Head Injuries

webboo

Pross said:

Cargobike said:

I've got a far better idea.
Why not just ban all sports that might result in any kind of injury.
Perhaps then we could worry about people dying from morbid obesity as they spend all day sat on their fat arses doing sweet F.A.
Everything has a risk attached to it from competing in sport to hanging out the washing.
Where exactly do we draw the line at in this "I want compensation for doing something that enhanced my overall life" b*llshit?

I think you've missed the point. The discussion is about the duty of care governing bodies have to those taking part in a sport especially in the light of the claim being made in rugby.

Do you think skiing should do away with netting? Get ride of tyre walls in motor racing? Prevent a referee in boxing from stopping a fight if the guy getting battered wants to keep going?

However if they did, as an adult you have a choice whether you participate or not. You are more likely to have a case if they don’t implement safety measures when they claim to have or they are not up to scrutiny.I.e. Barriers.

shirley_basso

That's not how it works though from a claims perspective (which is my least preferred angle to view this from).

The organiser has a duty of care to the participants regardless of their own carelessness or lack of self regard for their own well being.

Cargobike

Pross said:

I think you've missed the point. The discussion is about the duty of care governing bodies have to those taking part in a sport especially in the light of the claim being made in rugby.

Do you think skiing should do away with netting? Get ride of tyre walls in motor racing? Prevent a referee in boxing from stopping a fight if the guy getting battered wants to keep going?

I get the argument if it's a question of care of duty to minors, for instance.
However, trying to shift that same duty of care to the governing bodies where adults are making decisions based upon their own perception of risk doesn't solve anything, imho, as one individuals perception of risk is different to anothers.

Even with all the safety measures in place already the F1 season was still marred by a fireball crash this year. Every year riders die at the IOM TT and there are mass crashes in the TdF.

If we want to prevent injuries from occuring then turning the above examples into individual time trials, man and machine against the clock would surely be the safest thing to do, therefore eliminating the opportunity for crashes happening under racing conditions.

Of course that idea is blown out of the water due to the IOM TT already being a time trial, with very little actual competitor interaction happening, yet death is still a consequence of getting it wrong.

I'm not against making sport safer, but I don't like the removal of choice as individuals in taking part in the first place.

We go about our personal business on a day to day basis weighing up risks as we see them. Why should it be any different in sport. You cannot make anything 100% risk free by tinkering at the edges. Either ban the sports or let those taking part decide at what level of risk they are happy with.

shirley_basso

Imagine that fireball had happend 3, 5 or 10y ago.

The driver would have lost their head and/or burned to death.

The use of fireproof suits, the safety car being ready to go at all times, stewards at all key corners and halo saved his life.

What about Armco barriers Vs concrete walls? Gravel traps? Use of ground effect?

All these contribute to safety.

Also - competitors generally ARENT happy with the level of safety in sport, that's why there are lawsuits coming out, rider / professional associations to represent athletes safety as they are more than just mobile billboards.

I don't get why you can't see this?

What do you mean by the removal of choice? People are remarkably bad at making risk based decisions when the outcome is extremely bad and the probability is very low. Such as fireball in F1 crash.

Pross

Should the same apply in other workplaces then? Do away with the H&S at Work Act and leave people to decide if they choose to take the risk and do the job? It's about reducing risk as low as reasonably practicable so the argument is really whether a head injury assessment is practicable in cycling. The reality is probably not but as suggested above there may be technological solutions.

However, there are certainly instances where obviously injured riders are (sometimes literally) lifted back onto their bikes and told to carry on.

As SB says, it's about mitigation. Other sports have done a lot, cycling has made helmets compulsory and adjusted barrier feet design abut I can't think of much else (possibly the bottles being redesigned to be easier to ride over when dropped).

As for making everything safer by running events as TTs, my worst crash in a bike race was in a TT where another, much faster, rider caught me and rode straight into the back of me.

bobmcstuff

No_Ta_Doctor said:

Cargobike said:

Of course it was a stupid comment.
If we mitigate every chance of getting a head injury, or any other for that matter out of sport, what exactly are we left with?
Get rid of heading and tackling in football? What's left won't be very entertaining.
Bowling in cricket to revert to underarm to negate the odd chance of a beamer? Stop fielders throwing the ball in case it hits someone. Better yet, stop fielders from catching the ball in case they miss it and it strikes a mortal blow?
A man carrying a red flag in front of cyclists to ensure they don't exceed 5mph, therefore vastly reducing the chances of falling off?

