On 2/20/2016 7:30 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Tim McNamara:
I would contend that, if the NFL banned helmets and body armor, brain
injuries would drop dramatically.

What's the prevalence of brain injuries in rugby compared to the NFL?

That would be *the* question....

And it seems quite complicated... reporting methods, classification of
injuries.....

But both of the links below seem to give the lie to my little theory
about lack of pads/helmets greatly reducing brain injury.... and it
sounds like rugby players get more spinal cord injuries...

e.g.
http://www.brain-injury-law-center.c...y-vs-football/
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/sho...more-dangerous

That didn't seem very clear. The second article has no hint of data, or
even a hint of answer to its headline question. The first one is
muddied by conflating "head injury" vs. "brain injury" - a problem with
most helmet promotion literature - and by comparing "catastrophic
incidents" between American football and rugby (omitting England, for
some reason). It's hard to tell how close the comparison was in the U of
Aukland report.

I'm not familiar enough with rugby to say what other confounding factors
might influence the relative safety or danger of the two sports. One
article referenced earlier in this thread
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Ma...ds-the-Future/
pointed out that American football used to have scrums similar to rugby,
but that the rules were changed to reduce them. I thought that rugby
scrums were the most dangerous parts of that game, with spinal injuries
(not brain injuries) dominating.

But again, I don't know much about rugby, beyond its favorite bumper
sticker: "Rugby Players Give Blood."


--
- Frank Krygowski