PDA

View Full Version : Clarke blames shin guards for PCL injuries



Danny
20-12-2004, 10:22 AM
Matthew Clarke (adelaide ruckman) brings up a unique point about the contribution of shin guards to PCL injuries. He feels the increased confidence it gives players means greater posterior forces placed upon the Tibia on the Femur and hence more PCL injuries.

What do you reckon about that theory?



Ban big shin guards: Clarke
4:33:04 PM Wed 15 December, 2004
Matthew Robran
afc.com.au/Sportal
Adelaide ruckman Matthew Clarke believes the recent spate of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries sustained by some of the AFL's leading ruckmen can be attributed to the larger, sturdier shin guards they are wearing.

"In terms of injury prevention, my theory is to do away with the large shin guards," Clarke said.


"Players have greater confidence to throw their lower legs in at a ruck contest because of the protection these guards give.

"Both ruckmen do it and the problem comes when the legs clash. It's not the knees that clash and cause the injury, it is when the top of the two shins collide. This pushes your lower leg back and causes PCL injuries."

Clarke, a 31-year-old veteran of 224 AFL matches with Brisbane and Adelaide since 1993, was philosophical about the AFL's new ruck law whereby ruckmen must start their run-up within a 10-metre circle to limit clashing at high speed.

"It will be interesting," he said. "I am a bit surprised that they put it straight into the home-and-away season.

"I thought it might have been trialled in the Wizard Cup only, but it should add an element of interest to the early matches in the season.

"Until you trial something, you never know if it is going to work."

In addition to the 10-metre circle, the AFL has stated that umpires will have the power to penalise players who do not have eyes for the ball and jump early, with a raised knee, at opponents.

Clarke is all for the new law ensuring the ball is the primary focus for all ruckmen.

"It is frustrating when the opposition ruckman takes his eyes of the ball," he said. "If it can be eliminated (a player focusing on the opposition ruckman), that will be good.

"If we can get rid of it (a ruckman watching his opponent and not the ball), it will be a positive for the game."

Renowned for his accurate ruckwork, Clarke said the introduction of the 10-metre circle was not a law he would have introduced if he were in charge.

"If the ruckman can make the contest, then he is not coming from too far back, so I would be inclined to let him come from as far back as he likes," he said.


The full new ruck law reads as follows:

"The centre bounce or throw up shall be contested by one nominated player from each team. Such player shall be nominated to the field umpire prior to the bounce or throw of the football. The player contesting the centre bounce shall be positioned in his or her team's defensive half of the playing surface and with both feet within the 10-metre circle. The player may only enter the team?s attacking half after the football touches the ground in the act of bouncing or leaves the field umpire?s hand in the act of being thrown up. The player shall not be permitted to block an opponent's approach to the contest. Ruckmen must have both feet inside the centre circle at all times until they contest the bounce or until the umpire calls play-on due to an 'offline bounce'. No other player may enter the 10-metre circle until the football touches the ground in the act of bouncing or is thrown up by the field umpire."



RELATED CONTENT

Rod Whiteley
23-12-2004, 04:30 PM
In a related matter, I think it's time we re-appraised the work of that renowned orthopaedic surgeon Mr H.G. Nelson, and we could clean up the minefield that is the LBW rule in cricket. The good Dr Nelson (of the University of Nuriootpa and Wallerawang Hospital Orthopaedic Surgery Department if memory serves) is of the opinion that the LBW rule should be completely scrapped - no one will be allowed to be given out LBW anymore. The only caveat is that batsmen are concomitantly disallowed from wearing any form of leg protection at all.
His reasoning is as follows: There is too much of a grey area in the policing of the LBW rule, and it leaves the umpiring open to all sorts of questions. In a practical sense, the workings might be best shown by an example: If you have a test match to save, and two willing diggers who are prepared to bravely stand in front of their wicket copping any form of abuse the opposing pace attack can dish up to them until the umpire calls it a day, then those fellows can be carried off, their legs a bloodied mass from the thigh down, safe in the knowledge that their names will ever more live in the annals of sporting greatness.

Luke
23-12-2004, 11:45 PM
I agree shin guards would give ruckmen more confidence to jump into their opponent quicker and harder, though would a shin-guard also slow the speed of the impact force through knee?
I'm not saying I'm sure either way, I'm just throwing another idea into the pot.