Jump to content

RP London

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by RP London

  1. 19 minutes ago, cookey said:

    Delighted, looks a good deal, well done Ken Davy.

    Should be good news for our main Sponsor Bet Fred and our other leading sponsors and for the various local sponsors.

    The home Clubs absolutely MUST make an event out of each and every home game. Anyone who sits back and hopes people come to the 10 gamesshould be shot.

    BBC, Channel 4, Sky Sports - impressive and I have to say, a surprise to me.

    if past history is anything go by we are going to need the great wall of china to line them up against!

    Brilliant news and it really should be a springboard for the sport if used correctly.. what a positive start to the day.. 

    • Like 1
  2. 19 hours ago, gingerjon said:

    To repeat: if the investment is from the source and of the scale stated earlier then those putting the money in will expect the entire landscape of the game to be altered in the fastest, simplest and most commercially attractive way possible.

    A paltry return over a long time frame - which, as you said before, they could get anywhere - will not be expected and so literally all of the conversations on this thread will be irrelevant.

    if you gave me £100m and let me run the game the league structure is probably one of the latter things i would look at.. there is so so so so much more that can be done with that money that would see more gain across the board than another restructure and giving money to clubs to fritter away.. The money would get to them but because of what you do with the £100m not because you divvy it up and give it to them.

    • Like 1
  3. 1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

    One aspect of this problem, which doesn't seem to have been mentioned so far, (forgive me, if I've missed it?) is the fact that, just as you say in your post above, the link between mild traumatic head injury (concussion) and early onset dementia is a fairly new discovery, and even now, can't be claimed as proven.

    There was never any talk of it, when I played and as stated, neither was it known about when you and RP played. The idea then that some employers, ''were aware'' of the risks and ''insisted'' players play anyway is surely, a bit harsh.

    In those cases where players who may have played their last game say, more than 10 years ago, their claims against their employers (the clubs) or the RFL may be unsuccessful on the basis that the clubs/RFL could not have known.

    It's crucially important now though that we are seen to act responsibly, in the light of the new information coming to the fore.

    Given the inconclusive nature of the evidence gathered to date, the line we need to toe is still invisible.

    The evidence we have so far, is a bit like the statistical claim that smoking causes cancer, but we've all heard stories of some people smoking their whole lives without developing the dreadful disease. So there is some personal (perhaps genetic) component to the development of the disease.

    So whilst the stats, prove the case (almost) they can't tell us which individuals are susceptible before the onset of the disease.

    Someone mentioned recently about a new measurement device mounted in a gum shield, which can monitor impact forces (rates of accelerations/decelerations) which might enable some quantification of the product of the total number of shocks multiplied by the severity of the impacts, which can then be correlated with the onset on the disease in later life, so provide guidance on ways to minimise the risk. 

    It sounds like a long-term project though.

    In the meantime, people will likely continue to get hurt and the games future remains in jeopardy.    

    I would guess a large portion of evidence will be similar to that used against the NFL. 

    Then it will be down to what they were doing to mitigate risks.. the NFL by all accounts weren't doing much but it may be that, with the knowledge of the time (which is the crux of all of this) the Rugby bodies were doing everything you would/could expect of them, at which point the legal cases will fail. 

    Either way this is a massive wake up call and they need to look at everything from training through to recovery and be on top of it. 

    • Like 1
  4. On 20/11/2021 at 13:10, Wellsy4HullFC said:

    Unfortunately it's already been planned. Was supposed to be in 2020, don't think she'll allow me to move the venue after all this.

    I'll just have to dump her.

    Theres a quote about it being easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission so just dont turn up and ask for forgiveness and plan it for 2023

  5. On 20/11/2021 at 12:38, dkw said:

    Get married in the ground, beer and hit dogs for lunch, speeches at half time, night do in the concourse....sorted. man I've missed my calling, should have been a wedding planner..

    well... except that you havent planned for any food.. but you do seem to want to spend lunctime randomly being cruel to animals... apart from that wedding planning seems a great idea

    • Haha 5
  6. 1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

    Let me put a bit of context on that, because it might come across as a bit of a throwaway line. 

    We've seen suggestions from some posters on this issue around making players sign disclaimers. We've seen people dismissing this issue as one "driven by ambulance chasing lawyers" and we've seen people suggesting that making the game safer for players is "killing" or "will kill" the sport. 

    To me, that doesn't really show a lot of empathy for this issue and, in particular, for the players who are having to very much live with this issue. 

