Why I don't think young front row players should play more than ~600 minutes (~10 starts / 30 benches) 1st class matches per season before their 23rd birthday.
The growth plates (AKA epiphyseal plates if you fancy heading to google) of the bones fuse around 22-23 years of age; no amount of gym work will change that; luck and normal distribution curves can, but nothing else*. This is nothing to do with size, or weigh, or muscle bulk; it's entirely due to the bones not being strong enough. This is not something you can train; it's a simple fact of life*. It's so much a fact of life, it's how forensic pathologists determine the age of death for bodies.
*Well, ish; but not let's confuse the issue with drugs.
At the age of 22 you still have unfused bones in your knee (proximal tibia, distal femur) and shoulder (humerus head and acromion); which are the ones I'm most interested in (also iliac crest, wrist and plenty in the sacrum, but these are much less important). Spinal ossification ages are much more variable though; tending to fuse (sacrum aside) in the 20-25 age range IIRC; these are typically more stable however, once they start fusing.
Too much force through these areas before fusion causes distortion which causes all sorts of problem, including debilitating arthritis before 30 years of age.
OK, some will be lucky, either fusing up to a year earlier than expected, or simply getting away with it; but for every JLeonard there's an ACorbisiero; for every PVickery there's a TWoodman, for every AJones there's a DFlatman.
Hell it's not just front rowers either, they're just the ones with the most extreme pressure coming through knees and shoulders - look at James Forrester (retired aged 27 through arthritis), or Martin Haag (needed 2 walking sticks by his mid-40s, 1 artificial knee, the other may have been done by now).
It's probably worth pointing out (again) that it's not just their playing career I'm worried about, though it's certainly an issue; I don't like dealing with patients who need knee replacements in their 30s because they or their coaches were idiots 15 years earlier. It's also not just the top class players; it's just that they're an exaggeration of this, with more training, and more force whilst playing.
To demonstrate and spot the difference. Which do you think looks stronger / better developed?
Good summary of the ages of ossification for the long bones here:
The likes of ACorbisiero*, TWoodman**, HThomas*** etc are the prime examples of what I'd like to avoid.
* 2000 minutes in 3 seasons before 23rd birthday
** 1100 minutes in 1 season aged 22
*** 1200 minutes aged 19, 700 aged 20, then notably less due to the inevitable injuries
Of course, players want game time; and the coaches want to get their best players on the pitch NOW, and 10 years time be damned!
Just like concussion.
For me, it's one of those areas where players need to be protected from themselves, and should be a directive from the top down, either as a PRL agreement; or an RFU/WR dictat. Either way, they'd need to look at it better than I have, and come up with a better figure than the 600 minutes I (more or less) pulled out of my backside; ideally it would then filter down as well, say 600 minutes at Prem/EPCR/LV= level or 900 minutes at Champ/B&I level, or 1200 at ND1 to reflect the way that forces both outright reduce, and become more stable as the level played reduces.
Take Corb's as an example - he's basically knackered, and will be lucky to still be playing 1st class rugby by the time he's 30 - but... he's a British lion; whilst Nat Catt (similar potential in the same age group) has amassed all of 1 saxons cap.
Would Trevor Woodman trade in his RWC winner's medal for another 5 years on his career?
20 year olds have this tendency not to care very much about the damage they may be accruing for their 40s / 50s; especially if they're fighting to create a career at that stage.
