New Zealand 2 will deal a massive blow to NZ rugby

[Perth Red]

Oh and nice straw man there. please show where i said "So weve always been worried about concussion and its always stopped people playing rugby " or admit you are a liar.



Yeah it's just pure coincidence that in a time of heightened concussion fears that the contact sport has gone down and the non contact one has gone up... another Tui add there, not that you would know what that meant

you’re argument is all over the place! One minute you’re saying concussion has been a known problem for decades and has been an ongoing cause of player reduction next you’re saying the recent reduction is due to heightened coverage of CTE (which I’ve been arguing is the case to some degree lol) and that due to this therell be no rugby (sic) in 30 years. Make your mind up!

Despite fears of CTE jnr numbers have gone up in auck union. Your assertion that the likes of rugby and american football are dying sports is just nonsense. Classic chicken little.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

If Union Jnr numbers are increasing then clearly fear of concussion isnt a key issue at play here. If it was we would expect to see a drop in both surely?

League relentlessly emphasizes the physical over the cerebral.

League is brutal. Tougher than Union. League is for hard men. Union is for pansies.

Logically follows that if concussion fears bite, we get bitten more.

Might be a good time for more intelligent behaviour. Just a thought.

 

[Wb1234]

League relentlessly emphasizes the physical over the cerebral.

League is brutal. Tougher than Union. League is for hard men. Union is for pansies.

Logically follows that if concussion fears bite, we get bitten more.

Might be a good time for more intelligent behaviour. Just a thought.

Surely if league is tougher then it will be the pansies in union who are afraid of getting hurt

 

[Pippen94]

Do you ever come off the angry pills?

You'll end up on Police Ten 7 at this rate.

Lol, up until a few weeks ago he was a moderator!!
He's a knowledge poster, just needs to remember to have fun here

 

[Matua]

Maybe juniors numbers are declining for union and league in mz because nrl clubs are taking so many players

there’s no shortage of kiwi juniors in nrl clubs

By juniors are you meaning secondary schoolboys? The Oz clubs aren't taking that many compared to the number of schoolboy rugby players - plus when we discuss juniors we're talking about from the little kids up. If league is not getting them young, even if they're dual code, then they're going to struggle to get them later on.

You can't just focus on Oz clubs scholarship-ing NZ kids to Keebra Park etc. That's not going to help the game in NZ, all it will do will weaken the league comps in the country which will make the top rugby comps (Auckland's 1A and the Super 8) even more enticing to players.

 

[Perth Red]

League relentlessly emphasizes the physical over the cerebral.

League is brutal. Tougher than Union. League is for hard men. Union is for pansies.

Logically follows that if concussion fears bite, we get bitten more.

Might be a good time for more intelligent behaviour. Just a thought.

Alternatively RL attracts harder players who have riskier personalities and are willing to accept risk of injury More?

 

[Wb1234]

Alternatively RL attracts harder players who have riskier personalities and are willing to accept risk of injury More?

Too late said that an hour ago

thanks for the contribution though

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

Alternatively RL attracts harder players who have riskier personalities and are willing to accept risk of injury More?

We would have higher participation rates if being hard and willing to risk injury were not considered essential characteristics to take part.

The physical aspects of RL are obvious. They need no emphasis. The cerebral aspects are less obvious. Shouldn't we encourage a focus on those elements of RL that require more effort to appreciate?

I played a bit of Union at school. I don't buy the axiom that it's more complex than League. Incomprehensible does not equate to complex. Any old gobbledygook can be rendered incomprehensible if charlatans have a vested interest.

 

[Te Kaha]

Do you ever come off the angry pills?

You'll end up on Police Ten 7 at this rate.

Whose angry? I don't get angry on here. the individuals i debate with aren't ever worth getting angry over.

Oh and not much chance of landing on "Police Ten 7".. since you know it's finished here.

you’re argument is all over the place! One minute you’re saying concussion has been a known problem for decades and has been an ongoing cause of player reduction next you’re saying the recent reduction is due to heightened coverage of CTE (which I’ve been arguing is the case to some degree lol) and that due to this therell be no rugby (sic) in 30 years. Make your mind up!