    I don't think it is entirely unfair to say that people taking such a viewpoint are not doing so from a "love for the sport" perspective, but rather a "love for the version of the sport that they like" perspective. It's almost as if they don't care what the cost of this issue is to the sport, as long as "their version" of RL is left unchanged. 

    For me the but that sticks is "they know what they are doing".. well yes and no.. When I played (I'm 44) always in the back of my mind was injury, including players in our club breaking necks. Never in my head was serious long term brain injuries due to just playing the game. I know I played amateur etc but I am sure a hell of a lot of people of my generation would be the same.. Early onset Dementia etc was not a thing that was considered as a risk of playing. That correlation is potentially relatively new (i say potentially because the court cases will show how long this link has been there I expect). 

    The sport must adapt but it doesnt have to be the visual on field game and many of those involved in these cases are saying just that.. the game is fine, its training and intensity along with care for the injuries and understanding the injuries that is important.. 

    for example the quickest anyone SHOULD be back playing RU after a concussion (surely including a failed HIA) by their own "Headcase" standards is 14 days... thats the quickest if you follow the protocol.. How many do we see coming back before then? How long has this been in force and how long SHOULD it have been in force.. those are key questions that this sort of case will have to answer.

  7. 21 hours ago, DavidM said:

    He also said 

    "I can't speak highly enough of those two organisations (NRL and NZRL) in terms of looking forward rather than poring over the past and what's happened." 

    I bet they didn’t want to . It’s hardly worthy of a pat on the back 

    they probably couldn't remember what excuse they stuck with and why so would be dangerous to even discuss it!

  8. Just to clarify.. the court cases are not about the "i got hurt playing rugby now i want to sue" story line that some are making it out to be. They are suing because, they believe, that the authorities knew the risks then that are now more widely known now and that their employers made them play/train in ways that put them in more risk. 

    For example, the punishment contact sessions where they did longer tougher sessions, even though they potentially knew the damage this could do long term due to mini concussions. Also putting pressure on players to play when they had been concussed the weekend before, not letting them sit out sessions etc complaints of headaches not being looked at better by the staff. A key part of their case will be based around the medical knowledge of the time and how well it was known and how the clubs/nations were reacting to that knowledge. 

    In work your company should not force you to use machinery that is potentially unsafe, they should not force you to do things against safety regulations. If they do then they are very liable, including jail sentences... why does sport think that for some reason it is immune to this?

    I run a factory and in the last year with COVID you have to put certain precautions in place, we have had to rethink how we do what we do in some areas and change it. In others where there is nothing we can do then it is about acceptable risks. IF we had an outbreak here and they came to check us we have to prove that you have done everything you can to mitigate the risk otherwise you're in quite deep water.

    As long as the governing bodies and clubs can prove that they are doing everything they can to mitigate the risks then the cases will fail. I have a feeling the Union ones will succeed though as looking back to the early 2000s they did not move fast enough on HIA style replacements and not playing on.. We may be the same. 

    However, going forward the governing bodies have to be very clear and strict with all the rules (like any workplace on health and safety regulations), zero tolerance to clubs not adhering to them etc and the ability to sue (successfully) will be nullified.


    • Like 2
  9. 40 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

    I`ve said this before and I`ll say it again with all the billions spent by car makers on impact absorbing technology why can`t some of that science and engineering be used to manufacture a light weight disposable helmet that will ensure that those accidental head knocks don`t result in head trauma.

    You might go through a few them per game but if the game was tidied up to avoid most deliberate and careless head knocks this could eliminate the accidental.

    Two of the worst that occurred in SOO a couple of years ago was Teddy slipping and banging his head on someone`s knee and someone slipping while taking a bomb (uncontested) and banging their head on the ground. Both were nasty knocks that could have been avoided with the appropriate head protection.

    I`m assuming of course that all deliberate and careless head contact is stamped out of the game.

    You would certainly think there was something that could be done. However, a lot of the issues that are talked about with long lasting issues (the dementia cases etc) are not necessarily about the big hit and the proper sparked out concussions its about the little mini concussions that occur from general impact and the "sponge in a bucket" explanation of the brain. The little rattle around on each contact. Of course they should look at everything and if they can minimise what you mention then absolutely they should, but that is happening more with the rules at the moment. 

    • Like 1
  10. 7 minutes ago, Damien said:

    Many head clashes are a result of tacklers going low and accidentally clashing heads with their own teammates. What you say will exacerbate this.

    Other concussions also arise purely accidentally through getting bumped off, head contact with knees, hips and other bones. What you say will again make this worse.

    It also does nothing for concussions that arise with head contact to the ground and whiplash type concussions.

