HEALTH AND SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
FRONT ROW UNION
BY
JEFF SIMM
The author is an RFU level 3 Coach and played Rugby from 1965 and into
the 2000s. His
playing position was hooker at club and county level. He works as a
Senior Commissioning
Engineer for BAE SYSTEMS (Marine Division) where he offers advice (when
asked) to his
employer regarding Health and Safety, for which he holds a National
Examining Board
Occupational Safety and Health Certificate (NEBOSH). The article is his
personal point of
view and he does not hold any Law qualifications.
Jeff coaches Cumbria U20s and is Coach Coordinator at BAE RUFC.
Contested or uncontested? That is the delicate question regarding the Rugby
Union scrum.
Recently I have read a number of articles that express concerns about the
seriousness of
injuries to front row players due to collapsed scrums and, from those
articles, the inevitable
conclusions are to suggest making the rugby scrum either uncontested or
ban it altogether.
The changes in the laws regarding the scrum over previous years have been
necessary to
reduce the potential of serious injury that can emerge from the collapse
of the scrum due to
the impact forces generated at the engagement phase, but the ultimate
question is surely this -
can we go further still to ensure greater safety of our props and hookers
in the heat of the
action?
I pondered whether, now that Rugby Union is a professional sport, we can
presume that the
employer (each clubs owner) and the employees (each clubs players)
all fall under the
umbrella of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, which places a
general duty on the
employer (the club owner) to ensure so far as is reasonably
practicable the health, safety
and welfare at work of all his employees and,
so as not to leave out the employee (the
player), it shall be the duty of every employee while at work to
take reasonable care for the
health and safety of himself and of other persons that may be affected by
his acts or
omissions at work (at work could mean in the gym or out on the
playing field, either
training or participating in a competitive game, as well as going about
ones business during
paid hours.) This article is only concerned with a select group, the
front row players.
In Rugby Union there is, no doubt due to the contact/collision nature of
the game, an
inevitable element of risk involved and to a certain extent the players
will accept the risks that
are associated with playing the game. So what, in the interim, can
coaches, administrators and
club owners do to ensure the safety of their front row players? In
accordance with the
Management At Work Regulations, 1999, the employer must produce a
suitable and
sufficient risk assessment with a view to eliminating the hazard
completely or to reduce the
risks
to as low as reasonably practicable.
Firstly,
lets take a look at some of the hazards involved (a hazard is the potential
to cause
harm)
that could affect front row players during pre-engagement and
engagement phases of
the
scrum. These scenarios may crop up singly or in varying multiples at any
scrum:
The two packs
standing too far apart on engagement with the potential to go to ground
head
first.
The two packs
standing too close on engagement with the potential of a face-to-face
collision
with no protection.
The pitch surface is
(choose any from) muddy, wet, hard and/or undulating, offering
the
potential collapse of the scrum.
Mismatch in the
opposing front rows/pack through physical bulk or stature, leading to
potential
collapse of scrum.
The two packs
standing at an angle to each other, i.e. not parallel, with the potential
rotation
of the scrum and possible collapse.
The impact forces
when the packs engage cannot be handled by the front rows with
the
potential for collapse.
Rotational forces
when the packs engage due to uneven contact and wheeling,
offering
potential for collapse.
Slight
delay by one pack on engagement, leading to the potential for the opposition
pack
to go to ground.
An imbalance of
numbers when, say, one pack has 8 players and the other pack has 7
players
(or fewer). Potential for collapse.
One pack moving
forward on the engage while the other pack is stationary.
Loose/incorrect
binding, offering the potential to go to ground.
Props not binding,
scrum goes to ground.
Pre-shove before
ball is put into scrum, with potential collapse or wheeling and
collapse.
Players boots and
stud lengths not adequate; nothing is gripping, which causes
slipping
and possible collapse.
Poor
technique, potential collapse.
Inexperienced front
row players, potential collapse.
Lack of
concentration and/or poor engagement, potential collapse.
Substandard
protective equipment (i.e. old mouth guards, worn shoulder protection
padding
etc).
Foul play.
Players carrying
slight injuries, potential collapse and further injury problems.
Props boring in on
opposition hooker.
Front row players
forced upwards and lifted in the air.
Types
of injuries (and areas that may suffer) that could be sustained as a result of
the above
hazards:
Lower back.
Ribs.
Shoulders.
Cuts to head.
Cuts to face.
Bruising.
Muscle
pulls.
Neck
injury.
Spinal
injury.
Possible
dislocations.
Possible
fractures.
Who
would it affect? Probably all forwards, but on a sliding scale of probability,
the peckingorder
would
go:
Props.
Hookers.
Second
rows.
Back
rows.
Evaluate
the risks.
