Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

'Hasn’t been proven’: Gregor Townsend wary of trusting mouthguard technology

By PA
Andy Christie of Scotland celebrates victory after defeating England during the Guinness Six Nations 2024 match between Scotland and England at BT Murrayfield Stadium on February 24, 2024 in Edinburgh, Scotland. (Photo by Stu Forster/Getty Images)

Scotland head coach Gregor Townsend expressed concerns about the implementation of smart mouthguards after temporarily losing a second player in successive Guinness Six Nations matches for a head injury assessment triggered by the new technology.

ADVERTISEMENT

This championship is the first time that elite male players have worn ‘instrumented’ mouthguards which send alerts whenever a ‘head acceleration event’ with G-force that exceeds 70g and 4,000 radians per second squared is detected.

Scotland are thought to have been the only team impacted so far, with hooker George Turner going off for an HIA in the first half of the match against France a fortnight ago, with fellow front-rower Zander Fagerson – who was visibly puzzled as he made his way off the pitch – having to do likewise in the seventh minute of Saturday’s Calcutta Cup win over England.

Both players were deemed fit to return to the pitch.

Asked after the England game if Fagerson’s departure from the field was triggered by his mouthguard, Townsend said: “Yes, it was and I saw the tackle again, just a normal tackle.

“I think we have to really watch what we’re doing here by trusting technology that’s not been proven.

“What we’ve been doing over the last few years is making sure that any symptoms that are seen, by a number of people, can flag up whether someone goes off for an HIA.

“Zander was taken off for 10 minutes after what looked like a normal tackle but there was a spike alert from the mouthguard.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I know in Super Rugby there were a couple of alerts and players were saying ‘there’s nothing wrong here, I’ve just made a tackle’, so we’ve got to watch that because you don’t want to be taking our best players off the field for 10 minutes if there are no issues around concussion.

“We want to protect our players, that’s for certain, but there’s a bit more work to do before this technology is correct.”

Asked if he felt the technology had been rushed in to top-level rugby, Townsend said: “It’s a new thing in the Six Nations and it’s not been used at club level prior to the Six Nations.

“I’d hope they’d learn from today’s incident, and obviously George Turner went off for 10 minutes in the previous game.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We need to make sure it’s as close to accurate as possible. That’s what we want.

“We have lots of eyes watching and players are now very good at saying ‘I’ve had a head injury here, I have to go off’.

“I think we just need to do a bit more work here before we move on.”

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Pacific Four Series 2024 | Canada vs USA

Japan Rugby League One | Verblitz v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Fresh Starts | Episode 2 | Sam Whitelock

Royal Navy Men v Royal Air Force Men | Full Match Replay

Royal Navy Women v Royal Air Force Women | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
Jon 6 hours ago
The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific

I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.

16 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific
Search