THE sickening head knock that Michael Morgan suffered in Origin III - his second in consecutive games - was a sobering reminder of the biggest issue facing rugby league.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Putting the past and present to one side, prudence alone dictates a focus on preventing head trauma must be the future for this frantic collision sport we love and know. How exactly such a strategy might be designed and evolve so that it maintains the essence of our game, 10 or 20 years from now, who knows? But it's one imperative most can agree on.
As players, parents and promoters come to terms with the (not unsurprising) reports associating repeated concussions with a higher-than-normal propensity for mental illness in later life, it's time to get smarter.
We know brain health is paramount to a normal, healthy, fulfilling life. On this topic it's important to know some facts. Which begs the question, has research of the scourge presented post-mortem as CTE advanced sufficiently to begin to discuss this topic in purely black-and-white terms?
It seems there is plenty more to know. Science by media conference is the biggest concern to clinicians and researchers at the forefront of study in this field. Sensationalised conclusions by laymen, they say, can do more harm than good for the individual, noting the many complexities, variables and as-yet-unexplored appreciations. These might involve genetics, consumption of alcohol and drugs, diet, not to mention time elapsed between concussive knocks and "return to play" factors.
The respected medical journal "The Lancet", (Vol 18, 3/19) conveyed it thus: "The clinical syndrome [CTE] has not yet been fully defined, its prevalence is unknown and the neuropathological diagnostic criteria are no more than preliminary". All of which suggests there is work to do.
Against that, however, when decades of anecdotal evidence collide with two recent post-mortem results of NRL players, are we not wise to hasten slowly, on the side of caution? For this very reason Luke Keary was sidelined for six weeks. Not just the the rugby league world is nervous.
In our code, the NRL will tell you their protocols are world class. And they may be, to the extent they relate to after-the-fact care - whether anyone can accurately divine from a series of observations, questions or scores from a player recently concussed, whether he or she is "safe" to return to play. But it is a system held in some regard by other contact sports in these early days, with about the only game-day element missing being the appointment of independent HIA doctors. Something I believe club doctors might welcome in the new world, if not a few coaches.
On the face of it, it appears the NRL now take this challenge seriously. Closer inspection might challenge this boast.
In making strategic decisions, it's acknowledged research is key and that takes time. So, as the best time to plant a tree is "yesterday", what then has the NRL been doing, publicly or otherwise, in this space, centrally placed as they are, to fund, coordinate, drive and promote their own research, findings and recommendations?
For example, have the administration of our game approached the Men of League - who have more than 10,000 members - and asked for their input, either by Q&A or other means. Many of them would be only too willing to participate.
Likewise, the NRL have access to literally thousands of video recorded incidents of HIA over the past few years that should have been by now assessed and categorised. Any ensuing recommendations could then be relayed dutifully down the line to senior and junior coaches and players. Hasn't happened.
Personally, for my kids' development, I just need to know, for starters, the top three circumstances by which NRL players recorded knocks resulting in head trauma. Is it in gang tackling? Is it wrestling? Is it running backwards in the line? Maybe low tackling or even "friendly fire"? With this knowledge I can coach to reduce exposure to the relatively more risky techniques and promote the empirically supported, low-risk styles. Without it, my prevention options are limited.
For the present, if the game is to prosper, perhaps even aided by insights gleaned eventually from the aforementioned study, it may be time to recognise that rules which increase the prevalence of head knocks must be modified.
Not wishing to pre-empt quality research, but in its absence, hasn't the introduction of the 10-metre rule increased collision impact forces? Brought in to open the game and sexy up the product, the law of unintended consequences (and coaches) have retaliated with a pre-dominance of upright gang-tackling. Where heads bang and bump more readily as players seek to slow down play, tackling higher around the ball. Thrown into that mix, has not the interchange promoted bigger, faster, fresher and more energised boppers who logically collide with greater force, more often?
All of which are ever-present issues in the weeks and months ahead. Little of which help those loyal soldiers of our past, for whom it's a wait-and-see proposition. Too late now, perhaps, to do much about what some might argue is inevitable, based on recent shock reporting. The damage, it follows, if done, is done.
What most old boys can agree on is the NRL must be far more proactive and not shirk responsibility, by relying solely on third-party interests to do the research.
Where previous administrations preferred to ignore the elephant in their room, this iteration must act "yesterday" if they want to finish on the right side of history.
Our game's future, more than at any other time over 111 years, is in their hands.