A Risk is a chance, however high or low, that somebody will be harmed
by
the hazard. Decide whether the precautions taken are adequate or do you think
you can do
more?
The
key here is to remove the hazard altogether i.e. do away with
scrums per se. Now that
will
immediately solve a lot of the problems. But because scrums are a fundamental
part of
Rugby
Union then one has to look to control the risks so that injury or harm
is unlikely.
Controlling
the Risks.
Try a
less risky option.
Uncontested scrums are utilised at certain age groups and are
used
in the senior game when no other recognised front row player is available due
to
injury,
suspension or dismissal during the game (Law 3.13 a, b, c, d).
Ensure
all front row players are suitably qualified, experienced and trained,
including
any
replacement player(s).
Use of
personal protective equipment, (.i.e. mouth guards, shoulder protection, shin
guards,
ankle protection, head protection plus any other equipment) is that which is
approved
as specified under Law 4.1 and 4.2.
Structured
training programme for front row players, taking into consideration the
main
muscle groups in the back, upper body, legs and core muscles and neck.
Constant
education of front row forwards on technique, such as binding, general
scrummaging
through use of mechanical aids (scrum machine) and live controlled
scrummaging,
(reinforcement of Law 20,20.1, 20.2, 20.3, 20.8f, g, and i, 20.9a and c).
Physically
fit players.
Regular
fitness testing.
Adequate
injury-management programmes.
Medical
assessments.
Dietary
programmes.
Phased
return to active play programmes after injury.
Taking
account of the administration controls such as insurances, Laws of the Game,
qualified
specialist coaches, constant review of the Laws of the Game and constant
reeducation
programmes
for coaches.
Adequately
maintained playing surfaces.
Suitably
qualified referees plus continuous education programmes.
Medical
attendance at all games, i.e. doctor, physiotherapist, First Aid assistants -
all
suitably
trained for sport injuries.
Match
video analysis.
Club
disciplinary procedures for foul play.
Suitably
qualified touch judges, plus continuous education programmes for them.
Effective
communication between referee and players, referee and touch judges, touch
judges
and players.
Regular
feedback after the games.
The
types of documents that would be consulted would be the law book, RFU
guidance
documents, Health and Safety documentation and IRB guidance notes.
Suitably
trained and experienced replacements.
Practise
the timings of the new law regarding Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage.
Front
row heads and shoulders must not fall below the hips during the scrum phase.
(Law
20. 1 (g))
Records.
A
club must produce relevant records of things like maintenance of mechanical
aids,
playing
positions, training, medical records, and previous clubs played for, etc.
There
should
be a section on experience of other positions played.
The
records must be kept, probably for the lifetime of the club. Risk assessment
should be
reviewed
annually and archiving would occur only when/if scrums were not to be part of
the
game.
Inform.
Players
must be made aware of the hazards and potential risks, then they must consent
to
participate
in the sport and this information is recorded.
Review
and Revise.
The
club must review its procedures and amend/update as required in line with
current
legislation/laws
and changes of circumstances.
Laws
are constantly reviewed and numerous law changes are trialled over a period of
time
in various countries. The outcomes, if relevant, are added to the updated
laws.
Conclusion.
So,
should we ban all scrums or make all scrums uncontested? The answer I think is
no,
providing
all front row players understand what their objective is and that they owe a
duty
of
care to their fellow participants. They must play within the laws of the game
and they
have
to adhere to the referees and touch judges decisions. They need to be
effectively
trained
and competent for the position they play in and, most importantly, they must
be
adequately
insured.
Can
we go a step further for scrum safety? Under present playing conditions it is
possible,
but
would it be practical?
Given
the new scrum law of crouch touch, pause and engage I believe we get a
safe
entry
into the engage position. I believe the problems of scrums going to ground is
caused
mainly
because the props still try to disrupt the opposition hookers strike/sight
of the ball
coming
in.
The
referees at the top level are suitably qualified and aware to be able to
manage that
situation.
However, my main concern would be at grassroots level where there is a major
difference
in the players strength and fitness levels. Also, I wonder if the referees
at this
level
are adequately experienced to recognise and cope with the offending front
rower.
Injuries
around the front row are usually accepted as part of the job and, invariably,
the
player
will recover back to full fitness in a short period of time. However, if the
injury is
serious
enough and puts paid to the earning capacity of the player then, and only
then, do
the
fingers point to who may be responsible for the cause of the injury.
This
may be the time when the quality of your evidence is your get out of jail
free(ish)
card.
References
IRB
Laws of the game.
Five
steps to Risk Assessments.
Health
and Safety at Work Act, 1974.
Management
of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, 1999.
Essentials
of Health and Safety at Work.
Numerous articles relating to injury in sport.