The English Premiership has been hitting the wrong sort of headlines at a sensitive time in the injury debate. While Professor Pollock reasserts her view that rugby should be banned or at least modified in schools, the attrition rate of players in the English top flight is reaching devastating levels.
One line of thinking is that the Global Law Trials have made for more ball-in-play time leading to more collisions and therefore more chances for injury. While the former is true, it might not be the cause.
Another line of thought comes from Brian Moore. The former England hooker and outspoken rugby pundit, suggests that we should reduce the number of substitutions available. A chance for fresh legs means players can be trained to play for two thirds of a game, making them bigger not leaner. These large lumps bash into each other before being replaced by equally large lumps.
He suggests that if you reduce the number of substitutions available, the players will have to lose bulk to become more aerobically capable of lasting the distance. While this might make a difference, it could take several years before the players changed their regimes and body shapes, according leading sports scientist, Ross Tucker.
While all this is going on, the RFU has been heavily pushing it’s injury prevention programme. Using extensive research and testing it’s come up with a series of preparation exercises that will reduce injuries significantly.
Speaking to coaches who’ve been involved in the trials and others who have tried to implement it, there’s a sense of tick-box culture. Quite rightly the RFU, like all the governing bodies, want to keep players safe and promote best practice. Yet, the programmes that they put forward are impractical in many cases and don’t seem to align with PE programmes in schools.
Rugby remains an amateur, part-time sport for the majority of participants. These amateurs are looked after by amateurs, who might pick up some “badges” along the way. There are some strength and conditioning coaches working in clubs, but again, their veracity is incredibly varied.
As you can see, we have a two-tier problem. At one end of the scale, we have highly trained athletes getting injured playing a high-octane version of the game. At the other end, we have partially trained players getting injured playing a modified, less impactful version of the game.
We have a part of play in this. We must continue to develop players to use safe techniques. But that’s not enough. We must also create opportunities in training for players to choose the right techniques under pressure. If a player does get injured because of poor technique, it’s most likely they knew what to do, but didn’t know when to do it.