Rugby and Football Skills

[Guest guest]

" Brett Jacques " <drbjacquesnd@...> wrote:

<When I was in high school in the mid seventies, we were taught to tackle

with our helmets in the numbers. This didn't work in my first rugby game. I

am thankful that I had a French forwards coach and later an Australian rugby

league player to really teach me how to tackle properly when I see a 6'5 " 275

thundering Samoan #8 trying to charge down the blind side.

When I watch American Football, I'm not sure what techniques are actually

taught but the hits are big and fun to watch.>

***One thing worries me enormously about the use of the helmet for tackling

is the huge potential for injury. All deliberate use of the helmet should be

banned.

Let me explain why. In rugby, as you well know, you are taught very powerful

methods of " handing off " players, so that it becomes instinctive that anyone

diving headfirst towards you receives the equivalent of a flat handed

shoulder twisting thrust against the head or any part of the body which

threatens to make contact with you. If someone head butts, then you learn

pretty well how to rotate the hips and shoulders explosively to deflect the

blow or impose huge force against the offending player. If you did this

against a helmet-wearing player, you could easily break his neck, so heaven

forbid that American footballers ever learned some of the defensive drills

which become total instinct to a rugby player.

Imagine if these drills (augmented by some modified short-range martial arts

blows and parries) were learned and used more frequently! There would surely

be an increase in the incidence of paraplegia and even death, so that would

lead to an outlawing of helmet use for tackling. That is not the way in

which we wish football to develop. The game would be safer, more exciting

and more skillful if players learned some of the refinements of tackling

without use of the head. Nothing would be lost from the game and tackling

would become just as much an art as hitting and blocking (which, of course,

is not allowed in rugby).

You and I would not have the slightest hesitation in dive tackling (without

any protective garb) a 300lb player running at full speed, but I somehow

doubt that many American footballers would feel very comfortable doing that

in a game that has no time outs and both direction play for a continuous 90

minutes. Both rugby and football could learn certain tricks and skills from

one another, but, in the tackling world, rugby is very advanced (though, of

course, far too many players today indulge in poor, high body tackling and

holding that detracts from the game). The tactical and strategic skills in

football, on the other hand, certainly could teach rugby a thing or two.

One important observation - anyone who comes from either sport who thinks

that training for rugby and football is very similar because of the contact

nature of each game is very wrong indeed. They have their few similarities

(obviously, since football evolved from rugby), but there are major

differences in the type of " fitness " required for each sport. I very rapidly

learned this when I moved from Strength and Conditioning consultant for the S

African Rugby Football Union to assisting American footballers. I really

enjoyed the transition and have now grown into an unrepentant football fan

(no small thanks to my Bronco mad wife!). Our home feels empty without the

periodic presence of some Broncos around the place!

A final, more peripheral note - I find it amazing that so many football

referees are carrying paunches and hardly run much at all during the game.

All rugby referees have to be extremely fit, since there is only one referee

on the field and he has to run up and down with the play for the full 90

minutes or more. Football referees probably would not last 10 minutes if

they had to officiate at a rugby game. In South Africa, referees had to pass

a strenuous fitness test - do football referees have to pass a similar test

here?

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

mcsiff@...

[Guest guest]

Mel wrote,

>

>Let me explain why. In rugby, as you well know, you are taught very powerful

>methods of " handing off " players, so that it becomes instinctive that anyone

>diving headfirst towards you receives the equivalent of a flat handed

>shoulder twisting thrust against the head or any part of the body which

>threatens to make contact with you. If someone head butts, then you learn

>pretty well how to rotate the hips and shoulders explosively to deflect the

>blow or impose huge force against the offending player. If you did this

>against a helmet-wearing player, you could easily break his neck, so heaven

>forbid that American footballers ever learned some of the defensive drills

>which become total instinct to a rugby player.

>

>Imagine if these drills (augmented by some modified short-range martial arts

>blows and parries) were learned and used more frequently! There would surely

>be an increase in the incidence of paraplegia and even death, so that would

>lead to an outlawing of helmet use for tackling. That is not the way in

>which we wish football to develop. The game would be safer, more exciting

>and more skillful if players learned some of the refinements of tackling

>without use of the head. Nothing would be lost from the game and tackling

>would become just as much an art as hitting and blocking (which, of course,

>is not allowed in rugby).