Where do we stop?

Sounds like you've confused mitigation with elimination, tbh. Plenty of risks in sport have already been mitigated to some extent - the halo in F1 is an example, the cricket rules re setting a field for bouncers is another, bike helmets a third.

We stop where we think we've sufficiently mitigated the risk.

The issue with concussion is that it's only fairly recently that the link between concussions in sport (notably American football and rugby) and early onset dementia has been made. For most of those playing it was an unknown risk up until then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALARP

This is basically the principle that risks should be reduced to a level which is ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable). Then the question you need to ask is, what measures are reasonably practicable? Are we comfortable that we have reduced the risk such that there are no other reasonably practicable risk reduction measures we can implement?

This comes from a court case in the UK in 1949 (Evans vs Coal Board) where some people died in a coal mine collapse, and the legal argument came down to elimination vs reduction.

All HSE regulation in the UK is largely based around this approach today, and it is widely used in other countries too (to Pross' post above it is a core requirement of the HASAW Act that the employer has a duty to reduce risks to employees and members of the public to a level which is ALARP).

It's also what I spend most of my working day doing...

DeVlaeminck

I'd happily see association football trial reducing heading - I hate having to tell promising young players that part of playing certain positions is sticking your head on long kicks. Unfortunately for some of the promising ones that might want to go for a scholarship at a USA university (surprisingly common in female football) or play a higher level like National or even decent Regional league football it is a necessity.

I assume - possibly wrongly - that lads have a bit more bravado and avoiding heading is more unusual but there are some good young women players who do avoid it.

No_Ta_Doctor

DeVlaeminck said:

I'd happily see association football trial reducing heading - I hate having to tell promising young players that part of playing certain positions is sticking your head on long kicks. Unfortunately for some of the promising ones that might want to go for a scholarship at a USA university (surprisingly common in female football) or play a higher level like National or even decent Regional league football it is a necessity.

I assume - possibly wrongly - that lads have a bit more bravado and avoiding heading is more unusual but there are some good young women players who do avoid it.

How do you avoid heading in football, and how could this be trialled? Genuinely curious.

pblakeney

No_Ta_Doctor said:

DeVlaeminck said:

I'd happily see association football trial reducing heading - I hate having to tell promising young players that part of playing certain positions is sticking your head on long kicks. Unfortunately for some of the promising ones that might want to go for a scholarship at a USA university (surprisingly common in female football) or play a higher level like National or even decent Regional league football it is a necessity.

I assume - possibly wrongly - that lads have a bit more bravado and avoiding heading is more unusual but there are some good young women players who do avoid it.

How do you avoid heading in football, and how could this be trialled? Genuinely curious.

Already in effect for children in training. Sorry I couldn't find a better link.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/11029534/heading-banned-primary-school-brain-damage-fears/

DeVlaeminck

It'd involve some fairly radical changes to the sport but we've seen radical changes to some other sports and football has changed a lot over the last 100 years.

I'm thinking you'd have to penalise heading the ball in certain circumstances - maybe ban heading the ball outside of the 18 yard box - different ideas could be trialled on lower leagues.

Lanterne_Rogue

In a trial, if you're wanting to see how it affects the game, just ban heading altogether and treat it as handball. Or as an indirect free-kick, like a back-pass is.

In fact, as someone who witnessed the hilarity that was the first season after the back-pass was banned, I'm all for banning heading now...

rick_chasey

You’d have to rethink the corner surely?

Lanterne_Rogue

That's why you need to trial it though, to see what other rules patches are required as a result. It might need something, I suppose, as otherwise people might keep slinging it in to hopefully win cheap penalties. It's possible that as it gives the keeper an even bigger advantage in terms of punching that it's not worth doing?

No_Ta_Doctor

Lanterne_Rogue said:

That's why you need to trial it though, to see what other rules patches are required as a result. It might need something, I suppose, as otherwise people might keep slinging it in to hopefully win cheap penalties. It's possible that as it gives the keeper an even bigger advantage in terms of punching that it's not worth doing?

Indirect free-kick, maybe. It would be a rule change that had profound and unforeseen consequences. Long goal kicks would be interesting.

RichN95.

