One Question IRB: Why?

I love rugby.

From the aching muscles, to the bruises, to the intensity of the match, to the drunken social, I love rugby in its entirety. When I first joined about 2 years ago, the excitement of the foreign sport and the allurement of the pleasing girls made me jump headfirst into the sport, and because I was a noob in the game, I did not question rules or methodology. Rather like a kid in a candy store, I grabbed as much as I could about the game, picking up some here, some there, not caring about the hidden consequences of the game.

But of course, just as eating too much candy has repercussions, jumping into rugby too quickly can have consequences for individuals not ready to bear the risks.

With so much talk nowadays of the long-term effects of repeat victims of concussions in the NFL, I could not help but think of the long-term effects that rugby posed for its players as well. There's just one main difference between those leagues...the NFL has the best protective gear available for its players. Rugby literally has none, yet has just as many collisions. In my last post, it was found that the scrum cap is pretty much useless against head and facial injuries, and with the limited amount of protective gear that the IRB allows its players to wear, I cannot help but wonder what in the world is the IRB's deal??

Players can only wear official IRB approved equipment.
Players cannot have shoulder padding exceeding a width of 1 in.
Players cannot wear shin guards.
Players cannot wear padded spandex.
And lastly, players are not required to wear any protective gear (including the mouth guard)

With claims circling that the NFL knew about the long-term effects of concussions but withheld this information from its players in order to keep revenue flowing, this idea may ring true for the IRB as well.

Clearly, rugby is an intense sport and players leave the field injured everyday, some with scratches, others not being able to move the legs. And yet, the IRB continues to allow ruggers to play without offering or requiring any protective equipment, and should a player feel compelled to protect him or herself (God forbid), the player is limited to a very narrow allowance by specific brands or poor construction.

For me, I can't say realizing this information will stop me from playing rugby, but it sure does make me reevaluate the intentions and aims of the rugby union. Why doesn't the IRB offer more protective gear, and why does it continue to allow members to play under such dangerous circumstances when safer options are available? Is this an attempt to keep rugby in its most traditional form, or does it speak to the possible idea that the IRB is monopolizing rugby to satisfy its own fiscal gains?