Despite fears of CTE jnr numbers have gone up in auck union. Your assertion that the likes of rugby and american football are dying sports is just nonsense. Classic chicken little.

No, you are focusing on one single element of a multi faceted problem. I have stated that, despite your deniels, Concussion in contact sports has been in the public space for decades here and has seriously contributed to a decline in their numbers, that has been exacerbated since CTE was diagnosed. And if something isn't done both Rugbys here will be dead in 30 years, since it is a small population.
And again you are making shit up, I did not mention NFL at all. Since its barely played here.

League relentlessly emphasizes the physical over the cerebral.

League is brutal. Tougher than Union. League is for hard men. Union is for pansies.

Logically follows that if concussion fears bite, we get bitten more.

Might be a good time for more intelligent behaviour. Just a thought.

It's funny how, in this thread especially, Rugby players are considered "soft", "pansies", "inferior" yet Wally and his mate are creaming themselves about how the increase in NRL salary cap is going to allow teams, and specifically a supposed second NZ team to sign those very same players.
It's like those who state how "inferior" Rugby players are actually are just being insecure and following the party line. It's a bit sad that people can't actually think for themselves and have to try and fit in.
And of course everytime we hear abut how "hard" League players are we get stories like this...

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz

And just for the record, there is nothing wrong in what he is doing.

Lol, up until a few weeks ago he was a moderator!!
He's a knowledge poster, just needs to remember to have fun here

I do have fun, i don't get angry on here, blunt does not mean angry.

 

[The Great Dane]

You didn't suggest that? You have downplayed the risk several times. " contact and combat sports are only overrepresented because that's where the majority of the research, and media attention, has been so far." They are "only overrepresented" because of this, not because they are more likely to cause CTE and other brain damage?

Or .. "If the risk of CTE is enough to really significantly impact the contact sports then it's going to effect basically every sport in existence, and bunch of oth er recreational activities as well." Despite the fact it already is effecting contact sports. You're downplaying the risks in contact sports because it will show up in other sports.

or..

Participants are declining because of ignorance though
Mothers whom don't allow their kids to play e.g. RL or RU are signing their kids up to play e.g. AFL or soccer because they are safer, when they aren't really any safer.

or...
" restrictions on sport as a result of CTE will not stop at the combat and contact sports if society allows such restrictions happen at all."... except its already happening.

You don't see, or care, that the "risks" of contact sports are already out there, in the public domain. they are already causing decreases in playing numbers in kids, and adults. Stating that "other sports" will eventually show instances of brain damage, all be it at a lower rate, is irrelevant and pointless. It will be too late, you need to make the sport safer to keep kids playing. But you would rather point the finger at other sports and say all sports are in the same boat, when its clearly not the case.

Mate, you've proven here that you're clueless about the subject matter and that you haven't actually understood anything that I've said on a fundamental level. I don't really see the point in trying to make you understand what I'm saying, or heading you in the right direction to better inform yourself on the subject, because you don't seem interested or capable of engaging honestly and with charity, and I'm well past the point of caring to deal with people whom are going to intentionally interpret everything I say in the worst possible way and attempt to insert things that weren't said into the meaning of every sentence.

BTW, the only way you could truly 'make the sport safer' to a degree that it'd have an impact significant enough that it continues to appeal to the people you're trying to appeal to, would require it to be fundamentally changed to the point that it's completely unrecognisable.

Tackling and all heavy contact would have to go (for a start), and even then a percentage of the participates would still suffer from CTE or other forms of brain damage associated with repeated impacts to the head, and the mothers you're trying to appeal to still wouldn't let their kids play. It'd be like trying to find the right amount of sugar to put into junk food that it still get's people addicted to it without causing anybody to get diabetes... In other words good; luck with that.

I think we're just going to have to accept that there're people, yourself included by the sounds of it, whom, though they may have in the past, won't be willing to play the game going forward for fear of CTE. It is what it is, and the sport will just have to learn to deal with that IMO.

