Is it time to make Mouthguards compulsory for rugby players?

[Browner]

your comparison with boots is interesting.

boots with studs are potentially dangerous
but players need studs

so we all accept that the IRB lay down laws that govern studs, and we inspect them every game, and routinely exclude dangerous boots.

naked teeth are potentially dangerous
players don't actually need naked teeth

so why not accept that naked teeth should be covered up.

Using your logic Crossref, all boots should be removed, because they are all potentially dangerous.
I've a naked .......... forehead, forearm, elbow, knee & fist .......... cover all these up? ...... I don't accept because it's a matter of choice, the same way that I can choose whether my son rides a skateboard, or visits the bmx park............ Do Pro players all wear gumshields - no they don't.

 

[crossref]

i think all pro players do wear gumshields, actually

- - - Updated - - -

i think all pro players do wear gumshields, actually

 

[didds]

I'd be very surprised if they don;t. If only because their employers don't want them to be unavailable to play because of a mouth orientated injury that could have been prevented by use of a mouthguard

didds

 

[Browner]

i think all pro players do wear gumshields, actually

- - - Updated - - -

i think all pro players do wear gumshields, actually

Nah,...... watched a southern Premiership side train the other day, I was in the company of a dentist so the lack of mouthguard amongst 'a number of the players' was a topic of discussion ..... suffice it to say the main reason offered were - comfort & impinged communication ! here are some pictures that prove it...... http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...4A71BC5C0D3D7E4B75D62A002571&selectedIndex=66 .................. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...DA3F3D6F2769DB4063E746772BC4&selectedIndex=19 ....................... http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...662E724E65D675D35CC25A3CD63&selectedIndex=216

 

[didds]

bizarre.

didds

 

[crossref]

how peculiar that the very first weeked of rugby following this discussion yielded the Dan Cole incident
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ru...-faces-disciplinary-hearing-alleged-bite.html

Cole does not wear a mouthguard. Let's accept that this was accidental (as it seemed to me), or even if wasn't accidental: eitehr way it's a good example of how not wearing a mouthguard presents a danger not just to your own teeth, but also to other players,

 

[winchesterref]

I wonder if they will ever be made compulsory, seems to me they should be for safety of all players

 

[crossref]

According to this http://www.wrra.org.nz/news/law-4-1f-mouth-guard-compulsory/ they are compulsory in New Zealand.

LAW 4.1 ADDITIONAL ITEMS OF CLOTHING
(f) A player may wear a mouth guard or dental protector.
The wearing of a mouth guard in an approved manner is compulsory for all players at all levels of New Zealand Domestic Rugby.
Sanction:
A player observed by the referee to be not wearing a mouth guard, shall leave the field and not be permitted to return until such time as the player is wearing a mouth guard in the approved manner. The team of the offending player shall not be permitted a replacement during the period the offending player is off the field. If the offending player is unable to return wearing a mouth guard in the approved manner, then that player may be replaced after a period of 10 minutes (playing time) has elapsed. This will be deemed to be a permanent replacement and the offending player will not be permitted to return to the field of play under any circumstances, except in accordance with Law 3.13, but then only if that player is wearing a mouth guard in the approved manner.

NOTE: If a player produces a medical certificate stating they should not
wear a mouthguard that player will be exempt from the requirement

 

[Browner]

Just coz one of the worlds unions adopts this stance doesn't mean others have to.

IME current RFU stance is sufficient.

Or, show the RFU injury data that justifies increased 'nannyism' . If RFU have spare time they should spend it on modifying the game to protect kids from concussions, which have greater risk IMHO.

 

[damo]

Just coz one of the worlds unions adopts this stance doesn't mean others have to.

IME current RFU stance is sufficient.

Or, show the RFU injury data that justifies increased 'nannyism' . If RFU have spare time they should spend it on modifying the game to protect kids from concussions, which have greater risk IMHO.

I agree that this is no kind of argument. NZ has a peculiar form of no-fault public insurance that makes this rule practically inevitable, which I gather the UK does not have.

However I applaud the NZRU for their stance, mandated though it is by our situation, and would like to see it made compulsory everywhere. But then I am a bit of a pinko, so I would say that.