>

>You and I would not have the slightest hesitation in dive tackling (without

>any protective garb) a 300lb player running at full speed, but I somehow

>doubt that many American footballers would feel very comfortable doing that

>in a game that has no time outs and both direction play for a continuous 90

>minutes. Both rugby and football could learn certain tricks and skills from

>one another, but, in the tackling world, rugby is very advanced (though, of

>course, far too many players today indulge in poor, high body tackling and

>holding that detracts from the game). The tactical and strategic skills in

>football, on the other hand, certainly could teach rugby a thing or two.

Trust me Mel, any safety in the NFL would have no concern at all about

bringing down a 300 lb rugby player. However, a defensive back is used to

tackling larger players running at him full tilt. And a rested 260 lb

running back is moving a lot faster than a 300 lb rugby prop or second row

player.

Personally I have played both games and the differences in tackling are

there for a reason. In football even a foot can be crucial, especially for

the defensive players in the box. The tackle is intended to stop the

oppositions forward progress completely. In rugby unless you are at the

goal line it is actually advantage to give the person being tackled a yard

and present him or her to your own side, so to speak.

The football helmet is a weapon, plain and simple. You would find it very

difficult to 'break a players neck' since the player with the helmet has

his head up and is loaded for contact. He is expecting a blow to his head

and has prepared for it. Try this out on Romo and watch his technique on

contact. (Use a heavy bag or something and have him show you how he hits

it.) You'll see this is a very safe technique, especially with the shoulder

harness and neck brace worn by most linebackers. It would be very difficult

to slip him when he has you lined up on the numbers and in most cases if

you try and use a rugby evasion technique he is going to plant you right in

the turf, very hard.

The games are completely different games. There are players who have played

rugby playing CFL football here in Canada, since in BC there is very little

football. We had one named Ray Elgaard play for the Roughriders and he

learned very quickly that what he knew from rugby didn't necessarily work

for football. Some things can be adapted, but for the most part you have to

relearn them.

Ditto for footballers making the transition to rugby. They learn there is a

very good reason why you don't use your head in rugby, after their noses

have been broken a few times. They also learn to turn the players instead

of driving him back and present him to the players coming in. Its a very

different game. Although I have heard many comments from European and

southern hemisphere players that our tackling in NA can be very

intimidating due to its football influence.

>

>One important observation - anyone who comes from either sport who thinks

>that training for rugby and football is very similar because of the contact

>nature of each game is very wrong indeed. They have their few similarities

>(obviously, since football evolved from rugby), but there are major

>differences in the type of " fitness " required for each sport. I very rapidly

>learned this when I moved from Strength and Conditioning consultant for the S

>African Rugby Football Union to assisting American footballers. I really

>enjoyed the transition and have now grown into an unrepentant football fan

>(no small thanks to my Bronco mad wife!). Our home feels empty without the

>periodic presence of some Broncos around the place!

>

>A final, more peripheral note - I find it amazing that so many football

>referees are carrying paunches and hardly run much at all during the game.

>All rugby referees have to be extremely fit, since there is only one referee

>on the field and he has to run up and down with the play for the full 90

>minutes or more. Football referees probably would not last 10 minutes if

>they had to officiate at a rugby game. In South Africa, referees had to pass

>a strenuous fitness test - do football referees have to pass a similar test

>here?

No question the referee can be a disgrace.

Hobman

Saskatoon, Canada

Grip it and rip it!

[Guest guest]

Mcsiff@... wrote:

> One thing worries me enormously about the use of the helmet for

> tackling is the huge potential for injury. All deliberate use of

> the helmet should be banned.

Soon after the introduction of the modern, hard helmet, players

realized it made an excellent weapon. It didn't take long before

they made " spearing " illegal.

I stumbled across an interesting article (in Word format) at

http://www.stockton.edu/~ospreys/AnAnalysis.doc. Here's a snippet:

Based on this information in 1976 college and high school football

made spearing a rule infraction resulting in a 15 yard penalty or

ejection. College football chose to exclude initiating contact with

the face mask from their spearing rule. However, on the high school

level initiating contact with any part of the helmet (including the

face mask) is illegal (8). The 1976 rule change has caused a dramatic

reduction in the number of quadriplegic injuries occurring each year.

