Protective Equipment and the Injury Crisis in English Rugby Union Reserve System

This paper argues that the increasing use of protective equipment in British rugby union and elsewhere occurs in the context of rising concern over injury rates in the game, but also in an atmosphere of confusion as to its efficacy. A seminal, but methodologically flawed study has resulted in its authors calling on the International Rugby Board to have a moratorium on their use, while at some levels in Canada and throughout the game in Japan, the use of head guards in compulsory. The data gathered from a study of elite professional rugby in England, indicate the extent of the divergence of opinion within and between various groups involved in the game. There appears to be little agreement as to whether the use of protective equipment makes the game more or less dangerous for players and opinion also varied in regard to specific items of protective equipment. The paper concludes by considering whether some of the divergence found may be related to the differing occupational experiences of the groups involved, and suggesting ways in which future research may be modelled to provide more reliable data on this phenomenon. Introduction At regular intervals since rugby union became an openly professional sport, the British media has raised the question of whether injury rates in the game have become unacceptably high. Headlines such as 'Set Standards, Save Lives' (Telegraph, 20 June 2002), 'Players' body calls for a cap on club appearances to cut injuries'; (Guardian, 2 January 2001), 'Has rugby become too dangerous in the professional era?' (Guardian, 7 December 2002) and French international, Thomas Castaignede's article, 'The hits get bigger and our shelf life grows shorter' (Guardian, 5 January 2003) are just a few indications of a broader trend. The recent death of an eighteen year old schoolboy rugby player James Harding (BBC News Online, 5 December 2002) and Richard Vowles' successful claim for compensation for the paralysis suffered due to a refereeing error in a Welsh club rugby match (BBC News Online, 13 December 2002) have served to heighten the public's sensitivity towards the health risks involved in the sport. That rugby is a relatively dangerous sport is, of course, well established (Sports Council 1991; Hume & Marshall 1994). This has led to a large body of sports medicine literature that has addressed the epidemiology of rugby injuries (Garraway & MacLeod, 1995; Targett, 1998; Sharp, Murray & MacLeod, 2001), the identification of key risk factors (Quarrie et al, 2001), the long term effects of injury (Lee, Garraway, Hepburn, & Laidlaw, 2001), the effectiveness of protective headgear (McIntosh & McCory, 2001) and, most recently,