RP London

Its disappointing there are two more hoops that would be visible above the shorts that they could have used.. typical RL under selling itself again!

RU do regional qualifying events and even though Georgia seem to be included in Europe for these types of things I am not sure the Cook Islands will manage that sort of Geographical jerrymandering.

to be fair if he cant do a simple google search for the number (or just go on the website and find it) then I dont think he is going to be solving this at any time soon!

wouldnt put money on it!

I think its more that Big Picture could become a limbo dancer with the amount that has gone over his head..

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..

its also, quite obviously, a joke..

I think we are all in need of my booze up idea after reading this thread...

To start with I would organise an enormous booze up... from there I believe it will pretty much take care of itself (if my normal nights out are anything go by i have very little money left by the end... )

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.

Its that sort of defeatism that is so Rugby League (if you had considered it I'd already got this ready too "its this sort of blind optimism and foot shooting that is so Rugby League"... )

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Eagles have signed Ben Jones Bishop which seems like a great signing.

if we go into this we'll derail the thread which i dont want to do... also, for the record, I am not from the school of pile it high sell it cheap..

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.

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.

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).

to be fair if you are being picky the hoops go too low and they have missed the white off the arm pits/shoulder area too.

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".