Who are Progressive Rugby?

Progressive Rugby is a group of academics, players, coaches and teachers who are looking to better protect players to ensure the game is sustained for future generations. Equally, every person on the group loves the game of rugby.

Are you paid?

No. Everybody on the group is giving their time and expertise for free because they are passionate about making a difference. Since February 2021, our members have dedicated thousands of hours of their own time to research, identify and lobby for changes to the game that we believe will better protect players.

What’s your ultimate aim?

We want rugby to continue to be enjoyed around the world. World Rugby say, as of September 2021, there are 10 million players in 128 countries that play the sport plus millions of fans. We want rugby to continue to thrive and be enjoyed around the globe.

What are your key concerns on the field?

Updated following new elite GRTP laws 1st July 2022.

We continue to have grave concerns that the current elite Graduated Return to Play (GRTP) protocol following a failed Head Injury assessment (HIA) can and does allow some players to take the field again after just seven days - allowing them to play the following weekend. We believe this is putting players at extreme and unnecessary risk.

While a positive step, the new 12 day stand down should apply to all players, irrespective of concussion history, ensuring NO player is in a position where they can return to the field just seven days after sustaining a brain injury.

We also want the guideline weekly quotas on contact training introduced by World Rugby to be mandated to reduce the number of sub-concussions and risk of injury, and for players to have a ‘injury passport’ which carries a history of HIA and brain injury. This will ensure if players move club or country to play, their employers can manage them appropriately.

In 2022 we have also become increasingly concerned about the HIA and adherence to wider concussion protocols.

In the Six Nations, Welsh prop Tomas Francis was not removed immediately from the field as he should have been, a fact further worsened when he was then deemed to have passed a HIA (which he should not have taken) and returned to the field at risk.

Despite an investigation confirming the error no sanctions were imposed.

Just four months later the glaring error was replicated in New Zealand, when Ireland prop Jeremy Loughman clearly sustained a brain injury but underwent an HIA and returned to play. New Zealand Rugby were quick to admit their error.

Returning to the Six Nations, a separate match review resulted in England’s U20 doctor Dr Nigel Rayner being suspended after he was found to have interfered with and challenged the HIA process and disrespected officials. Additionally, World Rugby reminded referees of their responsibilities after Australian official Damon Murphy was seen to rush on-field medical staff who were waiting for off-field guidance on whether England winger Jack Nowell required a HIA. Nowell, continued to play on before being removed shortly afterwards and failing his HIA and being permanently withdrawn.

So what’s your position on the Graduated Return to Play (GRTP) protocol used in the elite game?

Progressive Rugby consider that in the absence of a method of determining that the brain is not at risk of further damage the Return to Play (RTP) protocol should be extended to the original stand down period of 21 days as a bare minimum. This was reduced to six stages (and therefore potentially six days ) in 2011.

However, it has been a fundamental concern of Progressive Rugby that return to play following concussion must be at a point when the brain is recovered to a point where it is not at risk, so we ultimately believe the protocol should be extended to 28 days.

It is our view that the graduated return to play protocol was developed without any specific evidence the brain had recovered but reduced the time of playing absence from three weeks to six days (pre July 2022).

The new concussion protocols (introduced July 1st 2022) remain inadequate.

And going forward?

Going forward the final determinant of the correct RTP protocol duration should depend upon a coalescence of considerations informed by ongoing research, including:

1. What time does it take to recover from ANY form of concussion to reduce the risk of re-concussion and injuries elsewhere in the body

2. The quality and accuracy of methods of assessment of brain damage and recovery from a head injury

3. The downtime from playing/training that minimises the risk of long-term cognitive damage

What are your key concerns off the field?

The bigger picture. There’s been a lot of media around former players suffering early onset dementia and probable Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) - a condition that is common in boxers and has become prominent thanks to the Hollywood film Concussion with Will Smith . As a result we are understandably seeing evidence of parents deciding it is too dangerous for their children to play. We want this wonderful game, that has so much to offer, to sustain for future generations and to do that we need to make it safer.

Are you anything to do with the legal case against World Rugby, the RFU and WRU?

No. However, there are a few former players who have legal cases that are members of Progressive Rugby or follow our social media accounts.

While our thoughts are with former professional and amateur players who are suffering neurological issues, and we will always be here to support them, our focus has to be on better protecting current and future players against short-term and long-term health issues.

Additionally, we are partnered with Alzheimer’s UK where we can refer people who are worried about their won or a family member. This free service can assist with information and guidance. See our support tab.

Are you anti-rugby?

No, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

Every member of Progressive Rugby loves the game but believes that unless safety is addressed as a matter of urgency the future of rugby is at risk.

Is it correct that you are working with World Rugby?

It was. Initially, World Rugby invited us to discuss our concerns. We had several working groups that had been formed to discuss areas such as GRTP, HIA, the lack of data in concussion in women’s rugby, law amendments to reduce concussions and limiting contact load training., all of which we believed positive changes could be made to better protect players.

However, in July 2022, we received correspondence from World Rugby that they were terminating the relationship because they are uncomfortable that some of our members are also involved in the court case against them, the RFU ad WRU. They also noted that we had contributed to an article that was published in a national newspaper which described the struggles of a player who had joined the court case.

We are of course disappointed that World Rugby feel it is no longer appropriate to engage on such a crucial topic, but respect their decision.

Was working with World Rugby not a conflict of interests?

No, we remained fiercely independent and regularly criticised World Rugby where we felt it was both appropriate and necessary to do so.

World Rugby did not site this as a reason for terminating the relationship.

Can I join?

Absolutely. If you feel you can add value to the group, we’d love to hear from you. Email progressiverugby@outlook.com

Can I share my story?

We’d love to hear it. Contact: progressiverugby@outlook.com