TheMidnightBarber wrote:

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

purplerat wrote:Padded under shirts and shorts are worn in many sports. There's nothing special about them when rugby players wear them. They protect against superficial injuries (contusions, chaffing, etc) but that's about it. In that sense, they work similar to football helmets or boxing gloves where they give the wearing enough comfort to continue playing when they otherwise might have stopped due to pain or discomfort which arguably increases the chance of more serious injury.

aliihsanasl wrote:A great movie on that topic.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

purplerat wrote:Padded under shirts and shorts are worn in many sports. There's nothing special about them when rugby players wear them. They protect against superficial injuries (contusions, chaffing, etc) but that's about it. In that sense, they work similar to football helmets or boxing gloves where they give the wearing enough comfort to continue playing when they otherwise might have stopped due to pain or discomfort which arguably increases the chance of more serious injury.

It is not just padding anymore. I wore that when I was at school. It flexible shock absorbent material especially on shoulders and elbows.

aliihsanasl wrote:A few years ago there was a discussion for football players to use such an helmet.

purplerat wrote:

Teague 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.

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

purplerat wrote:

Teague 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.

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

Teague wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Teague 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.

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

W
T
F

You can't remember shit mate. In the avery thread YOU stated there was evidence he did it and when I asked for that evidence, you obfuscated like a mother fucker.

As for facts, once again, YOU made the claim about football (over here) and once again, failed to back up your claim with any evidence. Do it now then. Go and find the evidence to back up your claim.

Teague wrote:Interestingly, Rugby doesn't suffer the same issue but then they don't smack heads al lthe time. Ironic that the "safety" equipment here is actually not safe and this study shows that further studies are needed. If it's such a high number though, what does that mean for the national sport?

Pads and helmets make football dangerous. I am far from the first person to suggest this, and I won’t be the last. There are colleges that practice without helmets now. There’s a 7-on-7 league in Jersey that uses no pads or helmets at all. Even Mike Ditka, who is an old insane man, thinks the NFL should do away with face masks at the very least. This all sounds counterintuitive, but it’s true. If you take away helmets and pads, you will force players to instinctively protect parts of their body that they otherwise don’t bother to protect.

http://deadspin.com/the-one-thing-the-n ... 1758114037

So, are there any aspects of rugby that are more dangerous than football? Football may have a bigger concussion crisis, and a higher injury rate overall, but rugby has a distinct and serious problem: spinal injuries. As The Guardian notes, “In rugby it is spinal injuries from scrums that are the most dangerous (110 rugby players in Britain have been paralysed by playing the game).”

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/rugby/504143/

proudfootz wrote:WRT American Football, I have read that the padding and helmets might cause some trouble as the unintended consequence of trying to 'protect' players.

On the other hand it does seem like rugby has a different set of problematic injuries:
....

So, are there any aspects of rugby that are more dangerous than football? Football may have a bigger concussion crisis, and a higher injury rate overall, but rugby has a distinct and serious problem: spinal injuries. As The Guardian notes, “In rugby it is spinal injuries from scrums that are the most dangerous (110 rugby players in Britain have been paralysed by playing the game).”

https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/10/rugby/504143/

It would seem the issues involved are more than one-dimensional.

purplerat wrote: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.