Scot Dutchy wrote:Not much body armour either. Professional rugby union players today wear almost as much.

What are you talking about? He's wearing pretty much the same pads as a modern day player of the same position would. It's just a picture taken with his helmet off, like a pr shot.

aban57 wrote:Why don't they just abandon this stupid sport with a stupid name, and play rugby instead.

Because they don't give a shit about the players because they don't give a shit about their own kinsmen.

Teague wrote:

aban57 wrote:Why don't they just abandon this stupid sport with a stupid name, and play rugby instead.

Because they don't give a shit about the players because they don't give a shit about their own kinsmen.

Well if the same is true for soccer (as was indicated earlier in the thread) then you'd have to say the same there too. Is it even a fact that rugby is a safer alternative?

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

aban57 wrote:Why don't they just abandon this stupid sport with a stupid name, and play rugby instead.

Because they don't give a shit about the players because they don't give a shit about their own kinsmen.

Well if the same is true for soccer (as was indicated earlier in the thread) then you'd have to say the same there too. Is it even a fact that rugby is a safer alternative?

The players are disposable just like soldiers. At least pro athletes are better paid before they are thrown away.

If you decide to play a moronic sport then you suffer the consequences. For example, I got a BAD case of kayak elbow a few years back, and don't get me started on tiddlywink thumb.

laklak wrote:If you decide to play a moronic sport then you suffer the consequences. For example, I got a BAD case of kayak elbow a few years back, and don't get me started on tiddlywink thumb.

ever had chess "ice-cream headache" head?

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

aban57 wrote:Why don't they just abandon this stupid sport with a stupid name, and play rugby instead.

Because they don't give a shit about the players because they don't give a shit about their own kinsmen.

Well if the same is true for soccer (as was indicated earlier in the thread) then you'd have to say the same there too. Is it even a fact that rugby is a safer alternative?

What does IF mean? Go and look it up and get back to us.

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

aban57 wrote:Why don't they just abandon this stupid sport with a stupid name, and play rugby instead.

Because they don't give a shit about the players because they don't give a shit about their own kinsmen.

Well if the same is true for soccer (as was indicated earlier in the thread) then you'd have to say the same there too. Is it even a fact that rugby is a safer alternative?

What does IF mean? Go and look it up and get back to us.

It means you're just in this for a cheap shot at Americans and you don't give a shit whether athletes in other countries playing similar sports face the same risks. About par for the course with you.

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

Because they don't give a shit about the players because they don't give a shit about their own kinsmen.

Well if the same is true for soccer (as was indicated earlier in the thread) then you'd have to say the same there too. Is it even a fact that rugby is a safer alternative?

What does IF mean? Go and look it up and get back to us.

It means you're just in this for a cheap shot at Americans and you don't give a shit whether athletes in other countries playing similar sports face the same risks. About par for the course with you.

Rugby or football (the real one) don't come close to bring the same damages to the brain.

aban57 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:
Well if the same is true for soccer (as was indicated earlier in the thread) then you'd have to say the same there too. Is it even a fact that rugby is a safer alternative?

What does IF mean? Go and look it up and get back to us.

It means you're just in this for a cheap shot at Americans and you don't give a shit whether athletes in other countries playing similar sports face the same risks. About par for the course with you.

Rugby or football (the real one) don't come close to bring the same damages to the brain.

Is that a fact? And what amount of damage is acceptable? Like if the NFL has 99% CTE but rugby only has 50%, that makes it ok?

I'm not trying to defend NFL Football but this is simply a dumb reaction to say they should go do something else that is also dangerous but maybe not quite as bad and it's just an assumption it's not as bad. It would be like saying playing with guns is dangerous so people should play with knives instead.

purplerat wrote:

aban57 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

What does IF mean? Go and look it up and get back to us.

It means you're just in this for a cheap shot at Americans and you don't give a shit whether athletes in other countries playing similar sports face the same risks. About par for the course with you.

Rugby or football (the real one) don't come close to bring the same damages to the brain.

Is that a fact? And what amount of damage is acceptable? Like if the NFL has 99% CTE but rugby only has 50%, that makes it ok?

I'm not trying to defend NFL Football but this is simply a dumb reaction to say they should go do something else that is also dangerous but maybe not quite as bad and it's just an assumption it's not as bad. It would be like saying playing with guns is dangerous so people should play with knives instead.

Well it's up to anyone to decide what risk he accepts to take. I've played football for years, knowing that there was a small chance of getting a (very bad) injury. A few people actually died on a football field. And the article previously posted showed that there is a margin of action in rugby, that could potentially lower the risks.
But when people are already covered in protections, and despite that, get CTE 99% of the time ? Hell yes, I would advise to forbid that sport altogether. Or change the rules so drastically (to avoid impacts) it won't even be the same sport ever again.

aban57 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

aban57 wrote:

purplerat wrote:
It means you're just in this for a cheap shot at Americans and you don't give a shit whether athletes in other countries playing similar sports face the same risks. About par for the course with you.

Rugby or football (the real one) don't come close to bring the same damages to the brain.

Is that a fact? And what amount of damage is acceptable? Like if the NFL has 99% CTE but rugby only has 50%, that makes it ok?

