Referee Nic Berry during the Super Rugby Pacific rugby match between the Chiefs and the Crusaders. Photo / Photosport
Referee Nic Berry during the Super Rugby Pacific rugby match between the Chiefs and the Crusaders. Photo / Photosport
OPINION
It was almost the perfect opening weekend for Super Rugby Pacific – fast games, a bit of drama, all the usual bash and dash and a clear and sensible contribution from the officials.
According to World Rugby’s research, around 18 per cent of concussions only become apparent after a match. Essentially, the mandate to wear a smart mouthguard is an attempt to use technology to help the medical staff identify players who may have suffered a significant head impact without realising it.
No one disputes the logic or intent, but the practical application feels like yet another case of rugby getting itself into a horrible mess with its desire to use technology; instead of improving things, it is creating more confusion and frustration for players and fans alike.
Nic Berry referee during the Super Rugby Pacific rugby match between the Chiefs and the Crusaders. Photo / Photosport
In Hamilton on Friday night, when the game was in the balance in the closing 15 minutes, Anton Lienert-Brown was summoned to the sideline after his mouthguard reported back an impact threshold breach.
The look of confusion on his face said it all – that the problem with this new initiative is that it is set up to be precautionary, bringing significant numbers of players off the field to have head injury assessments (HIAs), with the statistics produced during the WXV tournament last year showing that only about 10 per cent of those whose mouthguard set off an alert were not able to return to action.
But the question that is being asked about these smart mouthguards after the first round of Super Rugby, and one that will likely plague this competition, is at what cost will their inclusion have to the credibility of the contest?
World Rugby will argue that the players’ welfare can’t be compromised or traded off against the entertainment factor for fans and that they can adjust the thresholds at which alerts are set off and, therefore, it might take a bit of time for each competition to produce a data set to better guide the use of the technology.
But even if the powers that be play around with the thresholds, there’s a danger that between TMO intrusions and mouthguard alerts going off, that rugby will be just about unwatchable given the level of technological intrusion.
Fans already have to endure trial by TV as it is – seeing great tries scrubbed from history on account of overzealous TMOs finding minuscule infringements minutes after they happened – and to now ask them to accept that key players may randomly disappear for 10 minutes on the basis it is 90 per cent probable they are not concussed could be a step too far.
And it seems inevitable that big games are going to be marred by controversy when teams are compromised by having to take players off for an HIA.
The Chiefs would be raging this week if they had lost in Hamilton, as Lienert-Brown’s removal required them to return starting halfback Xavier Roe to the wing, leaving them with a makeshift backline that was vulnerable.
Not only will there be periods in games when teams will likely be strategically impaired by having to replace players whose alerts have been activated, but so too is there a concern about returning players to the fore after they have been replaced.
There’s the heightened injury risk that comes with players being asked to play out of position – as many no doubt will have to – not to mention the possibility of soft tissue injuries that result when players have to go back out to play, having cooled down and stiffened on the bench.
It’s not beyond the realms of probability either that alerts go off in quick succession and in enough volume to overwhelm the medical staff and make it impossible for players to complete the HIA within 10 minutes.
Critically, it’s apparent already that the players themselves are not big fans of the smart mouthguards.
Some have reported they are uncomfortable to wear and that they are uneasy about the volume of personal data it can capture and store.
If the ultimate decision about whether to implement this initiative had been left to the players, they probably would have scrapped the proposal. Players likely feel the existing set-up – which relies on medics, coaches, officials and players themselves to be vigilant and honest – leaves them feeling safe and protected.
Super Rugby may have experienced a decline in playing standards from its heyday, but it has remained a world leader in player welfare and sensible, trustworthy, consistent management of head impacts, and it does feel like a solution is being sought for a problem that does not exist.
