4 ms·
People always point to rugby when this topic comes up, but there is no conclusive evidence that it is any safer. In fact, this study found that the risk of conc
by briankelly 9y ago
People always point to rugby when this topic comes up, but there is no conclusive evidence that it is any safer. In fact, this study found that the risk of concussion in rugby was far higher (4.13 concussions per 1,000 athletic exposure hours vs 0.53 for American football) by pooling data from 13 previous studies: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-concussion-youth-sports-idUSKBN0TZ2RE20151216 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-concussion-youth-sp...
Of course there are always flaws, limitations, and contradictory evidence in these studies, but at least it is more worthwile than the eyeball test.
- abraae 9y agoThe key factor in that report though is that it concludes that "Concussion rates highest for kids in rugby, hockey and football". I'd guess its likely that American football as played in the NFL is a very different game to the one played by kids, and there might be virtually no correlation of actual risks. Rugby is also very different between kids and professionals of course - my 5 yr old plays ripper rugby which involves no contact tackling but instead ripping a velcro tag off the opposing player. Great fun to watch!
- briankelly 9y agoEven if there is no correlation of risks between the youth and professional levels of play (and I don't doubt that), parents steering their kids towards away from rugby, hockey, and football will eventually hemorrhage market share for those professional leagues in favor of safer sports. We have flag football in the US for younger kids, sounds roughly analogous to ripper rugby.
- jnordwick 9y agoThere is also flag football for adults! They often have different leagues from no and partial contact up to 8-on-8 full contact (this is still flag and no tackle).