This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
The point was not to judge rugby, per se by JHND
It was to judge whether concussions would be reduced if football players in the US were to no longer wear helmets, as some have suggested. Rugby League is probably the branch of rugby closest in style of play to American Football, so the comparison is reasonable.
The poster's point was ostensibly to say that reducing the rate of concussions from 0.64 to 0.48 per game would be more or less immaterial. However, that is a 25% reduction. That said, I tend to agree that equipment improvements, rule changes and better enforcement are a better approach to reducing concussions from playing football than removing helmets.