In high school football it has gone from a high of 25 cases of

paralysis in 1976 to a low of four in 1984, which represents an 82%

decrease (7). Since 1981 the number of occurrences has remained

constant between four and nine per year.

In the 80's, we were taught to " stick " the other guy with our

forehead (where the facemask met the helmet) right on his numbers. I

don't remember that feeling particularly jarring. We were definitely

taught to never, ever, ever spear a guy with the top of our helmet.

And, of course, we were taught not to " arm tackle " a guy. " Hit 'im!

Hit 'im! Don't arm tackle 'im! "

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Mcsiff@... wrote:

> Let me explain why. In rugby, as you well know, you are taught

> very powerful methods of " handing off " players, so that it becomes

> instinctive that anyone diving headfirst towards you receives the

> equivalent of a flat handed shoulder twisting thrust against the

> head or any part of the body which threatens to make contact with

> you. If someone head butts, then you learn pretty well how to

> rotate the hips and shoulders explosively to deflect the blow or

> impose huge force against the offending player. If you did this

> against a helmet-wearing player, you could easily break his neck,

> so heaven forbid that American footballers ever learned some of the

> defensive drills which become total instinct to a rugby player.

Is this before or after your ancient Chinese " dim mak " death touch

gets him? Because they'll be equally ineffective.

A helmeted American football player can take a hell of a lot of

punishment to the head and neck when the impact isn't from directly

above, because the helmet, neck pad, and shoulder pads work together

to prevent his head from getting driven too hard straight back or to

the sides.

He's still vulnerable to torquing (hence the facemask rules) or

impact to the top of the head (and straight down the neck), but even

helmet-to-helmet impact from a lineback coming full-speed from the

side doesn't generally cause a neck injury -- just a mild concussion.

Stiff-arms and other deflections haven't been breaking necks so far.

> The game would be safer, more exciting and more skillful if players

> learned some of the refinements of tackling without use of the

> head. Nothing would be lost from the game and tackling would

> become just as much an art as hitting and blocking (which, of

> course, is not allowed in rugby).

American football players tackle the way they do for a reason.

They're not just bad rugby players with a bunch of " wussy " pads

protecting them from their mistakes.

The bone-crushing tackle of American football stops the runner in his

tracks. Any extra yardage prevented by a hard hit can be crucial

when it means the difference between a first down and a punt.

Wrestling the guy to the ground (artfully and gracefully) just gives

him another couple yards.

> You and I would not have the slightest hesitation in dive tackling

> (without any protective garb) a 300lb player running at full speed,

> but I somehow doubt that many American footballers would feel very

> comfortable doing that in a game that has no time outs and both

> direction play for a continuous 90 minutes.

It's a good thing the American football players are playing American

football.

> A final, more peripheral note - I find it amazing that so many

> football referees are carrying paunches and hardly run much at all

> during the game.

Yeah, they're not rugby or soccer refs; that's for sure.

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Matt Madsen <mmadsen@...> wrote:

<A helmeted American football player can take a hell of a lot of

punishment to the head and neck when the impact isn't from directly

above, because the helmet, neck pad, and shoulder pads work together

to prevent his head from getting driven too hard straight back or to the

sides.>

*** This is well acknowledged. Besides noting the great dangers posed by

impacts which involve hyperextension and rotation, all of the research

articles which I quoted also emphasized that straight-on impact is also

dangerous because of the axial loading of the spine resulting from it. Far

too many folk believe that directly aligned impact with the head and cervical

spine is entirely safe and non-damaging. This is a major reason why many

researchers stress the great importance of educating players, coaches,

officials and the general public about the fundamental biomechanics and

physiology of football if the injury rate is to be diminished further.

Several articles state that, despite the rule changes and the decrease in

spinal injury rate, the following issues still remain:

1. The short-term injury picture offers only a partial view of the full

picture, because we rarely monitor what happens to players well into their

retirement

2. Even though the rate of serious spinal injury has decreased, the

incidence of other injuries, such as knee ligament and hamstring injury, has

increased

3. It is likely that a significant number of insidious head and spinal

injuries (occult injuries) are undiagnosed and affect players years after the

original undetected trauma

4. Impact to the head imposes shock loading to the entire spine and may also

cause spinal injury lower down in the spinal column.

5. Concussion is all too often not regarded very seriously if the player

recovers rapidly from a blow to the head. While in boxing, as few as two

concussions can have a boxer ruled out of competition for many months, this

rarely is the case in football. Research is now coming out which suggests

that multiple concussions can lead to permanent neuromotor damage.

