Jeff Probyn: Simple way to solve head cases and score more tries

As the concussion story grows and grows with more and more high profile players suffering the effects of serious blows to the head, it's hard to see exactly where the answer lays. Mike Brown, Leigh Halfpenny and George North all suffered concussions resulting from blows to the head during the last Six Nations but all were caused in different ways.
One making a tackle, one being tackled and one from an unlucky clash of heads – but the results were the same, the player stunned and unable to continue, even when they thought they were okay.
The fact that Halfpenny and North were still unfit to play this weekend shows how those in charge of the game are at last taking this type of injury more seriously.
North suffered another blow last week in the game against Wasps resulting in a three-week ban for Nathan Hughes for a reckless act.
Some current and ex-players have questioned that decision saying it was an accident but, in reality, Hughes had no chance of stopping North's try and yet he followed through in his attempted block and injured North. If that isn't reckless one has to ask, what is?
The question everybody is asking is how can we protect ourselves and our children from these potentially devastating injuries?
What is surprising is Stuart Barnes' comment that he cannot understand why the players were not wearing headgear to protect themselves. First, it is surprising because Leigh Halfpenny always wears headgear (a scrum cap) something that Barnes should be aware of as he regularly reports on the game and Halfpenny suffered his injury despite that fact.
Second, his comment about wearing scrum caps is just plain wrong: “It is not 100 per cent preventative but the risk of injuries is limited. Everyone plays with a gumshield, at what stage will players decide that a scrum cap is a smart idea?”
As I have written previously, it is a fact that protective clothing worn in rugby does not protect the wearer to any extent other than against scuffs and grazes.
World Rugby gives manufacturers a set of guidelines as to the types and thickness of the materials allowed in garments and headgear so that they do not offer a level of protection that will allow an advantage to its wearer.
Those guidelines are laid out in Law 4 which outlines what clothing may be worn on the field of play by all participants with detailed specifications of protective clothing in Regulation 12 and prefaced by a statement that all protective clothing must be approved by World Rugby and carry an official trademark.
The fact that it cannot really protect should be obvious to everyone simply because if the protective kit did offer any level of protection, it could and would represent a danger to any player that wasn't wearing them.
Imagine a scenario where World Rugby allows effective protective clothing to be worn by selective players and those players were able to use that protection in games against players without the clothing as they do now.
Any injuries suffered by players not wearing the protective clothing that could be proven to have been caused by an impact that was above ‘normal' levels by a protected player would be the direct responsibility of World Rugby and the potential litigation would be devastating for all concerned.
So unless, or until, World Rugby makes it a stipulation that all players worldwide wear protective clothing better than that worn by American Football players, any protective wear will never give an acceptable level of protection when it comes to serious injury.  There is already some evidence that players who wear protective clothing take greater risks when playing and suffer a higher incidence of injury because they have a false sense of protection.
As a respected ex-player and TV pundit Barnes should be aware of these facts and not make recommendations that could, potentially, persuade parents and players to invest in protective kit in the misguided belief that it offers a level of protection that is far beyond what it actually does.
Then there is the fact that making protective clothing that actually works is also incredibly difficult and expensive.
Just wearing a simple scrum cap or something as sophisticated as an American Football helmet with all the years of research and development that has gone into their design and manufacture have been proven that they cannot stop concussions.
In fact, the ‘better' protection afforded by the American Football helmet has actually been proven to cause more damage and it is probably only as a result of litigation in America that World Rugby has suddenly sat up and listened to the concerns of  people like doctor Barry O'Driscoll.
All that said, I have an easy and inexpensive way for World Rugby to deal with this problem and it may also bring about a revolution in the attacking nature of the game to help World Rugby achieve its goal of growing the sport to a wider audience.
The solution is simple. Ban any tackle above the waist and that would immediately change the dynamics of the tackle removing high tackles with their potential for misjudgments and accidental head clashes.
It would also encourage more off-loading in the tackle making the game a more exciting spectacle with the potential for a win-win scenario.
This could answer World Rugby's dream of fewer head injuries and more tries.