    I think anyone that has played the game knows that banning tackles above the waste would achieve nothing. Its a very lazy solution that completely ignores how many concussions are caused.

    the game is 60-80 minutes long for most players (some will be 40 minutes).. the number of tackles players make and run ins is normally between say 40 and 60 (plucking figures but you get the idea)... a full contact training session is an intense workout of continually running into tackle pads, each other, getting bounced back and getting hit/driven/fall onto the floor. In a compressed time frame you can be doing the same amount of high intensity work during a session as you do in a game, for some people (outside backs etc) you may find you are doing significantly more.. 

    Yes there is control, but high shots will still occur (human error).. the "car crash" and "whiplash" can still be found running into bags or with padded protection on individuals. 

    These sessions can run quite long. They also run through pre season as well as during the season..  

    Where is there most to be gained? tinkering around the rules on match day or from limiting the contact training by 1 session a week... (could be around 40 session taken out over a year)... I know what i would be looking at more intently and the NFL have done just that too.

  11. 1 hour ago, Archie Gordon said:

    Just on this, I think you're right that the limit should be on players rather than the club. My reason for reducing the number of league games was so that a club could choose to play its best players in 20 league games (if 20 is the cap) if that is what they wanted to focus on and blood others in Cup comps where P&R is not an issue. But I'm open to any idea that reduces the annual number of games from 35 to something much lower for professional players.

    I agree with you.. just remember the "we need x home games to make it pay" argument that always pops up around game reduction (and dont want to derail the thread with "make more of the games youve got rather than just adding more games" argument).

    • Like 1
  12. 10 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

    I think this is right and, honestly, contact sessions should anyway be slowed down and be about tekkers.

    But I also think protocols for concussions need to be stricter and better enforced, even if this means someone sitting out 2/3 weeks.

    And we need to be playing shorter league seasons. Nearer 20 than 30 games.

    yes totally agree with the latter 2 points too. 

    I know from RU coaching courses that the protocol and "return to Rugby" for the kids especially can be quite long but it is there for a reason. However, when you see some people being helped off the pitch in internationals and club games and then fail an HIA (unsurprisingly) I am shocked by how fast they can be back, some the next week. There should be a mandatory sit down period no questions... independent doctors doing the HIA etc so they cannot be swayed by the clubs/nations. Pardon the expression but its a "no brainer"

    I also agree with the limit, however, i would be happy to just limit the players (rather than the clubs) to 20 games per season as that also allows younger players to get starts which may help bring some through that wouldnt normally get seen. 

    The key though is enforcement. Players want to play, coaches want their best players to play but they have to just be told " look he failed an HIA, he has to sit down for AT LEAST 2 weeks before contact training or consideration of playing.. no question".

    • Like 2
  13. 11 hours ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

    A season ticket including group Challenge Cup games would have more value and sell for a higher price, meaning those games that are currently poorly attended and loss makers would have the same value as a Super League game. Groups in the cup has worked for Rugby Union and Football, why not Rugby League?

    I think the problem with the comparison you are making is that the groups are in European Competitions. Those competitions mean that your club are playing different, high quality, opposition. You dont just want a one hit and out and the lesser clubs that are in can make huge money from the game pulling in fans at their home ground so want more than one game against the big boys. 

    IF this were to be done for the challenge cup you wouldnt get people going to the "lesser" club from one of the big clubs because it isnt a jolly to a place they have never been, its down the road.. you wont get loads of people coming in from the local area to watch the "big team" because if they wanted to do that they would go and watch them. Equally for the "big clubs" of Super League any of the matches against Super League opposition will be "yet another game" which is part of the problem of loop fixtures now. 

    If we want to replace Loop Fixtures (which we should) then they need to be replaced by one of: 1 international matches, 2 a new "world club challenge" as per the super league ones (not going to happen), 3 New clubs entering the league and adding their home and away matches.. (1 or 3 for me).. replacing them with more loop fixtures branded as the challenge cup is going to make naff all difference to be fair. 

    I dont mind the idea of groups but lets be fair its not going to solve the issues that we are trying to solve. The Challenge Cup is going the way of the FA Cup and the old Pilkington Cup in RU.. the way to revamp is to make the games themselves something special.. if, for example, the league was conference based then it would be the only time some teams would play each other potentially (or at least at that venue).. give the winners an automatic Play off spot (the 6th spot) which may make teams and fans take it more seriously etc.. 

    It needs something but i dont see groups making much difference at all.

    • Like 2
    • Sad 1
  • Create New...