6. The 'testosterone attitude' of young males can easily cause players to

disguise the severity of injury and preclude them from receiving essential

medical treatment. The same attitude may also lead coaches to declare that

players are malingering or exaggerating injuries, thereby leading to much the

same result.

Those of us who have written in about football tackling safety have all

commented that the incidence of serious spinal injury has decreased as a

consequence of the changes in football rules, but have not said very much

about the fact that the incidence of such injuries has not decreased in rugby

football, despite all the rule changes. Among other things, this suggests

that education of players and officials may be seriously lacking, or that

referees and players are deliberately flaunting some of the rules. Others

may like to comment further on this situation. However, we have to praise

the football powers that be, that they have made some genuine steps which

have improved the safety of the game.

<He's still vulnerable to torquing (hence the facemask rules) or impact to

the top of the head (and straight down the neck), but even helmet-to-helmet

impact from a lineback coming full-speed from the side doesn't generally

cause a neck injury -- just a mild concussion.>

*** This remark exemplifies one of the points made above which may

misdiagnose or underestimate the seriousness of a head or spinal injury.

Doctors point out that ALL concussions should be taken seriously, because an

on-field examination and a quick return to play do not constitute an accurate

diagnosis of any concussion. Often, the player's judgment may be subtly

impaired by a 'mild' concussion, which can lead to far more serious injuries

during subsequent play.

Whether or not certain types of helmet attrition may be permitted by the

rules of the game, I still remain opposed to the use of the head as weapon,

because head and neck injuries, especially to vital neural tissue is

cumulative and liable to cause changes in cognitive ability in the long term.

For example, research shows that the apparently innocuous use of the head to

" head " the ball in soccer may ultimately lead to brain damage - and the

momentum imposed in the soccer situation. I virtually grew up in a

neurosurgical department through my late medical father and we all saw far too

many head and neck injuries that changed people's lives forever.

After all, once one's sporting career is over, it is the quality of one's

gray matter which determines one's life and family happiness!

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

mcsiff@...

[Guest guest]

Mcsiff@... wrote:

> Matt Madsen <mmadsen@...> wrote:

> > He's still vulnerable to torquing (hence the facemask rules) or

> > impact to the top of the head (and straight down the neck), but

> > even helmet-to-helmet impact from a lineback coming full-speed

> > from the side doesn't generally cause a neck injury -- just a

> > mild concussion.

>

> This remark exemplifies one of the points made above which may

> misdiagnose or underestimate the seriousness of a head or spinal

> injury.

In case it wasn't clear -- and these things are rarely clear over the

net -- that last bit about mild concussions was (at least partially)

tongue in cheek. I was acknowledging the attitude you (later)

alluded to.

> Whether or not certain types of helmet attrition may be permitted

> by the rules of the game, I still remain opposed to the use of the

> head as weapon, because head and neck injuries, especially to vital

> neural tissue is cumulative and liable to cause changes in

> cognitive ability in the long term.

I'd like to see a soft-yet-protective helmet get introduced, but I'm

afraid the players might suffer some serious injuries before adapting

a " softer " style of hitting.

> For example, research shows that the apparently innocuous use of

> the head to " head " the ball in soccer may ultimately lead to brain

> damage - and the momentum imposed in the soccer situation.

I was going to bring up that exact point myself. I wonder how many

SAT points I cost myself playing sports as a kid...

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Mcsiff@... wrote:

> 6. The 'testosterone attitude' of young males can easily cause

> players to disguise the severity of injury and preclude them from

> receiving essential medical treatment. The same attitude may also

> lead coaches to declare that players are malingering or

> exaggerating injuries, thereby leading to much the same result.

I never understand the attitude of coaches that an injured player

should " suck it up " and keep playing. It isn't a war. You don't

need every available man. You can only play so many guys at a time,

and an uninjured second-stringer is probably just as good as an

injured first-stringer -- and giving the injured player a break lets

him recover for when he's really needed.

On the one hand, it's exciting to hear stories about Jack

taping up a broken leg to finish a football game, but on the other

hand, it's just plain stupid to ask anyone to do that -- even with

plentiful amphetamines and painkillers available from the trainer.

Matt Madsen

__________________________________________________