It's interesting that this is framed in the context of 'foul play' - I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that even in regular play there's often enough head impact to be concerning. I'm actually surprised this would get approved given that it could put the league in an awkward position of trying to argue why you should ignore the very devices it approved. Usually sports organisations like to put a thumb on the scale in these cases [0]
It talked about how the new mouthguard lights up "if the impact is severe enough to potentially cause a concussion". So, not just regular head impact it seems.
Then mentions that it's an update to the current "smart mouthguard" which uses Bluetooth, because with "the current system the alerts can take several seconds to reach the match day doctor.". So, it's not just about flagging something illegal but actually goes to match day doctors when the impact is severe. This new one let's people/ref know to wave a doctor over quicker/send them off
At the bottom they added that "the technology could also help identify instances of foul play."
I’m curious, what’s your awareness level of Rugby (Union or League), compared to sports in the US, or soccer worldwide?
I only have cursory knowledge, but seeing a number of videos of player/ref interactions make me think that the authorities are interested in having a game that is both physical and cognizant of the possibility of long-term injury. The players are not wearing helmets, and the refs are OK with using video review (with the videos playing out on the stadium screens) for all to see. It’s very different from US football or worldwide soccer/football.
Wearing American football style helmets does not reduce the risk of concussion which is primarily the result of sudden acceleration or deceleration causing the brain to move around inside the skull https://ideas.ted.com/football-helmets-dont-protect-against-... This is why they have 'soft' helmets in Rugby. American football likes the macho look of its helmets and body armour but for concussion it's essentially safety theatre.
> what’s your awareness level of Rugby (Union or League)
I played a little bit of union in my school team (I'm Australian). I'm out of touch with the modern game though. My impression is that league is a bit more tolerant of damage? That could be my 'old boy' bias creeping in.
It could be that I’m focusing more on Union than League. I’m on the bus and searchability is limited, the example I was going to give (https://youtu.be/JjLIetqAP6U) is Union :)
League has the same zero tolerance policy as union. Though union players seem way beefier and move way slower on the field, so an impact that knocks someone down looks far more dangerous than in league. League players seem fast enough to dodge most impacts. But yea, I think in almost every game I've watched, there's almost always someone getting a headknock that they pull out for an assessment.
They already contain radios in the gum shields, and have done for a while.
This is an additional piece to flash red if a concussion level impact occurs, so that medical staff can see faster than the bluetooth signal can sometimes transmit. Referees and audience can also see, so it helps provide more information for everyone.
> Mouthguards that light up when a player sustains a significant head impact will be used at this year's women's Rugby World Cup, which starts next week.
There seems to be a good reason to show women here.
If the brain wasn't hidden, injuries would be seen with our eyes the way cuts and bruises are seen, and nobody would play rugby or other impact sports ever again.
[0] I could pick many but lets go with the IWF who's largest wikipedia section is the one for corruption - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Weightlifting_Fe...