Newcastle United's Matt Ritchie has said that any contact with the head should stop play immediately.

https://twitter.com/nufcjord_/status/1340397557361602561

mididoctors

I like the accelerometer in your helmet thing . I wonder how feasible that is. Mobile phones have them no? Pretty small ?

No_Ta_Doctor

mididoctors said:

I like the accelerometer in your helmet thing . I wonder how feasible that is. Mobile phones have them no? Pretty small ?

The accelerometer part is easy. Getting the data - if you're going to make rules about riders needing to be checked/stopped - might not be. Not sure the wifi/bluetooth options would be reliable enough.

andyp

No_Ta_Doctor said:

The accelerometer part is easy. Getting the data - if you're going to make rules about riders needing to be checked/stopped - might not be. Not sure the wifi/bluetooth options would be reliable enough.

Why not? Most powermeters these days are using BLE (lower energy bluetooth) to connect to a head unit, it'd be really easy to to connect another. No one is worried about powermeter reliability so it is clearly robust enough.

RichN95.

andyp said:

Why not? Most powermeters these days are using BLE (lower energy bluetooth) to connect to a head unit, it'd be really easy to to connect another. No one is worried about powermeter reliability so it is clearly robust enough.

But that needs a range of a metre or two. To get the data to a support vehicle is a range of minimum 200 metres.

pblakeney

andyp said:

No_Ta_Doctor said:

The accelerometer part is easy. Getting the data - if you're going to make rules about riders needing to be checked/stopped - might not be. Not sure the wifi/bluetooth options would be reliable enough.

Why not? Most powermeters these days are using BLE (lower energy bluetooth) to connect to a head unit, it'd be really easy to to connect another. No one is worried about powermeter reliability so it is clearly robust enough.

Install activated flashing blue lights in the helmet. Sorted.

No_Ta_Doctor

pblakeney said:

andyp said:

No_Ta_Doctor said:

The accelerometer part is easy. Getting the data - if you're going to make rules about riders needing to be checked/stopped - might not be. Not sure the wifi/bluetooth options would be reliable enough.

Why not? Most powermeters these days are using BLE (lower energy bluetooth) to connect to a head unit, it'd be really easy to to connect another. No one is worried about powermeter reliability so it is clearly robust enough.

Install activated flashing blue lights in the helmet. Sorted.

Yeah, something like that could work.

flite

I like the blue flashing light idea - would be like the elimination race on the track. Importantly, it would not need the helmet to be removed.

pblakeney

flite said:

I like the blue flashing light idea - would be like the elimination race on the track. Importantly, it would not need the helmet to be removed.

I'm going to retire while I'm ahead. 😉
Patent pending.

No_Ta_Doctor

Interesting article on Jan Vertonghen playing with concussion

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2020/dec/22/jan-vertonghen-case-shows-concussion-is-all-part-of-the-sporting-capitalism-system

rick_chasey

Cycling generally is one of the more extreme sports in terms of carrying on through injuries.

You’ll struggle to change that.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Cycling generally is one of the more extreme sports in terms of carrying on through injuries.

You’ll struggle to change that.

Cycling can change. Plenty of broken cricketers have played on when required. Now if they are concussed, they get subbed.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Cycling generally is one of the more extreme sports in terms of carrying on through injuries.

You’ll struggle to change that.

Cycling can change. Plenty of broken cricketers have played on when required. Now if they are concussed, they get subbed.

Might have to stop fans worshipping riders riding through broken bones first.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Cycling generally is one of the more extreme sports in terms of carrying on through injuries.

You’ll struggle to change that.

Cycling can change. Plenty of broken cricketers have played on when required. Now if they are concussed, they get subbed.

Might have to stop fans worshipping riders riding through broken bones first.

They can worship riders with broken bones, but not the ones with head injuries.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Cycling generally is one of the more extreme sports in terms of carrying on through injuries.

You’ll struggle to change that.

Cycling can change. Plenty of broken cricketers have played on when required. Now if they are concussed, they get subbed.

Might have to stop fans worshipping riders riding through broken bones first.

They can worship riders with broken bones, but not the ones with head injuries.

I dunno Hamilton needed caps for all his teeth as he ground them down riding with a broken collarbone.

RichN95.

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

Cycling generally is one of the more extreme sports in terms of carrying on through injuries.

You’ll struggle to change that.

Cycling can change. Plenty of broken cricketers have played on when required. Now if they are concussed, they get subbed.

They can also have a runner if they are injured. And they can also retire hurt and return later.