IRB deny welfare of players is ignored

The International Rugby Board (IRB) have denied their principal concerns were the marketing and managing of the game rather than the welfare of their players, following the publication of a study into injuries.

In a report this week in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, researchers concluded that since the game went professional in the summer of 1995, the incidence of injuries has almost doubled.

In the study, which involved over 800 players, the authors found that the proportion of players injured rose from 27 per cent in a similar survey in 1994 to 47 per cent, even though they played fewer games.

The report also criticised the IRB, saying its "principal concerns" had been to market and manage the sport.

"It is simply not true that the principal concern of the IRB is the marketing of the sport," said IRB spokesman Chris Rea.

"The safety of the players is as important to the IRB as the promotion of the game. It is the players who are the game's most prized assets. "The study has taken a fair sample from the border region of Scotland, and it has been well researched. Therefore, as part of evaluation and analysis there is, from our point of view, questions to be asked.

"Increased intensity is an issue," Rea added. "The laws of the game have changed and that is something we will have to look at. It was inevitable that the intensity would increase when the game went professional. Players are now fitter, faster, and stronger."

Another area of concern was the issue of protective gear, which is already tightly controlled. The report, which was in part financed by the Scottish Rugby Union, found that half of the injuries were caused by tackles and that there is "no good scientific evidence" to support the use of protective equipment.

According to Rea, "There is absolutely no correlation between the rise in injuries and injuries caused by protective gear. Nobody can say that protective gear causes injuries anymore than they can say it saves people from injuries. "Nowhere in the laws of rugby does it say that protective gear will protect against serious injury. The IRB stresses this point. That is why it is called padded, not protective clothing. The type of gear worn by players is supposed to stop bruises, cuts and abrasions, that's all. The perception of what this clothing is for is different to what it does."

Certainly the manufacturers of such headgear encourage that perception through their marketing. In this month's Rugby World magazine, the KooGa head protector is described in the following terms: ". . . using patented thermoform technology the closed cell construction is strong enough to take high impact collisions. Ergonomically designed to provide full cranial protection . . ."

While the IRB takes responsibility for the law changes which may have increased the number and intensity of tackles in a given match, they also point out that they are unable to monitor many other practices in the game. For example, players being pressurised by clubs into playing through an injury is outside their control.

"There is a very real concern about the injury increase," said Rea. "We will be looking at all of these things and we will be making representation about how the game is played. Our Medical Advisory Committee have already made recommendations about equipment and protective clothing. "There will be an IRB meeting next month and that issue will be discussed."