I'm not trying to defend NFL Football but this is simply a dumb reaction to say they should go do something else that is also dangerous but maybe not quite as bad and it's just an assumption it's not as bad. It would be like saying playing with guns is dangerous so people should play with knives instead.

Well it's up to anyone to decide what risk he accepts to take. I've played football for years, knowing that there was a small chance of getting a (very bad) injury. A few people actually died on a football field. And the article previously posted showed that there is a margin of action in rugby, that could potentially lower the risks.
But when people are already covered in protections, and despite that, get CTE 99% of the time ? Hell yes, I would advise to forbid that sport altogether. Or change the rules so drastically (to avoid impacts) it won't even be the same sport ever again.

Fair enough. My comment was more targeted at the comment inferring that it just comes down to people not giving a shit about those who are at risk.

Personally, I would like to see fundamental changes to American football to make it safer.

Take off the armour or replace it with light and flexible stuff. Rugby players these days use under armour.



It does look much but its gives fair protection.

You wear a normal shirt over it if you wish.

Rugby players these days use under armour.

What are you talking about? Under Armour is just the sports brand of that particular shirt. Others will be made by other manufacturers.

It's like saying "tennis players these days use Adidas" and showing a picture of Andy Murray's shoes.

Edit - I just had a look. Of the big international nations, only Wales use Under Armour. New Zealand and France are Adidas, Australia and S.A use Asics, Ireland and England use Canterbury

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

Because they don't give a shit about the players because they don't give a shit about their own kinsmen.

Well if the same is true for soccer (as was indicated earlier in the thread) then you'd have to say the same there too. Is it even a fact that rugby is a safer alternative?

What does IF mean? Go and look it up and get back to us.

It means you're just in this for a cheap shot at Americans and you don't give a shit whether athletes in other countries playing similar sports face the same risks. About par for the course with you.

Yes, yes of course. My posting history over the years has always been about giving no shits for people unlike yours. Oh and your bullshitting again. Either find the actual fucking facts or quit posting your bullshit please. Or do I need to school you AGAIN like I did in the Avery thread where you failed to back up your own mouth?

TheMidnightBarber wrote:

Rugby players these days use under armour.

What are you talking about? Under Armour is just the sports brand of that particular shirt. Others will be made by other manufacturers.

It's like saying "tennis players these days use Adidas" and showing a picture of Andy Murray's shoes.

Edit - I just had a look. Of the big international nations, only Wales use Under Armour. New Zealand and France are Adidas, Australia and S.A use Asics, Ireland and England use Canterbury

Another blithering post. Why do you bother. Under armour maybe a brand but it is also a term in rugby. Have you ever played?

Having played rugby and soccer, some of us wore compression gear of which Under Armour is one brand.

It's not protective. It's primary purpose is prevention of chafing and rashes. That's why I have a pair of compression shorts underneath the shorts that are actually part of my uniform - so my thighs don't rub. Rugby players have big thighs and wear short shorts. Compression shorts prevent exposed skin rubbing together.

Other than that, some athletes chose compression garments to keep warm or cool depending on the material. Some people believe their ability to keep muscles warm prevents strains. There's no evidence for it though.

Under armour maybe a brand but it is also a term in rugby.

It's a sportswear manufacturer. You're wrong, yet again.

Have you ever played?

Yes, I have. I'm sure you're playing a lot thesedays at 68

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:
Well if the same is true for soccer (as was indicated earlier in the thread) then you'd have to say the same there too. Is it even a fact that rugby is a safer alternative?

What does IF mean? Go and look it up and get back to us.

It means you're just in this for a cheap shot at Americans and you don't give a shit whether athletes in other countries playing similar sports face the same risks. About par for the course with you.

Yes, yes of course. My posting history over the years has always been about giving no shits for people unlike yours. Oh and your bullshitting again. Either find the actual fucking facts or quit posting your bullshit please. Or do I need to school you AGAIN like I did in the Avery thread where you failed to back up your own mouth?

Why bother? Just like in the Avery thread you don't give a shit about the facts. I or somebody else can post them but you'll just ignore it and say "what evidence, there is no evidence." just like you did in that thread.

The reality is that right now data on CTE is limited and much of the focus has been on American football. Which is itself kind of ironic considering your claim that there is a lack of caring about American football players. If everybody else cares so much about their athletes then where's the dedicated research over there in regards to soccer or rugby?

What we do have better information on are the conclusions which are believed to be what causes CTE. And concussions, even if they don't lead to CTE directly, are very dangerous, especially for young people.

Concussion rates vary widely across youth sports, with the greatest injury risk in higher-contact games like rugby, hockey and football, a new research review finds.

The concussion rate was about 18 times higher than average for rugby, five times greater for hockey, and roughly double for American football, the study found.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-concussion-youth-sports-idUSKBN0TZ2RE20151216

So, according to at least one study rugby is 9x more likely to result in a concussion than American football. So much for the "get rid of the armor" talk, right?

Granted, concussions alone may not be the direct cause of CTE or why incidences are so high in American football but concussions are really bad and for all the same reasons as CTE. Plus CTE takes time to develop whereas a single concussion can have lifelong debilitating effects.