Smart Mouthguards
-
Super Rugby Pacific: smart mouthguard woes due to dodgy Bluetooth?
Analysis - Mouth guards, a worldie from the Highlanders and a try assist off the head - all the talking points from SRP's first round, writes Jamie Wall.
-
To me it sounds like ALB was told off about his reaction. It's a corporate response.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350193990/i-back-technology-anton-lienert-brown-all-smart-mouthguards
“It came across as a lot of confusion and frustration, but I don’t want that to leave a message that I don’t support what’s going on,” he said at Chiefs training on Tuesday. “I do know that this is in the best interests of players and our future and our welfare. “Five minutes to go, we were behind, I’m a competitor... I know the protocols, but at the time I didn’t feel like I needed to be pulled off. “But, hey, this technology’s here for our best interests and that’s definitely something I don’t want to knock.” -
-
David Havili and Rob Nichols comments
-
@canefan said in Smart Mouthgaurds:
If they are going to use this kind of tech, they better make sure it has been heavily trialled and tested before using it in games that really matter. It doesn't sound like they have....
They did trials last year. Only one game in round one had the bluetooth issues. So it may not be too bad
The main purpose of these is to prevent legal action 'The sport is doing everything it can to protect the players' etc etc
Even if it gives the occasional false positives (or more correctly delayed correct positives?) I think the administrators are almost forced to use it
-
World Rugby deffending the use of the mouthguards in the 6N
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/350196121/world-rugby-defends-smart-mouthguards-amid-rising-criticism
any impact above 70g and 4,000 radians per second squared in the men’s game – higher than the forces sustained by Formula One drivers in some recent crashes, such as Romain Grosjean in 2020 – leading to an HIA. Lindsay Starling, World Rugby’s science and medical manager, explained the seven incidents leading to HIAs were part of 9500 monitored head accelerations in the Six Nations so far. -
I said earlier, I not getting upset over them, WR has to do something to be seen to taking care of players. And it's old story something new so we all would of done something different/better. Seems if is is bluetooth issues thay may have to get refs to carry responder or something like they do in 6Ns?
The other thing we have to remember players have been pissed being called off by Drs sometimes too. -
yeah, i kind of feel if they dont look like theyre doing something then we risk the game being consider too dangerous and it dying, so try this, try and iron out the wrinkles and if it doesnt work long term we try and find something else
-
My annoyance - and this is an annoyance in general is that world rugby seem to like to launch flashy new player safety initiatives, with presumably little pre trialing at lower levels to "iron out the kinks" directly into our showpiece competitions (international and super rugby).
This results in the "ironing out the kinks" process taking place in full view of the viewing public, slowing down the game, creating confusion and having their gross incompetence displayed at the highest possible level to the largest amount of people we can find on the world stage it appears...
And it appears to be a knee jerk reaction to complex problems - take concussion for example a lot of evidence proves that it's small knocks over time that cause the issue. Where is the scientific analysis of data to map the best prevention routes? Things like limiting the amount of time players can spend in heavy contact at training at various age levels, limiting certain drills at training to certain age ranges and providing a "safest way" of training in heavy contact while limiting the number of games/minutes in a season.
A whole lot of preventative work could have been embedded at the grass roots level (the concussion protocols that have been produced that we have are good, but it's still an after the fact measure) but instead they appeared to settle on changing all the tackle and contact laws in the international game reducing it at times to a farcical game of yellow and red card chance being played out on the international stage.
So it's not bad what they're doing - just stupid and reeks of style over substance.
-
I think these mouthguards could be a literal gamechanger, as they are used through professional ranks, they'll eventually be cheap enough to be used by semi-pro teams and then you can monitor at club level using a simple app during training etc.
As irritating as it may be while some kinks get ironed out in the best possible study (i.e. actual competition use) this could ensure the longevity of the game from a litigious perspective. And a reason for players to actively monitor their own health over the course of their careers, whether that be SR or dirty thirds in subbies.
This above all else seems to be a case of WR adopting 21st century approach to what still is a 20th century game.
-
@Windows97 Mate there has apparently a hell of a lot of trials etc done with them. A hell of a lot of data, been going on for over a year. Apparently been used in NZ and other places last season at club level etc, Otago Uni is one place that has done an incredible amount of work on them. You will get some type of problems (teething problems appropiate?), but eventually you just have to start using new stuff.
-
@Dan54 And it's great if they have done that pre work and trialing.
But you surely have to admit that it's not a great look the first time it's rolled out for both players to come off the field mystified and in obvious confusion why they were pulled, both of whom passed their HIA's afterwards is not a great look.
My point is that international and SR level should not be where we "iron out the kinks" as this is the showpiece and advertising point for the game. There is more than enough rugby played at other levels to do this.
We can agree to disagree on this and that's fine.
-
But mate it's not first time they been rolled out, we ignoring the fact it's in 6Ns this year so has been used. I understand your points , but there will be kinks in any new system using technology, they have been used for a season now , and this was a new one. If you actually wait until any new system is perfect it won't come in at all. It really didn't caus any problems, ALB should maybe of been called off earlier (I didn't see the impact) but apparently that was what the problem was. I have seen players object when they don't think contact that causes a HIA is much too. The unfortunate thing is WR etc have to not only do something, but seen to be doing something, and whatever (as with new laws etc) there is always a bedding in anything. We still see on odd occasion where As I say don't disagree with your thoughts, but I think a year of trialling is really long enough.
-
Players will not be automatically removed from the field in Super Rugby this weekend, even if their smart mouthguards trigger an alert to pitchside doctors.
-
This is a good read, and provides some background on the development of the smart mouthguards and standards for HIA assessment.
-
@Bovidae ideally as the tech irons out wrinkles they need them to be cheap enough that club players can afford them, and maybe each club has their players linked so they can monitor them as well, given they wont be able to do in game analysis, at least they can look post game and set some protocols around this.
The Waikato Times