 

[Te Kaha]

Mate, you've proven here that you're clueless about the subject matter and that you haven't actually understood anything that I've said on a fundamental level. I don't really see the point in trying to make you understand what I'm saying, or heading you in the right direction to better inform yourself on the subject, because you don't seem interested or capable of engaging honestly and with charity, and I'm well past the point of caring to deal with people whom are going to intentionally interpret everything I say in the worst possible way and attempt to insert things that weren't said into the meaning of every sentence.
pt that there're people, yourself included by the sounds of it, whom, though they may have in the paste, won't be willing to play the game going forward for fear of CTE. It is what it is, and the sport will just have to learn to deal with that IMO.

Er.. everything i have said you have said, you actually have. those are you direct quotes.

BTW, the only way you could truly 'make the sport safer' to a degree that it'd have an impact significant enough that it continues to appeal to the people you're trying to appeal to, would require it to be fundamentally changed to the point that it's completely unrecognisable.

Which is the part of the problem.

I think we're just going to have to accept that there're people, yourself included by the sounds of it, whom, though they may have in the past, won't be willing to play the game going forward for fear of CTE. It is what it is, and the sport will just have to learn to deal with that IMO.

And those "people" are getting louder here every year. Clubs are dying or have died and the numbers playing are getting less and less, ignoring the problem and saying that the game will just have to "accept" it and "deal with that" is a good way of just giving up.

 

[The Great Dane]

The fact that there’s a risk of CTE in most sports doesn’t make them all equal. It’s fairly obvious that sports where concussive impacts are more frequent and integral to the sport are going to carry more risk. It’s no coincidence that boxing was the first sport it was obvious it n, followed by American football.

Nobody is saying they're equal, they're saying it's a slippery slope.

It's only a matter of time before people start to expose the risks of concussion in other sports, and that will have major impacts on those sports as well. Most mothers aren't only going to care very much that the risk is lower, only that there's a risk at all.

Besides, we don't really have a good understanding of exactly how risky each sport is. It's obvious on the face of it that combat and contact sports have significantly higher rates of CTE than most others, but most research suggests that it's way more widespread and prevalent across the sporting world than most people would suspect.

 

[The Great Dane]

Er.. everything i have said you have said, you actually have. those are you direct quotes.

Quotes you've ripped out of context and you're intentionally twisting the intended meaning of...

Which is the part of the problem.



And those "people" are getting louder here every year. Clubs are dying or have died and the numbers playing are getting less and less, ignoring the problem and saying that the game will just have to "accept" it and "deal with that" is a good way of just giving up.

Is it giving up, or is it accepting the reality of the situation?

I mean what do you propose be done about it when the only changes that would make a significant difference require the sport to effectively cease to exist?!

At that point it's a lose-lose situation; you either accept that there're going to be less participates on average going forward, and do your best to make do, or, you willingly destroy the sport in an attempt to maintain participation numbers, which is likely to fail anyway as it's highly unlikely that the resulting sport will be popular as a commercial product, if it's popular at all.

Besides, as I've been saying all along, it's only a matter of time before this impacts most sports. It's becoming increasingly likely that lower participation rates in sport, almost across the board, is going to become the new normal in most modern western societies for the foreseeable future.

So yeah, it is what it is, and I can't see anything changing it for the foreseeable future unless something crazy unpredictable happens.

 

[Te Kaha]

Quotes you've ripped out of context and you're intentionally twisting the intended meaning of...

Sure it is...

Is it giving up, or is it accepting the reality of the situation?

I mean what do you propose be done about it when the only changes that would make a significant difference require the sport to effectively cease to exist?!

At that point it's a lose-lose situation; you either accept that there're going to be less participates on average going forward, and do your best to make do, or, you willingly destroy the sport in an attempt to maintain participation numbers, which is likely to fail anyway as it's highly unlikely that the resulting sport will be popular as a commercial product, if it's popular at all.

