative state than a simple fractured skull.

Are you suggesting that he was assisted on Question of sport then? he was on that for aaages, so i recall.

Watching the Wales game now and I may suffer concussions after banging my head against the wall, that's compounded by listening to that pr1ck Inverdale first....

it's really poor, got in after a bike ride thought i'd see if it was going to be any good...wales blow two tries, one because their top winger hasn't got a clue how to get past his man and then two fatties getting in the way or wayward pass/not being able to draw the man and then kick, kick, kick, kick...more kicks..Wales get a break on the back of the SA FB bottling it.
Inverdale could take a bullet he's such a tw at. no doubt he'll be back at the bbeb for the autumn internationals

Not just Inverdale, the whole of the ITV coverage has been poor.

It could have been worse, they could have poached Jonathan Davies from the BBC.

Dunno who the commentary team were on R5 for the Scotland game but they left me thinking that Eddie and Stevo weren't actually all that bad

Wasn't Gavin Hastings a part of it? Kept seeing his quotes cropping up on the BBC Sport website feed, made Phil Clarke look fair and balanced.