Besides, as I've been saying all along, it's only a matter of time before this impacts most sports. It's becoming increasingly likely that lower participation rates in sport, almost across the board, is going to become the new normal in most modern western societies for the foreseeable future.

So yeah, it is what it is, and I can't see anything changing it for the foreseeable future unless something crazy unpredictable happens.

You do everything in your power to make it safer. Or as you are suggesting you give up.

 

[Perth Red]

I think people are ignoring that humans are inherently risk takers. The most dangerous thing a parent can do is put their child in a car and drive them to school.
There is a broad band of personality types and what risk in life they are willing to take. Id suggest RL has generally been attractive to those who are willing to take risk, its not like its breaking news that you can get injured playing RL after all!
End of day you dont actually need a massive participation rate if you have great pathways, NFL proves that. Nor do you need massive participation to build a major fanbase, F1 proves that.
Will less people play full contact Rugby (sic) yes in all likelihood, for a wide variety of reasons. Does it mean contact sports will die, of course not.

 

[Te Kaha]

I think people are ignoring that humans are inherently risk takers. The most dangerous thing a parent can do is put their child in a car and drive them to school.

Except there are clear benefits and statistically a much lower risk. Using that as a comparison is disingenuous at best.

There is a broad band of personality types and what risk in life they are willing to take. Id suggest RL has generally been attractive to those who are willing to take risk, its not like its breaking news that you can get injured playing RL after all!

The problem is that League is a TEAM sport not an individual sport. In order for a proper game to be had you need 34 people. And getting injured is one thing, generally you can make a full recovery. but brain damage is another matter entirely.

End of day you dont actually need a massive participation rate if you have great pathways, NFL proves that. Nor do you need massive participation to build a major fanbase, F1 proves that.

Again you are being disingenuous. F1 is an INDIVIDUAL person, NFL is in a country of 332 million people.
League in NZ, in a county of only five million has a player base of less than 20 thousand and falling. Pathways work ONLY if you have players interested in or being allowed to play in.

Will less people play full contact Rugby (sic) yes in all likelihood, for a wide variety of reasons. Does it mean contact sports will die, of course not.

You do like being disingenuous that's for sure. When player numbers here fall to a point that there are no clubs or competitions to play in, and enough players to even fill a team, then the sport dies here.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

Maybe juniors numbers are declining for union and league in mz because nrl clubs are taking so many players

there’s no shortage of kiwi juniors in nrl clubs

Lol yeah right. NRL clubs are poaching that many 12 year olds that it makes an appreciable dent in the NZ numbers, that sounds totally plausible

 

[Wb1234]

Lol yeah right. NRL clubs are poaching that many 12 year olds that it makes an appreciable dent in the NZ numbers, that sounds totally plausible

Over 16s or more sure it can

nrl seems to have zero problem finding more and more kiwi juniors every year

look how many kiwi nrl players there are they could’ve been playing super rugby and potentially the ab

 

[Gobsmacked]

Er.. everything i have said you have said, you actually have. those are you direct quotes.



Which is the part of the problem.



And those "people" are getting louder here every year. Clubs are dying or have died and the numbers playing are getting less and less, ignoring the problem and saying that the game will just have to "accept" it and "deal with that" is a good way of just giving up.

We get it. The sky is falling
Meanwhile, I'm watching better rugby league year after year. Revenue increases year after year and the comp continues to expand. The international game continues to expand. End of Rugby league.

 

[Gobsmacked]

I think people are ignoring that humans are inherently risk takers. The most dangerous thing a parent can do is put their child in a car and drive them to school.
There is a broad band of personality types and what risk in life they are willing to take. Id suggest RL has generally been attractive to those who are willing to take risk, its not like its breaking news that you can get injured playing RL after all!
End of day you dont actually need a massive participation rate if you have great pathways, NFL proves that. Nor do you need massive participation to build a major fanbase, F1 proves that.
Will less people play full contact Rugby (sic) yes in all likelihood, for a wide variety of reasons. Does it mean contact sports will die, of course not.

Spot on. You would think that would rap up the subject but some are thicker that most.